Nancy Bataille

8/13/2019 Nancy Bataille

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/nancy-bataille 1/12

The Impossible Sacrifice of Poetry: Bataille and the Nancian Critique of Sacrifice

Author(s): Elisabeth ArnouldSource: Diacritics, Vol. 26, No. 2, Georges Bataille: An Occasion for Misunderstanding(Summer, 1996), pp. 86-96Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1566299 .

Accessed: 05/11/2013 06:56

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 [email protected].

.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Diacritics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.117.18.99 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 06:56:43 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1566299?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/1566299?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup



T H IMPOSSI LES CRIFICE

O P O T R Y

BATAILLEAND THENANCIANCRITIQUE

OF SACRIFICE

ELISABETH RNOULD

When, at the very centerof his InnerExperience,Bataillearrivesat whathe calls the

uppermostxtremityof non-meaning, estagesforusoneof theprincipal cenes of his

sacrificeof knowledge. tdepictsRimbaud, urninghis back on his works,makingthe

ultimateand definitive sacrifice of poetry.This scene, which complementstwo other

representationsof the supplice of the experience-the crucifixion of God and the

oncomingmadnessof Hegel-rounds out thetriplesacrificialvocation of anexperienceof nonknowledge,at once a-theological, a-gnoseological, and a-poetological. t

extendstopoetryand anguage he criticalandsovereign mperativeof anexperience hat

can only be called inner nsofar as it renouncestruth,knowledge, and, ultimately,

speech.What exactly, however,does this sacrificial renunciationof words representfor

Batailleandwhydidhe chooseto load twith allthetransgressiveweightof theexperienceofnonknowledge non-savoir )?Why placethe self-sacrificeofpoetryat theverycenter

of abook thatwouldbeannulledbyan mmolationof speech?Indeed,whymakethisfinal

supplice -a sacrificeof wordsperformedanddedicated to nothing -into the core

of the book's interior apture?sn't thisfigureof deathand silence incurablyequivocal?Does it not attribute he traditional raitsof a nothingness o this rapturous eart of

finitude that Bataille always wanted to designate as the impossible object of his

experience?And is it not,therefore, ondemned o appropriate,hrough hisrepresenta-tion, the nonmeaningof a finitude that Bataille, far from conceptualizingas simple

nothingness,usually prefersto designateambiguouslyas nonknowledge ?Suchare thequestionsI shalladdress nreevaluatingBataille'sconceptof sacrifice

inlightof Jean-LucNancy'scritique. nhisarticle TheUnsacrificeable, Nancywasthe

first to point out the problematic nature of the sacrificial model in Bataille's

conceptualization f finitude.AccordingtoNancy,sacrifice, ncluding heself-sacrifice

of Rimbaud o importantoBataille, s the vehicle of an ontotheological ppropriation.And it is throughsacrificethatBataille's reflectionon finitudeattempts o domesticate

death whileclaiming

to abandon t to theaporetic

enunciationof anonknowledge.I shall thus examine the problematic igure of poetry's self-sacrifice in order to

expose,withNancy,theequivocalityof itsconceptualappropriation.n ightof Bataille's

multiple stagings and interpretations f this figure, however, I shall also attemptto

demonstratehow his writingon and of sacrificealreadycontainsthe seeds of its own

critiqueandattemptsoexceeditself. Batailledid notsimplywant oreveal, nRimbaud's

self-sacrifice,theinexpressible ruthof finitude;he alsowanted o denounce hecomical

lie of the sacrificialappropriation. ndit is thisdouble valenceof the Rimbaldian elf-

sacrifice thatI shall tryto bringforth.

86 diacritics 26.2: 86-96







Beforeelucidating hemeaningandfunctionof thisfigure n thespecificcontextofInner

Experienceandquestioning ts possible duplicity,one mustexaminethe generalnotion

uponwhichit is modeled.Poetry'sself-sacrifice s the consummate orm' of asacrifice

that we find in the form of stagingsand commentaries n Bataille's work.As is well

known,thequestionof sacrificehasalwaysoccupieda centralplaceinBataille'sthought.He hasnotonlystudied hisprotean thnologicalphenomenonwe call sacrifice but has

also wantedto give sacrifice,beyond traditional ontotheological nterpretations nd

recent anthropologicalreconstructions,a meaning that far exceeds these restricted

determinations. acrificeis notsimply,forBataille,a theoreticalobject.A paradigmaticmanifestationfthesacredand tstransgressions,t marks ather limittoconceptualizationandconstitutesastumblingblock tothought.As such,it is, forBataille-or, ashe himself

maintains, for all thought-the locus of an interruption.Cross-culturally,sacrifice

delineates the limit thoughtcomes up againstwhen it faces what it cannot think.

