Deliberating Barthes

7/29/2019 Deliberating Barthes

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/deliberating-barthes 1/9

Deliberating BarthesAuthor(s): André AcimanReviewed work(s):Source: Social Text, No. 11 (Winter, 1984-1985), pp. 110-117Published by: Duke University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/466596 .

Accessed: 13/10/2012 22:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Text.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke

http://www.jstor.org/stable/466596?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/466596?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke



Deliberatingarthes

ANDRE ACIMAN

Barthes' ork eginstpreciselyheuncture hereogos s logic nd ogos slanguage ave raditionallyhrownptheir andsndespair. he taskhere ies nfordinghe logon,ndivining,nteasingndsqueezing et nemoredropletfmeaningongafter veryone houghtherewas none eft.Pater peaksoftheaestheticsf"surplussage";arthes fthepleasure fle surplus. hisexplainsBarthes' ascinationith herecalcitrant,atherhan he ccessiblemeaning,hatever ugitivendbeguilingthird eaning"rpunctum,s he calls t:"...theother

meaning,he hird,he ne toomany,'he upplementhatmyntellectionannotsucceed nabsorbing,t oncepersistentndfleeting,moothnd lusive....""Sud-denly ow,new hingsan be said, hought,ndwritten,ut hese re all seconddegreehings,or hey ave ll been ormulatedy mindwhich asbeen ubjectedto recursiveperationndnow xists nan altered lane.Barthes ill eldom anttothink nless ehasbeen eased y nobject's esistanceohis hinking.f heresresistance,hen here s concealedmeaningomewhere;his swhere eductionstarts. ither eneeds obemystifiedy particularhenomenonobeginhinkingabout t,or,throughhinking,arthes illmystifyimselfi.e.bring imselfo a

pointwherehe willhavereason o

suspecthat concealed

meaningxists).As

Heidegger ncewrote,Thinking ust hinkgainsttself."2or this s how tmanagesoth obestirtselfo hinksomemore" nd obaffletself. ore ftenhannot, arthes'rgumentsaper ff ithernto n nfiniteegressr nto paradox,heirresistablerenchointe. his xplains ispenchantor he hort aragraphormwhere othingsever oncluded ecause verymentalct n he nd sks f hinkingthe eryame uestion hichhinkingsks f heworld. WhatsthemeaningfX?"always sks "What s themeaningfsuch a question?" arthes eeds real orimagined eriod fdisorientationis-a-visheworld oarrivet this oint. his swhy arthesnfailinglyejectshe bvious ndthe tereotypicalometimesnly o

returnothem.This ituationshighlyeminiscentfthat eriod fbeguilingncertaintyhichexists hen wondividualsho re ttractedoone notherreyet nable rdo notwish odispell ncertaintyoohastily. hey respeculatingboutone another,erectingmaginarympedimentsnly o avor he xpectationf urmountinghem.This showBarthes eginso think.

Bartheshinksrotically.edesires ndcourtshinking;e wantsouncover,otouch hinkingerymuchnthemanner fa manwho onceives n illicit esire.Barthes ants o eethingsaked. heveryctof hinkingndwritingor arthess

110



Deliberating arthes 111

the pplicationf his esireoexpose,odemystify,openetratehe nneranctum.This s whyBarthes'hinkingetainstserotic exture. arthes s stimulatedy

thoughts an onlookersstimulatedy "spot fflesh"t thebeaches.Knowingemay tare utnot ouch,peculatingincehecannot ossess. o the uestionwhatwould tbe ike otouchX'sbody?"hemindnvariablysks whats themeaningfthis esire?"r,moremportantly,whatsthemeaningf hisuestion?"s a result,the bservertares ecausehehopes o unlock hemeaningfhisdesire.Wedgedbetween his uriosity,his oretastef exual onsummationnd he esire othink"somemore,"heBarthiangoconspiresoreduce ll desire nto portableersionintendedor hemind nly.t s a sort f timulated,bridgedersion ftheworldwhichublimatesesire. t does notrepudiateesire; tmerelyays later." nespeculatesn rder odelay ctingn heworld;ne peculatesecause ne sunable

to ct n heworld;ne peculatesecause peculationas, ndeed, ecome way factingntheworld.

