Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s11245-006-0001-6
E. Balibar
University of Paris X-Nanterre, Paris, France
E. Balibar (&)
University of California, Irvine, USA
e-mail: ebalibar@uci.edu
123
I regret that I cannot enter here into a more specific consideration of the relationship between the issue of the strategic
position of philosophy within the cursus studiorum universitatis
and the debate over the two cultures (the technologically
oriented scientific culture, and the culture of the humanities and
the philological disciplines), which seems to me to be a circular
one. It is as much the simultaneous presence of scientific and
humanistic disciplines within the same universities that accounts (and sometimes calls for) the additional presence of
philosophical research, departments where different styles
remain compatible (i.e. can be taught to the same students), and
the internal multiplicity of philosophy that creates possibilities of
communication between opposite cultures. Interestingly, we
know today, in various universities, of Philosophy departments
that have become split among different schools or faculties
(humanities, social sciences, cognitive sciences), of philosophical
research or teaching that is carried on under other names
(anthropology, learning, critical theory, etc.), or that has
been associated with other disciplines (from physics to law). This
is clearly a very flexible, but also a neuralgic, situation.
123
E. Balibar
123
This sovereign status was approached for some time only with
the definition and sacralization of Dialectical Materialism in
socialist countries from the 1930s to the 1980s, in a fairly
unproductive manner that never matched its medieval model,
although it raised some nostalgia in the Catholic Church.
123
E. Balibar
123
123
E. Balibar
(including itself, as body and mind) to a causal necessity. But in what world does such a wise man live or
exist? Since Spinoza does not believe in other
worlds, it cannot be outside this world, but nor can it
be in the social world where trans-individual relations
are based on language and imagination. Unless we
suppose (an oblique solution suggested by the Tractatus theologico-politicus) that the wise man is able to
represent his science or wisdom with its anthropological conclusions in the form of a vera religio, a true
religion or a universal faith where Natura is
translated again as Deus (an operation that Spinoza,
like many of his contemporaries, believed to be
identical with the isolation of the social and moral
principles common to all historical monotheisms). This
is a hypothesis rather than a demonstration, and in my
opinion it leads to insisting on the unsurpassable
equivocity of the concept of the universal.
But isnt this equivocity what constitutes the great
interest and strength of such constructions (which have
other replicas in philosophy: Spinoza and Wittgenstein
clearly derive here from a certain Averroist tradition)?
Even their skeptical element is important here. They
do not tell us to abandon the idea (and the ideal) of
universalitymuch on the contrary, they show that it
can be vindicated both theoretically and practically.
But they deprive us of the illusion that we could derive
universal forms of life from the scientific knowledge
of the world, and indeed from any doctrine or theory,
or that the rules of equivalence among subjectivities
(therefore coexistence, shared action, production of a
common good, practical resolution of conflicts)
could be anything other than conventions or institutions. But this also means that universal institutions, at
least as a tendency, are a meaningful political project.
This can prove a useful therapeutics against apocalyptic convictions.
I want now to briefly describe a totally different
strategy, which also aims at demonstrating that the
paradoxes of universality have an intrinsic character,
although locating them at a different level, and pushing
us towards very different conclusions. I will call it the
HegelianMarxist strategy, because it was elaborated
by Hegel (mainly if not exclusively in the Phenomenology of Spirit, since on these issues his later works
speak a very different language) in terms of consciousness (and figures of consciousness) and
antagonism (or conflictual recognition), and was later reformulated by Marx in terms of ideology and
ideological domination. Each of these terminologies
allows us to emphasize some of the implications of this
problematic (which belongs originally to the realm of
German Idealism, with its dramatic political and
Since the first chapter of the Phenomenology (on sense certainty), Hegel has endowed consciousness with a linguistic
capacity, which is the condition for its self-reflective descriptionan equivalence that Marx tried to derive from materialist
premises in the German Ideology.
8
Ich, das Wir, und Wir, das Ich ist, Phenomenology of Spirit,
Chap. IV, Introduction.
123
10
123
E. Balibar
11
123
12
E. Balibar
11
123
seed (Samen), or a potentiality of migration/metamorphosis always already given in (great) works of art.
