<書評>Leonard Lawlor, From Violence to Speaking Out: Title Apocalypse and Expression in Foucault, Derrida and Deleuze (Edinburgh University Press, 2016, xii+308p.)
Author(s) Hammurabi, Rubio
Citation 哲学論叢 (2021), 48: R1-R4
Issue Date 2021
URL http://hdl.handle.net/2433/263279
Right
Type Departmental Bulletin Paper
Textversion publisher
Kyoto University ―――――――――――――――――― different texts included stem from Lawlor’s ――――――――Review――――――― research and expertise in the phenomenological Leonard Lawlor, From Violence to tradition (Husserl, Heidegger and Speaking Out: Apocalypse and Merleau-Ponty) and firmly dive into the Expression in Foucault, Derrida and so-called « poststructuralist » thinkers, mainly Deleuze (Edinburgh University Press, Jacques Derrida, Gilles Deleuze and Michel 2016, xii+308p.) Foucault. On this basis, it is possible to read it Hammurabi Rubio as both a commentary on phenomenological ―――――――――――――――――― and poststructuralist ideas, or as a series of From Violence to Speaking out (2016), analyses addressing, implicitly or explicitly, the subtitled Apocalypse and Expression in problem of the worst violence. For these Foucault, Derrida and Deleuze, is the latest reasons, a general reader, not particularly major publication by Leonard Lawlor, whose familiar with the thinkers discussed herein, impressive philosophical research stretches all could approach it as an interesting overview of the way from classic figures like Henri Bergson phenomenology and poststructuralism which (1859–1941) and Edmund Husserl will explore and connect somewhat familiar (1859–1938), to more contemporary concepts like epoché, temporality and philosophers such as Jacques Derrida auto-affection, with other perhaps less familiar (1930–2004) and Gilles Deleuze (1925–1995). concepts such as transcendental violence, event Indeed, Lawlor’s excellent translation of and repetition. On the other hand, the Derrida’s Voice and Phenomenon (1967) has specialised researcher will equally find here a become the reference among anglophone fresh and original approach to contemporary poststructuralist researchers since its ethics and politics which posits poverty and publication in 2011. It is not surprising then that powerlessness as the appropriate answers to this book is also very much inscribed in his globalisation and power. life-long effort of exploring, developing and This, however, does not imply by any connecting concepts essential to modern means that this is an easy text, and even the continental philosophy. general reader must stay attentive to the This work consists of two parts composed differences, as well as the similarities, between of several chapters, some of which were the various thinkers and arguments evoked published separately and could indeed be read throughout this book. In the present review, we as independent articles. Generally speaking, the will attempt to provide some elements for the
R1 general reader, while also stressing those How are we to interpret Platonism thus aspects which constitute Lawlor’s original characterised as violence? The answer to this insights and extrapolations. We consider that important question is given mainly in chapter 2, the theme of the reversal of Platonism would be titled What Happened? What Is Going to of particular interest to the general reader, while Happen? An Essay on the Experience of the the problem of the worst violence and its Event, where Platonism is portrayed as eventual answer in poverty would be more measuring existence in terms of an origin from compelling to the seasoned researcher. which it might be said to have fallen (essence), or in terms of an end towards it might be said to The reversal of Platonism be advancing (telos). As Lawlor affirms One of the most prominent and overarching quoting Deleuze: « To reverse Platonism is first themes of From Violence to Speaking Out is its and foremost to depose essences and to commitment to the reversal of Platonism. From substitute events in their place » (p.45). This the introduction Lawlor announces that this shifts the attention to the event as one of the key work « develops the problem of the worst concepts in the pursuit of the reversal of violence through the idea of the reversal of Platonism. Effectively, the event cannot be Platonism » (p. 3). This general affirmation and conceived in terms of a Platonic circular the different ways it is explored and justified temporality, which posits a primary origin and through the work will certainly be one of the an ultimate destination for existence. The highlights for readers of this text as an overview experience of the event contains no answer for of continental philosophy during the second the questions of origin and destination. This half of the twentieth century. Although Lawlor means that the temporality of the event, not himself admits that such a commitment might being closed on itself, leaves always a be seen as a somewhat outdated by several of « reminder ». This also implies that the event the same philosophers referred on the text, he never really « happens »: no matter how far we nonetheless justifies it by arguing that go out into the future, there is always still Platonism itself is the very « worst violence » another « to come ». « The event is always still that this work seeks to confront: « If Platonism to come » (p.46). Platonism, on the other hand, is violence, then the reversal of Platonism wills that all existence constantly approximates necessarily means […] the overcoming of an ultimate telos; an end with no reminder, violence, all sorts of violence and injustices, with nothing else « to come ». In this sense, and especially the worst violence. » (p.4). Platonism wills the « worst violence ». Thus,
