Dragan Kujundžić - "Archigraphia On The Future of Testimony and The Archive To Come"

Archigraphia: On the Future of Testimony and the Archive to Come
Author(s): Dragan Kujundžić

Source: Discourse, Vol. 25, No. 1/2, The Future of Testimony (Winter and Spring, 2003), pp. 166-
188
Published by: Wayne State University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41389669
Accessed: 10-12-2015 08:36 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41389669?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wayne State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Discourse.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.96.252.188 on Thu, 10 Dec 2015 08:36:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Archigraphia: On the Future of
Testimony and the Archive to Come
Dragan Kujundžič
Remember:no memoryor testimonyis possible withoutthe ar-

chive! Remember:memoryand testimonyare possible onlywith-
out the archive!Anyreflectionon testimony,
memory,the archive
and archivizationhas to disarmitselfbefore such an impossible
injunction.And thiscommandordersall our thinking, ethics,writ-
ing,tradition,religionand culture.
Archiveof the Past,Archiveof the Future
JacquesDerrida's Archive Feverstartspreciselybydrawingatten-

tion to thisaporia of the archive.The word arkhe , he recallsat the
beginning of his book, names at the same time the command to
remember, to archive and keep, and the commencement of an
institution of archivization.Fromthe outset,therefore,thisaporia
splitsthe commemorative gestureintotwoirreconcilabletasks,the
in
symptoms fact, to which Derrida givesthe name of Archive Fever
( Mal d'archivé). Like the taskof the translator envisioned by Walter
Benjamin (and, as we shall see, translationand archivizationgo
hand in hand as two members of the re-membering, archiving
agency), the taskhere marksboth the demand to archive,and the
need to giveup thetask(Aufgabe , Aufgeben), to faceup to an impos-
sible pressureto forgetthe archivein orderto remember.
25.1&2,Winter
Discourse, andSpring,
pp.166-188.
©2004
Copyright State
Wayne Press,
UniversityDetroit, 48201-1309.
Michigan
Winter
and Spring2003 167
This impossiblepressureconsistsof the factthatanyarchiving

practicehas to announce its own desire forthe unique, singular,
indivisiblespace and memory,the archivizationof,as we would say
in English,"the one and only."That "one" is the archivaljealousy
of its own memory,its command and injunctionto rememberits
name, itsplace and itslaw.There is no archivewithoutthisjealous
and self-preserving order. It is its first(but the order of thingsis
here uncertain), primordialimpulse. We could say, in the lan-
guage of psychoanalysis, thatit is itsprimaldrive,not withoutvio-
lence, and not without its death-drive.It maybe the death drive
itself:an injunctionto remember,to fileand archive,onlythe one,
the one and only.Only one. Derrida givesthreequalificationsfor
this archivaldrive:it is an-archic, anarchivicand archiviolitic. In a
very economic condensation which is a trademark of his writing,
Derrida drawsattentionto the possibility thatthisprimordialjeal-
ousy of the archivehas, fromthe verystart,all capacitiesto erase
anyarchivaltrace,even the traceof itsown archivization.
The memory,in that sense, is made impossibleby the very
imperativeof archivization.
Derrida will bring the consequences of thisaspect of the ar-
chive to itsaporeticand terriblelimit,by sayingthat"the archive
fever,"in its mostviolentconsequences and possibilities,"verges
on radical evil" (20).
One maybe justifiedin wonderingwhyshould such an impos-
sible aporia be thefirstimpulseof anyarchivizationand whywould
it be tied to whatFreud famouslycalled the death drive?Because
withoutthisinjunctionofthe one, thefirstinscriptionof thesingu-
lar eventand itspassing,no archive,no memorytraces,no traces
would have been possible.But whatmakesthe tracingand archivi-
zation possible also threatensthe archiveat the veryorigin.This
drive,in Derrida's words,"worksto destroy thearchive:on thecondi-
tion of effacing but also with a view of effadngits own 'proper'
traces- which consequentlycannot be called proper" (10). To
speak in Freud's terms("A FreudianImpression"is the subtitleof
Derrida's book), the archivewould not be possible withoutthis
originaryre-pression, the Verdraengung, at the siteof itsown induc-
tion or production.The archivalprincipleservesthe death drive.
And yet,on the other hand, one can justlyargue in a very
empiricalfashion:we do have existingarchives,archivesare made,
bequeathed, opened and inauguratedeveryday,and archivesdo
succeed in surviving. We even have theJacques DerridaArchiveat
the University of Californiaat Irvine,whichis the university where
I work,and I, who am writingthisessay,have in the past on occa-
sionsservedas the archon , the keeperof thisarchive.So I can attest
168 25. 1 äf 2
Discourse
that the archive,even of someone who deconstructsthe logic of

the archive,such asJacquesDerrida,is possible,thriving, aliveand
well. The Jacques Derrida Archive even
keeps surviving the decon-
structionof the archivebyJacques Derrida. It is a permanentde-
constructionsite.
This survivalof thearchive,therelationshipbetweenarchiviza-
tionand survivalmaybe equallyessentialto thefunctioningof the
archive.Not unlike,again, Benjamin's notion of translation,the
archivemaybe seen as a siteof itsown survival, existingin a mode
of a delayed survivalof itself.This is made possible by a counter-
pressureexerted by the archive.Let us recall, no archivewould
existwithoutthe originaryinjunctionto remember,the repression
and anarchivic.
thatis archiviolitic And yet,the archivaldrivesimul-
taneouslyimpresses, makes an impressionor suppression(Freud's
Unterdrueckung) on the material substrateof the archive,on its
topos, domicile,psyche or In
culture. itleaves
itsveryarchiviolation,
a trace of itself,it is "suppressedand displaced onto anotheraf-
fect" (28). And thisimpression,the trace thatfindsa supporton
thewelcomingsiteor substrate,on the toposwhichis conduciveto
the inscription,vouches for the repetition,the survival,and the
translationof the archive.In a word: it opens the archiveto the
future.The memorygeneratedby the suppressionis possible on
the condition of forgetting and in turnrepressingor displacing
the archive.By the veryfactthatthe suppressedtracesdo not be-
long to the initial,jealous memoryof the one, but are the markers
of alterity(theyare other-than-archive), theydo not belong to the
archive"proper." Rather,theymaybe seen as the tracesor symp-
tomsof the originaryrepressionwhichtheyleave "behind." That
impressedinscriptionon the substrate(we could call it the forgot-
tenmemoryof the archive,recallingthe second chiasmaticinjunc-
tionthatopened thisessay)informsthewagerand theincalculable
opening towardsthe future:the veryidea of the archivedepends
on it.Derridaelsewherecalls thisopeningnot "the future"(which
would implythe futureof presence,thereforea metaphysicalcon-
ception of temporality) , but the to-come, a-venir.an opening
through which an archive can receivethe unexpected, the unpro-
grammable,theunpredictable,theun-presentableand theunrep-
resentable.An opening of the unknownis thusproduced,which
no archivalknowledgepreparesus to receive.This openingorients
the archivetowardsactualizationsand inscriptionsto come. Over
thisstructural, infiniteand in principleinterminablepossibility of
the archive to receive new contextualizations,receptionsor in-
scriptions,no archive,no law,and no fatheror keeper of the ar-
chivehas anypoweror control.
and Spring2003
Winter 169
We have thustwomutuallyexclusiveforcesthatconstitutean
archivingimpression.One thatbelongs to what Freud called re-
pression,a record of passing and death, the recordingof death
itself,and on theotherhand, the opening thatis a promiseof,and
to the future,and which,as a trace of its own survivalrequires,
demandsor commandstransmission and translation."At the same
time [. . .] the conditionsof archivizationimplicate [. . .] all the
aporias whichmake it into a movementof the promiseand of the
futureno less thanof recordingthe past" (29).
Moses and the Tramilaof theArchive
Archive Feverwas writtenas the keynoteaddress at the confer-

