Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 23:03:13 +0100
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com>
Subject: Re: Give me some milk or else go home




Diane

As before when we previously discussed Nancy's work/thought - our 
readings of Nancy and the use that we intend to make of his work, which 
is highly significant, varies considerably.  I am afraid I still believe 
that a more realist reading of the Nancy's 'inoperative community' is 
more sensible and useful. The abstraction you are engaging in by reading 
Nancy in this way disengages the text from the everyday and prevents 
it's usefulness in addressing and perhaps engaging in the very many real 
and virtual communities that we exist, usually painfully within. The way 
Lyotard is using Nancy's work/phrase - is in my view the correct and 
most useful interpretation to make of the work because of the necessary 
engagement with the real.

Difference here is inevitable.

Perhaps we can compromise on the use of the word 'community' in Politics 
11 in 'the sense of the world' where Nancy discusses community in terms 
that are directly related to how "subject, citizen, soveriegnty, 
community - organisizes, saturates and exhausts the political space 
closing itself today...."  I recognise that our readings of  Nancy may 
not be reconcilable - and indeed in this virtual community it's harder 
to arrive at a position of mutual agreement and understanding than it 
would be normally. But nonetheless in this use of community Nancy is 
directly proposing an understanding and an engagement with the political 
apparatus that constitutes the West and consequently globalisation.

consequently in your last paragraph the distinctions you are drawing out 
are unnecessary.

regards
steve

Diane Davis wrote:

>Steve and Eric,
>I think we've had this conversation before, but I don't hear the term
>"inoperative" as a negative thing in Nancy. And as he says many, many
>times in The Inoperative Community, community cannot be built. Community
>is not synonymous with society in nancy; societies can be built but not
>community. I don't know the lyotard reference to nancy that I believe
>eric posted earlier, but it didn't seem to be using the word
>"inoperative" in the way nancy does. Community as Nancy's using the term
>is by definition not operative; it is not a work and does not work.
>Community is a function or an effect of an existential structure of
>exposure--there's nothing "we" can do about it: "we" are precisely
>because we are exposed (to one another), excentric, existentially
>structured as inside-outsides, thresholds. Finite, singular, but always
>already exposed. I would (and have) suggested that Agamben's "coming
>community" is very close to nancy's--it is always already coming,
>to-come, permanently imminent, never simply there and certainly not
>something that could be produced. 
>
>However, that community/exposure always already *is* doesn't mean it is
>experienced very often or that we don't have social structures and
>economies that make it damn near impossible experience. If nancy calls
>for something, it is to force society to structure in a way that doesn't
>obliterate the possibility for the experience of community, and that
>doesn't ignore the responsibility demanded by community. But community,
>nancy says quite explicitly, is experienced in the *un*working or
>interruption of any work, including the work that is any
>political/economic/social structure (program/pogrom) and the work that
>is the subject (of the dialectical process) itself. 
>
>So I'm wondering again--eric, steve, anyone--when you're talking about
>community here, are you talking about what Nancy's calling community or
>what would better go under the name society or even neighborhood or
>something like that? Or do we disagree about what Nancy's calling
>community? 
>
>Best, ddd
>___________________________________________
>  D. Diane Davis
>  Division of Rhetoric (UT Mail Code B5500)
>  Department of English
>  University of Texas at Austin 
>  Austin, TX 78712-1122 
>
>  Office: 512.471.8765  FAX: 512.471.4353
>  ddd-AT-mail.utexas.edu
>  http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~davis
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu [mailto:owner-
>>lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu] On Behalf Of steve.devos
>>Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 3:25 PM
>>To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>>Subject: Re: Give me some milk or else go home
>>
>>Eric/all
>>
>>nicely put...
>>
>>Whilst our living communities are heterogeneous and consequently
>>inoperative, a notion that incorporates, by default,  the infans. How
>>
>do
>
>>we address and then move beyond the necessity of recognising that our
>>communities are all inoperative towards building a 'Coming Community'
>>
>as
>
>>Agamben so nicely put it.
>>
>>To accept that communities are as inoperative as our human psyche's is
>>not a difficult logical step - "...annulling the Other is universally
>>the Self's temptation... " as Lyotard so aptly put it . What is
>>impossible is to ignore the issue of how we address the reactionary
>>tensions that have always run across and through all human communities
>>(and probably non-human ones as well). Perhaps the post-modern
>>
>tendency
>
>>towards the structuring of social-relations,  at an increasingly
>>superficial level will enable communities to function more humanely,
>>intensity of community relations is not 'something' that helps...
>>
>>regards
>>
>>steve
>>
>>Mary Murphy and Eric Salstrand wrote:
>>
>>>Diane, Glen, Hugh, Rod, All:
>>>
>>>In his essay on Joyce's Ulysses, entitled "The Return upon the
>>>
>Return"
>
>>>Lyotard makes the following remarks about community:
>>>
>>>"It is not enough to consider Bloom as a historian or a sociologist,
>>>
>as the
>
>>>literary counterpart of urbanization in progress. He is also and
>>>especially, I believe (with Benjamin), the return of solitude, of the
>>>desert, of inoperativity at the heart of the community.  The modern
>>>
>city is
>
>>>the operativity (oeuvre) in the bosom of which the community and the
>>>individual are deprived of their artwork (oeurve) by the hegemony of
>>>
>market
>
>>>value. Far from being a free city, Joyce's Dublin is, to use Jean-Luc
>>>Nancy's words, an inoperative community."
>>>
>>>And as Rod alluded to with regard to a herd of cows mooing, in
>>>
>"Music,
>
>>>Mutic" Lyotard writes:
>>>
>>>"The community forgets the anonymous horde moaning with the terror of
>>>
>no
>
>>>longer being.  The community, however, does not efface the horde."
>>>
>>>Certainly, as Hugh pointed out, any conception of community is
>>>
>problematic
>
>>>and as Diane said, community cannot be limited to the city alone, but
>>>rather is prior to urbanization and always already complaisant with
>>>technology.
>>>
>>>However, as Rob points out, if there is a tension between the
>>>
>community and
>
>>>infancy, then what Diane calls contact and what Lyotard calls the
>>>
>touch
>
>>>marks the site of our originary inscription. If this signifies our
>>>
>entrance
>
>>>into community, it is also marks our entrance into bilocation.
>>>
>Henceforth,
>
>>>we will carry the solitude, desert, inoperativity with us into the
>>>
>city as
>
>>>Janus-faced citizens, mute barbarians who must wear masks, strangers
>>>
>taught
>
>>>to speak an alien tongue, Cain masquerading as Abel.
>>>
>>>What Lyotard names the Differend is nothing more than a kind of
>>>
>"return of
>
>>>the repressed" of the enfans, the horde, the silent witness who
>>>
>always
>
>>>betrays us. Any conception of community which does not recognize the
>>>conflictual nature that underlies it (like Romulus and Remus)
>>>
>implicitly
>
>>>argues for terror, the violent smoothing over of differences, the
>>>
>enforced
>
>>>silence of the phrase.
>>>
>>>In "Just Gaming" Lyotard refers to, even though he doesn't name,
>>>autonomists such as Negri who argue in a similar fashion with regard
>>>
>to
>
>>>community. They claim that workers have an autonomous power that
>>>
>transcends
>
>>>capitalism and which is the source of resistance. They regard the
>>>
>enfans,
>
>>>in other words, as both real and heroic.
>>>
>>>Lyotard differs from autonomists like Negri insofar as he emphasizes
>>>instead the weakness, the manceps instead. Perhaps, as Rob has said,
>>>
>this
>
>>>is the part of us, like Peter Pan, that refuses to grown up. Perhaps
>>>
>also
>
>>>it is that part which is incapable of growing up, which is why it is
>>>
>called
>
>>>the intractable, the rock we carry like a millstone around our necks,
>>>
>the
>
>>>weight of time itself, the burden of re-membering.
>>>
>>>Lyotard offers us the heteronomous community, to which we can only
>>>
>bear
>
>>>false witness. In this weakness lies our strength, only let's not be
>>>
>pious
>
>>>about it. Rather, the common sense of the pagan requires that she
>>>
>makes a
>
>>>ruse.
>>>
>>>eric
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>

HTML VERSION:

Steve and Eric,
I think we've had this conversation before, but I don't hear the term
"inoperative" as a negative thing in Nancy. And as he says many, many
times in The Inoperative Community, community cannot be built. Community
is not synonymous with society in nancy; societies can be built but not
community. I don't know the lyotard reference to nancy that I believe
eric posted earlier, but it didn't seem to be using the word
"inoperative" in the way nancy does. Community as Nancy's using the term
is by definition not operative; it is not a work and does not work.
Community is a function or an effect of an existential structure of
exposure--there's nothing "we" can do about it: "we" are precisely
because we are exposed (to one another), excentric, existentially
structured as inside-outsides, thresholds. Finite, singular, but always
already exposed. I would (and have) suggested that Agamben's "coming
community" is ver
y close to nancy's--it is always already coming,
to-come, permanently imminent, never simply there and certainly not
something that could be produced. 