As the negationof ourcorporealandintellectual imits, as the bloody excess that

eruptsbefore the fascinatedeyes of a spectator,sacrifice represents, or Bataille,simultaneouslydeath andinterruption.t is this interruptionhathe proposesas amodel

for his a-theological eflection andwriting.It is thesameinterruptionhatpracticallystructures heentiretyof theexperienceof nonknowledge,since each andeveryform of

thisexperience-mystic, erotic,orpoetic-is definedassacrifice:be it thesacrificeof the

profaneworld,of women'sbodies,orof words.InBataille,sacrificeperforms hetask of

something ike anabsolutecomparative,unifyingunder ts nameall empiricalvariations

of the experience;and it is difficultto find, in all of Bataille'swork,a moreexemplarymodel.

Sacrifice is unquestionably he most prominentmodel in Bataille's thinking offinitude. But it is also, if one acceptsNancy's allegations,themost problematic.While

hopingto findintheexemplarityof sacrificea newparadigm orthethinkingof finitude,

Nancy explains n TheUnsacrificeable, Batailledoesnothingbutresubmit hisfinitude

to the most traditionaldeterminations f ontotheology.Sacrificeremains, n Bataille's

thought,adeficientmodelforfinitude nsofaras itcontinues obeconceptuallydependentontraditional hilosophicalandChristiannterpretationsf sacrifice.Thus,Nancyasserts

that the characteristicvalorization Bataille grantsto the finite and cruel moment of

immolation n hisrethinkingof sacrifice does nothingbutrepeat,by simplyinverting ts

valence,theclassicalinterpretationf anoccidentalsacrificethatconceives itself as the

ideal sublationof this samemoment.

The philosophicaland Christianversion of sacrifice is understoodas the spiritualtransformationf a sacrificialmomentthefinite natureof which it denounceseven as it

appropriatests power.The Bataillianversion,on the contrary, nsists upon this finite

moment in order o escapethe dialecticalcomedythattransforms acrificeintoanideal

process.Performedn the name of spiritual ebirth,hesacrifices of Plato andChrist, or

instance,reappropriateeathby transfiguringt as resurrection.Grotesqueandrepletewithhorrors,death nBatailleappearsaloneonastagewhosecruelty s neitherexplainednor redeemedthrough ransfiguration. hus,Bataille withholdsnothingfrom the scene

of sacrificebutlets it emergein thefullness of its amorphousviolence.He valorizes itssanguinaryhorrornorder odenounce he dialectic dealizationof adeathnothingshould

domesticate.He exhibits it as it is :opaque,silent,andwithoutmeaning.

According oNancy,however,thevalorization tselfremainscaught nthesacrificial

logic of the idealist tradition.For, he argues, only in light of its ontotheological

conceptualizationansacrificebecome at oncethe nfiniteprocessofdialecticalsublationand theblood-spatteredmomentthisprocessbothnegatesandsublates,simultaneously

1. Consummateacrifice is the termBataille chooses todesignatea completesacrificethat

opposes itsperfectand total immolation opoetry's incompleteorpartialdestructionof words.

diacritics / summer 1996 87







aversandcontests.The Bataillian hesis,granting fficacyandtruth reality) osacrificial

cruelty,is irremediablyinked to the processesof dialecticizationand spiritualization

throughwhichthephilosophicalandChristianWestappropriateshepowerof sacrifice.

It is the cruelcounterpart f its idealization.And if this conception gives to sacrificial

deathanimportanceproportionally pposite

to thatwhich it receivesfromthe Christian

andphilosophical ransfiguration-sincethefinitetruthof deathplaysatpresent herole

of the infinite truthof resurrection-it still does nothingbutrepeat ts ontotheologicalscheme.For it also pretends o find,on thecruelstageof sacrifice,a singularandmore

real ruthof death.The stage of the torment s, for Bataille,thatplace where death

appearswith the full strengthof a nonmeaning hat can be exposed only throughthe

immolationof the sacrificial victim. If this is so, then should we not supposethat this

immolationpretendingo give us the inappropriable ruthof death'srapture ppropri-atesinits turn he excess of the excessive meaningof thisrapture?Does it not transform

its excess intoan excessivetruth, o be sureanegativeone,thoughnoless absolute han

thephilosophicalandspiritual ruths o which it opposes itself?At the heart of modern theories of sacrifice is thus, as Nancy puts it, a

transappropriationf sacrifice by itself, even when, as is the case for Bataille, this

theorytries to overcomesacrifice'sspiritualoperation hroughanexcessive andvolatile

negativity.As soonas sacrificethinks tself as revelation,be it thatof a spiritualbeyondorits negativecounterpart,t remainsa sacrifice n thenameof its own transcendence,

loopholeto a finitudepowerlessto think tself in termsother thanthose of a revelation:

therevelationof aclearor obscuregod, symbolof resurrection r of death's blindhorror.