ence on "Memory:the Question of Archives,"held in the Freud
Archivein London in 1995, and is thereforealso a reflectionon
the verysite of the archivizationof psychoanalysis. It is also one
of Derrida's greatpolemical essaysabout psychoanalysis, one that
should be read in the contextof his polemical encounterswith
Michel FoucaultorJacquesLacan . This time,the polemicstakesa
formof contestationof Freud'sMoses: JudaismTerminable and Inter-
minable by Yosef Haim Yerushalmi (to whom Derrida dedicates Ar-
chiveFever),and overFreud's lastbook, Mosesand Monotheism. And,
above all it is a polemics about the archivethatis tied to the idea
of monotheisticreligion.
Whatis the relevanceof the death of Moses forthe concept of
archivizationand whyshould preciselythatessaybyFreud,among
so manypossible others,serveas the exemplarycase on whichto
build a polemics around the archiveand archivization?The an-
swer,ifone is possible,revolvesaround naming,the name of god,
and of the name of psychoanalysis itself.
The argumentof Mosesand Monotheism, published in 1939, is
well-known but worthrepeating,particularly in the contextof the
debate about the archive.The founderofJewishmonotheismand
the giverof the Mosaic laws,Moses was an Egyptianwho led the
Jewsout of bondage and imposed on themthe monotheisticreli-
gion of Pharaoh Amenhotep IV. The leader of the Jewishtribe
turnedout to be too strictin imposingthe new religion,including
the customof circumcision,and was thereforekilledby his newly
chosen brethren.The memoryof the crime underwenta period
of latency,duringwhich another god was sought by the Jewish
tribe.It was found in the kindredSemitictribein Midian and the
volcanicdeitycalled Yahveh.Over a period ofyearsthe initial,ori-
ginary monotheisticgod prevailed, and the two deities were
1 70 Discourse25.1 & 2
merged,as was the Mosaic givingof the lawsprojectedon another

priest,also called Moses. What has been kept and preserved,ar-
chived therefore,under the name ofJewishmonotheism,is this
repressedmemoryof the originarypatricide,inscribingitselfas
the traumaofchosennessand survival. And thatrepressedmemory
can be describedby the alreadyestablishedcontradictory mecha-
nismof archivization.
The initialimpulse to keep the memoryof the one and only
God, of the monotheistictradition,accumulates its energypre-
cisely from this initial anarchivicand archiviolitictrauma: the
death of the primalfatherand the injunctionto repeat his laws.
That injunction,according to the well-knownFreudian schema,
havingcome fromthenow dead father,has a muchmorepowerful
bond and commands a much more forcefulobligationthan that
of anyfatheralive.But thatmemoryis what,precisely,needs to be
forgottenor ratherrepressed in order for the law, the Mosaic
nomos , to be perpetuatedthroughouthistory.It has "sufferedthe
fateof repression,the stateof being unconscious,beforeit could
produce such mightyeffectson its return,and force the masses
under itsspell [. . .] in religioustradition"(130).
The traumaticseparationfromthe tribalfathercreatesyetan-
other element essentialfor the functioningof monotheism,ac-
cordingto Freud. It commandsthe return,a belated attempt,to
regain the momentbefore the murder.It is thismomentbefore
themurder,thatofchosenness,thatallowsthesurvivalof the tradi-
tion in the repressedmemoryof the initialcatastrophe.
The monotheisticexperienceof theJewishpeople is therefore
tied to the archivicsurvival:theirexistencein history,whatreturns
as monotheism,comes fromthe fact,noted byCathyCaruth,that
theJewswereviolentlyseparatedfromMoses and survived.
In a way,the entirepeople have become the substrateor the
subjectileon whichthisinitialarchivingrepressionleftitsimpres-
sion. Caruthgivesa cogent descriptionof thiscondition:"Mono-
theismforFreud is [. . .] not simplya returnof the past,but of the
factof havingsurvivedit, a survivalthat,in the figureof the new
Jewishgod, appears not as an act of being chosen bytheJews,but
as the incomprehensiblefactof beingchosen fora futurethat re-
mains,in itspromise,yetto be understood" (71).
What are the consequences of thisarchivioliticsurvival?The
situationdescribedas the returnof the repressedfatherof mono-
theism challenges the capacityof historical,referentialdescrip-
tion. We know that the catastrophe has happened, but only
because of thetracesand impressionsthatcover,veilor repressthe
originarycrime.To the verymomentof the archiviccatastrophe
Winter
and Spring2003 1 71
belongsa delay,to whichFreudwillgivethe name of Nachtraeglich-

keit "How far the accounts of formertimesare based on earlier
sourcesor on oral tradition,and whatintervalelapsed betweenan
eventand itsfixationbywriting, we are unable to know" (51) . The
text (the one that tells or archivesthe storyof the monotheistic
tradition),Freud continues,tells us "enough about its own his-
tory,"and is formedby "twodistinct forces,diametrically opposedto
eachother,thathavelefttheirtraceson if' (myemphasis). One force
would be the one of repressingthe originarymoment,or crime,
keeping the originarymoment mute, encryptedor secret,"the
textin accord withsecrettendencies." The other,"diametrically
opposite" tendency,would be the one whichwantedto recordev-
erything,"anxious to keep everything as it stood." Thus, Freud
saysin one of his most memorable formulas,"the distortionof the
textis not unlikea murder.The difficulty lies not in the execution
of the deed but in doing awaywiththe traces" (52).
In accord withthe alreadyestablishedanalysisof the archive,
we could saythatanyarchivization, and in thiscase, the particular
archivizationof monotheism (and that is hardlyjust "any" ar-
chive), obeys the same logic. It waversbetweenthe repressedim-
perative to archive the singular,one and only, but also dead
(father), and theimperativeto perpetuatethelawof thisinaugural
injunctioninto the future.Freud in effectgives here something
like both the deconstructionof theJudaic,monotheisticorigins,
and the deconstructionof a programmed,certain,predictable,
givenfuturity. The laws given to us come froman uncertain,di-
vided,and contradictory origin,jealous of itselfyetalwaysin need
of futuretranslations.And by the veryfactthatthe tracesleftby
this archiviolationremain foreverdetached from the originary
event(the effectof delay), theywillbe open to futureinscriptions,
interpretations and receptions,over which,we should repeat,no
archon,gatekeeper,priest,the guardianof the law and maybenot
even God himself,has any power. "No longer is [thus an event]
givenin a temporalor historicalmodalitydominatedbythe past"
(Derrida 33) . Preciselybecause monotheismstemsfromthistrau-
maticexperience,by the factthatit is inscribedon the lifeof the
entirenation and thereforedispersed,or detached fromthe ori-
gin,the meaningof thisexperienceof survivalis givenoverto the
heterogeneousmultiplicity of topoi,to the incalculablefutureand
to the to-come, avenir.If the projectthatwe knowas psychoanalysis
and thatwe ascribe to its firstarchonSigmundFreud has any fu-
ture,it is preciselyin thiscapacityto wrenchitselfout of and away
fromthe monotheisticbond whichservesas itsimpetus,but with-
out repeatingyetanother monotheisticor Oedipal crime.It is a
1 72 Discourse
25.1 ùf 2
, of both belonging,and detach-

