the unsacrificeable - nancy

8/14/2019 The Unsacrificeable - Nancy

1/20

The UnsacrificeableAuthor(s): Jean-Luc Nancy and Richard LivingstonReviewed work(s):Source: Yale French Studies, No. 79, Literature and the Ethical Question (1991), pp. 20-38Published by: Yale University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2930245.

Accessed: 10/02/2013 08:13

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].

.

Yale University Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Yale French

Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yalehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2930245?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2930245?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yale


2/20

JEAN-LUC NANCY

The Unsacrificeable*

Contemporaryeflectionn sacrifice annotnot behauntedby the thoughtofBataille.Ofthisthought tself,will bespeakingater n; for hemoment,I will merely emark ponthreedistinctive raits hatgive t an exemplarycharacter:1) Bataille'sthought ertainly oesnot arisebychance orby ndividualwhim. It linksup emphaticallywitha whole context-sociological, eth-nological, ndanthropologicaln theonehand,philosophical, heological,andpsychoanalyticnthe other-that determinedt nthefirst alf fthiscentury. Amongmanyotherpossible confirmationsne could refer, orinstance, o the workofGeorgesGusdorf, 'Experience umainedu sacri-fice,published n 1948after avingbeen undertakenncaptivity. 1 hileGusdorf's erspectives entirely ifferentromBataille's (whomGusdorfnevertheless newpersonally nd cites in his text), henetwork f refer-ences,the mportancettributedotheobject, nd tsreaching or he deaofa necessary overcoming f sacrifice estifyo a largecommunity f con-cern at thetime,aboveandbeyond hesymptomatic alue ofthe two au-thors Gusdorf, 67).2) Bataille'sthoughts well-known o be notonlymarked y particularinterestn sacrifice, ut obsessedandfascinated ysacrifice. The allure ofsacrifice s said to respond o nothing ess than thefollowing: whatweawait,from ur childhoodon, s thisupsetting fthe orderwe aresuffocat-

*Thanks oAllanStoekl. Translator'sote]1. GeorgeGusdorf,'Experiencehumaine usacrificeParis: UF,1948), iii.Hence-forth ited n thetext.YFS 79, Literaturend theEthicalQuestion, d.ClaireNouvet, 1991byYaleUniversity.

20


3/20

JEAN-LUC NANCY 21ing n ... thenegation fthis imit ofdeath,fascinatings light. 2 quallywell known s thatBataillesoughtnotonlyto think acrifice, ut to thinkaccording o sacrifice. e willed sacrificetself,n theact;at least,he neverceasedpresenting isthought o himself s a necessary acrifice f hought.3) No less wellknown,however,s the slowdisplacement,he ongdrift-ing, hat ed Batailleto denounce hetheatre f acrifice ndconsequently orenounce tssuccessful ccomplishment.Without imitingmyself oBataillealone,thequestionsthat want topose hereproceedfromwhathis experience fthought xemplifies orus.What s theren thefascination f acrifice?Where oes tcomefrom?Whatdoes it engage,what does it engage n? What, n fact, s our relation tosacrificemade of? sn't all oftheWest,nsomesense,determinedy t?Andconsequently, oesn't this relationkeep us riveted o the closure oftheWest? sn't ttime,finally,otake action:boththe endofrealsacrifice ndthe closureof tsfantasm?

IWhat s thenature ftheWest's nitialrelation osacrifice?Moreprecisely:according o what relationto the rest ofhumanity's acrificesorto therepresentationfthosesacrifices) oes the Westelaborate, o to speak, tsown sacrifice ?Socratesand Christsignify hat this relation s decisive and founda-tional. n each case a relation t once distanced ndrepetitives involved.Bothofthesefigures-thedoublefigure fontotheology-deviatedecided-ly, nd quite deliberately,rom acrifice;n doing o, theypropose meta-morphosisor a transfigurationfsacrifice.What s involved, herefore,sabove all a mimesis: the ancient sacrifice s reproduced-up to a certainpoint-in its form r its scheme; but it is reproduced o as to reveal anentirely ewcontent, truth itherto iddenormisunderstood,fnot per-verted.By this factalone, the old sacrifice s representeds havingcon-stitutedno more than a preliminarymitation, crude mageofwhat hassince come to effect transfiguredacrifice.On theotherhand, the newsacrifice oes not resultfrom ts rusticprecursors y wayofsimple trans-mission ornaturalgeneration: oinauguratetself trequiresprecisely hegesture f this mimeticrupture.The mimeticruptureftheWest's acrificeofWestern-styleacrifice,fyou will) proposesa new sacrifice, istinguished y a certainnumberofcharacteristics.his does not mean thatthesecharacteristics erealways

2. Georges ataille,Oeuvres ompletesParis:Gallimard,988), ol.11,484.Hence-forthited n thetext.


4/20

22 YaleFrench tudiespurely nd simplyabsent from he oldersacrifices-insofar, hat s, as itmight tillbepossibletoretrace hetruth f hese older acrificesthis s,in one sense,the wholeproblem, nd wewill return o it). But four harac-teristics reclearly equired ndpresented ytheontotheology f acrifice.1) It is self-sacrifice.ocrates and Christ reboth condemned, oth ofthembyan iniquitouscondemnationwhich,as such, neither he victimsnorthe executioners epresent s a sacrifice. ut the carrying-outf thiscondemnation s, in turn,represented s a desiredsacrifice,willed andsought fter ytheentire eing, y he ife ndthethought rmessageof hevictims. t is, in thefullest ense of thewords, nd in both senses of thegenitive, hesacrifice fthesubject.