If one wants to think finitudeaccording o a model differentfromthatof its sacrificial

appropriation, ne should think apart rom sacrifice. If finitudeis, as Bataille hashimselfwanted othink,an accesswithoutaccess toamomentof disappropriation, hen

we mustalso call it unsacrificeable Nancy30].Jean-LucNancygrants hatBataillewas conscious of thefailureof asacrificewhose

nostalgiahedenouncedwhiletrying oexceed itstheological mpasse hrough reflection

onartandpoetry.But he is quicktoadd hat his reflection s abortivensofaras itremains

structured y the sacrificialmodel it wants to undo.Itis atthisjuncture hatI wouldlike

to situatemorepreciselymy analysisof theRimbaldian igure.For it is possiblethatthe

veryfigureconfirmingNancy's suspicionofBataille's latentontotheologicalallegiancesis also the

pointat which we canwitness the

emergencen Bataille of a

thoughtnexcess

of or apart romsacrifice(to use Nancy's terminology n TheUnsacrificeable ).For

at thevery pointatwhichNancylocatestheaporian Bataille'squestioningof sacrifice-

hisreflectionsonartandpoetry-something elseandsomethingquiteapartromwhathas

upto now beenapprehended eems to be takingplace.

Let us return o this figure.To betterunderstandhe context of its sacrifice, t is now necessary o recallwhat is

for Bataillethe experiencewhose most nearlyextrememanifestations representedbyRimbaud's elf-immolation.The inner xperience, ccording o the definitiongivenby

the book bearingthis name, respondso the necessityin which I find myself-humanexistence with me-of challenging everything(of putting everythinginto questionwithoutpermissiblerest ( r6pondAa n6cessit6oi je suis - l'existencehumaineavec

moi----demettre outencause(enquestion)sansreposadmissible ) IE3;El 15].By wayof an incessant contestation, t answers hewill toreach thisepistemologicalnothing-nesswhichforms the brinkof knowledgeand to which thefinitudeof existenceexposesus. It is thus with the unknown hatthe Bataillianexperience attempts o engage an

encounter. tsempty nterioritys what hedisparateormsof itsrapturelaughter,poetry,

mysticismandsacrifice)would like to be able to bring orth.It is easy toguess,however,

that this unknown, which resists thinking and its discourses, similarly resists all

88







appropriative entureson thepartof theexperience,however excessive themodalityof

its discursiveorsensorialrapturemaybe. The unknown s never manifest. It does not

offer itself as suchto whomeverwishes to seize it. Bataille, n fact,is not even interested

in the unknown. Rather,heis interestednthemysteryof itsmechanism,nwhatpersistsas witness oits withdrawal.t s,onecouldsay,theknowledgeand, neffect,nonknowledge,of the unknown, non-savoir, hatmakesup whatBataille calls the experience.(This

experiencehasnothing odo with the Sartreanxperience, he existentialexperiencethat

comes toknowand oknowitselfby wayofself-production:tisnot theexperiencewhose

existenceproduces ts essence.)Rimbaud's sacrifice of poetry is the answerof the Bataillianexperience to this

paradoxof an unknown mpervious o anyformof experience.Everyothermodalityof

experiencethat Bataille proposesin InnerExperience s unable to preserve ts alterity.

Mysticismsubordinatestsraptureo therevelationof a divinefoundation, heimagesof

poetry give too familiara form toits mystery,anderoticismalwaysends up limitingits

desiretotheconjugalpossessionof itsobject.Theinnerexperienceandtheprimaryormsof its raptureare insufficient. Their initial sacrifice remains all too partialsince it

conserves-in its mystic, poetic, or erotic destructionof meaning-the possibility of

enunciating hemeaningof thisdestruction. tis thusnecessary oimagine,withBataille,a second sacrifice, a sacrifice to the second degree, able to present,in its repeatedimmolation,the abolitionof the meaningof destruction till conservedin the initial

sacrifice. Such a sacrifice, which Bataille calls a sacrifice in which everythingis a

victim ( unsacrifice oii tout est victime )[IE 152;El 175],is thatof Rimbaud, urninghis backonpoetry:sacrificing heverypossibilityof enunciating speaking,articulating)

his sacrifice.This versionof a sacrificewithoutreserve of speechis thustheabstract quivalent

of the cruel sacrifice Bataille is wont to presentas the authenticversionof sacrificein

general.If Batailleusuallyfocuses his gazeuponthesacrificialmomentwhenthe blood

of the victimbearswitness to therealityorfinitudeof death,heinsistshere,analogically,

uponthepainof the Rimbaldian enunciation. tis thispainthattestifiesto theauthentic

characterof the poetic death and its silence. And for its part, it is this silence that

guaranteesherealityof anunknownwhosefataltruth houldbe neither piritualizednor

verbalized.But theprivilegegiventothesilent and ethalefficacyof asupposedly total

sacrifice must be interrogated.The ambiguityof this sacrificewithoutreserve weighsuponall themodalities of

the innerexperienceandbears rrevocablyuponalleffortstodesignatesomething ike an

effective ortruthful viridique)-that is, appropriable-characterof finitude.But,to be

entirelyclear,let usreformulate he dilemma:either hesacrificeof poetrydisappears o

completelyinits silence that t is nolongeranythingbutthecompleteabsence of thought

uniqueto what Hegel called abstractnegativity;or it conceptualizes tself in and as a

disappearance hat t accordinglydialecticizesand masters.Inthis secondalternative-

theonlysignificantonesince the first s,asHegel emphasized,merelyabstract:hinking's

aporia-death and its silence wouldhaveto, again,becomethe consciousness of their

owndisappearing.Yet whatdifference-outside ofasymmetrical eversion-could therebe between the subjectof metaphysicswho survives his own disappearanceand this

nocturnalsubject of the sacrificial experiencewhose true disappearance s also his

supremeaffirmation:his rebirth.