projectof being the son otherwise
ing itself
from the bond, a perpetualunravelingof itsa-
identitary
filiation.
The Name of the Father
To YosefHayimYerushalmi'sFreud'sMosesbelongs an innova-
tiveand originaldiscoveryin Freud's archive:thatforhis 35thbirth-
day Freud received from his fathera Bible with the Hebraic
inscriptionremindinghim of his circumcisionand, in effect,thus
reiterating theinauguraleventofthefilialsubmissionto thefather
and the receivingof the law. The Bible itself,"the Phillipsohn
Bible," thatSigmundFreud had studiedin hisyouth,was re-bound
in new leather,thusreinforcing the impressionthatwhatin effect
tookplace in thisreceivingof a giftwas a renewedcircumcisionof
Freud who thusforhis 35thbirthdayalso receivesagain, and as a
kind of double affirmation, the law of the fathersfromthe hand
of the father.
It is in conjunctionwiththiseventwhichservesas itsinitiatory
pivot,thatYerushalmilaunches his analysisof Mosesand Monothe-
ismin a book that,itself,has as its subtitlethe question ofJewish
identity:"JudaismTerminableand Interminable."Severalmotiva-
tionsor tacticsguide Yerushalmi'sanalysis.The firstis an attempt
by the historianto re-assessthe mythabout Moses, and erase, or
take away from Freud's analysis,the insightabout the primal
crime.The second, to interpretFreud's workand lifein the light
of thefilialre-inscription
symbolizedbythegiftof his 35thbirthday
and prove thatFreud,in effect,was not an atheistbut a believing
Jew,or at least a Jewwho kept close to his origins,albeit maybe
in secret.From this,Yerushalmidrawsthe final conclusion that
psychoanalysis itselfmaybe perceivedas a 4Jewishscience." While
well cognizantof the terribleresonance thatsuch a label has had
in another historicalconfiguration,(psychoanalysis was in effect
accused by anti-Semitesof being a Jewishscience), Yerushalmi
wantsto give a new skin,so to speak, to thislabel and re-directit
towardsanother,more affirmative possibility:"what had been so
strenuouslydenied, to turnBalaam's curse [the anti-Semitic accu-
sationsabout psychoanalysis being a Jewishscience] into a bless-
ing," (Yerushalmi1991, 100). This interpretation would re-affirm
both Freud and psychoanalysis as structurally
bonded to the iden-
tityof the Jewishpeople. Aftersuch an analysis,Freud himself
would appear as "the PsychologicalJew" (the capital lettersare
Yerushalmi's)in whose guiseJewishness has become "almostpure
and Spring2003
Winter 1 73
subjectivity"(Yerushalmi1991, 10). It is an attempt,as Derrida

says,on the partofYerushalmi,"to circumciseFreud,to re-circum-
cise him byfigurewhilereconfirming the covenant" (42).
It was almostimperativethatan argumentwhichwantsto re-
inscribeor appropriateFreud in and for theJudaic traditionin
such an essentialistmannerwould have to counter,head on, the
verybook in whichFreud,at the end of his life,cast such a doubt
about the purityofJewishorigins(Moses was an Egyptianand was
killedbytheJews).Yerushalmi'sargumentis impeccable,as faras
the historicalanalysisgoes. He engages an enormousand impres-
siveknowledgeof both the psychoanalytic movement,the biblical
interpretation, and historicaldata in orderto provethat,in effect,
neitherwas Moses' crime committed,nor did the Bible record
such an event,and one can onlydirectthe reader to thisimpres-
siveand importantvolume. But thisscholarshipseems to failpre-
ciselyat the pointwhichitwould claim as itssuccess,thatis, at the
verysiteof the archive.
We have seen whyFreud's notion of the archiveand psycho-
analysisitselfcreatesan insurmountablechallengeto thehistorical
analysiswhichconstructsitselfas an uninterruptedgenealogy,or
has a referentialframeas the guidingprinciple.Such an analysis,
like the one attemptedbyYerushalmi,willnot be able to perform
successfullysuch an appropriativegesture on psychoanalysis.If
anything, psychoanalysis is the sciencewhichput intoquestionthe
possibility writing"subject" withcapital letters(Jewishor not,
of
let alone "psychological")and assumingitsindivisibility or purity
("pure subject"). Equally problematic is the attempt reclaim
to
(Jewish)historybyproving thatthe events thatFreud writesabout
did not in effecthappen. Freud's colossal insightresides in his
analysisof the archivallogic of the historicevent.The historian's
taskalwayscomes afterthe fact,and the eventcan be read onlyin
the tracesthatcover the originarytrauma.The historian'sworkis
alwaysthatof decipheringthe ashes leftafterthe catastropheof
history.It is actuallyin the insistenceof the ashes to speak, testify
and tell the story,preciselyin the absence of the discerniblerefer-
ent,thathistoryreturnsas a ghostand speaksmostforcefully. Thus
Freud's analysisof the narrativeabout Moses,whilefullycognizant
of its limitations,is more probable in its assessmentof "how the
Jewscould surviveuntil thisday as an entity"(176) preciselybe-
cause it reads into thiseventthe effectsof the traumaticsurvival.
These effectscannotbe read in a strictly referentialor testimonial
manner but constantlyrequire interminableanalysisand the an-
swer,foreverdelayed,is promisedonlyin and to thealwaysdelayed
future.
1 74 Discourse25.1 & 2
Freud's concept of historicalanalysis(Freud was also a histo-

rian, analyzing "case histories") will show its advantage most
clearlyover any historicizing discoursewhen confrontedwiththe
eventforwhichFreud's whole lifeand workpreparedhim,and of
which Mosesand Monotheism, to thisday,representsprobablythe
most profoundanalysis.Freud is in manywaysthe mostvigilant
prolepticanalystof the eventthathe had not livedlong enough to
livethrough,to whichto testify or in whichto die.
It is the last chapterof the book, "Monologue WithFreud,"
thatmakesFreud'sMosestrulyunique in itsappropriativeattempt.
It is the momentwhen the historianabandons the meticuloustask
of archivizationand workingin the archiveand turnsdirectlyto
Freud forexplicitanswersabout hisJewishness.In thatmoment,
the meticulous archivalwork collapses under the phantasmatic
erasure of the archiveand under the attemptof the historianto
speak directlyto Freud and ask him "directlywhether,genetically
or structurally, psychoanalysisis reallya Jewishscience" (Yerus-
halmi,Freud's100). Derrida does not fail to perceivethischange
of register, fromthe "scientific"book immersedin the archive,to
"fiction,"the change which "suspends all axiomaticassurances,
norms and rules [. . .] and in particularits relationshipto the
knownand unknownarchive" (52).
Testimonyand Translation
Archiviolatíon,
Everyarchivehas somethingof a jealous God. It imposes the