However, that community/exposure always already *is* doesn't mean it is
experienced very often or that we don't have social structures and
economies that make it damn near impossible experience. If nancy calls
for something, it is to force society to structure in a way that doesn't
obliterate the possibility for the experience of community, and that
doesn't ignore the responsibility demanded by community. But community,
nancy says quite explicitly, is experienced in the *un*working or
interruption of any work, including the work that is any
political/economic/social structure (program/pogrom) and the work that
is the subject (of the dialectical process) itself. 

So I'm wondering again--eric, steve, anyone--when you're talking about
community here, are you talking about what Nan
cy's calling community or
what would better go under the name society or even neighborhood or
something like that? Or do we disagree about what Nancy's calling
community? 

Best, ddd
___________________________________________
  D. Diane Davis
  Division of Rhetoric (UT Mail Code B5500)
  Department of English
  University of Texas at Austin 
  Austin, TX 78712-1122 

  Office: 512.471.8765  FAX: 512.471.4353
  ddd-AT-mail.utexas.edu
  http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~davis

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu [mailto:owner-
lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu] On Behalf Of steve.devos
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 3:25 PM
To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: Give me some milk or else go home

Eric/all

nicely put...

Whilst our living communities are heterogeneous and consequently
inoperative, a notion that incorporates, by default,  the infans. How

do

we address and then move beyond the necessity of recognising that our
communities are all inoperative towards building a 'Coming Community'

as

Agamben so nicely put it.

To accept that communities are as inoperative as our human psyche's is
not a difficult logical step - "...annulling the Other is universally
the Self's temptation... " as Lyotard so aptly put it . What is
impossible is to ignore the issue of how we address the reactionary
tensions that have always run across and through all human communities
(and probably non-human ones as well). Perhaps the post-modern

tendency

towards the structuring of social-relations,  at an increasingly
superficial level will enable communities to function more humanely,
intensity of community relations is not 'something' that helps...

regards

steve

Mary Murphy and Eric Salstrand wrote:

Diane, Glen, Hugh, Rod, All:

In his essay on Joyce's Ulysses, entitled "The Return upon the

Return"

Lyotard makes the following remarks about community:

"It is not enough to consider Bloom as a historian or a sociologist,

as the

literary counterpart of urbanization in progress. He is also and
especially, I believe (with Benjamin), the return of solitude, of the
desert, of inoperativity at the heart of the community.  The modern

city is

the operativity (oeuvre) in the bosom of which the community and the
individual are deprived of their artwork (oeurve) by the hegemony of

market

value. Far from being a free city, Joyce's Dublin is, to use Jean-Luc
Nancy's words, an inoperative community."

And as Rod alluded to with regard to a herd of cows mooing, in

"Music,

Mutic" Lyotard writes:

"The community forgets the anonymous horde moaning with the terror of

no

longer being.  The community, however, does not efface the horde."

Certainly, as Hugh pointed out, any conception of community is

problematic

and as Diane said, community cannot be limited to the city alone, but
rather is prior to urbanization and always already complaisant with
technology.

However, as Rob points out, if there is a tension between the

community and

infancy, then what Diane calls contact and what Lyotard calls the

touch

marks the site of our originary inscription. If this signifies our

entrance

into community, it is also marks our entrance into bilocation.

Henceforth,

we will carry the solitude, desert, inoperativity with us into the

city as

Janus-faced citizens, mute barbarians who must wear masks, strangers

taught

to speak an alien tongue, Cain masquerading as Abel.

What Lyotard names the Differend is nothing more than a kind of

"return of

the repressed" of the enfans, the horde, the silent witness who

always

betrays us. Any conception of community which does not recognize the
conflictual nature that underlies it (like Romulus and Remus)

implicitly

argues for terror, the violent smoothing over of differences, the

enforced

silence of the phrase.

In "Just Gaming" Lyotard refers to, even though he doesn't name,
autonomists such as Negri who argue in a similar fashion with regard

to

community. They claim that workers have an autonomous power that

transcends

capitalism and which is the source of resistance. They regard the

enfans,

in other words, as both real and heroic.

Lyotard differs from autonomists like Negri insofar as he emphasizes
instead the weakness, the manceps instead. Perhaps, as Rob has said,

this

is the part of us, like Peter Pan, that refuses to grown up. Perhaps

also

it is that part which is incapable of growing up, which is why it is

called

the intractable, the rock we carry like a millstone around our necks,

the

weight of time itself, the burden of re-membering.

Lyotard offers us the heteronomous community, to which we can only

bear

false witness. In this weakness lies our strength, only let's not be

pious

about it. Rather, the common sense of the pagan requires that she

makes a

ruse.

eric