laclau_articulation and the limits of metaphor

8/11/2019 Laclau_Articulation and the Limits of Metaphor

1/22

Articulation and the limits of metaphor

Ernesto Laclau

I

In a well-known essay1Grard Genette discusses the question of the interdependence

between metaphor and metonymy in the structuration of roust narrati!e" #ollowin$ the

pathbreakin$ work of %tephen &llmann'(he shows how' on top of the central role traditionally

$ranted to metaphor in rousts work' there are other semantic mo!ements of a typical

metonymic nature whose presence is' howe!er' necessary' for metaphor to succeed in its

fi$ural effects" A hypalla$e such scheresse brune des cheveux) instead of scheresse

des cheveux bruns) would be a typical e*ample of such metonymical displacements"

Genette' howe!er' insists from the !ery be$innin$' that it is not a simple question ofreco$nisin$ the coe*istence of both metaphor and metonymy in the roustian te*t' but of

showin$ how they require each other' how without the one shadin$ into the other neither of

them could play the specific role which is e*pected from them in the constitution of a

narrati!e economy" In his words+ ,far from bein$ anta$onistic and incompatible' metaphor

and metonymy sustain and interpenetrate each other' and to $i!e its proper place to the

second will not consist in drawin$ a concurrent list opposed to that of metaphors' but rather

in showin$ the relations of coe*istence. within the relation of analo$y itself+ the role of

metonymy within metaphor"/

Genette $i!es se!eral e*amples of such interconnection" 0hus' he refers to the numerous

cases in which ,bell tower clocher2 is metaphorically analo$ically2 related to ,ear pis2' or

to ,fish' dependin$ on the en!ironment of the church ) rural in the first case' and maritime in

the second" 0his means that the spatial relation of conti$uity is the source of metaphoric

analo$ical effects" ,Ear ) bell tower or glise) meule2 in the middle of the fields' ,fish ) bell

tower near the sea' ,purple ) bell tower o!er the !ineyards' ,brioche) bell tower at the time

of the sweets' ,pillow ) bell ) tower at the be$innin$ of the ni$ht' there is clearly in roust a

recurrent' almost stereotyped stylistic scheme' which one could call cameleo ) bell tower

clocher-camleo2" 0hus there is a sort of resemblance by conta$ion" 0he metaphor finds its

support in a metonymy" 3uotin$ 4ean 5icardou' Genette enounces the principle+ ,qui se

ressemble sassemble et rciproquement2"6

7any more e*amples of this essential solidarity between conti$uity and analo$y are $i!en+

that between autoctonous dishes and vin de pays8 between peintures and their $eo$raphical

framework8 between the desire for peasant women and their rural milieu8 between relati!es8

1


2/22

between ima$es succeedin$ each other in die$etic metaphors8 between landscapes and

their reflection in the $lass doors of a bookshelf' etc" In all these cases we see that' without

the mutual implication between metaphor and metonymy' it would be impossible to ensure

the unity of a discursi!e space" roust himself was only partially aware of this mutual

implication and tended to pri!ile$e its metaphorical side" As Genette says+ ,0he

indestructible solidarity of writin$' whose ma$ic formula roust seems to be lookin$ for only

metaphor can $i!e a sort of eternityto style.' he will say in his article on #laubert2 cannot

only result from the hori9ontal link established by the metonymical tra:ectory8 but one cannot

see how could it result from :ust the !ertical link of the metaphoric relation either" ;nly the

crossin$ of one by the other can subtract the ob:ect of the description' and the description

itself from times contin$encies.' that is' from all contin$ency8 only the mutual crossin$ of a

metonymic net and a metaphoric chain ensures the coherence' the necessary cohesion of

text"oth reactions are predicati!e8 but the first creates

a purely narrati!e conte*t' while in the second there is a double connection with the sub:ect

hut+ on the one hand' a positional namely' syntactic2 conti$uity' and on the other a semanticsimilarity pJKJ12"

#rom these two a*es of lan$ua$e ) the paradi$matic and the synta$matic' substitution and

combination ) 4akobson mo!es to the rhetorical field+ metonymy would correspond to

combination and metaphor to substitution" And this alternati!e is not purely re$ional' but

re$ulates human beha!iour as a whole+ ,In manipulatin$ these two kinds of connection

similarity and conti$uity2 in both their aspects positional and semantic2 ) selectin$'

combinin$ and rankin$ them ) an indi!idual e*hibits his personal style' his !erbal

predilections and preferences pJ12" ,0he bipolar structure of lan$ua$e or other semiotic