The Phaedo proposesnothing ut an appropriativeeversal fthe situa-tionbythe subjectSocrates:he is in prison,he is goingto die, and so hedesignates ll ofearthlyife as a prison, romwhich t is fitting o liberateoneself hrough eath.Philosophy husappears,notonlyas the knowledgeof his iberation, ut as its actualenactment: And hosewhohavepurifiedthemselvessufficiently y philosophy ive thereafterltogetherwithoutbodiesetc. 3Andso, shortlyfter avingpronounced hesewords, he phi-losopherhimselfwill nothesitateto drink nddrainthecup ofhemlock,praying o thegodsthat his removalfrom his worldto theothermay beprosperous Phaedo, 117c).As forChrist, hePauline doctrine fkenosis s wellknown, hegesturebywhichChrist being n the form fGod . .. humbledhimself 4 ecom-ingman evenuntodeath.God,lordoverthedeath ofhis creatures,nflictsthisdeathonhimself;hisown ife nd his own ove,distributedhroughoutcreation, rethus returnedo himself nd to his ownglory.Forboth Socrates ndChrist, he event fsacrifice roperly peaking ifwe can stillput t ntheseterms),heputting-to-death,omesonly opunc-tuateandtounfold heprocessandthe truth fa lifethat s itselfwhollysacrifice. or heWest, he ssue no longernvolves life hatwouldunder-standsacrifice;noreven, according o a good Christianphrase, lifeofsacrifice lone. Whatis involved s a life that would be in and ofitself,whollya sacrifice.2) This sacrifice s unique,and it is accomplished or ll. Or,still moreprecisely,n it all areassembled,offered,ndconsecrated. etus citeSaintPaul: Andevery riest tandeth ailyministeringndofferingftentimesthesame sacrifices,whichcan never akeawaysins. But thisman,after ehad offeredne sacrifice or ins for ver .. byone offeringe hathper-fectedforever themthatare sanctified. 5 nd SaintAugustinewill say:

3. Plato,Phaedo, 114c.Henceforthited n thetext.4. Philippians :6-8.5. Hebrews 0:11-14.


5/20

JEAN-LUC NANCY 23The whole city oftheredeemed, ll theassemblyofsaints, s offeredoGod, n oneunique and universal acrifice ythesupreme ontiff. e him-selfhas offeredimself or s inhispassion n theform ftheslave, o that

wemaybecomethebodyofsuch an augusthead.6The uniqueness of the sacrifice s thusdisplacedormade dialectical,from uniqueness that s exemplary nd counts as such (whereSocratesranksfirstndforemost;ndwecould add: ingeneral,sn't the sacrificehemost exemplary fexamples?) o a uniquenessofthe ife nd thesubstancein which or towhich all singularitys sacrificed. t the endof hisprocess,theres,ofcourse,Hegel: the ubstance f heState is] hepower ywhichtheparticular ndependence f ndividuals nd their bsorptionntheexter-nal existenceofpossessionandinnatural ife s convicted f ts ownnoth-ingness,and the powerwhich mediatesthe conservation f theuniversalsubstance hroughhe acrifice-operating hroughhe nternal ispositionit implies-of this natural ndparticular eing. 73) This sacrifices inseparablefrom ts beingthe unveiledtruth fallsacrifices,r of acrificengeneral.t s thusnotonlyunique;itsuniquenesslies in its elevation ntotheprincipal rtheessenceof sacrificetself.It is remarkable hat the Phaedo should be framed ytwo referencesowhatI havetermed he older sacrifice.At thebeginning, e learnthat,followinghe udgment,ocrates'deathhadtobepostponed ecause execu-tionswere forbidden uring he annual voyageto Delos thatcelebratedTheseus's victory vertheMinotaur: the end,that s, of the sacrifice owhich theMinotaurhad compelledtheAthenians 58b).At the end, bycontrast, s is well known, Socrates, t thepointofdeath, alreadyhalf-paralyzedbythepoison,utters hese astwords: Crito,we ought ooffercock to Asclepius. See to it and don'tforget 118). Interpretation ere sdoomed-by the text tself-to a significant mbiguity: ither Socrates,recoveringhe healthofthe soulby sacrificingisbody,s thanking he godofhealing;orelsehe is leavingbehindhim,withdistance ndperhapswithirony, sacrificetself ain ntheeyesofonewho,at thatverymoment, s inhimselfaccomplishing philosophical purification. ut either way, thetruth f acrifice s brought olight n its mimesis:the old sacrifice s an

6. SaintAugustine, ityofGod,cited nE. Mersch, e Corpsmystique u Christ(Decl6e, 1951), ol. 2, 114.7. Hegel,Encyclopedie, trans.B. BourgeoisParis:Vrin, 988),vol.3, 325 (? 546).A. V. Miller,nHegel'sPhilosophy fMind, ranslateshispassage s follows: Countryand fatherlandhen ppear s thepower y which heparticularndependencef ndi-viduals nd their bsorptionn theexternalxistencefpossessionnd n naturalife sconvictedf tsownnullity-asthepowerwhich rocureshemaintenancef hegeneralsubstance ythepatriotic acrificen thepartof the ndividuals fthis natural ndparticular xistence-so makingnugatoryhenugatorinesshatconfrontst (276).[TranslationromMillermodified]


6/20

24 Yale French tudiesexterior igure-vainin itself-of thattruthnwhich thesubject acrificesitself, n spirit, o spirit esprit]. nd nthis pirit,t s tothetruthtself hatthetrue acrifices offered;t s intruth ndas truthhat t s accomplished.Inthe middleof hedialogue, onsecrated othetruth f he mmortalityfthesoul, Socrateswillhave declared: As for ou, fyouwilltakemy dvice,youwill thinkvery ittleofSocrates, ndmuchmoreof hetruth 91b-c).Inthewake ofSaintPaul,Augustine, nd theentire radition,ascal willwrite: Circumcisionoftheheart, ruefast, rue acrifice,rue emple:theprophetshave indicatedthatall ofthis s spiritual.Not the flesh hatper-ishes, but theone thatdoesnotperish. 84) So thetruth fthe sacrifice ublates, longwith the flesh hatper-ishes, the sacrificialmomentof acrificetself.Andthat s the reasonwhythe final haracteristic fWesternacrifice s tobe itself hetranscendenceofsacrifice,ts infinite nd dialecticaltranscendence.Western acrifice salready nfiniten beingself-sacrifice,n beinguniversal, nd in revealingthe spiritualtruthof all sacrifice.But it is-and must be-infinite alsoinsofar s it reabsorbs hefinitemoment f acrificetself nd thus nsofar sitmust, ogically, acrifice tself s sacrificen order o accede to its truth.This is themeaning f he CatholicEucharistwhich, onsumed hroughthe finitude fsensibletokens,passes into the nteriorworshipofthe re-formedpirit.Andthis s itsspeculative ruth:Thenegativityfthefinite analso onlycomeabout nfinite ashion.Herewehave cometo what sgenerallyalled acrifice.heimmediatecontentf acrifices the urrenderf n mmediateinitude,n the enseofmy estifyinghat his initudeught ot obemy wnpossessionndthat do notwant okeep tformyself.... Becausethedepths fmindand heart renotyetpresent, egativityannotherereveal tself n aninner rocess .. the ubject .. is only o surrendern mmediate os-

session nd a natural xistence.nthis ense sacrifices no longer obefound na spiritualeligion,ndwhat sthere alled acrificeanonly eso ina figurativeense.9II

Mimesis,then:spiritual acrificewillbe sacrifice nly na figurativeense.Truly,t is thereconciliation fabsoluteessence with tself. l1Mimesis,butrepetition: hereconciliation fessencenevertheless equirespassage8. BlaisePascal,Pensees Paris:Gallimard, 954), 69; Brunschvig,83.9. Hegel,Philosophie e a religion,rans.GibelinParis:Vrin, 971), ol. 1,223-24;Lectures n thePhilosophyfReligion,d.Peter odgson Berkeley:niversityfCalifor-nia Press, 984), 84n.