keepingof theidiom,thename or thesingularevent,close to itself
and one withitself.But, at the same time,the archivalimpulse
requires inscriptions,writing,graphic traces and translation,in
orderto launch itselfintohistoricaland materialexistence.In that
sense,the conditionsofarchivizationcorrespondcloselyto theori-
ginarycommand to translatethatprecedes even the Mosaic laws,
thatof the towerof Babel. The command to translateis actually
double and contradictory (elsewhere,DerridasaysthatGod always
contradictshimself). God forbidsthe building of the towerof
Babel, but at the same timecommandsthe translationof his name
in the multitudeof languages. He jealously keeps to himselfthe
name while ordering its transmissionby means of translation:
translateme, translateme not. (The same holdsforthe testimonial
to me, testify
logic: testify not). That is whybystructuralnecessity
the archivecorrespondsor standsin the closestproximityto the
monotheistictradition.Or it is that traditionitself.("Monoto-
notheism!"Nietzschewould protest).Derrida saysas much in Ar-
chiveFever,whenhe writesthat"the archivealwaysholds a problem
Winter
and Spring2003 1 75
of translation.Withthe irreplaceablesingularity of a documentto

interpret,to repeat, to reproduce, but each time in its original
uniqueness, an archiveought to be idiomatic,and thus at once
offeredand unavailable for translation,open and shielded from
technicaliterationand reproduction" (90). Archivefeverwould
also be the name of thejealous God, commandingthe repetition
and translationof its name (of the idiomaticityof the archive),
and forbiddingand restricting itsiteration.To let the translatorof
Archive Feverinto Englishspeak: "So even the documented origin
of the archivecannot cleanse itof such corruption;an archivemay
alwaysbe in the process of translatingitselfand fromitself,by it-
self" (Prenowitz108).
Yerushalmi'sFreud'sMosesrepeats preciselythese gesturesof
violentarchivizationand actualizationof the archivicviolence,in
the divided strategyby means of which the book approaches, or
reproaches,or encroaches on the workof Sigmund Freud. One
appropriativegestureis that attemptof findinga final proof in
the archivesthatFreud and his work- indeed, contraryto thevery
nature of the psychoanalytic project and its essentialpremises-
belonged to theJewishpeople in a waythatwould be bereftof any
capacity for dissentor differencefromitself.That would be the
"primaryrepression"repeated by Yerushalmi.The other appro-
priativemove would be to keep thisarchivejealously foritselfbut
also, as attemptedin the monologue withFreud, to shield it from
translationand appropriatethe futurereceptionsof the psycho-
analyticproject.It appropriatesFreud and psychoanalysis forthe
teleologicalpurity of the one, for the logic thatthe entirepsycho-
analyticproject,in the foundingmomentof itsown archivization,
attemptsto displace,psychoanalyze, dismantleand deconstruct.
Derrida keeps the strongest,most forcefulprotestof his po-
lemicswithYerushalmifor the momentwhen thisappropriation
of both the inauguralmomentof the archive(the past,the mem-
ory), and itsdisseminative, unrestrainedcapacityforthe to-come,
become appropriatedbyYerushalmiforthe unique, singularand
totalizingtopos of "Israel." The two strategicappropriationsare
worth quoting. One pertains to Yerushalmi's admonition that
Freud,bymeans ofhis stubbornadherence to the Oedipal, betrays
"what is mostJewish,"the openness to the future(Yerushalmi,
Freud's95). The futuretherefore,in Yerushalmi'sinterpretation,
belongs in an essentialwayto the people of Israel. The otherap-
propriationcomes fromhis otherequallycelebratedbook, Zakhor :
JewishHistoryand JewishMemory , where Yerushalmiwrites that
"Only in Israel and nowhereelse is the injunctionto remember
feltas a religiousimperativeto an entirepeople" (9).
1 76 25.1 àf 2
Discourse
This sentence,Derridasays,makeshim "tremble"and wonder

"whetherit isjust" (Archive 76). The allocationof the archiveto a
topographiclocale which a totalizingmannerwould be theonly
in
placeforthe memoryof the futureis preciselywhatpsychoanalysis,
as a project,setsfromthe startto challenge.The repressedtopos
of the archivecan make itseffectfeltbecause the repressedmate-
rial, made unconscious,becomes dispersedin the multiplicity of
or
psychic,material geopoliticaltopographies. While theirorigin
residesin the archiviolitic event,traceshave a capacityfordisper-
sion beyond its unifyingcontrol.And everyactualizationof the
archiveis also an intervention into the archive,and maybe also a
creativeor criticalcontestationof itsoriginary violence,and there-
forenot one and thesame withit.That dispersionis theverystruc-
turalpossibility forthe archiveto appear in history.If an analogy
withtheJewishpeople is soughtregardingFreud and psychoanaly-
sis, we could say that the repressedtracesof the Mosaic archive
dispersedthemselvesand createdsomethinglike the unconscious
of Europe, the European Jewryitself,located in a heterogeneity
bothin relationto theirplace of originand in relationto the multi-
plicityof thenew topographies.Psychoanalysis representsboth the
most cogent formalizationand the most productive outcome
of this dissemination.We said productive:psychoanalysisworks
through the traumaticexperienceof itsorigin.The diaspora of the
archivalimpressionsis the veryconditionof the archiveand can
be reduced and returnedto a unique topos, a returnin effect
structurally impossible,only witha considerable amount of vio-
lence.
The authenticationof the archive attemptedby Yerushalmi
goes in the opposite directionof the psychoanalytic project and
carrieswithitselfall the familiarand predictableviolence of the
one: "As soon as there is the One, there is murder,wounding,
traumatism. Lun segardede Vautre. The One guardsagainst/keeps
some of the other [...]. Atonce, at thesame time,the One forgets
to rememberitselfto itself,it keeps and erases the archiveof this
injustice" (78). Derrida's argumentat thispointnot onlythemati-
callychallengesthe univocityof the one, but also, in a rhetorical
manner,and in a condensed economynoted earlier,displaysthe
impossibility of the archiviccertaintyas soon as the impressionis
deposited to writing.The veryviolence thatsplitsthe archivehere
is condensed into the tracethatis foreverdivided,more than one
and less than one, in a formulathatneedsto be translated, at least
twice:Lun segardede Vautre. That archivicambivalenceand origin-
aryambiviolence whichYerushalmiwantsto appropriateto theOne,
belongs,Derridanotes,to theverydiscoverybypsychoanalysis that
and Spring2003
Winter 1 77
the originarydelay.The logic

goes bythe name of Nachtraeglichkeit,
"turnsout to disrupt,disturb,entangleforeverthe
of after-the-fact
reassuringdistinctionbetweenthe twotermsof the alternative,as
betweenthe past and the future"(80). In a word,the appropria-
tile gesturebyYerushalmifails,whilereiteratingthe archiviolence,
since thisappropriationrunscounterto the veryheartof the psy-
choanalyticproject and the archiveof the workthatwe knowby
the name of SigmundFreud.
Ashes,Memoryand Testimony
In the concluding chapter of ArchiveFever,Derrida's book

