Experimenting: Essays with Samuel Weber

Notes

n o t e s introduction 1. Jacques Derrida, ‘‘The Future of the Profession or the University Without Condition (Thanks to the ‘Humanities,’ What Could Take Place Tomorrow ),’’ in Jacques Derrida and the Humanities: A Critical Reader, edited by Tom Cohen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), see 32–33. 2. Cited in Alan Cholodenko’s postface to Mass Mediauras: Form, Technics, Media, edited by Alan Cholodenko (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996). See 232. 3. Samuel Weber, Institution and Interpretation (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001). See xi. 4. See, for example, ‘‘The Future of the Humanities: Experimenting’’ and ‘‘The Future Campus: Destiny in a Virtual World,’’ in Institution and Interpretation (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001). See also the chapters by Susan Bernstein, Gary Hall, and Marc Redfield in this volume. 5. Samuel Weber, Institution and Interpretation (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001). See 149. 6. Samuel Weber, ‘‘Wartime,’’ in Violence, Identity, and Self-Determination, edited by Hent de Vries and Samuel Weber (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997). See 94. 7. Ibid., 101. chapter 1 ‘‘God Bless America!’’ Samuel Weber 1. Alexis de Tocqueville, La démocratie en Amérique, vol. 1 (Paris: Flammarion , 1981). Page references to this work will be given in parentheses in the body of the text. English translations are my own. 2. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment, §15. See my discussion of this passage in Mass Mediauras: Form, Technics, Media (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996), 19ff. 3. See 413–17. 231 232 Notes to Pages 21–22 4. In passing it may be noted that this is a passage where Tocqueville’s text ceases to ‘‘resemble itself,’’ at least in one of the current French editions. The Flammarion version of the text, first published in 1981 and prefaced by Franc ̧ois Furet, renders the passage quoted above as follows: ‘‘J’oppose maintenant les Anglo-Américains le uns uns aux autres,’’ instead of ‘‘les uns aux autres.’’ By singularizing the plural ‘‘les’’ as ‘‘le,’’ the ‘‘definite article’’ loses much of its definition, especially since that which it is supposed to define, the plural collective ‘‘uns,’’ is singularly split by being repeated, as though in a stutter. This repetition, in its very senselessness, inscribes a certain alterity in its series even before the ‘‘others’’ are named and addressed as such ‘‘aux autres.’’ This involuntary dramatization of what Jean-Luc Nancy in a recent book has called Être singulier pluriel (Paris: Editions de Galilée, 1996) recalls not just Freud’s theory of parapraxes, but the essay of one of his bitterest critics, Karl Kraus, ‘‘Ich glaube an den Druckfehlerteufel’’ (I believe in the typo-demon). We will return shortly to this problem of ‘‘addressing the other.’’ That the word uns exists not just in French but also in German, where it no longer designates a plural singular (‘‘ones’’) but rather the accusative form of the ‘‘first person singular’’ (‘‘us’’), can serve as a fortuitous reminder of how the singularly plural medium of language challenges all attempts ‘‘to form a more perfect union’’ of ‘‘We, the people.’’ Much of the political theological relation we are trying to explore is already expressed in the German phrase, Gott mit uns!, which in turn is the modern political translation of what was to be the name of Jesus: ‘‘Immanuel’’ (Cf. Matthew I:21ff). 5. At the time of writing the present chapter, a particularly striking instance of this is provided by the ‘‘preemptive’’ foreign policy of the current U.S. administration, its wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and more generally, the ‘‘war against terror’’ it embarked upon following September 11, 2001. 6. Given the structure of writing, it should be noted that this text is being written at the end of August 2003, some six months after the occupation of Iraq by the United States and the United Kingdom. How long a view the planners of this may have had is open to question: but the ‘‘febrility’’ with which it has been put into practice appears more evident with every passing day. 7. It is worth noting that in American English, at least, the word ‘‘right’’ does not correspond to what in French is designated as Droit or in German as Recht. In political parlance, the word is used only in the ‘‘plural,’’ as we see here, to designate ‘‘rights’’ which involve legitimate claims; even where the objects are intangible, such as ‘‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,’’ rights always imply, in this usage, property rights. One has...