Inthe nd, very perationfBarthes'mind esiresheworld s well s its wndesire or hatworld. his sthemost isquietingorm fnarcissismver een, orwhatwe are facedwithsa form fthinkinghich educes tselfnd s seduced yitself. arthes layswithhinking,shesays, rtistically.e is, nthis ense,whatFreudwouldhave alled nepistemophiliac.3

Letme uickly rovidewo xamplesnspiredrom y eadingfBarthes.mongtheguestst a cocktail artyo which was nvited asanelegantwoman,ged26orso,whowore rather

audy ingn her ndex

inger.lthough immediately

sensed rom er atricianir hat hewas haughtynd naccessiblendividual,hemisplaceding, ithoutectifyingynitialssumption,aveher n added ensualquality hich orderednthe nabashedlyrofane.tbespokebold nddetermined,evenuncivilexualbeing. ater watched erhelpthehostess adle thepunch.Suddenly,recognizednentirelyifferenterson.heperformedhe askwithmeek nd awkwardmilewhich etrayedlackofconfidence.he hadbecomedocile pinsterhowaseager ohelp ut,whose lightlytooped ostureold fahistoryf ompliance. ndyet achtime beheld he oguishlacementfher ing,I could notbutsuspect hatbehind he ook of self-effacementurked lewd

sensualityhich ad, s itwere, emporarilycquiesced o middle lassmanners.I checkedmy mpressions:heringwasperhaps othingmore han faddishwhim,he esire o ubscribeo dernierri, odisplacewithoutilutinger bidinggoodbreeding.roust believewould ave topped ere, ndSartre aken notherroad.ButBarthes ould rack hemplicationstill urtherndrealize inallyhat,nthe bsenceofbecoming cquaintedwith er,he must ssumeeither hat herings a

sign f ntemperateexualityrsimplyfalse ignali.e. tpretendso have exualconnotationsut s nrealitymptyfmeaning).

Yet, ven f he ignwere oid fmeaning,arthes ould till ave o skwhyhisperson laced tonher ndex inger,nowingullwell hat t s an unusualpot or



112 Aciman

ringnd hat hereforehe ing ouldnevitablye nterpretedsa sign. ltimately-andhere he bad nfinity'egins- here re everaluppositionsobe made: 1)that

the bserversbeing bstinatelyerverse;2)that e sforcedobeperverseecausethe ign sambiguous;3) thatnbeing mbiguous,t sindeed hewomanwho sbeing erverseecause he sforcinghe bservero uppose1), 2), nd 3).Tocaptherecursiveituationere, hewomanmay eshowingnemptyign.

In the nd-and wewillreturnothisna littlewhile-itmakes bsolutelyodifferencehetherhering asmeaningrnot,ustas ithardlymattersowtoinvestigatehethererdisplays intentionallyimed o baffle ll inquiries.heinterpretativeircuit ow peratesn a furtheremove.tseeks o nvestigateheperversity:ine, ecause am unable ohalt n inquiry hich houldhavebeenterminatedong goor hould ever ave aken lace;hers, ecause he sallowingme toassume hat he ndeedwantsme toaskwhetherhe ing asmeaning.

Thisenchainmentfsuppositionss,perhaps,hequintessentialeaningfthesituation. eaning, ere,ies ntheunfoldingfmeaning.ut his ecursivepera-tionnow onspiresgainstme, teals he ssentialmeaningway romme,forcingme instead o suspectfor n infiniteegresslwaysmakes oomfor dditionalsuppositions)hat hewomanwith he ingwantsme oassumehat hewantsme oassume hat he ndeedwantsme o sk....Meaningsmeaning'snfiniteegress.hemindhunts fterpropositionst has validated n thepast butcannot ownsimultaneously.

Apawnbrokerunkie perates

nxactly

hisway:

oredeem nerticle,

epawnsanother hich e redeemsypawninghe irstgain.Herescues ispossessionsy

conspiringgainsthem. he mindwhichhinksnanextremelyarified anner,svery ften prey o a phenomenologicalmpasse: hevery ules ywhichuchmindmust bide norder o reachtherock-bottomfmeaningre ruleswhichconspireokeep hat esiredmeaningorevert a onestep emove rom hemind.

An nfiniteegresssproof fmany ontradictoryhings:hat hinkings"ontosomething";hatmeaningsbeing enuded,ayerfterayer;hat phenomemonasbeenbroughto a pointwhere thasnothing ore o show xcept he act hat t sshowingtself. et this swhere heturnaboutccurs. orthevery peration y

which phenomenonnformshe hinkerhatthasnothing ore o how s ruse ywhichmeaningoncealstself.ttells he hinker,Youarenot inished ithmeyet."This nducementogoonthinkings ust nothermeans ywhichmeaningecoils.