turnson itselfand, as itwere,beginsanew.It should be noted that
the book itselfis organizedbychapterscalled "Exergue," "Pream-
ble," "Foreword,""Theses" and "Postscript."It demarcatesitself
againstanyauthenticmomentof archivizationof itself;it is an im-
possible archivewhichonlybegins,or comes too late,but neveris
as such.This should be understoodas a rhetoricaland syntagmatic
illustrationof the anasemic,heterogeneousand multiplelogic at
work in Freud's and Derrida's understandingof archivization.
There, at the end of the book, whichin a sense becomes itsbegin-
ning,Derridabringsus to Pompeiiand Freud's analysisofJensen's
Gradiva.It is at this site that the young archeologisttalksto the
ghostof a woman,and wakesover the imprintleftin the ashes by
thismiddayghost ( Mittagsgespensť ). It is in thismomentwhen the
archeologist reflectson the inscriptionand the writingdirectly
made on the ashes bythe ghost,thatthe archiveof the futureand
the futureof the archivethrustthemselvesforthand make their
impressionwithutmosturgency.
At the end of Moses and Monotheism and at the eve of the
Shoah, Freud reminds us that the archiviolence that pertainsto
Jewish monotheism has the to
capacity replicate itselfthroughout
history,and on thebodyofthepeople chosen bythisarchivization.
The Jewish people murdered god but did not admit to it.
"Through this theyhave, so to speak, shouldered a tragicguilt.
They have been made to sufferseverelyforit" (Freud 176). And,
a bit earlier,talkingabout Christianity undergoinga similarresis-
tance by those who are "badly christened,"he says:"The hatred
forJudaismis at bottomhatredforChristianity, and it is not sur-
prising that in the German Nationalist Socialist revolutionthis
close connection of the two monotheisticreligionsfindssuch a
clear expressionin the hostile treatmentof both" (117). (That
Yerushalmiat the end of his book could stillwritethatFreud- in
1 78 Discourse25.1 àf 2
1939!- "could not have anticipatedthe full horrorof the war"

and "the devastationof a thirdof a Jewishpeople" [Yerushalmi,
Freud's98] testifiesto Yerushalmi'slack of understandingof the
anticipatoryforce of psychoanalysisand its most outstanding
achievementsand insights.If Mosesand Monotheism has anymean-
ing,itis in itsattemptto understand,interpret againstall hope
and
diffusewhatFreud saw comingbetterthananyone.This book also
allows us, betterthan any historicalassessmentto thisday,to re-
flecton and workthrough the violentconsequences of this cata-
strophicevent and its devastatingarchive.Of thisone and of so
manyothers) .
Jacques Derrida formalizesthisline of Freud's thoughtin his
Archive Feverby pointingout that if Freud sufferedfromarchive
fever, was preciselybecause he or his discoveryhad a capacityto
it
"partake in the archive feveror disorder we are experiencing
today,concerningitslightestsymptomsorthegreatholocaustic trage-
dies ofour modernhistory and historiography"(90, myemphasis).
And a bit furtheron, in Derrida's interpretation, psychoanalysis
probablyproduced itsmostprofoundinsightbyallowingus to ex-
plain "whyanarchivingdestructionbelongsto theprocessofarchi-
vizationand produces the verythingit reduces, on occasion to
ashes, and beyond" (94).
Freud's insightsinto the natureof archiveallowus to compre-
hend somethingthathas happened as the mostcatastrophicevent
in Jewishhistory.Psychoanalysis was alwaysalreadya thought ofthat
catastrophic event.That event is eminently tied to modernity,that
begins with monotheism, the technologicalcapacityof archiviza-
tion which gave this historyits technicalreproducibility and the
logic of sacrifice activated by the Nationalist Socialist regime.
(Freud's workinitiatedafterthe firstworldwarworksthroughthe
trauma,death,artificialand phantomlimbs,the death drive,mass
destruction,but also anticipatesthe ultimatewritingon ashes and
the archiviolenceof the followingwar). Freud's insightsinto the
natureofthearchivebelong to thethoughtofmodernity compara-
ble to thatof WalterBenjamin.It thinksthe possibility of infinite
multiplicationand technicalreproducibility of repressionand de-
structionat workin the modernarchive,like in the strikingexam-
ple of the most sophisticated machine of archivization,the
computer.As is well-known,the firstcomputer,the IBM-owned
Hollerithmachine,was firstput to use on a grand scale for the
systematic archivizationof the European Jewryin roundingit up
forthe concentrationcamps.And Freud understood,perhapsbet-
terthan anyone,whysuch an event,whilemultiplying an archive,
could at the same timeproduce,in an equallyinfinitecapacity,its
and Spring2003
Winter 1 79
complete erasure.Leaving onlythe ashes to speak in the absence

of the catastrophicevent.The catastrophethatproduced themre-
mains,but as ashes,gone up in smokeand forevererased.
Sarajevo: the Gaze of Testimonyand theArchiveof the Other

' Gaze
Theo Angelopoulos' Ulysses (1996) narrateshow a mod-
ern day Ulysses(HarveyKeitel) seeks to find threeundeveloped
reels by the Manakisbrotherswhose firstmovie,whichdoes exist,
and is one of the firstever,depictswomenweaving,somewherein
the Balkans. (That movie is actuallyshown at the beginningof
Ulysses'Gaze.)The quest forknowledgeleads Ulyssesthroughmany
scenes repeatingthe violence of historythatconstitutesthe space
knownas the Balkans: in Greece, Albania, Macedonia, Romania,
thenBelgrade and Sarajevo. (A scene in the movieshowsan insig-
nificantvillage,Janina,filmedbythe Manakisbrothersin Macedo-
nia- insignificant but exemplary - as the voice over narrates:"All
European armies have marched throughit.") It is to the Sarajevo
of the lastwar thatthe teleologyof his willto knowtakeshim,and
findingthe reels,it findsitsdestination,itsend. The undeveloped
reelsare keptbya Jewishcurator,to be killedwithhis entirefamily
soon afterhe hands the movieoverto Keitel.The lastscenesdepict
Sarajevoin the fog,the onlytimewhen the cityis at peace. And in
that momentof peace is the time to burythe dead. And it is in
thismomentof suspended shareddangerthattheyouthorchestra
("the youngSerbs,Croats,Muslims,playingtogether,"theJewish
curatorexplainsto Keitel) can performin the open. A communal-
ityappears in the face of a catastrophe,duringthe fog,whichre-
orientsUlysses'heading, to the possibilityof another Bosnia, an-
otherEurope.
9
UlyssesGaze subvertsthe entire Greek, and thereforeexem-
plaryEuropean notion of the ontologyof gaze and space, starting
at leastwithPlato's cave,and proposesanother"dislocationof the
Greek logos," a certain Grecojewish contamination,as Jacques
Derrida has it in "Violence and Metaphysics":"a dislocationof
our identity, and perhaps of identityin general; it summonsus to
departfromthe Greek siteand perhapsfromthe verysitein gen-
eral" (82). These are Derrida's wordsabout anotherpatientJew,
Emmanuel Lévinas ("Jewgreek,greekjew" is how Joycecalls his
Ulysses,and how Derridacalls Lévinas ["Violence" 153]). This dif-
ferentsite and sightwillbe motivatednot by the willto know,see
or name, whichcan onlytestify to the alreadyprogrammedcatas-
tropheof history.(This "will to know" is in itselfcomplicitousin
180 Discourse25.1 àf 2
manywayswiththeviolence takingplace, as exemplifiedbya cyni-

cal anecdote spun in Sarajevo duringthe siege; one neighborto
another,as a curse,saysa Serb to a Muslim:"May yourhouse ap-
pear tonighton CNN!" CNN is thereforenot wherewar and de-
structionare, war and destructionare where there is CNN. The
citizensof Sarajevounderstoodthatbetterthanthe "liberalWest"
or "Europe"). Rather,thisalternativesightwill be motivated,or
imagined, by an utmostpassivity:weaving,keeping, the patient
commemorationof danger which wards offexactlythat kind of
ophtalmo-phallocratic gaze of warunder whichthe European his-
tory unravelsor ruins itself.
It is in weavingand keeping,in danger,
that,as Lévinassays,"the face of the other,in thisnudity,exposed
unto death [. . .] remindsone of the verymortality of the other
person" (107). The responsibility to the otherwillalwayshave pre-
ceded the certainty of the name, the testimonialsightor gaze.
In one of the lastscenes of the movie,the blankframesflicker
in frontof Ulysses'gaze. On the blank screen he sees, maybe,the
catastropheof history:the face of everyperson who died in the
Bosnianwar;theend ofa siteand ofa sight,a sight/site ofEurope.
But in the blank flickeringof the frames,an opening: the blank,
undeveloped film,an unseen, untestifiable memoryof the unpro-
grammed other, a
patience,passivity, promise,a future.For exam-
an
ple, example.An example?In the meantime,Sarajevois in fog.
The worldis blind.
EichmanninJerusalem,Milosevicin theHague:
Testimony,Memory,Justice
In the amended indictmentof Slobodan Milosevic- a docu-