7/20

JEAN-LUC NANCY 25throughbsolutenegativitynd death. Sacrifice meansappropriationfthe Self n its ownnegativity. nd if the sacrificial esturehas been aban-doned toa finiteworld, t is onlyso thatthe nfiniteacrificialtructure fthis appropriationf theSubject may emergemoreclearly. he appropria-tion,by meansof thetransgressionfthefinite, fthe nfinite ruth fthefinite,mightbe termed trans-appropriation.n a sense there s no longersacrifice: here s a process.In another ense, thisprocess onlymattersthroughtsnegativemoment, n which the finitemust be annihilated; ndthismomentremainsnonetheless transgressionf he aw,the aw of elf-presence.This transgressionccurs n suffering,ven nhorror. orHegel,for nstance, t is thesomber, loody,yet neluctablefaceofhistorytself.

Such s theresult f hemimetic upture:acrifices sublated n tsfinitefunctions nd its exteriority.et a fascinatedgaze remains fixed on themomentof acrificial ruelty s such. Flesh thatdoesnotperish remainsflesh ut outof an adorablebody, nd the secretofthishorror ontinues ocast an obscure ightfrom he center fthesublation, rom heheart fthedialectic.Truly,Hegel notwithstanding,t is this secret thatmakes thisheartbeat. Or else, even moreseriously,t is the dialecticalgesture tselfthat nstitutedhis ecret.Westernpiritualization/dialectizationnventedthe secret ofthe infinite fficacityftransgressionnd its cruelty.AfterHegel and Nietzsche comes an eyefixedon thissecret,witha clear con-science, necessary ndunbearable:fornstance, heeyeofBataille.Butwhat, xactly, oesthis ye ee? t seesitsownsacrifice.t sees that tcannot see excepton thecondition fan unbearable,ntolerable ision-avisionof sacrificial ruelty. r else,it sees that tsees nothing.If it is always, ndeed,a question ofthe old sacrifice t the heart ofmodem sacrifice,t must be acknowledged hat themimetic rupturehasmade us losetheolder ruth f acrifice. usts the pecialists fourowndaytell us that sacrifice s an artificialnotion,so the spiritualizing on-sciousnessof acrificemaynot havealwayshada clearawareness f ts ownassumption f he, fterll, heterogeneousunctions f acrifice.t would beuseful o follow hecomplicated-and doubtless oorly nified-destinyoftheremission f ins,thepreservationfgrace, ndtheacquisitionofglory(tomention nlythethree unctions f acrificehat aintThomasAquinasacknowledged)hroughhetheological iterature;he threemodes of acri-fice-martyrdom,usterity, orks f usticeandworship-no doubtfollowa parallelcourse. nreality, nlyonethings clear:the nteriorisation,hespiritualization,nd the dialecticization fsacrifice.

10. Hegel, henomenologiee 1'esprit,rans. ean ippolyteParis:Aubier,951) ol.2, 280: thereferences toChrist.11. ThomasAquinas, ummaTheologicala qu.,22, C; IIaIIae, u. 85 3 ad.2.


8/20

26 Yale French tudiesBut this clarity s itselfobscure. ndeed, what appears, n the light ofspiritualization,s the old sacrifice s a pure economyofbarter etweenman and the divine powers. Everythings reduced to the formula f the

brahmanic itual or t least,to theonlywaywehave ofunderstandinghisformula): Hereis the butter?Where re thegifts? Cited nGusdorf; 5).Condemnationof this sacrificial economism runs throughPlato andChristianity, egel and Bataille.Spiritualization as no doubt eft s, fromtheoutset, ncapableofgraspingheproper ignificancefthe old sacrificein its own context.When someone saysto his gods: Here is the butter.Where re thegifts? tmaybe thatwe do not knowwhathe is saying, inceweknownothing f hecommunitynwhichhe iveswithhisgods.Similar-ly, o answerthe other harge hat s leveled at the old sacrifice-that t isnothingbut a simulacrum, s longas it has not attainedthe level of self-sacrifice-we do not knowwhat mimesis is in thiscontext.At most wecould followLevy-Bruhlnguessing hat tmaybemethexis, articipation:but we do not know what such participation means, ifnot,forus, aconfusion f dentity.Similarly,reuddidnot knowwhat identificationmeant; and likewise,we could ask whetherGirardknowswhat the con-tagion fmimeticviolencemeans. Eitherway,we donotknowwhat being-in-common means, fnot the being-one f acrifice-with tscruelty.2)

Denunciationsof conomism ndsimulation un hroughouthedialec-tical understandingfsacrifice, p to and includingBataille. ndeed-andhere Bataille'scontributionannotbe contested-a fascinationwith sacri-12. Cf., esCarnets eLucien evy-BruhlParis: UF,1949).ngeneral,herelationsbetweenmimesis nd acrificeequirenexamination hich cannot ndertakeere utwillpursue lsewhere.fmimesiss the ppropriationf he therhroughhe lternationorthe uppressionf heproper,s itsstructureothomologouso that f acrifice?Cf.,for xample, beingno one-or everyone,n Philippe acoue-Labarthe'snalysis fDi-derot's aradox,n L'Imitation es ModernesParis:Galilee,1986), 5. As for herelation

betweenacrificendmimesis,f., s wellJacqueserrida,La PharmacieePlaton n LaDissemination (Paris: euil,1972), or xample, 52-53). o should acrificee foundednmimesis, nderstood ow n Girardianerms,t the price f a rather roblematicn-thropology?Lacoue-Labartheas discussedheseproblemsn Mimesis: esarticulations(Paris:Flammarion,975), s hasY.J.Hardern his Le Sacrifice uChrist, 6minairephilosophie/psychanalyse,RTST,Strasbourg,989).Orshouldmimesisnot rather ethoughtn thebasisof acrificial ethexis,hat s,on thebasisof hegeneraluestion fcontagionndcommunicationcf., .g.,BatailleOC 7369-71)?Thiswould equirehink-ingboththeconstructionf the Westernacrificialmodelas communion nd thedeconstructionf hismodel n thethoughtffinitude, hich willget oattheendofthispiece,a thought,hat s, of a non-communalommunication.houldn'twe askourselves,inally,hether,henWesternhoughtnsists ndenouncinghe imulacrumof the old sacrifice,ndon presentinghe new sacrifices the true mimesis orsublation)f he ther,tdoesnotbetrayn ncapacity,r refusal,o touch nmethexis:that s, perhaps,imultaneouslyna dangerf ontagionnd,paradoxically,n incom-munion f ommunicationrofparticipation,owhich ntotheologybjects nprinci-ple (in tsprinciplef ppropriationy Subject)?


