Bataille and Agamben
I have not read any serious Agamben, apart from his Paul book. The question that strikes me after an extremely vague look at his other texts and what I have learnt through philosophical osmosis is: has anyone done anything on Bataille’s concept of heterogenous matter and Agamben dealings with related concepts such as soveignity? For in Bataille, heterogenous matter both constitutes the strange and powerful force external to political community that is thought to be responsible for its constitution, for example, the leader in a fascist state, the Hobbesian king (high) and elements that are forced out of the community, the unclean, the poor, the filthy etc (low). Clearly the latter could be considered something akin to homo sacer, no? Amazon tells me that he refers to Bataille on a few pages of Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, but I am wondering if this is a big engagement or just a passing reference.
I’m of no help, having never read anything by Agamben. However, stimulated by your question, I found reference to this compilation of essays on Homo Sacer which purports to bring Bataille into play. In looking at works cited in this volume, however, I see no references to Bataille. Since the book costs a small fortune it’s probably worth looking at only if the library has a copy.
Thanks for the heads up – $84.95 indeed! I assume thats in hard back. If I decide to pursue it any further I might try and check out a copy.
Bataille is refered to and criticized in some of Agamben’s books (“Homo Sacer”, “The Open – Man and Animal” and maybe also “State of Exception”), however I don’t think he goes very far in discussing Bataille. Somebody with an understanding of Bataille could probably find food for thought there anyway. And why not dismantle the critique? I would find that a very interesting read! I own a copy of “Politics, Metaphysics, and Death” in soft back and I can’t imagine it being extremely expensive. I haven’t read the article on Bataille and Agamben (it seems to be mostly about Agamben’s discussion of “the witness” in “Remnants of Auschwitz”). Nice blog btw!
Bataille’s sovereign is different from Agamben’s. My reading of Bataille around sovereignty leads me to see it with respect to the notion of latent power as within the individual. Bataille’s sovereignty is an experience within a certain gap. Somewhat like jouissance. Pure power, undistilled, unmediated.
Agamben’s sovereignty is marked by the exception. Sovereign power states itself in the ability to create an exception to the rule of law. These are different things and Agamben basically accuses Bataille and Arendt of failing to see the issue of the sovereign exception in power struggles. Bataille had a different project than Agamben though. I love Bataille but I don’t find him useful politically, except perhaps in enlivening the personal.
In this new wave of interest in continental philosophy–and particularly with exponents working from the religious fringe–I’m waiting for someone to take a new look at Franz Rosenzweig’s The Star of Redemption.