Poetic writing is effective not only inasmuch as it has
transformed the original language whose expressive
qualities it has displayed and complemented, but also
inasmuch as it has the capacity to recreate other languages, by becoming transferred (ubertragen) and
translated (ubersetzen). The intention thus manifested by translation is that of reaching a pure
language (eine reine Sprache) where there would not
exist an equivalence of codes but a complementarity,
better said a harmony or affinity (Verwandschaft)
with respect to their expressive power. It therefore
does not designate a substitutability but a community,
or common achievement of languages, grounded in
their irreducible diversity. Such an achievement, however (to which Benjamin ascribes a messianic function of ending history, although it arises from purely
historical practices), remains inaccessible, it works as a
regulatory idea within each effort of translation.16
Nothing can seem wider apart than a purely cognitive concept of translation and a purely poetic one. But
there is a common idea underlying Quines and Benjamins reasonings: that of a language that is (or must
be considered) initially a closed totality, in the sense
both of displaying an internal relationship among its
elements and of being associated with a community of
speakers (and listeners, writers, readers) belonging
to it or to which it would belong, whether empirically constructed through the experiences of shared
learning (in a behaviorist mode), therefore appearing
as conventional, or supposed to pre-exist as a living
collective individual, with its own dynamic of transformations, which would ascribe to individual subjects
their horizons of meaning (in the Humboldtian tradition). To be sure, this common prerequisite was also
basically accepted by 19th and 20th century linguists
(including structuralists), who made it the starting
point for their enumerations, typologies, and systemic
analyses of languages (each language, or, in this sense,
idiom, having its proper name, such as English, or
Arabic, or Mandarin Chinese, or Yiddish, its
specific rules or grammar, its words or expressions, its
history, etc.), and, as a consequence, the given from
16
Benjamins idea of the community of languages as an infinite
effect of the practices of translation, in which their affinity is not
a legacy of the past, but an event forever to come, has striking
analogies with Derridas concept of ex-appropriation. Thus it
is all the more surprising that Derrida (1987) so strongly criticizes Benjamins formulation of the pure language, apparently
misreading his final considerations on the translations of the
Scriptures as literal transcription (verbum pro verbo) as if they
were illustrating the same notion. It seems to me that they are
rather presenting an ironic antithesis.
13
Much of what follows is loosely derived from notions of linguistic pragmatics and socio-linguistics now widely accepted. A
French linguist and philosopher, Jean-Jacques Lecercle, author
of Interpretation as pragmatics, 1999, has proposed a synthesis of
these debates that I found illuminating in Lecercle (2004)
(although I am not sure that the reference to Marxism as a
common ground is necessary).
123
14
E. Balibar
actually the result of (institutional) practices of translation (including the scientific and literary, but also
pedagogic, legal, commercial translations, etc.), and
not the reverse. And it tends to create the illusion that
a process, or an effort of translation, starts with a given
language (even if to complete or transform it). We
should rather admit that a situation in which speakers
would encounter an absolutely unknown idiom have
long disappeared, if they ever existed, and that the
Benjaminian affinity of languages, in which they are
not strangers to one another, is in a sense a fait
accompliexcept that it is not a harmony but an
accumulation of conflicts, if not exactly a war of all
against all. We live in a world of ubiquitous and competing translations, bad and good, authorized
and unauthorized, and therefore also a world in
which some languages are continuously being incorporated into others (rather similar to what Bakhtin
called heteroglossia). A world of permanent transgressions of the established linguistic borderlines, which
produce the naturalization of speakers as well as the
denaturalization of idioms. Just think of what linguistic rules and what communities the name
English covers today (to the dismay, it must be said, of
some of its speakers and writers). What characterizes
this world is not equality or full recognition of the
Other, even if (as I argued elsewhere) it cannot go
without a certain form of antagonistic reciprocity.18 It is
incompleteness or even suppression (of what is deemed
untranslatable or unworthy of translation) and
one-sidedness (some languages translate or mistranslate others, and impose themselves as translation
languages, but also develop themselves by incorporating a wealth of translations, while others remain
subaltern, translated or untranslated, depending on
relationships of power and knowledge) that defines the
historicity of the network of translations where languages and communities (therefore cultures) become
politically coupled.