9/20

JEAN-LUC NANCY 27ficedoes notprevent ne from emarking n a generalized economismand mimeticism nits dialectic.Sacrifices self-sacrifice,niversal acri-fice, ruth, nd sublationof acrifice,s itself he nstitutionf heabsoluteeconomyofabsolutesubjectivity, hichcan onlymimic inthepejorativesense) a passagethrough egativity,romwhich,symmetrically,t cannotbutreappropriatertrans-appropriatetself nfinitely.Everythinginally ccurs as ifthespiritualization/dialectizationf ac-rifice ould notoperatewithout formidable isavowal f tself. tdisavowsitself eneath hefigure f n old sacrifice, hich tpretends o knowandwhich nrealityt fabricates or ts ownpurposes.And tapproves f tselfnthe form f an infinite rocessofnegativity, hich t coverswiththe sa-cred nameof sacrifice. his doubleoperation rings o thecenter, imul-taneouslyand in a painful mbiguity,he infinite fficacityfdialecticalnegativitynd thebloodyheartofsacrifice.To cast doubtupon this disavowal-this manipulation,rather-is toquestionthis imultaneity,ndto be forced oaskwhether ialecticalnega-tivity xpungesblood orwhether, n thecontrary,loodmust neluctablycontinue ospurt.n hisdesire oputanend todialecticalprocess s come-dy,Bataille wanted blood to spurt.He wanted toweigh n thebalance thehorriblyaceratedbodyandthe ook-distraughtorecstatic?-of a youngChinesebeingtortured, famousphotograph. ut n so doing,Bataillewasreallyworking ut thedeep ogicofthesublationof acrifice, hichwouldrescue it from ts repetitive nd mimeticcharacter: ecause sublationisultimatelyncapable ofknowingwhat s trulynvolved n repetitionndmimesis,and so in sacrifice.nreturn,his samelogic,which claimsto bebothrupturewith andmimeticrepetition fsacrifice, ants,by this samemovement, obe boththe sublation ndthetruth f acrifice. o wehavetothink hat hevictimof ortureublates ntoecstasy hehorrorhatrendershimdistraught. ut how to think o in truth,ftheeye that ees-and nottheonethat shere ookedat-does notknowwhat t s seeing, reven f t sseeing?How to think t,withoutthe subjectofthisgaze havingalreadyappropriated,n himself, hedialectic ofthedistraughtnd theecstatic?How to think t, thatis, withouthavingfascination onstitute tselfasmastery nd dialecticalknowledge fsacrifice?Bataillewoundupdeclaring: Asfor ostalgiafor he acred, t s timetoadmitthat tnecessarily omes tonothing, hat tmisleads: whattoday'sworld acks s theproposing f emptations. rtheproposingf uchhatefulones thattheymatter nlyonthecondition hattheydeceivethosewhomthey empt, Bataille,OC 11: 55).Undoubtedly,mbiguity oes notdisap-pearentirely rom hesephrases; heir yntaxs constructedo as to sustainit. On theonehand,today'sworld lacks truly acred temptations, nesthat regiven mmediatelyndwithout ecourse onostalgia;on the other


10/20

28 Yale French Studieshand,the world lacks -in thesense, now,of being acking-because itstemptations re illusory. o sacrifice-or something bout sacrifice-stillcannothelp be lacking.

IIIEven there,Bataille must have thought-only up to a certainpoint-topalliate this lack throughiterature, r art n general. At the same time,Heidegger, peakingof art and the putting-to-workmise-en-oeuvre] ftruth, amed the essentialsacrifice s oneofthe modesofthisputting-to-work hat s concentratednart;elsewhere nthe sametext, e had alreadythoughttnecessary ocount giftsndsacrifice ttheheart f heexistentwhich s opento theclearing fbeing.13 cannotcommentfurthern thisreference ere.)One link between sacrifice nd art, specially iterature,ncontestablyrunsthrough, r doubles, the Westernprocessof the spiritualization fsacrifice.Book V of SaintAugustine'sConfessions, orexample, begins:Accept the sacrificeofmy confessions,presentedby the hand of mytongue,whichyouhave formedndexhorted o confessyourname -andthusopensthewayfor verythinghatwill spring rom confession n ourliteratures. ut s there, inally, veritable imitbetween confession ndliterature nd art?Orat least, sn'tonedominant epresentationf rtthatof thetransgressivexposition f a subject,who therebyppropriates im-self nd letshimself e appropriated?he Kantian ublime sproducednasacrifice f he magination,which plunges ntotheabyssof tself nd sthusplunged nto a moving atisfaction. 14he wholeprogramfpoetrysgiven n Novalis's note to Heinrich von Ofterdingen:Dissolution of thepoet nhis song-he will be sacrificedmong savagepeoples. 15 nd,mov-ingquickly,we return oBataille,who writes: poetry .. is . . . sacrificewhere the words are victims.... We cannot .. dispense with theefficacious elations hatwords ntroduce etweenmenandthings. utwewrest hemdeliriously rom hese relations Bataille,OC 5: 156).Moreprecisely,rtcomes to supplement, orelay rto sublate, he m-passe ofsacrifice. his impasse s linkedto thefollowing: Ifthesubject snottruly estroyed, verythings stillequivocal.And f t is destroyed,heequivocal is resolved,but in the void where everythings obliterated(Bataille,OC 12: 485). So the choice is between hesimulacrum ndnoth-

13. Heidegger,L'Origine e 1'oeuvre 'art, n Chemins uinemenent ullepart,(Paris:NRF,1962), 8 and 40.14. Kant,Critiquede la facult6 e juger, Remarque enerale ur1'exposition esjugements sthetiques efl1chissants,nd? 26.15. Novalis,Heinrich onOfterdingen,rans.R.RovniParis: 0/18. 967), 69.