Barthianhinkingroceeds owardsn everfugitive eaningnd, t the ametime, roceeds eyondt,outrunst withoutver atching pwith t. t isalwaysthinkingftermeaning,nemightaypalintropically.nd use the dverb after"bothnthe ense hat arthes'hinkingsafter quarryswell s tosignifyhattarrivesftermeaningas occurred.tisaneverlastingtrip-tease:veryrticle fclothing hich s taken ff s surreptitiouslyuton againwhile nothersbeingremoved. heBarthianialectic,ike ascal's ornstance,sproliferative.t snever



DeliberatingBarthes 113

placated y n ntellectualynthesis.toverthinks,verreaches.yunsaddlingheobviousmeaningfthingst pins utoforbitike dislodgedatellite.

Now,magineor moment arthesbout owrite love etter. tfirst,preyofear nd orrow,arthes ould ent is eelingffusively,ysterically,hewaywedowhennguishuddenlyeizes s.But hen,hangingismindmidway,ewould earthis etter p.It was toocommon,ootrite;trepeatedtself ith heunabashedmediocrityfhollowyricsnthehit arade.tshysteriaashistrionic,ts pontane-ity esspersuasivehanmelodramatic,orderingn the mmodest. bove ll,thevery aturefhisunabashednd mmodesttatementsightilifyim n he yes fhis over.nshort, hile hewriter asfeverishlyentingispassion, ismindwassimultaneouslywakenedotheneed owritetrategically:Do Iwant o ay his rnot?Would his uinhingsf said t?Whatbout aying hat feel ndnotworrying

about onsequences?utwhatf..."How could RolandBarthes,hescrupulous etrieverf hiddenmeaningnd

intention,ail o deliberaten theconcealed trategiesfa literaryenrewhichattains maximumhetoricalffectrecisely yfeigningo be voidof ll rhetoricwhatsoever? he activity, hich nly fewmomentsgo seemeduninhibited,unrehearsed,ould uddenlyecome elf-conscious.nfact,his elf-consciousnesswas lready usilyeployingtselfn hemindf hewriter hile e was till entinghis motions. aving ecognizedhevalidationf incereufferingmeaning:canno ongerhinktraight,ogreatsmyuffering)n heheedless iscontinuitiesfhisstyle,hewriteraces wo ptions:ither e mustmimicndkeepupthe lanof hefirstew entencesrhemust istance imselfrom ishysteriaas heis, nfact,doingwhenhe deliberateshese wooptions) ndplaytheaching toicwho sintermittentlybletocompose imselfmeaning:Don't hink,ecause am bletorecovermy enses, hatmy ufferings nanywaydiminished").

Inthe irsthoice, he pontaneitys now ultivated,tylized,ehearsed:hetoric.In the econd hoice, his oberingistance ntone, lthough etractingromheimmediacyfhysteria,onstitutes morerefined hetoric:herhetoric f anti-rhetoric.4arthes annot hoose oremainystericalhroughouthe etterecausehe is alreadyable to foresee his reader'scontempt or the undiminished

banalityf hishysteria.orthe loquence fhysteriasshort ived.Barthesmustthereforehow hat e sfullyware f hebanalityfhis pistolaryantrumust she must how hat ishysteriasall themore oignantndnoblebecausehe facedthetactfulption f notrevealingispassion. uttoshow hese actors,arthesmust iscuss analityndsinceritynthebodyproperfa letter hich etainstsspontaneousharacterreciselyy efusingodeliberate.bviously,hatsneededat thispoint-and the need for t has been increasinglyeltthroughouthis

discussion--sa commentary,self-criticism,elf-vindicationf he ove ettertself.

But he rticulationf ove nd orrownd he alidationf hat rticulationannotexist imultaneously.hesituationscharacteristicallyarthian.veryctof om-



114 Aciman

munication nleashes actorsgainstwhich ommunication ust eact; nfact,tmayreactto thembefore venbeginningocommunicate.

All thisgivesriseto thenecessity f a second letter.This letter, f course, ssentimental.n itBartheswill xplainwhyhetoreuphisfirstetternd harken ackto tas if twere nowanenshrined,naccessible ext.Here all emotion sattenuated,elegiac, pokenwithmutedyricismnd muted erision. erision sthemaskbehindwhich orrowwantsbothto conceal and betray tself. I was notgoingto tellyouaboutmy irstetter... ethere amusing his eryetters an introductionomy irstwhich have a goodmind ocopy n ts ntirety." ll ofwhichmeans: I ambeing ofrankwithyou that feel free to confess will not use thisveryfranknesss a

strategem; ut whiledisclaiming ll rhetoric, myself an see now thatthisverydisavowalmaybe construed s slipping nce again ntorhetoric.' he oldesttrickn

the book.Needless to say, all this is too gimmicky, oo oblique. Hence the second

letter s torn s well.Comes the third etterwhich refusesto slip into trivial ndearments r into

deceptive intellectual crutiny.t rejectsthe commentaryltogether s a cheapsurdeguisementfrhetoric,he kitsch fsentimentality.arkedeverywhere ithStendhalian angfroid,his etter onceals and understatesverything. gainoneis reminded fCordelia'schilling ronouncement:I loveyourMajesty/Accordingtomybond,nomorenor ess." But Bartheswilltearup this etter s wellbecause,in his effort otto

speaklove in the

yricalrhysterical

mode,he riskspeakingno love at all.