A moredetailedanalysisof InnerExperiencewoulddemonstratehow some of the

descriptionsBataillegives of theapparently total Rimbaldian elf-sacrificebetray ustsuchadialectics and tsnegativesacrificial ubject.Thevocabularyandagreatpartof the

thematic Bataille associates with Rimbaud's sacrificetestify to it. Bataille writes, for

example,of what he calls Rimbaud' virile decisionandgoes on to saythatthisdecision,

opposed othefemininepassivityof thepoet,is virileandsovereignonlywhen itwillfully








90







chooses its own death.He finallyaddsthat this voluntarydeath is the conditionof self-

rebirth see El 53]. In this topical oppositionbetween virile decisiveness andfeminine

passivity, in this decisive, voluntarydeath of self-sacrifice presentingitself as the

condition of a rebirth, t is difficult not to hearthe echoes of the voluntarismdistinctive

of themetaphysicalsubject

whose decisionism transforms oss into rebirth and thus

accomplishesthe dialectical taskof his own mastery.But if finitude thus appropriatestself in a self-sacrificethatreveals its truth, f it

becomes its own subject, how can we, once again,make a difference between the

philosophical,Christian ersionof sacrificeand hemodernBataillian nterpretation? o

theynot entertain he samegoal: masteryof theunthinkable xcess of finitude?And do

theynot bothpretend o manifesta truthof theexperienceof nonknowledge:a truth hat

is, on the one hand,thatof an ideal or divine resurrectionand,on the other,a purelyimmanentbut nonethelesspresentable ealityof death?

The figureof a self-immolatingRimbaudand the innerexperience t embodiesare,

intentionallyornot,analogous ndesignandpurpose o theontotheological iguresof theidealist and dialectical tradition.And this particular acrificialfigure is all the more

suspect in that it recasts and replays the much-talked-about sacrifice of poetryconstitutiveof theWesternphilosophical radition. tis scarcely necessary o remind he

reader hatthe emblematicscene of the birthof philosophy n theWest hastraditionallybeenrepresentedbothby the sacrifice of thepoetin thepublicsquareandthe legendarytale of self-sacrificedepicting young Platoburninghis poems. Now, Bataille, it would

seem,is merelyreproducinghese scenes. Hisversionresituatesheimmolationof poetryin the contextof a nonknowledge,but this new contextdoes not alter the fundamental

identity of the meaning and purpose of these sacrifices. Plato's sacrifices sought todemonstratehattruth, houghhidden, s accessiblethrough he sacrificialmachination

of a philosophicaldialectic.Similarly,Bataille reasserts hatfinitude,thoughabsent,is

accessiblethrough henegativityandself-immolationof theexperience.JustasPlatoand

Socrates nformedusthat, norder o obtain heideainitspurity, tmustfirstbeabstracted

from the verbiageof representationalalsificationby way of sacrificing hefalsifier,the

mimetician, o Bataille nformsusthatonlya sacrificeofpoetrywillallowtheexperienceto achieve the innervoid of its nonknowledge.

Hence,theexperienceseparatests inner ruth rom apoeticexteriority hatcould

only simulate, as Bataille himself often writes, itsabsence. And it is as this inner

presence-to-itself f absence presence-a-soide l'absence ) hatBatailleseems to be

conceptualizing initude. Finitude s the impossiblepresence hat one mustpreserveandpurifythrougharenewedsacrificeof meaning.How canwe thusavoidthinking hat

suchanexperience, ntentuponwresting ts finitude rom hebadrepetitionof amimesis,notonly misjudgesthenatureof finitudebut also the natureof a poetrywhose mimetic

imposture ouldactually,asNancysays,teachus a few thingsabout he impossible -or inappropriable -nature f finitude tself.