11/20

JEAN-LUC NANCY 29ingness; hat s also tosay, etween herepresentationfthe old sacrificeand the postulationof self-sacrifice.But -Bataille continues- out ofthisdouble mpassearises sense of hemoment f rt,which,putting s onthe trackof utter xtinction-leavingus suspended herefor time-pro-poses to man a ravishingwithoutrepose. Ravishingwithoutrepose sstill a dialectical formula. here s ravishingnasmuch as artpreserves ssuspended on theedgeofextinction,which s onewayofrecognizingnew form fthe simulacrumhere. But it is withoutrepose, because itbrings longthe ntense gitation f n emotion hat ccedes toextinction.This emotiondoesnotproperly elongto art: t can onlyexist n access tothe bloodyheartof extinction.Farther n, Bataille writes: the infinitefestivityfworksofart s there o tell us that triumph . . is promised oanyonewho leaps into the irresolution f the instant. This is whyonecannot be too interested ythe manifold ntoxication hat traverses heworld'sopacitywith ightningolts of pparent ruelty, here eduction slinkedtomassacre, o torture,ohorror. rt tself husdisplacesthegazeonceagain: apparent rueltys a singularly mbiguous ffect.t s limitedto thesimulacral, nd atthe same time t matters nlythroughhecruelty,thehorror hat tbrings ut,andwhich sotospeak)meanssomething-inany case, onlyhas force-if it s not simulated.Bataille'sarticle s entitled:Art, xercise ncruelty :t nvolves,whatever hedetours, cceding-evenifonlya little-to the effectivexercise f n effectiveruelty,tleast n tsemotion.Art thus matters nly f t still sends us backto the sacrificetsupplants. tcannotsacrifice acrifice xceptbystillsacrificingosacrifice.Bataille sees thedifficulty-andpromptlyurns way: This is not anapologyforhorriblefacts he is speakingofthefactsofsacrifice vokedearlier n thetext].This is not a call for heirreturn. et he cannothelpshiftingnceagain, oslip ntohisrefusalIwillnotsay, tthispoint, hat tis a disavowal)a certainrestriction: But . . . thesemoments . . have, nthe momentofravishing,ll the truth fthe emotion nthemselves. Andfurthern: the movement of art] places him withoutdifficultyt theheight f the worst nd,reciprocally,hepainting fthe horror eveals heopening owards heentiretyfthepossible. nthisreciprocity-hownotto see this?-something of themimesis is annulled; or rather,mimesisreveals (andBataille speaks ofrevelation) ffectivemethexis: art lets uscommune,bymeans of a transgressionhat s still effective, ithhorror.That is to say,with the enjoyment f an instantaneous ppropriation f

death.By setting side thehorror-troublesome ndreputedlyneffective-ofbloodspilled, ndby proposing horror avishing ut at the height ftheworst, ne shows that,on the one hand, one no longerhas access to realsacrifice,utalso,ontheotherhand, hat hought ontinues o be measured


12/20

30 Yale FrenchStudiesby the ogic andthe desireof n infinite trans-appropriation.et t s still,forBataille (andperhaps-even doubtless-obscurely,for he wholeWest-ern tradition) nly a question of access without access to a momentofdisappropriation.ut sacrificial hought oesnot eave off eappropriating,trans-appropriatinghis ccess.Eventhechasmofhorror,ts opening o theentiretyf hepossible, s appropriateds soonas it splacedunder he signof sacrifice.Which it is, because the signof sacrifice s the sign of therepetitivend mimeticpossibility faccess to thatobscureplace thatbothrepetitionnd mimesisare supposedto come from. utwhat fthatplacewerenothing t all, and if, onsequently,herewerenothing hat could besacrificed o reach t?To put it anotherway, ne might ay: it is by appropriating eaththatsacrifice scapes the truthof the momentofdis-appropriation.nd forBataille himself,n thefinalreckoning,what s at stake in sacrifice s notdeath: The awakening fsensibility,hepassagefrom hesphere f ntel-ligible-and usable-objects to an excessive ntensity,his s the destruc-tion of the object as such. Of course, t is notwhat is ordinarily alleddeath . . it is, in one sense, quite thecontrary.n theeyesof a butcherhorse s alreadydead meat, nobject) Bataille,OC 4: 103).Bythisreckon-ingthe substitution f rtfor acrificesmorereadily rasped. ut tshouldbe at thepriceof true uppression f acrifice. nd t s inthis amepassagethatBataille insertsone of his strongest-makeno mistake-condemna-tionsofsacrifice: it is not what is ordinarilyalled death andsacrifice,after ll, is definitely shockerfun ave de l'ours]).To the extent hat artmaintainsthe sacrificialmoment,by its emotion at the heightof theworst, he shocker s notmissing ither. rrather,acrifice houldnotbeinvolved n any way, nd the horror fdeath-on a real altar or a paintedone-gives access onlyto itself nd not to any suprememoment. Onemoretime: f sovereigntys NOTHING, (Bataille,OC 8: 300) as Batailleworehimselfout thinking,s therenothing-that is, some thing-thatcouldbe sacrificed or t?

IVBefore utting hisquestionto thetestmoreprecisely, ehave to take onemore tepwithBataille.We have to followhim n hisreflection n theNazicamps. willfollow hemovement fhis mostdeveloped ext n thesubject(aboutwhichhe wrotevery ittle): Reflections n the Executionernd theVictim, boutDavid Rousset'sbook,Les Jours e notremort.6

16. Bataille,OC 11, 262ff. or ack ofspace I will omit discussion f thearticleSartre, n theJewsnd the amps Ibid, 66ff). heconclusions ould onverge: ith-