mentavailableon thewebsiteof the InternationalCriminalTribu-
nal for the FormerYugoslavia,on page 31, there is a list called
"Schedule G, Personskilledin Djakovica/Gjakove - 2 April1999."
This isjust a tinypartof the listof personskilledand enumerated
by the indictmentof Milosevic,and four other membersof the
government.It is lodged betweenseveraldozens of pages listing
the victimsof the atrocities.But thisone succeeds in drawingthe
attentionof the readerwhose concentrationmaybe dulled bythe
endless litanyof victims.The twentypersonson Schedule G with
the exception of Vejsa Arlind,who was five,are all women. Or
should we sayfemale,since a large numberof themis of age 2 to
14. Here is the list, the Schedule G, as it is presented in the
"Amended Indictment":
Winter
and Spring2003 181
Schedule G
PersonsKilled at Dakovica / Gjakovë- 2 April1999
Name ApproximateAge Sex
CAKA,Dalina 14 Female
CAKA,Delvina 6 Female
CAKA,Diona 2 Female
CAKA,Valbona 34 Female
GASHI, Hysen 50 Not indicated
HAXHIAVDIJA,Dormitina 8 Female
HAXHIAVDIJA,Egzon 5 Not indicated
HAXHIAVDIJA,Rina 4 Female
HAXHIAVDIJA,Valbona 38 Female
HOXHA, Flaka 15 Female
HOXHA, Shahindere 55 Female
NUÇI, Manushe 50 Female
NUÇ I, Shirine 70 Female
VEJSA,Arlind 5 Male
VEJSA,Fetije 60 Female
VEJSA,Marigona 8 Female
VEJSA,Rita 2 Female
VEJSA,Sihana 8 Female
VEJSA,Tringa 30 Female
What happened to them?Whywere theykilled?Whatis the possi-

ble military, or any other reason forexterminating Caka Diaona,
age 2, forwhat political advantage?These questions withoutan-
swer have been haunting me ever since I ran into the list and
printeditout. Duringthewarin Bosnia and Kosovo,manyreasons
in the officialBelgrade pressweregivenforfighting in Sarajevoor
in Kosovo:reasonsof territorial integrity,protectionof theSerbian
people of the real or imaginedmenace fromthe other,Muslimor
Kosovarside, self-protection of the Yugoslavmilitaryor paramili-
tarytroops,protectionof sovereignty. Some were victims,it was
said, of collateraldamage. I, togetherwitha large numberof Ser-
bian intellectuals,or membersof the opposition,who have been
opposing the Milosevicregimefromtheverybeginning,neverbe-
lieved or accepted these rationalizations.We feared,as we pro-
testedtheatrocitiesdone bytheregime,but neverenough,forever
neverenough,thatthecivilianswerekilled.Justas Serbiancivilians
were killed in Bosnia, and in Kosovo, and in Croatia. It is always
taken hostage by the military,
civilians,civility, or, to jump to the
conclusion,by the goals or telos of thatare caughtas
sovereignty,
182 Discourse25.1 & 2
victims.And all we are now leftwithis thissomber,asceticlist,and

thequestionwhy.And ifI saythatsuch listsare possibleon all sides
of thisconflict,I am not in any way tryingto relativizeanyone's
onlyto underscorethatsituationof civiliansbeing
responsibility,
takenhostage.
one findspreciouslittleto go
If one looks at the indictments,
to
on, explain what happened there. This is how the indictment
describesthe eventsof theseatrocities:
a. Dakovica/Gjakovë: On orabout2 April1999,forces oftheFRYand

Serbiabeganforcing residentsofthetownofDakovica/ Gjakovëtoleave.
ForcesoftheFRYandSerbiaspreadoutthrough thetownandwent
housetohouseordering Kosovo Albanians
from theirhomes. In some
instances,peoplewerekilled, andmostpersons werethreatened with
death.Manyofthehousesandshopsbelonging to KosovoAlbanians
weresetonfire, whilethosebelonging toSerbs wereprotected.During
theperiod from 2 to4 April1999,thousandsofKosovo Albanians living
inDakovica/ Gjakovë andneighboring joineda largeconvoy,
villages ei-
theron footordriving in cars,trucks
andtractors,andmoved tothe
borderwith Albania.Forces oftheFRYandSerbia directedthosefleeing
alongpre-arranged routes,andatpolicecheckpoints
alongthewaymost
KosovoAlbanians had theiridentification
papersand licenseplates
seized.In someinstances,Yugoslavarmy truckswereusedtotransport
persons totheborder withAlbania.
As I am readingthisdocument (and myreadingit,today,as it

was fromthe veryfirsttime,proceeds froma sense of profound
mourning:whatcould we have done to preventit), itoccursto me
thatit proceeds along twodifferent regimes,familiarfromother
historicaleventsthathave knownsystematic loss of life,takenout
in large numbers,as lifeas such. For example,the Holocaust. The
twoeventsremainsingularand different, in manyways,and I do
not wantto suggestthatthe atrocitiesperformedby the Milosevic
regimehave eitherthe same scope, or systemicdimension,as the
Holocaust. The war in Kosovo forwhichMilosevicis triedin this
indictment(and other indictmentshave followed,and Carla del
Ponte has raised anotherone, forthe war crimesin Croatia) did
not have as itsgoal the totaldestructionof the Kosovars,and has
not known concentrationdeath camps that resembled those of
Nazi Germany.I belong to thosewho believein thesingularhistor-
ical specificity
of the Holocaust. Nevertheless,in the catastrophic
episode thatI am bringingto yourattention,thereare traitsof any
technologicallyenhanced mass genocide that may,in principle,
resemble the experience of mass death of which the Shoah re-
mains the impossiblemodel, a model withouta model. Having
insertedthiswordof caution,let me again make an attemptat an
and Spring2003
Winter 183
analogy,and draw your attentionto two featuresof these docu-