If thisanalysissupportsNancy's general ntuitionconcerningBataille'sambiguous

theoryof sacrifice,it also supportshis evaluationof Bataille'sthinkingon art.Nancy

asserts that Bataille has notbeen able to overcome the impasseof sacrificethroughhisreflectionon artsince this reflection s structured ccording o an idealsacrificialmodel.InInnerExperience,wherenotonlysacrificebutalsopoetry' valuearemeasuredagainstRimbaud'sself-sacrifice, this is indeed the case. Here, Bataillecontinues to measure

poetic efficacy accordingto the degree of its self-sacrificial truth.In so doing, he

reproducesa classical critiqueof mimesis,poetry,andwriting,2 nd seems incapableof

2. JacquesDerrida in his articleonBataille entitled Del'dconomierestreinte lI'&conomiegendrale had alreadynotedthiscomplicityof theBatailliancritique of writingwithPlatonistic

writing.








thinkingpoetry-that is, a certain ypeof sacrifice,withoutcrueltyandwithouttruth-

as theaccesswithoutaccess to a momentof disappropriation Nancy30]. Itwouldlead

us too farastray,at thispoint,todevelopa carefulreadingof thisfigureandto showhow

its variousinstantiations upport his claim.However,a rapidglanceat the text already

gives clear indications that Bataille's poetics borrows most of its features from thetraditional dealist critiqueof poetry and its mimesis. The privilege, for example,accordedto silence in InnerExperience-to the immediacyof something like lived

experience,to ecstasy-is quite telling in thisregard. t gives credenceto the argumentthat Bataille reenactsthe classical gestureof denouncing poetry,indeed, all forms of

imitation,asextraneousandthuscontingentwithrespect o theinner ruthof whichtheyaremeresimulacra.The book of theexperienceaboundswithpassagesopposingtrueand

false,outerand nner,apparentndrealsacrificesofpoetry. topposestopoetry'shabitual

comic acrifice,whichretains n its survivingwordsthefallacyof meaning,a trueand

interiorself-sacrificeof wordswhere total immolationofspeechgives

birthto a more

telling silence. In InnerExperience,the contestation f poetry,far fromobeying the

perpetualquestioningcalled forbytheBatailliannonknowledgeof finitude,observesthe

law of truth, acquiesces to its oppositional and sacrificial dialectic. It serves an

ontotheologicalpurpose,as hasalwaysbeen thecaseina traditionwherethedenunciation

of poetry is the dialectical condition of philosophy's ascendance.Here, however, in

Bataille,it is the sacrificialrebirthof theexperienceof nonknowledge o whichit gives

way. Finally,we oughtto pointoutthat theprivilegeaccorded o silence thatstructures

Bataille'sentirecontestationof poetry s so essential that t providesboththemodel andthemeof theexperienceandofthe bookoftheexperience.ForBataillehasrefused,despite

thenecessary iterary haracter f thebook,togiveapoeticmodel totheinnerexperience.Marredby contestation,literatureand poetry are accordedonly a minor role. It is

mysticism,its silentrapture,hatoccupiescenterstage.3

Thus,poetryappears orBatailleas the restricted art lapartrestreinte ) f an

experiencethatcould,in its purity,do without t. Itonlyappends tself to its rapture nd

separatesrom tselfanexperience hat s authentic nlyin itsself-sacrificialpresentationof silence anddeath.In thisrespect, heBatailliancontestation f poetrydoes nothingbutecho the mostancientrumorsof thetradition.Andthenegativefigureof Rimbaud'sself-

sacrifice,which grounds ts critique,canonly be thoughtas the very representionof an

ontotheologicalexperienceof finitude.

But,onceagain,thingsare notso simple.TheyareforBataille atonce less equivocalandmuchmoreambiguous.ThefigureI havepresentedupto now as anideal illustrationofthe impossible might reveal itself to be less a figureof the impossible, that is, asubstantialpresentation f anexperienceof nothingness,andmorea figureof impossi-bility ( figured'impossibilit6 ),presenting, ogetherwithits ontotheological nterpre-tation,the structural ndecidabilityof its sacrifice. Itwouldbe easy to demonstrate hatBataille quickly refuses to ascribemeaning to Rimbaud'sself-sacrifice. I could, for

example,examineotherpassagesof the Supplice TheTorment ),n whichBatailleconteststhevoluntarism f Rimbaud's enunciation-the voluntarismwe saidsupporteda dialecticalinterpretationf Rimbaud'sgesture-to interprett insteadas a weakness

[seeE164,65]. But itis moreeconomical nthisinstance,giventhenecessarysketchinessof the demonstration,o turndirectlyto a section of the book entitled Digressionon

3. Thisassertionneedsofcourseto benuanceda bitsinceBatailleisfarfromblindlyacceptinga mysticalmodel or his innerexperience.Frommysticism,Bataillewantsto keeponlytheexcess

of itsrapture.He categoricallyrefusestherevelation hatthisraptureultimatelybringsandgrantsonlya mixedvalue to its silence. Itremainstrue,however,that thesubstitutionof a mystical or a

poetic model ofexperience

indicates arefusalof writing

andmimesis,

which isambiguouslytraditional.

