Wild Normativity: Lyotard’s Search for an Ethical Antihumanism Matthew McLennan Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD in Philosophy Department of Philosophy Faculty of Arts University of Ottawa ©Matthew McLennan, Ottawa, Canada, 2011 1 Abstract In spite of its thematic and stylistic heterogeneity, Jean-François Lyotard‟s corpus may be plausibly interpreted as, by and large, an attempt to grapple with the following problem set: a) In general: if we reject all transcendent/systematic philosophical frameworks, can we consistently make normative claims? Can we ground them in any way? Do we need to? b) In particular: if we reject the philosophical framework of humanism, what does this mean for ethics and/or politics? Can one be an antihumanist without abandoning ethics? The basic issue is over the titular possibility of a “wild normativity” – that is, a normativity that does not derive its force from any kind of transcendent guarantor. As I reconstruct him, Lyotard begins from a methodological rejection of transcendent guarantors in general; this plays itself out in particular terms as a rejection of humanism. Thus, beginning from a thought not of universality and totality but of singularity and difference, and wishing at a certain point in his career to ensure that the problem of justice stays firmly on the agenda, Lyotard gives us to think the very possibility of an ethical antihumanism. My dissertation is both an interpretation of Lyotard‟s work as it unfolds in time, as well as a contribution to thinking through the general-particular problem set that I argue is at play in his work. 2 Note on Sources and Citations With few exceptions, Lyotard wrote and published his works in French. For the benefit of my Anglophone readers, I have cited English translations of Lyotard‟s works whenever these are available. In cases where no translation is available, or where I have been unable to reference one, I have made my own humble translations of cited passages. For readers wishing to check the original French sources, citations of English editions are followed by square brackets containing the relevant page numbers. Acknowledgments Many people helped me to produce the dissertation you are about to read. I cannot possibly thank them all here, but the contributions of certain people stand out. First I would like to offer my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor Denis Dumas, who proved an excellent mentor and a wonderful friend. For their insightful comments, criticisms and guidance, I also extend sincere thanks to my examining committee: Peter Milne, Jeffrey Reid, Sonia Sikka and Daniel Tanguay. Special mention is reserved for Peter, who traveled far for the defence and whose positive presence helped make it a day to remember. My family offered incalculable love and support for the duration of my doctoral degree. My mother Susan McLennan, my grandmother Doreen Richmond and my great aunt Audrey Lundy were especially supportive, and deserve all the love in the world. My extended family on Anna‟s side also provided much encouragement on the final leg of the journey, and for this I thank in particular Louise Legault, Chris Seifried, Louise Guay and Pierre Legault. My friends are priceless. Though I cannot thank them all here, I will single out the following people for their friendship, their constructive criticism, and for always believing in me: Morgan McMillan, Sarah Van Heukelom, Susanna Wiens, Tyler Shipley, Jeremy Geelen, Allison Van Diepen, Shawn Moi, Pierre Cassidy, Craig Mackie, Paul Salvatori, Tyson Killian, David Tkach, Devin Shaw, Louise Nadeau, Lavinia Asavei, Consuela Mioc, Mélissa Barton and Heidi Bickis. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) provided me with a generous grant to produce my doctoral research. It is my fervent hope that the humanities continue to receive public funding in Canadian universities. Lastly, I dedicate this work – with love, appreciation and profound admiration – to my beautiful and loving partner Anna Louise Seifried. Gold-flecked with birdsong, her laughter. Forever, tell how she sharpens me 3 Table of Contents Introduction……………………………...………………………………………….……6 Chapter 1: Toward an Antihumanist Philosophy (and an Ethical Aporia)…...……….……………………………………………….......15 1.1: Methodological Materialism from La phénoménologie to Économie libidinale………………………………………. 17 a) Lyotard‟s Methodological Materialism in General: A Philosophy of the Event ………………………………………………………18 b) Methodological Materialism in the Phenomenological-Marxist Phase of Lyotard‟s Thought ……….………. 30 c) Methodological Materialism in the Libidinal Phase of Lyotard‟s Thought………......................................................................................................34 1.2: The Development of Antihumanism from La phénoménologie to Économie libidinale………………………………………. 