To speak the universal as translation therefore is
not simply to advocate translating (or translating
more), but it is to translate again, otherwise and
elsewhere, for other groups and individuals who will
thus gain access to the labor of translation. And if
translating practices have produced (and keep producing) political communities, to reflect on the possible transformations of these practices is eminently a
meta-political, a philosophical task (in the sense of
returning to the elements, the very stoicheia of politics, which allow us to understand its alternatives, its
powers, possibilities, and constraints). Allow me to
18
123
translation are not only those of speech acts, illocutionary force, use and intention, authority and context, etc., but above all those of incomprehension and
differend, which reverse the impossibility of the
translation into its paradoxical condition of possibility. Zygmunt Bauman, for instance, uses the idea of
incomprehension as the primary experience that
takes place inside and between communities of
meaning, therefore he defines universality as the result of an activity of translation (rooted in everyday
life) through which the bearers of differences learn
how to go onto cope with the task of sorting out
right, adequate or passable responses to each others
moves (Bauman 1999, p. 202). In a more tragic
manner, but also with a Wittgensteinian background,
Jean-Francois Lyotard describes regimens of phrases which are incompatible or incommensurable
because a wrong that is expressed and argued in one
of them will be judged or evaluated only in another
one, and more generally because they are not subjected to a pre-existing law. This does not mean that
the universal rule cannot exist at all, but that it can
exist only if it is invented after the event in a singular
manner: to enunciate the impossibility to translate,
or to juxtapose incompatible phrases in the same discourse, linking them instead of masking them,
returning to the original that resists translation from
within the referential language and exhibiting the
differend, is the very move that postpones untranslatability or removes its given limits (Lyotard 1988,
pp. 910, 1213, 13841). Here again an element of
universality to come (as Derrida would say) is
practically involved. And in both cases violence and
reciprocity are at stake, their equilibrium bound to
remain uncertain.
Finally, it seems to me that we can indicate what
kind of metaphysical problems are involved in generalizing and radicalizing the issue of translation. They
concern the constructed status of individuals. As the
institutional, naturalized (not to say fetishized) correspondences between idioms and communities are
weakened and become more conflictual, each of the
two poles being visibly made of phrases which do
not spontaneously coincide, whose circularity must be
enforced over time by traditions and institutions
(which also implies that voices are silenced and resistances are repressed), it is not the case that individuals
are released from their trans-individual relations, that
they emerge naked as in a state of nature. But it is
the case that another form of radical indeterminacy
is brought to the fore, one that does not so much
concern the reference to objects as the reference to
subjects (or their self-reference). This does indeed
15
123
16
References
Balibar E (2002) Ambiguous universality, reprinted as chapter 8
in Politics and the other scene. Verso, London
Balibar E (2004) Europe as Borderland, The Alexander von
Humboldt Lecture in Human Geography, University of
123
E. Balibar
Nijmegen, November 10, 2004 (French version in Europe
Constitution Frontie`re. Editions du passant, Bordeaux
2005)
Bauman Z (1999) In search of politics. Stanford University Press,
Stanford
Butler J (2000) Restaging the universal. Hegemony and the
limits of formalism. In: Butler J, Laclau E, Zizek S (eds)
Contingency, hegemony, universality. Contemporary dialogues on the left. Verso, London
Cassin B (2004) Vocabulaire europeen des philosophies, Seuil/Le
Robert, Paris
Derrida (1987) Towers of Babel (Originally published 1985). In:
Derrida Psyche: Inventions de lautre. Galilee, Paris
Laugier S (1992) Lanthropologie logique de Quine. Lapprentissage de lobvie. Vrin, Paris
Lecercle (2004) Une philosophie marxiste du langage. Presses
universitaires de France, Paris
Lyotard JF (1988) The differend. Phrases in dispute. University
of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis
Maniglier P (2000) Lhumanisme interminable de Claude LeviStrauss. Les Temps Modernes 609:216241
prouver luniversel. Essai de geoOhji K, Xifaras M (1999) E
philosophie. Kime, Paris
Quine WVO (1960) Word and Object. MIT Press, Cambridge
(MA)
Ricoeur P (2004) Sur la traduction. Bayard, Paris