Abstract

This essay takes up the encounter between philosophy and literature through a reconsideration of Walter Benjamin’s remarks from “On Some Motifs in Baudelaire” about Henri Bergson’s Matiere et memoire as an attempt “[t]owering above” other ventures into Lebensphilosophie to “lay hold of the ‘true’ experience, as opposed to the kind that manifests itself in the standardized, denatured life of the civilized masses”. Despite his initial affirmation of Bergson’s understanding of experience as connected with tradition, Benjamin criticizes the philosopher’s account for sidestepping “the alienating, blinding experience of the age of large-scale industrialism” in reaction to which, as Benjamin insists, Bergson’s philosophy of memory developed. Yet even as Bergson shuts out the historical import of modernization, according to Benjamin, he also spotlights a “complementary” visual experience “in the form of its spontaneous afterimage”. Benjamin subsequently defines Bergson’s philosophy as “an attempt to specify this afterimage and fix it as a permanent record”, an endeavor that inadvertently “furnishes a clue to the experience which presented itself undistorted to Baudelaire’s eyes, in the figure of his reader”. If the literary critic might be viewed here as weighing in on a long-running antagonism between philosophy and literature, then his assessment is resolute: by praising the self-conscious historicity of Baudelaire’s lyric, Benjamin declares that poetry succeeds where Lebensphilosophie fails. Notably, Baudelaire is not the only figure to upstage “ahistorical” Bergson, since Marcel Proust and Sigmund Freud facilitate this victory. To contextualize the second section of “Motifs”, where Benjamin discusses the novelist’s “immanent critique of Bergson” this essay offers a reading of “On the Image of Proust” as a propadeutic to Benjamin’s privileging of “Baudelaire” over “Bergson” in the first section of “Motifs” to broach the destinies of diminished perception before he turns to Freud in the third section. Drawing upon Freud’s thermodynamic model of a selective and protective perceptual-conscious system from Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Benjamin explains how perception calcifies in adapting to industrialism. Notably, however, his “energetics” does not remain bound by closed-system economic premises insofar as he conceives Baudelaire’s correspondances as an antidote to reification and modernization fatigue. The resulting configuration emerges against the backdrop of a lament about the decline of tradition-infused, long-term experience [Erfahrung] that accompanies the rise of isolated experience [Erlebnis]. In tracking Benjamin’s seemingly melancholic emplotment of the literary image between “Proust” and “Baudelaire”, the essay ultimately focuses on how he amplifies its sociohistorical potential to attest to the dehiscence of tradition as a community-sustaining force.

Highlights

  • After a couple of decades when Walter Benjamin was, for many of us, the ineluctable touchstone in theoretical discussions about the historicity of experience “after” its categorical deconstruction, shifting preoccupations follow a new set of stars

  • Marxists harbor a grudge against poststructuralism for its “ahistorical” poeticisms, which allegedly diluted the discernibility of political economic realities in the course of stealing Marxism’s institutional thunder

  • According to Benjamin, this belief encouraged Proust’s development of “the lifelong exercises in which he strove to bring to light past things saturated with all the reminiscences that had penetrated his pores during the sojourn of those things in his unconscious”; it positions him “as an incomparable reader of Les Fleurs du mal, for he sensed that it contained kindred elements”: Proust writes: “Time is peculiarly dissociated in Baudelaire; only a very few days can appear, and they are significant ones

Read more

Summary

Introduction

After a couple of decades when Walter Benjamin was, for many of us, the ineluctable touchstone in theoretical discussions about the historicity of experience “after” its categorical deconstruction, shifting preoccupations follow a new set of stars. Benjamin agrees with Bergson that “[e]xperience is a matter of tradition, in collective existence as well as private life It is a product less of facts firmly anchored in memory [Erinnerung] than of the accumulated and frequently unconscious data that flow together in memory [Gedächtnis]”. Despite this initial concurrence with Bergson, Benjamin criticizes the philosopher for “[rejecting] any historical determination of memory. He manages to stay clear of that experience from which his own philosophy evolved, or, rather, in reaction to which it arose. This openness allows the poet not merely to acknowledge and to gesture past industrialism’s numbing impact upon his readers to the prehistorical community they might have comprised before rationalization

Modernization-as-Loss
Community Lost
Community Regained
Concluding Remarks
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call