92







PoetryandMarcelProust Digressionsur a po6sieet MarcelProust ) IE 135-52; El

156-75], wherethetreatment f thisfiguredifferssubstantially.Wecansee herenotonlya refusalto ascribemeaningto Rimbaud's self-sacrificebutalso an overturningof the

sacrificial ogic andof the poetics it seems to inaugurate.4In the

Digression,he

figureof Rimbaud s, once

again,presentedas

exemplary.It is thus offeredup,as are all the figuresof the Nouvelleth6ologiemystique, o a sort

of imitatio.Earlierin the section, the readerwas asked to imitate the torment of the

crucifiedgod to betterunderstand,hrough his new and radicalversionof the imitatio

christi,therapturous poriaof a new mystical a-theology. He is askedatpresent withthe same aporeticpurpose)to imitate the momentof the poetical ammasabachtani

where thedesperate rucifixionof wordsdefines the impossible aws of anewpoetics.Rimbaud'sadieu to poetry,its dedicationto the aporiaof the impossible, '5hus

outlinesfor Bataille henew field of a modernpoetics.As heasserts nthe Digression,Rimbaudhas extended he possible f poetry y suppressingt orhissuccessors.

No poetof todaywho claims to have heardandunderstoodRimbaud's arewelltopoetrycancontinue osimplywritepoetry.Hemust, nhiswriting, ake ntoaccountRimbaud's

silentcontestation contestationansphrases ),mitate ts sacrifice,and writeunder

the imperativeof its impossibility.But what does it mean: to heara silentcontestation and imitateits sacrificial

gesture?In whatdoes this imitationconsist?How can one write sacrificeor, for that

matter, heimpossibilityofwriting?Andhowcan oneimitateagesture hat,or so it seems,forever forbids all imitation?Whatcan it possibly mean, then,to imitatea sacrificethatwould be the annihilationof the instruments f imitationandthat would thuscondemn

Rimbaud'sposterity o apoeticsof silence andits absenttruth?Bataille answers hisdilemmabypresentingwoversionsof theimitatiopoetae.The

first, which he clearlycriticizes, is that of the Surrealists: t is, for Bataille, a clearlyontotheologicalrenderingof imitation,a version thatremainsessentiallyfaithfulto an

interpretationf the impossible as truthandto a traditional onceptionof poetry.Thesecond is the imitation f RimbaudbyProust:animitation hat s notreallyanimitation

but,rather,whatone could call animitationby excess, or theexcess of imitation,of an

impossible sacrifice. But let us first examine the Surrealist mitationof Rimbaud'ssacrifice.

TheSurrealists rethosewho,according

o Bataille, nepouvaient

suivreRimbaud,ils ne pouvaientque l'admirer couldnot follow Rimbaud; hey could only admire

him ) [IE148;El 171].OnemustbeattentiveheretowhatthesetermssayandrememberthatBataillehadpreviously, n Lavaleurd'usagede D. A. F. deSade 1929), criticizedthe Surrealists or theiradmiration f Sade. We will not examinethistext here,but it isuseful to notethat, nboth nstances, heobjectof Bataille'scritique s admiration: gazethatexemplifiesitsobjecttothepointof immobilization.ToadmireRimbaud' renuncia-tion orSade'sviolenceis todecideupon tsmeaninganddelimit tspower.Itis, asDenisHolliersaidwithgreatprecision, hypostasier'exces d'une violence that one can thus

4. It is importantomentionherethatthecontestationofthisfiguretakesplace ina digressionon poetry located at the heart of the most importantsection of the book, The New MysticalTheology ( Lanouvelletheologiemystique ). t is quitetellingthatthisnew theology,entirelybased on thehypothesisofa total and unrestrictedacrifice unsacrificeoi toutest victime ( a

sacrificein whicheverythings victim ),shouldhave,in its verycenter,thepoetic contestationofthefigure that was to guaranteeits truth.Thisstructuralanomalyrendersquiteimprobable hatinner experience'sstrict allegiance to a traditionalinterpretationof its self-sacrifice, and the

paradoxof its mise en abimecannot be neglected.5. Letusremember hatthisword,whichservesas thetitleofone ofthe mostimportantpoems

of Unesaison en enfer, became, or Bataille, the substitutenamefor the a-poetics or a-

poetology he tried to definealong withhis newmysticala-theologyin InnerExperience.

diacritics I summer 1996 93







mettrehorsd'usage ( neutralize ) s well as mettre nr6serve save )[186]. This

first theoreticaloperationallowsthe Surrealistso ascribemeaningto impossibilityand

to reveal ahidden truth.Once this impossibility s determinedas the presentabsence

of a beyond,one candeclare ts idealpurity o be beyondthereach of allrepresentation

(itis indeedabsent),but one can alsoimitate ts sacrificial ruthmore orless faithfully(itis indeedpresent).WhatBataillecalls the holocaust f words L'holocaustedemots )