13/20

JEAN-LUC NANCY 31Not once does thistextpronounce heword sacrifice. Nor do other,paralleltextsofBataille's.Nevertheless,t laysout the elementsofa sacri-ficial ogic. First f ll, the camps giveexposure o what s at stakebywayof

sacrifice: in a worldof uffering,tench, nddegradation,ach one had theleisureto measuretheabyssand the absence of imitsoftheabyssandthisobsessive ndfascinatingruth. ut to knowthese depths fhorror, theprice has to be paid. This price-if I understandBataille-is double: itconsists, irst,n thegiven onditions or senselessexperience -that s,thevery xistenceofthecamp-and then,of a will thatdoes notrefuse ofacethis horror s a humanpossibility. his will must be the victim's andBataillefinds t n the exaltation nd the humor he finds nRousset).Torefuset wouldbe a negation fhumanity carcelyessdegrading han hatofthe torturer. n appealis made, fnot toself-sacrifice,hento theposi-tion,after ll, of a subject.To be sure,Bataille specifies: the horror sevidently ot the truth:t s only n infinite ossibility, avingno limitbutdeath. Access to the fascinating ruth, owever, equires hat, by somemeans abjection ndpainreveal hemselves n full o man. These meanswerefoundnthecamps. nparticular, heymade tclearthat thedepth fhorrors intheresolution f hosewhodemand t. t s theresolution f heexecutionerswhich would ruinthe redoubt hat s the founding easonofcivilizedorder Elsewhere ataillewrote hat heJewst Auschwitz incar-nated reason. ).Civilized reason,however,s preciselyno morethan a re-doubt, fragile nd limited.What s pitted gainst t, namely the rage totorture, oes not come from nyplace other hanhumanity, otevenfromspecial partofhumanity parties r raceswhich,we imagine, avenothinghuman about them ).This possibilitys ours. Knowing hispossibilityssuchmakes reasoncapableof ts own putting-intouestionwithout eser-vations, which assures no definitive ictory ut the highesthumanpos-sibility hat s the awakening. Only,what would awakeningbe if t il-luminatedonlya worldof bstract ossibilities? f t did not awakenfirst fall to thepossibility fAuschwitz, othepossibility f tench nd rrepara-ble fury? There s a necessity, herefore,n therealization f hispossibility.ForBataille,thisnecessityevidently temsfrom he existenceof the

out ayingodirectly,ataille ends oconsider heJewss victimsf sacrificialmmola-tion of reason. Another ext:7:376-79. On the character-sacrificialr not?of thecamps, f., acan,who ffirmst Seminaire11 Paris: euil,19771,47); Lacoue-Labarthe,who denies t butdiscusses n objectionLaFiction u politique Paris: ourgeois, 987]80-81); Derrida,who seems to suggest he affirmativecf., chibbolethParis:Galike,19861, 2-83, and II fautbien manger n Confrontations,. 20, Apres e sujetquivient, 13, n themidst f developmentn sacrifices orality ndon philosophieshatdo not sacrificeacrifice.


14/20

32 YaleFrench tudiescamps and from hewill to face,withoutfacile moralism,what theyre-vealed. t s notposedas a necessity priori.Not for ninstantwould wantto suggest heslightestdea ofcomplicity,venunconscious,on Bataille'spart. believeonlythatthefollowing houldbe considered: he logic fol-lowed here s quite exactly hesomber everse f clear ogicof acrificeatleast if t is possibleto isolate such a clarity ). his logicdeclares: onlyextremehorror eeps reason awake. The logic of sacrificewould say: theonly awakening s an awakeningto horror,where themoment of truthtranspires. he two utterances re far rom eingconfounded. ut the sec-ond can alwaysharbor he truth f the first.fBatailledoes not drawthisconclusion, nd f hecampsremain utsideof acrifice or im, s itnot, nfact,because the horror fsacrifice s silently opplingdown here?EventhoughBataillecannotbringhimself o say so,thuspreservingerhaps, nspiteofall, a possibility hat, t the end ofthetext, ndicates poetry s aform f awakening butnowwe knowwhatreturn f acrifice poetry sdedicatedto).Sacrificewould topplehere, n silence, ntoa contraryhat s also itsaccomplishment: revelation f horrorwith no access,no appropriation,onlywiththe revelationtself, nfinite,rrather,ndefinite.A sacrificial nterpretationfthecamps s thusno doubtpossible,evennecessary, utonlyon theparadoxicalcondition freversingtself nto tscontraryfrom olocausttoShoah):this acrificeeadsnowhere,tgivesnoaccess.Still, nonesense, t could be saidtobe a modelof elf-sacrifice,incethe reasonthat s thevictim of the camps is likewise on the side oftheexecutioner,s theanalysisof he stateandtechnicalmechanisms fexter-minationhas constantly nderlined. ataillesaid,elsewhere: theunleash-ingofpassions that seethedat Buchenwald nd at Auschwitz was an un-leashinggoverned yreason. 17t wouldnot be at all surprisingf certainrationalityulminatednself-sacrifice,f elf-sacrifice-whosequivalenceto all ofWesternacrificewe can now understand-renders he accountofcertain rocessofReason. tappropriateso tself heabyssof ts ownsubjec-titude to speaklikeHeidegger).But atthesame time-and without ontradiction-thecampsrepresentthe absence ofsacrifice, ecause theyput intoplayan unheard-of ensionbetween acrificetself nd the absenceof acrifice.t s not rrelevanthatthedescription f theprivileges f theAryanraceinMein Kampfculmi-nates in thepossessionof theabsolutemeaningof sacrifice: The Aryan

17. Bataille, C 7: Notethat similar iscussion as taken laceon the ubject f hesacrificialharacterfthe revolutionaryegicide: f.,Myriam evault 'Allones, 'unemort 1'autre Paris: euil,1989), 9. There re, bviously,onsiderableifferences.wantonly o suggesthat, nder hereign fWesternacrifice,acrificeas ong incebegun odiscomposetself.