mentsthatresemblea possiblenarrativeabout theHolocaust. One
is the mere listingof bare lifeinterruptedby the systemickilling,
killingpossibleonly,as Benjaminwould say,in theage of technical
reproducibility.In this case, probably by mass executions, by
means of firearmsor maybegrenades.The listingof the deceased
in any case betraysa certaintechnical,systemicapproach. What-
ever the killers,the paramilitary were doing on April2, 1999, they
were killingnot individuals,but,in some way,onlya bare lifethat
needed to be eliminatedor exterminated.Of thisexperience,on
the side of thevictim,WalterBenjaminwroteon Kafkamanyyears
ago thatit is the experience of "an individual,and not accessible
to the masses untilsuch timeas theyare being done awaywith."
That is,Kafka'sexperienceis an impossibleexperienceof the indi-
vidual death (whatotherexperienceis more profound,and which
one belongs more to each being, than one's own death); rather,
the death of Kafka'scharacters,thatwhich is the most proper,is
the one whichis singularbut experiencedin masses,en masse , de-
privedexactly of that that of
singularity, experience dying as a sub-
ject, person, who has the rightto die as some kind of minimal
identity.Those listedhere died a death thatis worse than death,
since, in some ways,it was not death at all. It was death deprived
of itshuman possibility. GiorgioAgambenhas recentlythematized
such an experience,an impossibleexperience,as thatof homosacer, ;
hoveringbetweenthe sovereignpowerand bare life.In the chap-
ter "Camp as Paradigm" in his book HomoSacer(and elsewhere,
in the related volume RemnantsofAuschxvitz : The Witnessand the
Archive ), Agambenwritesthat"those who are sentenced to death
[in camps]" were "forced into an extraterritorial thresholdin
whichthe human bodyis separatedfromitsnormalpoliticalstatus
and abandoned, in a stateof exception,to the mostextrememis-
fortunes."Such a thresholdexperience Agamben qualifiesas an
experience of those who are "killed withoutthe commissionof
homicide." This aporia should be understood in lightof Benja-
min's interpretationof Kafka.Not that there was no war crime,
thatno atrocitytook place, but thatit took place in a realmwhere
the human beingskilledwere deprived,bytheverymeans of their
executions,of theirproperdeaths.Whichis whatmakesit,among
otherthings,verydifficult to prosecutethe crimesof massdestruc-
tion, at least by the existinglaws,laws writtenforeveryday"life"
and formurders,homicides,commissionsagainstindividuals,and
not masses.
In Sarah Kofman's Smothered Words , in which she attemptsto
tell the storyof her father'sdemise in Auschwitz,Kofmanalso re-

produces the listof those deported to Drancy,among whomwas
her father.This listis envelopedbytwopropositions.One, preced-
ing the list,claims thatafterAuschwitz,"all men,Jewishor non-
Jewish,die differendy: theydo not reallydie, because what took
place, down there, death in Auschwitz[or Djakovica, we could
say], without takingplace, was worsethan death" (21). This para-
graph is followed by the fragmentof the listof those deported to
on
Drancy July16, 1942. Alwayslists,dates, names,whichdo not
mean anything,an endless litanyof victims,and thatat the same
timemean so much,thatmean everything. The paragraphfollow-
ing the list statesthe following: "On Auschwitz and afterAusch-
witz, no narrative is if
possible, by a narrative one understands
a of
telling history events,making sense" (25).
The documentwhichtranscribesthe eventthattook place in
Djakovica on April 2, 1999, tells verylittleabout the senseless
crime,a crimewithouta sense, in the originarysense of the word
sense. For what can be told about the killingof Rina Haxiavdija,
age four,even as the narrativetriesto recoverher death in the
face ofjustice, as the indictmentattemptsto recoverthe memory
of thiseventand preserveit fromcomplete oblivion?But as the
document triesto create a testimony, it faces us withyetanother
aporia of the mass murder, well known fromthe experienceof the
Holocaust. Even if the crime had been witnessed(and there is,
in thiscase, no indicationthatit happened, no witnessesare yet
produced), it would be almostan impossiblescene of testimony.
Because such crimesof mass annihilationleave no witnessesbut
onlylists,no sense or narrativewithmeaning,but a dryand official
recountingwithoutcompassionor possiblespace of mourning.As
it is narrated,the officialdocumentleavesno space formourning,
just like the death marked by lists,by serial numbers,technical
reproducibility, createsan impossiblescene of mourning,mourn-
ing fora death thatcannotbe testifiedabout,ofwhichthereis no
testimony, and which,in the strictest sense,it is not death at all.
The Testimonyand the Impossibility

of Speaking
In the 1997 documentarymovie about Eichmann's trial,The

TrialofAdolfEichmann,there is a scene in which a writer,Yehiel
Denur, appears beforethejudges. He did it reluctantly,and prior
to the trialrefusedto testify
fora long time.The prosecutorspar-
ticularlywantedhis testimony, since he was,forthem,an especially
valuable and reliablewitness,havingactuallyseen Eichmannin a
and Spring2003
Winter 185
concentrationcamp. He would provide the firsthand testimony.

Such hopes metwiththestructural limitof any"live," "firsthand"
testimony, of the genocide. Once on the stand,the witness,who
called himself"katzetnik," the one recognized by number only,
showed the number tattooed on his arm, and proceeded to tell
in
how the concentrationcamp they were all reduced to numbers.
To the insistence of the prosecutor to tell more, to tell what he
saw, the "katzetnik" could onlyrespond,reiterate,thattheywere
all numbers,that "in Auschwitzthereare no names, theirnames
were theirnumbers."Afterrepeated insistenceby the prosecutor
to tellwhathe saw,the "katzetnik,"who was not particularly old,
or ill,fellprostrateon the groundand almostdied of strokein the
court. His inabilityto testifyactually testified,better than any
words,to the Holocaust,particularly in the veryinabilityto testify,
to produce a narrativewhich would have meaning. To the re-
peated questions by the prosecutor,the "katzetnik"could only
showthenumberand go numb,offering hisbare life,in a moment
of second death,as a testimony ofwhatwas takenfromthosekilled
by numbersand as numbersin the Holocaust. Again Agamben:
"The political systemof the holocaust correspondsto a localiza-
tionwithoutorder (the camp as a permanentstateof exception).
The political systemno longer orders formsof life and juridical
rulesin a determinatespace but insteadcontainsat itsverycenter
a dislocatinglocalizationthatexceeds it and intowhicheveryform
of lifeand everyrule can be virtually taken" ( Homo175).
From thisperspective,continuesAgamben,"the camps have,
in a certainsense, in an even more extremeformreappeared in
the territories of the formerYugoslavia.At issue in the formerYu-
goslavia is, rather, an incurable ruptureof the old nomos and a
dislocationof the population and human livesalong entirelynew
lines of flight.Hence the decisive importance of ethnic rape
camps" ( Homo176). And the importance,I add, to commemorate
the nineteenwomen and female childrenexterminatedon April
4, 1999, in Djakovica. While the Hague may not be the proper
horizon for mourning,it will open a space forjustice, maybe,to
appear.
The Hague marksan innovationin internationalpolitics,par-
ticularlyas it pertainsto the issue of sovereignty. "What appears
singularand new todayis the projectof makingStates,or at least
head of statesin title(Pinochet), and even of currenthead of state
(Milosevic), appear beforeuniversalauthorities.It has to do only
with projects or hypotheses,but this possibilitysufficesto an-
nounce a transformation: it constitutesin itselfa major event.The
sovereignty of the State,the immunityof the head of stateare no
longer,in principle,in law,untouchable,"writesJacques Derrida

in his book on On Cosmopolitanism andForgiveness (57).
The dryenumerationof theindictment, and the dry,objective
officialnarrativethattellsso littleabout the crimeof extermina-
tion,withoutwitnessesand testimony and withno possible mean-
ingfulnarrativeabout it, speaks, Agamben would say in his
as
Remnants ofAuschwitz, TheWitness and theArchive, "onlyon thebasis
of
of an impossibility speaking," and it is in that impossibilityof
that the "testimony cannot be denied. Auschwitz - that
testifying
to which it is impossibleto bear witness - by thatverymeans is
absolutely and irrefutably proven" (164). In theHague, beforethe
judges, the rereading of the indictment, this witnessingwithout
testimony, may at least for a moment reopen the space in which
thesebare liveswillagain receivetheirdignity, theirindividuation,
theirdeath. That horizonin whichthe face of the otherreappears
in itsindividuationand in itsmortality, whichholds us hostageis,
maybe, the slim and minimal, but nevertheless bare hope, forthe
of
appearance justice.
The Futureof Testimony,of theArchiveto Come . . .
. . . And yet,and yet,thereis a futureforthe archive,perhaps,