[IE 146;El 169] of the Surrealists retends obejustsuch a faithful mitation.Sacrificingwordsthrough heclashof thesurrealisticmage,it saysfarewell to ordinarymeanings,dedicatesconceptsandnotions osilence whilekeepingaliveandwell theexpression, he

wordingof thissilence.Surrealist oetrycan thushaveitbothways: t cansacrificewords

andyet wordthissacrifice.Itcanexpresstheimpossibleand be theliteral mitationof a

sacrifice thatwas to be literally mpossible: o be theliteralaffirmation f impossibility.This imitatiopoetae, which literalizes and imitatesRimbaud'sself-sacrifice and

which condemnspoetryto a kind of finalsolution, s not what Batailleadvocates.The

text of the Digression s unambiguouslycritical of the surrealist nterpretation fRimbaud's mmolation: he holocaust f words s not a true mitationof its sacrifice

of meaning. Insofar as it believes to be able to reserve and reproduce, o, in a word,

appropriatets excessof truth, t betrays his excess. And it is Proust,rather han the

Surrealists,who,withoutadmiringRimbaud, anfollow inhis footstepsandabandon he

excess of his sacrifice to a truthwithouttruth: hatof an imitationor writingwithout

guarantor r model.

For Proustby no means admiresRimbaud.He does not pretendto reproducehis

sacrifice and to have access to the singular, nimitable ruthof his renunciation.Onthe

contrary,he appears, n Bataille's text, as one who radically opposes himself to theRimbaldianself-sacrifice, since, far fromsacrificingpoetry,he sacrificeshimself for

poetry.The Proustian elf-sacrifice,however,does notsimplyopposeitself toRimbaud'sacrifice.It does notsimplyreduce t to anotherontotheologicalversion(abetter-known

one),wherethe author acrificeshismortality or theimmortality f thepoetic oeuvre.For Proust,Bataille claims, sacrifices himself for his work ( se sacrifie pour son

oeuvre ),but thiswork is itself sacrifice cetteoeuvre est elle-meme sacrifice )[IE151;El 175].What, hen, s themeaningof thisformula,andwhyshouldwe maintain hat

this is the point at which something like the excess of truth of the Rimbaldianand

Proustian elf-sacrificesexposes itself?Let us return o the statement: he works,that is to say, thegoddess to whom we

sacrifice s herselfsacrifice, earswepttothepointofdying cettedeesse'

laquellenoussacrifionsest elle-memesacrifice,larmespleur6esusqu't en mourir ) IE 151,transla-tionmodified;El 175].What arewe to make of this tautology?Whatdoes it mean to

performa sacrifice to sacrifice ?One usually sacrifices to a God, to an ideal. One

sacrifices,as Proustdid, to a work,to a meaninganda truth, n orderto producethat

meaningand thattruth.Accordingto thestrange autologyof anintentionanda gesturethat nevercoincide, to performa sacrificeto sacrificecan meannothingother than to

sacrifice for sacrifice.The sacrifice tosacrifice s a sacrificethatcan nevertakeplace,a

sacrifice hatperformstselfastheimpossibility,oras theindefinitelyheld-uppossibility,of its realization.To offer a sacrificeto sacrifice is also to sacrificesacrifice itself. Andthe self-sacrifice of Proust not only repeats Rimbaud's negating gesture but also

emphasizes ts nonmeaning.For this formulation learlyindicatesthatthis lastsacrificeis not held up to a sacrificialtruth,be it positive or negative, spiritualor immanent.Sacrificedoes not sacrifice to the revelationof its nothingness.It sacrificessimply to

sacrifice,to the indefiniteadjournment f its day of revelation.Like Rimbaud urningaway frompoetry,it, in the classical sense of the term,apostrophizes6 acrifice,turns

6. In classical Greek,apostrophemeant iterally toturnaway and wasused todesignatethemovementof the chorus.

94







away, sacrificesto ( inorder o and to )sacrifice.

While concealing t,Proust husrepeats hetruthofRimbaud'sgesture.Heasserts,

onthe onehand, hatsacrifice s impossible, hat tisnothingbut anaccesswithoutaccess

to a momentof disappropriation, uthe also assertsthatthispowerlessandimpossibletruth s notthatof a suppressionof poetry.Rather, t is throughpoetry,the infinitequest( recherche ) f an effectivity of sacrifice,that is always already ost-past or yet to

come. Accordingly,one can say that Proust mitatesRimbaud,but he imitates him in a

sense thatmustbe distinguished romtheSurrealists'understanding f the term.Proust

presents he true ersionoftheimitatiopoetae:hepresentsapoiesis imitationior,better,a poiesisof imitation. ProustmitatesRimbaud r,rather, eobligesRimbaud o imitate

himself,obliges sacrificeto sacrifice,to imitate, tself andthusto adjourn heinevitable,the realizationof a hiddenorpotential ruth, n thenameof whatis merelypossible, or,what is the same, in the name of the impossibilityof fully achieving its potentialand

becoming its oeuvre. His is not a literal imitation of Rimbaud's immolation, not a

meta-,a sur-real,mmolation,as itmustbe for theSurrealists,whobelievethemselves na positionto copy the transmissible ruthof his holocaust.7Proust,rather,mimics thesimulacrum f theRimbaldian acrifice.Refusingtobelieve thatself-sacrificepossessesanythingbeyondtheinarticulate ecret of anexcess ordifference,he offers this sacrificetothe ncessantrepetitionof amimesisthatcanonlywrite tsconcealment. fsacrificecan,indeed,onlyaddress tsimmolation oitsownimpossibility,whatelse can tdo thanrepeata gesturethatasserts both its necessityand its uselessness,a gesturethatcan no longerdistinguishbetween its realityand its simulacrum,betweena realdeathandits poetic

rendition.8And if this sacrifice is nothingbut its own simulacrum,what can it do but

indefinitelywrite thetragicomicstoryand vainhopeof its end or vain hankering or itsorigin?

