Date: 	Fri, 8 Mar 1996 14:07:31 +0100
Subject:       Re: MB: Heidegger


to Petar,
I dont't presuppose the meanings of revolution and literature. You 
are completely right that the relation between Blanchots' writings 
and history is complexe. But you may not forget 1) in general, that 
Blanchot, as a good critic, discuss the 'hot' topics of his time 
(before and after the war). In this sense, studying Blanchot is 
studying also in part the history of France in the XXth century. Of 
course, the 'meaning' of the epoque to which Blanchot is contributing 
-if such an expression can be accepted- is very particular and cannot 
be reduced to one or another 'isme'. You may not forget 2) in 
particular that to be such a critic Blanchots' reflexions are rooted 
in a French context. In the 30ies, it is obvious that B. takes over 
the legacy of Maurras (Levinas himself remembers that B. was a 
monarchist), but he is trying to get rid of the contradictions 
inherent of the Maurras system. This work is still linked to a 
political and social revolution of which the meaning must be 
constructed. Therefore, in stead of being reactionary as Maurras, B. 
was revolutionary. In the 30ies, this means taking position towards 
communisme and fascisme. That's precisely what B. is doing. Just an 
example to say that history plays a role.
Thanks,
Arthur