15/20

JEAN-LUC NANCY 33does not attainhisfullgrandeur yhisspiritual ropertiesnthemselves; eattains t by the measure ofhis readiness oputall ofhis capacitiesto theserviceofthecommunity. he instinct fpreservationas attained nhimits noblestform, orhe voluntarilyubordinates is own self o thecollec-tivity nd,whenthehourdemands t,he willgoso far s tosacrificet. 18Oragain: posterity orgetsmen who haveonly erved heir wn nterests,ndcelebratesheroeswhohave renounced heir wnhappiness MeinKampf,329).So theAryan s essentially he one who sacrifices imself o thecom-munity,otherace;that s,the one whogiveshis blood forAryanBlood. Heis thusnot only the one who sacrifices imself, e is, nessence, acrifice,thesacrifice.As is onlyfair,whatfollowsmmediatelys thedescriptionf herace nwhich the instinctof self-preservations dominant. AmongtheJewishpeople,thewill to sacrifice oes notgo beyond hepure ndsimple nstinctofthepreservationf the individual MeinKampf, 30). There s thusadoublereasonthattheJewnot be andshould notbe sacrificed: n the onehand,nothing fhim shouldbeappropriated;n thecontrary,ne shouldridoneself fhisvermin s a defensivendhygenicmeasure.Ontheother and,sacrifices entirely resent,nvested nd accomplishedn theAryan om-munity s such. Wehave themoralright, ehave a duty owards urpeopleto annihilatethispeoplewho would annihilateus . . . we can saythatwehave carried ut the mostdifficult f duties for he ove of ourpeople....You shouldknowwhata hundred-or fivehundred ra thousand-corpseslaid nextto one another re. To have heldout,andat the same time . . tohave remainedhonestmen, his s whathashardened s. It s a glorious ageofourhistory hathas neverbeen written nd whichwill neverbe writ-ten. 19 hus Himmler n 1943presented o hisGruppenfiihrerhesacrificeofduty hatdefieshumanstrength,ndwhichgoesso far s tosacrificehememorialof thisglorious acrifice. hus he declares, imultaneously,hatthe side of hevictims s intolerable nd that nthe ideof heexecutioners,there s the mostsilent,most nterior orm fsacrifice.Himmlerdoes not use the word sacrifice : twould, n effect, e toohonorific oward hevictims, nd hewouldclaim,for heexecutioners, oomuch of the gloriousnarrative,which must be withheldfrom hem. Itwouldbe possible, t seems tome,to saythatat thispointsacrifice isap-pears n itself. tis the SS ortheAryan, hen,whowithdraws,who absorbsintohimself ll thepower nd thefruit f acrifice,ncludingtssecret:he isalreadyhimself,n hisownbeing, he sacrificialecret.Before im heleaves18. Adolph itler,MeinKampf 83/184e,Munich, 936,326.Henceforthited nthetext.19. Himmler'speechof4 October 943, nRaulHillberg,a DestructionesJuifsd'Europe,rans.M. F.de Palomera ndA. CharpentierParis: ayard, 985), 70-71.


16/20

34 Yale French Studiesonlynaked horror, parodyofimmolationand smoke mounting o theheavens, parody hatno longer venhas the right o thename of parody.Whatdisappears longwith acrifices thevery ossibility f onsidering,nwhatever ense,the simulacrum. heAryan xposesdevastation, ight ndfog: night nd fog, however, lso form hedisastrous ecret of his ownappropriation,heregenerationfhisBlood. No longerWestern acrifice,tis the westerning f acrifice. secondruptureakesplace, and thistimeit is therupture f sacrifice tself.Orrather,tsbrutal nterruption:n thevery iteof mmolation tself, here s no more mmolation.

V.... immolation,murder . . : they an no longerbe distinguished.m-molation tselfs putto death. Notdivine, illusory, acrifice as lost allrights and all its dignity.Transgression rans-appropriatesothing.Orrather, t appropriates othingbut this: thevictimas corpse, he charnel-house heap,and the other forwhom the name ofexecutioner s scarcelyfitting) s pure instrument f theproduction fthe charnel-house eap.Thus,thedecomposition f acrifice otonly vows tself spossiblethanksto thetechnicalmeans,butit delivers tself s an exemplary igure-hid-eouslyexemplary-oftechnique tself.20This does not implya condemnation fthe said technique. On thecontrary.orwhat shideously exemplary,hat s,so tospeak,exemplarilyhideous, s that technique houldbepresenteds theoperation f sort fsacrifice, s the last secretofsacrifice, ven while itworks to decomposesacrifice. he questionthat rises s rather hefollowing:houldnot theageof echniquebe understood s theageof heendof acrifice? hat s tosay, sthe age ofthe end oftrans-appropriation;r in otherwords, s theage of

anothermodeof ppropriationntirely: o longer f acrificialrans-appro-priation, ut of whatHeidegger ried o name with thewordEreignis.Toforce his nterpretation,ithoutbeing ble toanalyzeorto ustifythere,would say: technique s Ereignis, hat s, theevent ppropriatinginiteexistenceas such. In thissense,rather hanappealingto an essence oftechnique, tmaybe morefittingo consider echnique tself,nthat, urn-ing every ossiblemode ofappropriationack on itself nd its own one-dimensionality, fyou will, it exposesat one strokeboth thequestionoffinite xistence s such andthequestionof tsequallyfinite ppropriation.The techniqueof hecamps s doubtless nepossibility f echnique, ut tis also its sacrificial ossibility.20. On technique, echn6, rt, ndtheworknNazismand/or eidegger'shought,seeLacoue-Labarthe,a Fiction upolitique, assim.


17/20

JEAN-LUC NANCY 35Sacrificial rans-appropriations the appropriationf the Subjectwhopenetratesnegativity,hat sustains tself here, hatsurvives ts own de-struction,nd thatreturns o itself s sovereign.Andthisnegativityould

well playthe same role, n a subtlefashion,when it is what Bataille callsnegativity ithout se. )Fascination or he acrificeormulateshedesireof this transfiguration.erhaps t is also what Lacan meantby saying apropos f hecamps)that sacrificeignifies hat,n theobjectof urdesires,wetry odiscover vidence f hepresence f hedesire f hatOtherwhomwill herecall the obscureGod. '21 et another's esire, bscure, onsecrateas his myowndesire, nd I am constituted n absoluteSelf-possession,nunlimited elf-presence. hat s thusrequiredssacrifice,heproductionfthe objectas reject,evenifthisobjectwere ts own subject,whichhere,precisely, rans-appropriatestself.But f overeigntysnothing,f he obscureGod isonly heobscurityfdesire cstatic ntheface f tself,f xistence rrangestself nly owardstsownfinitude,henwe must think partfrom acrifice.On the one hand,whatis at stake since thebeginning ftheWesternsublation f acrificehoulddefinitivelyeacknowledged:trictlypeakingwe knownothingdecisive about theold sacrifice.We need to admit thatwhat we consider s a mercenary xchange Hereis thebutter . . ) sus-tainedandgave meaning o billions of ndividual ndcollective xistences,and we do notknow how to think boutwhat founds hisgesture. Wecanonlyguess, confusedly,hatthis bartern itself oesbeyondbarter.) n thecontrary, e knowthat,for s, itis absolutely mpossible odeclare: herearethe ives,where retheothers? (allthe others: urotherives, he ife fa greatOther, heother f ifeand the other ife ngeneral).Consequently, n the otherhand, t shouldbe definitivelycknowledgedthat theWestern conomy ofsacrifice as come to a close, and that t isclosedby the decomposition f the sacrificialpparatus tself, hatbloodytransgressionywhichthe momentofthefinite wouldbe transcendedandappropriatednfinitely.But finitude s not a moment n a processor an economy.A finiteexistencedoesnothaveto et tsmeaning pring orthhrough destructiveexplosionof ts finitude.Not onlydoes it nothave to do so; in a sense itcannoteven do so: thought igorously,hought ccording o its Ereignis,finitude ignifies hat existence annotbe sacrificed.It cannot be sacrificed ecause, n itself,t is already, otsacrificed,utofferedo theworld.There s a resemblance,ndthetwocan bemistaken orone another; ndyet, here s nothingmoredissimilar.