5


6/22

systems2 and' in aphasia' the fi*ation of one of these two poles to the e*clusion of the other'

require systematic comparati!e study" 0he retention of either of these alternati!es in the two

types of aphasia must be confronted with the predominance of the same pole in certain

styles' personal habits' current fashions' etc" pJ/2" 0his ar$ument is' for 4akobson at the

basis of a wider cultural interpretation" In !erbal art we ha!e that in poetry' lyrics pri!ile$es

the metaphorical a*is' as in romanticism and symbolism' while in realist art' whose epitome

is the no!el' metonymic displacements pre!ail" Ce ha!e here a$ain' in different terms' the

ar$ument that we had already found in Genette+ rousts ma:or work is a no!el and not a

paratactic succession of lyrical moments' because metaphors are $rounded in metonymic

connections" #or 4akobson this alternati!e applies equally to non-!erbal art+ in cubism' the

succession of synecdoches is essentially metonymic' while in surrealism the quasi-alle$orical

ima$es lean towards metaphor" And' in film' the plurality of an$les and close-ups in Griffins

production is metonymic in nature' while in =harlie =haplin and Eisenstein a metaphoric

substitution of ima$es structure the narrati!e" Indeed' any semiotic system can' for

4akobson' be understood in terms of the metaphoricKmetonymic alternati!e"

0he $reat merit of 4akobsons analysis is to ha!e brou$ht rhetorical cate$ories to their

specific location within lin$uistic structure' that is' to ha!e shown that it is the latter which is

at the root of all fi$ural mo!ements" 7etaphor and metonymy' in that sense' are not :ust

some fi$ures amon$ many' but the two fundamental matrices around which all other fi$ures

and tropes should be ordered" %o the classification of rhetorical fi$ures ceases to be a

heteroclite enumeration of forms and presents a clear structure anchored in their

dependence on the fundamental dimensions of lan$ua$e" 0he transition from these

dimensions to their specific rhetorical in!estment requires' howe!er' some further

considerations which I will summarise in the ne*t few pa$es"

12 0here is' in the first place' the question of the transition from the a*is of combination )

the synta$matic dimension ) to metonymy" >ecause' althou$h a tropolo$ical mo!ementalon$ that dimension can only be concei!ed in metonymical terms' there is nothin$ in

combination' considered in isolation' requirin$ that such a mo!ement should take place" ;ne

can perfectly ima$ine a combination of terms followin$ syntactic rules which would not

in!ol!e any metonymic displacement" 0here is a 9ero-de$ree of the tropolo$ical as far as

combination is concerned" I can perfectly say ,scheresse des cheveux bruns instead of

,scheresse brune des cheveux" If so' the fi$ural would be somethin$ added to si$nification

from outside' not an inte$ral part of si$nification' and we would be back to the classical !ision

of the rhetorical as an adornment of lan$ua$e" %o if we want to establish a more intimate

6


7/22

connection between tropes and si$nification' we ha!e to find a way of underminin$ the !ery

possibility of a rhetorically neutral 9ero de$ree"

(2 0his way is quickly found once we mo!e from ,combination to the second a*is+

,substitutionKselection" #or here' on the difference with the a*is of combination' there is no

9ero-de$ree+ substitution a$ain' considered in isolation2 is not submitted to any a priori

syntactic rule" %aussure himself says it+ ,Chile a synta$m immediately calls the idea of an

order of succession and of a determinate number of elements' the terms of an associati!e

family do not present themsel!es in either a definite number or in a determinate order"16 %o

the a*is of substitution' which is also constitutive o$ language' sub!erts the !ery principle of

structural locations on which the synta$matic succession is $rounded" %aussures dia$ram

of the ensemble of possibilities opened by substitution is most re!ealin$+

;ne of these possibilities is particularly important for our ar$ument+ the impossibility of

confinin$ substitution and' as a result' tropolo$ical trans$ression2 to the order of the

si$nified" %aussure asserts+ ,0here is either double community of sense and form' or

community of only either sense or form" Any word can e!oke anythin$ susceptible of bein$

associated with it one way or another"1


8/22

/2 Chere do these considerations lea!e us as far as the relationship

metaphorKmetonymy is concernedP 0he main conclusion is that the notions of ,analo$y and

,conti$uity which are' respecti!ely' the definin$ $rounds of the two tropes' far from bein$

entirely different in nature' tend' on the contrary' to shade one into the other" Chy soP

>ecause both of them are trans$ressions of the same principle' which is the differential lo$ic

associated to the synta$matic a*is of the si$nifyin$ system" 0he only distinction which it

possible to establish between both fi$ures is that' in the case of metonymy' the trans$ression

of the structural locations that define the relations of combination is fully !isible' while in

metaphor' analo$y entirely i$nores those structural differentiations ) associations' as

%aussure shows' can mo!e into the most different directions" In one sense it can be said

that metaphor is the telosof metonymy' the moment in which trans$ression of the rules of

combination has reached its point of no return+ a new entity has come into e*istence which

makes us for$et the trans$ressi!e practices on which it is $rounded" >ut without those

trans$ressi!e practices which are essentially metonymic' the new metaphoric entity could not

ha!e emer$ed" As Genette shows in the case of roust' analo$y is always $rounded in an

ori$inary conti$uity"