R2
« the reversal of Platonism is a hyperbolic structure of auto-affection is the structure of response to the hyperbolic will of Platonism » time which, in its turn, is transcendental (p.46). In short, the theme of the reversal of the violence. violence of Platonism serves as a common Transcendental violence then, being thread giving direction and structure to the fundamental to experience and life, is diverse ideas and thinkers presented throughout unavoidable: « experience itself is violence, and this work. life is nothing other than violence ». Any attempt to suppress transcendental violence is The problem of the worst violence an attempt to suppress life itself: these attempts Complementarily, From Violence to « are actually worse than the violence against Speaking Out could also be seen as a reaction to which they are reacting » (p.10). These the problem of the worst violence, which attempts, among which we count Platonism, Lawlor identifies as « the hyperbolic reaction to seek to eliminate all forms of violence thereby violence », best exemplified as we mentioned eliminating also the essential violence of time, above by Platonism. This primary « violence », becoming and individuation. In chapter 1, for against which Platonism reacts hyperbolically, example, this worst violence is described is described throughout the first part of this through the example of globalisation: « As it work as a form of violence intrinsic and pursues its conquest of other cultures and lands, fundamental to experience. Lawlor calls this globalization acts in the name of peace ». violence, together with Derrida, Effectively, by perpetuating the cycle of « transcendental violence ». The reasons why violence, Platonism and globalisation demand transcendental violence is fundamental, and the end of all life; that is, they will the therefore inevitable, are specifically addressed apocalypse. in chapters 2 and 3. Here, Lawlor invites us, The question then to be answered in the with Husserl, to enact the epoché, or second part of the book, titled Three Ways of phenomenological bracketing, in order to turn Speaking, is: if violence is fundamental to back from the objects of our experience to the experience and cannot be eliminated, what can experience itself. According to Lawlor, the we do? Or, as it is formulated in the epoché will take us back to our interior introduction: « is it possible to imagine an monologue, which will appear as auto-affection iteration, that is, an expression, or a statement, consisting in the two contradictory forces of or a mark, based in the experience of singularisation and universalisation. The powerlessness, that not only functions and has
R3 an effect on the one to whom it is expressed, awareness of violence. We learn that violence uttered, or given (speaking to) – but also that at not only is the condition of the possibility of the same time minimizes the irreducible time and experience, but also that it is inevitable, violence of repetition found in all experience, and that futile efforts to eliminate it have expressions, utterances, and marks? » (p.6). Is it plagued Western philosophy since Ancient possible to speak out while minimising violence Greece. Reactions against such efforts, like the altogether? These, needless to say, are not easy reversal of Platonism, are akin to other questions. As it turns out, the appropriate comparable projects ubiquitous in reaction to transcendental violence is not an contemporary philosophy: Derrida’s effort to explain it or to eliminate it, but rather « deconstruction » or Heidegger’s « opening oneself to the violence » so we can « destruktion », etc.. To be sure, Lawlor’s « become something other than what we are » exposition is straightforward and clear, but it and thus minimise violence. This form of should not be taken without a grain of salt, for, « least violence » is defined by the three ways as he admits himself, many contemporary of speaking corresponding to each of the philosophers have entirely abandoned the idea thinkers mentioned in the subtitle of this work of a « reversal » of Platonism or metaphysics. and further developed in chapter 9: Foucault’s « Deconstruction », for example, is not the speaking-freely; Derrida’s speaking-distantly; dismantling or the outright rejection of and Deleuze’s speaking-in-tongues. metaphysics. For these reasons, one could Accordingly, the answer to the worst violence, wonder why, whereas other philosophers exemplified by globalisation in the first part, engage with the problems posed by « old » can be characterised as a form of poverty: to metaphysics rather prudently, Lawlor decides embrace the powerless ability to let go of the to blatantly « fight against “ the war without power to dominate others. In this sense then, war” with “ the peace against peace,” » (p.286). this book starts from globalisation and ends On this note, a question that one could have in with poverty. mind while reading this book is: to what extent is speaking out against violence also a form of Final remarks the very hyperbolic violence it is denouncing? All in all, From Violence to Speaking Out is The author certainly provide us with several a voyage that begins from basic philosophical answers to this and other questions, but it is to principles, namely time and experience, and the reader to judge by herself and to decide of gradually leads us into an unexpected their relevance.
R4