Fourthetter, ifthetter,ixth ndso on. AttimesBarthesstempted orecopyhis

original nd "sincere" etter ndhave done with ll thesedeliberations. ut withouttheir xistence, he firstetter eems so naked and threadbare ow.Besides,eachrenewed ffortowrite letter roduced trategies hich re worth etaining,omeofwhich,ronicallynough, remore sincere" han hose ontainedn thefirstetter.At thispointBarthesmust edress isassumptions. he uninquisitiveanality fthefirstetters nthe nd the urestmark f ts sincerity."t s more sincere" hanetterstwo to six for the simplereason thatthese,by suspecting verythingf fraud,

inevitably ivested andor of its mmediacy. ut this ituation s wellneeds to beredressed.The Barthianwriter ays in effect: etme showyou why cannot besincere, orby showing outhisperhaps willbecome "sincere"!Animponderableparadox.Yet this s the ast etterhe can write.

In this etterBartheswillpiece together cattered houghts n the love letter

genre, nterspersedere nd therewith cattered ragmentsrom ispreviousetters.Even thecommentary,nce deemed a necessaryf omewhat wkward ntrusionnthebody proper fa letter, as nowearned tsrightfullace: thecommentaryot

only xplains hevarious trata ehind text ut lsoparticipatesnthis tratification.In fact,what one sees is the commentarynd the letterestablishing typical




Hegelian ond. ach tells he ther Idesire ou norder obedesiredyyou othatyour esiremightwakenmine." o anyone amiliar ith he ayout fA Lover's

DiscourseorRoland BarthesbyRolandBarthes heformat fthis inal etterwillbeextremelyamiliar.t sanunpolished,iscontinuousollage f extualmoments,namorphousnthologyfbits ndpiecesdrawn romach etter. his swhy arthes'lastbooksgive hat ncannympressionfpointingosubsequentewritings,s ifeachfragmenterewaitingo beborrowedlsewherend elaboratedater ntolarger,iscursive hole.

But nepublishesragmentsecause ne sunable oweave hemnto discursivewhole, o writehings ith hem. achfragmentsa momentf ntellectualesirewhich rimsverwithhe xpectationfbeing laborated nddeveloped urther.

Allthat arthes'ixthetter andiscuss,nfact,s thewriter'snabilityowrite

coherentetntermittentlyystericalove etter."I'll how ou dismemberedext,because t sno ongerossibleorme ouniten necontinuousnddiscursiveetterall these ontradictoryndmutuallyxclusive otesgathered ere.") No moreanguishf schemes', o more hetoricf development,'omore wistedogic, omoredeliberations."5

Barthes asspento much imemigratingromne draft o the therhatntheend he isunable odecidewhich f the ixversionsochoose,having,na sense,grownond f achandrealizing, oreover,hat achdraftanno ongertand nits wn.Hence,we have mosaic f ssortedragments,hose isjointedompila-tionbetrayshe uthor'swnperplexities.heunrehearsed

pontaneityhich t

firstromisedmovingove etter asbeen ompletelywallowedp ntheneed odeliberate. ne couldgofurthernd ay hat heneed owrite love etter asbeencompletelyaken ver y henow qually ealneed oexplainhe eries fdelibera-tionswhich reventedhewriterromwritingis ove etter. t therisk fover-simplifying,hat s evidenced ere s theprocess fwritingncompetitionithits ubjectmatterndultimatelyith tself.tseeks omonitortselfctively,ottactfullyrclandestinely;t eeks oarticulate ithinhevery abric fthe ext hehistoryf tsnegotiationsithtself nd tsreader. wentieth-centuryritingscharacterizedypreciselyhis eature:t deems tselfncompletef tdoes not

integrate,nonewayor another,hehistoryf tsrevisions,hearchaeologyfemendations hich inallyroducedt.The ideal ove etter orBarthess a text

which leadswith tsreader. utunlike ll otherove etters,tcannolongeray"readme, eel orme,oveme"; nsteadt ays,readme rchaeologically,"desiremydesire or our esire."