and there is, perhaps, an archivefor the future.And that hope
would belong, equally, to Freud's notion of the archivewhich,
while producingthe erasureof itselfin the name of the one and
the same, also delegatesitselfto the tracesthatcarrythe promise
of the future.Those archigraphic traces open the archive to the
Other,to the memoryof the otherand to everyotherother.That
hope may also, paradoxically,belong to the archivingmachine
knownas the computer.To the capacityto produce theworstalso
belongs the capacityof the promise and a future.A reviewerof
Archive Fevernoted that "the substrateof ash is not remotefrom
computertechnology.Whatcauses ash is fire,a spark,likeelectric-
ity,which 'burns' rightthroughthe silicon." That electronicca-
pacity,writingrighton the ashes, worksfasterthan any other
medium."Pulsinglike a heartbeat,it can communicatethatevilis
imminent,thata person is in danger,thata lifeneeds to be saved.
Electronicmail elects" (Lawlor 798). Using the computerchip,
the siliconchip,returnsus back to Egypt,to the desert,everytime
we testify to somethingor deposit somethinginto memory.Every
act of computerizedarchivizationis also an ethical act, a racing
againstcatastrophe,an act of crossingthe desertwhere no assur-
ance is given.Archivizationis an act where the desert comes to
Winter
and Spring2003 187
haunt us. What is to-come,the a-venirof archivization,will have

been markedbythispassage and willhave led throughthe Silicon
Valley,throughEgyptand throughthe desert.
Such a divisionbetween the two possibilitiesof archivization
(we could call this theexemplary
spaceofpoliticaland ethicaldedsion
between devastation ), Derrida says,"haunts the ar-
and preservation
chive fromits origin" (Archive100). The trace lefton the ash in
Pompeii observed by the archeologist,or the trace left on the
flickeringsiliconscreenburntbythe fire,belong and testify to the
order of the spectral.These traces,divided at the origin,haunt
the archiveand archivization,fromtheverybeginningto the end.
Withoutend, infinitely, theyopen the archiveto the to-come , they
givehope and promiseto return.
Save.Print.
WorksCited
Agamben,Giorgio.Remnants ofAuschwitz:
The Witness
and theArchive.
Trans.DanielHeller-Rozen.
NewYork:ZoneBooks,1999.
. HomoSacer:Sovereign
Powerand BareLife.Trans.Daniel Heller-
Rozen.Stanford:StanfordUP,1998.
' Gaze.NewYork:Fox Lorber
Theo. Ulysses
Angelopoulos, Studio,Video
ReleaseDate 1997.
Caruth,Cathy.Unclaimed Narrative
Trauma,
Experience: and History.
Balti-
more:JohnsHopkinsUP,1996.
Jacques.OnCosmopolitanism
Derrida, andForgiveness.
NewYork:Roudedge,
2001.
. Archive AFreudian
Fever: Impression.Trans.EricPrenowitz.
Chicago:
Chicago UP, 1995.
. "Violenceand Metaphysics."
WritingandDifference.
Trans.Alan
Bass.Chicago:U ofChicagoP, 1978.
MosesandMonotheism.
Freud,Sigmund. Trans.Katherine
Jones.NewYork:
VintageBooks,1967.
Sarah.Smothered
Kofman, Words.
Trans.MadeleineDobie.Chicago:North-
western
UP,1998.
TheInternational
CriminalTribunal
fortheFormer , CaseNo. It-
Yugoslavia
TheProsecutor
99-37-1, OfTheTribunal Slobodan
Against Milan
Milosevic,
Milutinovic
, NikolaSainovic,
Dragoljub
Ojdanic,Vlajko Avail-
Stojiljkovic.
able at http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ii990524e
.htm
Leonard."Memory
Lawlor, BecomesElectra."Review ofJacquesDerrida,
Archive TheReview
Fever. ofPolitics
60 (Fall 1998):796-798.
Lévinas,Emmanuel.Timeand theOther.
Trans.RichardA. Cohen.Pitts-
burgh:DuquesneUP,1987.
PolinВ. Danieland KennethMandel,Producers.TheTrialofAdolf
Eich-
mann.NewYork:PBS HomeVideo,VideoReleaseDate 1997.
Eric."Translators
Prenowitz, Note.Righton [a meme]."Archive
Fever:
A
FreudianImpression.
Trans.Eric Prenowitz.
Chicago:Chicago UP,
1995.103-112.
YosefHaim.Freud's
Yerushalmi, Moses: Terminable
Judaism andInterminable.
NewHaven:YaleUP,1991.
. Zakhor:
Jewish andJexvish
History NewYork:Shocken,1989.
Memory.

Dragan Kujundžić - "Archigraphia On The Future of Testimony and The Archive To Come"

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dragan Kujundžić - "Archigraphia On The Future of Testimony and The Archive To Come"

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Archigraphia: On the Future of Testimony and the Archive to Come

Author(s): Dragan Kujundžić

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Testimony and the Archive to Come

Remember:no memoryor testimonyis possible withoutthe ar-

Archiveof the Past,Archiveof the Future

JacquesDerrida's Archive Feverstartspreciselybydrawingatten-

This impossiblepressureconsistsof the factthatanyarchiving

that the archive,even of someone who deconstructsthe logic of

Moses and the Tramilaof theArchive

Archive Feverwas writtenas the keynoteaddress at the confer-

merged,as was the Mosaic givingof the lawsprojectedon another

belongsa delay,to whichFreudwillgivethe name of Nachtraeglich-

, of both belonging,and detach-

The Name of the Father

subjectivity"(Yerushalmi1991, 10). It is an attempt,as Derrida

Freud's concept of historicalanalysis(Freud was also a histo-

Everyarchivehas somethingof a jealous God. It imposes the

of translation.Withthe irreplaceablesingularity of a documentto

This sentence,Derridasays,makeshim "tremble"and wonder

the originarydelay.The logic

In the concluding chapter of ArchiveFever,Derrida's book

1939!- "could not have anticipatedthe full horrorof the war"

complete erasure.Leaving onlythe ashes to speak in the absence

Sarajevo: the Gaze of Testimonyand theArchiveof the Other

manywayswiththeviolence takingplace, as exemplifiedbya cyni-

In the amended indictmentof Slobodan Milosevic- a docu-

What happened to them?Whywere theykilled?Whatis the possi-

victims.And all we are now leftwithis thissomber,asceticlist,and

a. Dakovica/Gjakovë: On orabout2 April1999,forces oftheFRYand

As I am readingthisdocument (and myreadingit,today,as it

analogy,and draw your attentionto two featuresof these docu-

tell the storyof her father'sdemise in Auschwitz,Kofmanalso re-

The Testimonyand the Impossibility

In the 1997 documentarymovie about Eichmann's trial,The

concentrationcamp. He would provide the firsthand testimony.

longer,in principle,in law,untouchable,"writesJacques Derrida

The Futureof Testimony,of theArchiveto Come . . .

. . . And yet,and yet,thereis a futureforthe archive,perhaps,

haunt us. What is to-come,the a-venirof archivization,will have

You might also like