Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:39:33.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Language of Dark Times. Canetti, Klemperer and Benjamin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2024

Olivier Remaud*
Affiliation:
Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

What relationship is there between violence and language?* What happens when language is the main target of attack? We should perhaps begin by defining the inner logic of violence, and then tackle the question of the monstrous hybrid it has created with language. In one of the texts that make up the collection entitled Difficile Liberte’, Lévinas remarks that violent action is an ‘action where one acts as if one were the only actor: as if the rest of the universe existed only to receive the action; thus every action is violent that we suffer without wholeheartedly collaborating in it’. So violence has two characteristics. On the one hand, it is fed by a fundamental illusion, that is, a fiction of the will that imagines it is so super-powerful and autonomous that it thinks that by itself it can decide the fate of ‘the rest of the universe’. On the other hand, it is never an authentic action, because it prevents others from owning it and becoming co-actors themselves. Thinking perhaps of Spinoza, Lévinas suggests that violence comes into being from the moment when individuals decide to stop being part of the ordinary world of actions and think, ‘like an empire within an empire’, they are the unique cause of their acts and gestures. This subjective decision is clearly a control decision that contradicts the requirement of common sense, which is to be understood here as a sense of the community. It leads inexorably to consigning others to the world of effects in order more easily to turn them into eternal victims. In Dostoevsky's The Idiot, Prince Mishkin perfectly embodies the figure of the other who continually ‘receives’ the action. But when interplay between the will and its own mirrors becomes excessive, individuals always end up confusing the reality of the world with the exaggerated trust they put in their own prejudices. Since the analyses of the psychiatrist Minkowski at least, we know quite well that the more the certainty naturally accompanying the prejudice increases and expands until it borders on madness, the more violence is likely to grow.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © ICPHS 2000

References

Apart from the texts quoted in the notes, the following are recommended:Google Scholar
Adorno, T.W. (1991), Minima moralia. Réflexions sur la vie mutilée, translated by E. Kaufholz and J.R. Ladmiral (Paris, Payot).Google Scholar
Benvéniste, E. (1974), 'Le langage et l'expérience humaine’, in Problèmes de linguistique générale (Paris, Gallimard), vol. II, pp. 6778.Google Scholar
Bodei, R. (1995), Libro della memoria e della speranza (Bologna, Il Mulino).Google Scholar
Esposito, R. (1988), Categorie dell'impolitico (Bologna, Il Mulino).Google Scholar
Faye, J.P. (1972), Langages totalitaires (Paris, Hermann).Google Scholar
Havel, V. (1990), Essais politiques (Paris, Calmann-Lévy).Google Scholar
Milosz, C. (1988), La pensée captive. Essai sur les logocraties populaires, translated by A. Prudhommeaux and the author (Paris, Gallimard).Google Scholar
Mosse, G.L. (1999), De la Grande Guerre au totalitarisme. La brutalisation des sociétés européennes, translated by E. Magyar (Paris, Hachette).Google Scholar
Tchakhotine, S. (1992), Le viol des foules par la propagande politique (Paris, Tel-Gallimard). Young, J.W. (1991), Totalitarian Language: Orwell's Newspeak and its Nazi and Communist Antecedents (Charlottesville, University Press of Virginia).Google Scholar