Can a things simple s a love etter verbe writtenhen? he answer s no.Barthes hareswith llmodernwritersandmore o than nybecausehe neverdriftednto iction)he umbersomenusofself-consciousness.neeither ritesparodiesf iteratureronewritesboutwriting.hat hemodernovel,xperimen-tal nd utobiographicals tusuallys, eaturestext ivulginghehistoryf ts wn



116 Aciman

productionhould hereforeome s nosurprise.AllofBarthes'ooks tartingith hePleasure ftheText ealequallywith is

inabilityodriftnto ictionndhisdiscoveryf substituteorm:hatwhich,imeand gain,withirelessnsight,ntelligence,nd harm e ddressess thempossibil-ity fcarryingut theprojectiterature.ndyet, s if o refuteverythinghavebeen aying, e haveBarthes' nfulfilledromise-unfulfilledecause fdeath-that ewouldwriteomedayomethinghatssomewhatovelistic.hispromisewas utteredentatively,s thoughnpassingnd notwithoutome pprehension.This pprehensionidnot erive rom sense hat emightothavebeenuptothetaskbutrather rom very eenrealizationhat, hemoment ewrote hefirstsentence,e would avebeenunable oresist heneed ovindicatetor nvestigateit.

I desire,ays arthes. hen realize hat desire. his ealizationanno ongerebrushed side.Thisrealizationnterruptsesire, isruptst like a viruswhich,withoutestroyingbody ell,deflectshe ell'soperationsnorder oreproducemore iruses. herealizationhat edesireswedgestselfnto esire,husplittingdesirento wohalves,achofwhich owdesirests ther alfnorder oattendothebusiness fdesiringn object.At thisuncture,hegratificationfdesire sforeveruspended,hilehenecessityf hinkinghisituationhroughecomes heprevailingoalofdesire; nfact,ntellection imics hebehavior f theoriginaldesire ompletelyy hat ery rocesswhich ad nitiallynterruptedesire.

Fiction,modern ictionnparticular,

s aprojection

f n author's esires.t samythicalrena nwhich uthorsump, efine,ndwork uttheir esires.fone sunable osatisfyesiresn ife, nemay t east ssuage hem hroughhe ct ofwritinghich ermitswriteroexpand isyearningsithnotherort fpleasureandmakestpossibleor writeroprovisionallypossess"he erson,he omeland,thepasthe willnever ossessbyany thermeans. n short, ritings notonlysubstituteleasurewhich ssufficientlyell quipped ocompetewith ibido ut,moremportantly,vehicle ywhichmeans writersabletorealize hegratifica-tion fhisdesiresna substitutelane.

Thesituationssubstantiallylteredhemoment writersunable owrite r no

longerble to driftnto iction. he obsessionwithwriting,s was the asewithdeliberation,ecomes sgenuine desire s that or person rhomeland.Whathappens ow s thathe notonlywishes o writebout n unobtainableeloved,homeland,astbuthe alsowishes o writebouthisunslaked esire o write. edesires heunobtainable,nstartedext.One day 'llwrite, e says. willwritebecause want opossesswriting,ecause want owrite bout he esire owrite.willwrite ecausemy esire orwritingill ind substituteulfillmentnwritingitself.

This, suggest,sthe gonyfpostmodernistonsciousness.willwriteecausemy esireorwritingillfindsubstituteulfillmentnwritingtself.t s a difficult




thoughthich vaporatesach time hemind eeks ograspt.Somewill ay t sabsurd,utrageous,veranalytical...perverse.necandismisstwith therdjec-

tives s well. t doesnotmatter. utfor hosewho reonly oowell cquainted iththeaddledyearningowrite, yearninghichmust lways uestiontself,henindeed ow isquietingndhow ropheticreBarthes' ordswhen esays: Whereto next? anyou tillwritenything?"6

NOTES

1.RolandBarthes,mage-MusicText NewYork: Farrar, traus ndGiroux, 1977),p. 54.2.MartinHeideggar, oetry, anguage, ThoughtHarper& Row, 1971),p. 8.3. SigmundFreud,ThreeCase HistoriesNewYork: MacMillan Publishing o., 1963),pp.98-99.4. Paolo Valesio,Novantiqua Bloomington:ndianaUniversityress,1980),pp. 41-60.5.RolandBarthes, olandBarthes yRolandBarthesNewYork:Farrar,traus ndGiroux. 977), . 147.6. RolandBarthes,RolandBarthesbyRolandBarthes, p. 71 and 188.

Documents

Deliberating Barthes