Proust thus writes the comedy andhopeless hope of sacrifice. He writes toward

Rimbaud;he writes toandawayfromRimbaud'ssacrifice.His quest( recherche ),heworkthatbears t, is thealwaysrenewed llusion of animmolation hatescapesandwhosefinite truthcan neverbe presented.There is no timeregained tempsretrouv6 )ofsacrifice.It is to be foundneither n silence nor in thewritingwhere it loses itself. Andthis loss of sacrificeasserts hat initude s, asNancydeemsit, unsacrificeable. initudecannotberevealed hrough hesacrificeof writing.Rather,tsontotheologicalrevelationcanbe concealedthrougha writing f sacrifice. It is only through hiswritingthatthe

inappropriable, r impossible, haracterof finitudecan emerge.

It is atthispoint nBataille'stext,theimitationof Rimbaud's elf-sacrificebyProust, hatthe traditionalogic of sacrifice and its accompanyingcriticismof poetryareupturned.Proust'sinterpretationf theRimbaldian elf-sacrifice,his writingof its impossibility,

7. In his critiqueofthe Surrealists see inparticularthe article 'La'vieilletaupe'et leprefixesurdans es mots'surhomme' t 'surr6alistes '), atailleidentifiedhesur nsurrealism sevidence

oftheiressentially meta -physicaleanings: theirfaith n thepossibilityoftheoreticallydepictingthe

experiential,of discoveringits

adequaterepresentation,metaphor,or

meta-articulation.8. InthelastsectionofInnerExperience,Batailleunderlines, nhiswritingplay, the ictitiouscharacterofall effective xperiencesofdeath. Byintroducing,for xample, nthevery astpagesof the book, a staging of his own death, whose purpose is, once again, to testify to a certain

authenticityof death-since thatdeath is the totalsacrifice of the bookand its author-Bataille

presentsthisstagingas a comedyentitled Pureand UltimateJestingofFever [157] ( Derniere

plaisanteriede lafivre [181]). Also, thisself-sacrifice,meanttopresenttheabsolutelyuniquecharacterof the inimitablemomentof death,is the exactpalimpsestof a textbyProustquotedinInnerExperience.Themostauthenticmomentof death is thus or Bataille the comic repetitionofa romanesqueandfictivedeath. It is neveruniqueandoriginal,anditspresentation s nothingbuttheperpetualrepetitionof its fiction, 'comedy,or imposture, which s,for Bataille,theonly

real characterof death.








shows us how to exceedtheontotheologyof sacrificeand its negativedialectics.Instead

of sublatingits sacrificialgesturein the truthof its negative transappropriation,his

writing,nevercoincidingwithitself,exhibits he fact that he truthof appropriations lost

in asacrificialgesture hatcanonlywrite, hat s, imitate tsownimpossiblesimulacrum.

In otherterms,

sacrificecanonly

write itself over and overbecause what it seeks to

overcome is what makes its gestureboth necessaryand necessarilyextraneous,not

coincidentalbutmerelyincidental:heinappropriabilityf anexcess neitherpresentnor

absent.InInnerExperience,sacrifice does notpresentus with a truth hatsublates and

spiritualizes ts negation.Itpresentsus with thepoeticorapostrophic aw of its failure.

It exposes whatNancy wishes to call the unsacrificeable haracterof finitude.

WORKSCITED

Bataille,Georges.InnerExperience.Albany:SUNY P, 1988.[IE]Trans. f L'experienceintirieure. Paris:Gallimard,1943. [EI]

. La valeur d'usage de D. A. F. de Sade. 1929. Oeuvres compl'tes. Paris:

Gallimard,1970.2: 54-72.

. La 'vieille taupe'et le prefixesur dans les mots 'surhomme' t 'surrealistes.'

Oeuvrescompletes.Paris:Gallimard,1970. 2: 92-109.

Derrida,Jacques. De l'6conomie restreinte&l'6conomie g6n6rale. L'dcritureet la

diffrrence.Paris:Seuil, 1967. 369-407.

Hollier,Denis. Laprise de la concorde:Essais sur GeorgesBataille. Paris:Gallimard,1974.

Nancy,Jean-Luc. The Unsacrificeable. YaleFrench Studies79 (1991): 20-38.

96

Nancy Bataille

Documents

Transcript of Nancy Bataille