21. Lacan,Seminaire 1 (Paris: euil,1973), 47. Here Lacanexpressly erives hisdefinitionrom heexistence f hecamps.


18/20

36 Yale French StudiesOne could say:existence s inessence sacrificed. o say thiswould be toreproduce,n one of tsforms, he fundamental tterance fWestern acri-fice.Andwe would havetoadd thismajorform,which necessarily ollows:that existence s, in its essence,sacrifice.To saythatexistence s offereds no doubtto use a wordfrom he sacri-ficial vocabulary andif we were n theGerman anguage, t would be thesameword:Opfer, ufopferung).ut t s anattempt o mark hat,fwe haveto say thatexistence s sacrificed,t is not nanycase sacrificed y anyone,nor s it sacrificedoanything.Existence s offered eansthe finitude fexistence.Finitude s notnegativityut out ofbeingandgranting ccess,through his cutting, o the restoredntegrityfbeingor to sovereignty.

FinitudeutterswhatBataille utters n saying hatsovereigntys nothing.Finitude simply corresponds o thegenerative ormula fthe thought fexistence,which s thethought f hefinitude fbeing, rthe hought f hemeaningofbeingas the finitude fmeaning.This formula tates: theessence ofDasein liesin tsexistence.22f tsessence inquotationmarks)is in tsexistence,t s that he existent asno essence. t cannotbereturnedtothetrans-appropriationfan essence. But t s offered,hat s to say, tispresented o theexistence hat t is.The existence xposesbeing n tsessencedisappropriatedf ll essence,andthus of ll being: thebeing hat s not.Suchnegativity,owever, oesnotcomedialectically o saythat tshallbe,that tshallfinally e a trans-appropriatedelf.On thecontrary,hisnegation ffirmshe nappropriatesitsmostappropriateorm f ppropriation,nd ntruth s theuniquemodeof ll appropriation. lso,thenegativemode of hisutterance: being s notdoes not implya negationbut an ontological ffirmation.his is what ismeantby Ereignis.The existent rrives, akesplace,and this s nothing uta being-throwninto theworld. n thisbeing-thrown,t s offered. ut t s offeredynoone,to no one. Nor is it self-sacrificed,fnothing-no being,no subject-pre-cedes its being-thrown.n truth,t is not even offeredr sacrificed o aNothing, o a Nothingness r an Other n whose abyssit would come toenjoy ts ownimpossibility f being mpossibly.t is exactly t thispointthatbothBatailleandHeideggermustberelentlesslyorrected. orrected,that s: withdrawn rom heslightest endency owards acrifice. or thistendency owards acrifice, rthrough acrifice,s always inkedto a fas-cinationwith an ecstasyturned owards n Otherortowards n absoluteOutside, nto which thesubject s diverted/spilledhebetter o berestored.

22. Heidegger, eing nd Time,Trans.JohnMacquarrie EdwardRobinsonNewYork:Harper, 962), 9.


19/20

JEAN-LUC NANCY 37Western acrifices hauntedbyan Outsideoffinitude,s obscure nd bot-tomless as this outside maybe.But there s no outside. The eventofexistence, he there s, meansthat here snothing lse. There s no obscureGod. There s noobscuritythatwouldbe God. n this ense, ndsince there s nolonger nycleardivineepiphany,might aythatwhattechniquepresents swithcouldsimply e:claritywithoutGod.The clarity, owever,f nopen space nwhich nopeneyecannolonger e fascinated. ascination s already roof hat omethinghas been accorded oobscuritynd itsbloodyheart.Butthere s nothing oaccord,nothing ut nothing. Nothing s not an abyssopento theout-side. Nothing affirmsinitude,nd this nothing t once returns xis-tence to itself nd tonothing lse. It de-subjectivizes t,removing ll pos-sibilityoftrans-appropriatingtselfthrough nything ut its own event,advent.Existence, n thissense, tsproper ense, s unsacrificeable.Thustheres room togivemeaningto the nfinitebsenceof ppropria-blemeaning.Once again, technique couldwell constitute uchan hori-zon. That is once moreto say, heremustbe no retreat: heclosureofanimmanence.But this immanence wouldnot have lost or be lackingtran-scendence. notherwords,t wouldnot be sacrificenany ense of heword.What we used to call transcendencewouldsignifyather hat ppropria-tion s immanent,but that immanence s not some indistinct oagula-tion: it is made onlyfrom ts horizon. The horizonholds existenceat adistancefromtself,n thegaporthe between hat onstitutes t:betweenbirth nd death,between one and the others.One does not enterthe be-tween,which s also thespaceoftheplayofmimesis and ofmethexis.Notbecause itwould be an abyss, naltar, r nimpenetrable eart, utbecauseitwould be nothing ther hanthe imit offinitude; ndlest we confuse twith, ay,Hegelian finiteness, his imit s a limit hatdoesnot soarabovenothingness. xistencealone breaks wayfrom ven tself.Does this mean rejoicingn a mediocre nd limited ife?Surely uchasuspicioncoulditself omeonlyfrom mediocre nd imited ife.And t isthis same lifethat could suddenly e exalted, ascinated, ysacrifice.Nei-therpain nor death are to be denied. Still less, ifpossible,arethese to besought ftern view of some trans-appropriation.t issue, rather,s a painthatno longer sacrifices, nd which one no longer acrifices.True pain,doubtless,and perhapseven the truestof all. It does not effaceoy (norenjoyment),ndyet, t is not the atter'sdialectical orsublimating hresh-hold either. here snothreshhold,osublime ndbloodygesture, hatwillcross it.Afterll,Western acrifice as almostalwaysknown, nd almostalwaysbeen readyto say, hat t sacrificed o nothing.That is why t has always


20/20

38 Yale French tudiestended osaythattrue acrificewasno longer acrifice. ethenceforthtisincumbent pon us tosay-afterBataille,withhim andbeyondhim-thatthere s no true sacrifice,hatveritable xistence s unsacrificeable,ndthatfinally he truth f existence s that tcannotbe sacrificed.

Translated yRichardLivingston

the unsacrificeable - nancy

Documents