54 1.3: The Ethical Aporia of Lyotard‟s Early Antihumanism………………………….. ...61 Chapter 2: Lyotard’s Linguistic/Ethical Turn: Paganism and Postmodernism ……………………………………………….............. 71 2.1: A New Antihumanism…………………………………………………......………. 74 a) The Philosophical Logic of the New Antihumanism…………………………………………………………………... 74 b) First Developmental Sub-phase: “Paganism”……………………… ……......83 i) A New Material at Hand…………………..…………………………. 86 ii) Judgement: From Nietzsche to Kant…………………...……………. 91 iii) Supplement: Pagan Antihumanism in Context………………...…… 96 c) Second Developmental Sub-phase: “Postmodernism” ………………..…… 102 i) A Refined New Material at Hand………………...…………………. 104 ii) Phrase-based Antihumanism……………………………...………... 117 2.2: A Satisfying Ethics?................................................................................................. 133 Chapter 3: Late Writings: An Anthro-paralogy of Resistance ……………………143 3.1: A Strategic Shift…………………………………………...……………………… 144 3.2: Kant, Freud and “the jews”………………………...……………………………... 154 3.3: Two Figures of the Inhuman…………………………...…………………………. 161 4 3.4: Malraux and Augustine: Further Testimony, and an Antihumanist Sketch of Love and Solidarity……………………...…………... 167 a) Malraux……………………………………………………………………... 167 b) Augustine………………………………………………………...…………. 174 3.5: “The Witness is a Traitor”…………………………………………...…………… 179 Chapter 4: Critical Assessments …………………...……………………………….. 185 4.1: Philosophical Assessment…………………………...……………………………. 188 4.2: Political Assessment…………………………………...…………………………. 197 Conclusion: Lyotard’s Enduring Value.…………………...……………………….. 208 Sources by Lyotard Cited…………...…....……………..…………………………… 216 Other Sources Cited……………...…………………………………………………... 218 5 Introduction: …the expression Can we? not only connotes possibility, it implies capacity as well: is it in our power, our strength, and our competence to perpetuate the project of modernity? The question suggests that to be sustained, such a project would call for strength and competence, and that these things may have failed us. Such a reading would have to spark an inquiry, an inquiry into the failing of the modern subject. And if this failing should be a matter for dispute, then we must be able to produce evidence for it in the form of facts or at least signs. The interpretation of this evidence may well engender controversy, and at the very least it must be submitted to cognitive procedures for establishing facts or speculative procedures for validating signs. (I am referring, without further explanation, to the Kantian problematic of hypotyposes that plays a major role in his historicopolitical philosophy.) Without wishing to decide here and now whether it is constituted by facts or signs, the evidence we can collect on this failing of the modern subject seems difficult to refute. In the course of the past fifty years, each grand narrative of emancipation – regardless of the genre it privileges – has, as it were, had its principle invalidated. All that is real is rational, all that is rational is real: “Auschwitz” refutes the speculative doctrine. At least this crime, which is real, is not rational. All that is proletarian is communist, all that is communist is proletarian: “Berlin 1953,” “Budapest 1956,” “Czechoslovakia 1968,” “Poland 1980,” (to name but a few) refute the doctrine of historical materialism: the workers rise up against the Party. All that is democratic is by the people and for the people, and vice versa: “May 1968” refutes the doctrine of parliamentary liberalism. Everyday society brings the representative institution to a halt. Everything that promotes the free flow of supply and demand is good for general prosperity, and vice versa: the “crises of 1911 and 1929” refute the doctrine of economic liberalism, and the “crisis of 1974-79” refutes the post-Keynesian modification of that doctrine. The investigator records the names of these events as so many signs of the failing of modernity. - Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Explained Jean-François Lyotard‟s generation of French philosophers occupies an important moment in the history of Western thought. In a context where intellectual engagement with the intimately linked problems of revolution, universality and particularity/community constituted something of a national tradition,1 their task was to 1 Cf. Sunil Khilnani, Arguing Revolution: The Intellectual Left in Postwar France (New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1993). Vincent Descombes also identifies, via Lyotard, the defining tension of post-revolutionary France: its political tradition is torn “entre un universalisme