Ce can draw here a conclusion which will be important for our political analysis+ conti$uity

and analo$y are not essentially different from each other but the two poles of a continuum"

Let us $i!e an e*ample which I ha!e discussed elsewhere"1? Let us suppose that there is a

nei$hbourhood where there is racist !iolence and the only force capable of confrontin$ it in

that area are the trade unions" Ce would think that' normally' opposin$ racism is not the

natural task of the trade unions' and that if it is taken up by them in that place it is by a

contin$ent constellation of social forces" 0hat is' that such a ,takin$ up deri!es from a

relation of conti$uity ) ie" that its nature is metonymic" Let us howe!er think that this ,takin$

up continues for a lon$ period of time ) in that case people would $et accustomed to it and

would tend to think that it is a normal part of trade union practices" %o what was a case of

contin$ent articulation becomes a part of the central meanin$ of the term ,trade union',conti$uity shades into ,analo$y' ,metonymy into ,metaphor" Anticipatin$ what we will

discuss presently' we can say that this is inherent to the central political operation that we call

,he$emony+ the mo!ement from metonymy to metaphor' from contingentarticulation to

essentialbelon$in$" 0he name ) of a social mo!ement' of an ideolo$y' of a political

institution ) is always the metaphorical crystalli9ation of contents whose analo$ical links

result from concealin$ the contin$ent conti$uity of their metonymical ori$ins" =on!ersely' the

dissolution of a he$emonic formation in!ol!es the reacti!ation of that contin$ency+ the return

from a ,sublime metaphoric fi*ation to a humble metonymic association"

8


9/22

62 Cith this conclusion' howe!er' we ha!e only established+ a2 that the

metaphoricKmetonymic distinction has a matricial priority o!er other tropes ) which it is

possible' one way or the other' to reduce them to that matri*8 and b2 that such a matricial

distinction does not simply refer to opposites but to the two poles of a continuum" >ut to

assert that rhetoricity is inherent to si$nification requires one more step+ to show that without

a tropolo$ical displacement si$nification could not find its own $round" I ha!e tried to pro!e

this point elsewhere and I will not repeat it here"1B Let us :ust say that this proof requires

showin$ that si$nification' to be possible' requires its own closure' and that such a closure'

because it in!ol!es the representation of an ob:ect which is both impossible and necessary'

leads to the discursi!e production of empty si$nifiers" An empty si$nifier' as I ha!e tried to

show' is not :ust a si$nifier without a si$nified ) which' as such' would be outside si$nification

) but one si$nifyin$ the blind spot inherent to si$nification' the point where si$nification finds

its own limits and which howe!er' if it is $oin$ to be possible at all' has to be represented as

the meanin$less precondition of meanin$" In psychoanalytic terms' it would be the moment

of the 5eal ) the moment of distortion of the %ymbolic' which is the precondition for the

symbolic to constitute itself as totality" Dow if the representation of somethin$

irrepresentable is the !ery condition of representation as such' this means that the distorted2

representation of this condition in!ol!es a substitution' that is' it can only be tropolo$ical in

nature" And it is not a substitution to be concei!ed as a replacement of positi!e terms+ it will

in!ol!e $i!in$ a name to somethin$ which is essentially ,nameless' to an empty place" 0hat

is what $i!es its centrality to catachresis" And as any fi$ural mo!ement in!ol!es sayin$

somethin$ more than what can be said throu$h a literal term' catachresis is inherent to the

fi$ural as such' it becomes the trade mark of ,rhetoricity as such"


10/22

pointed out+ ,Emphasi9in$ the synchronic perspecti!e. of the lin$uist and his community'

%aussure e!entually decided to $i!e priority to the contemporaneous system of si$nifiers

operatin$ at some hypothetical2 moment+ the present" #or$ettin$ for his own purposes his

important stipulation that meanin$ must be determined retroacti!ely' that is' for$ettin$ the

diachronic nature of meanin$' he ultimately founded the science of lin$uistics on the

systematic totality of lan$ua$e" 0hus' the structuralist ar$ument ceased to be that the final

si$nifier %( determines that which has come before' %1and became instead that %(

determines %1and%1determines %(8 that is reciprocal oppositions stabli9e meanin$s

between coe*istent terms8 and differential relations no lon$er threatened the trans!aluation

of all precedin$ si$nifiers"1

If we incorporate' howe!er' the diachronic perspecti!e that %aussure himself enounced but

for$ot about' the consequence is clear+ %(can be the $round of the system only as far as it

does not ha!e a precise' particular location within it" 0he same ar$ument can be presented

in terms of set theory+ what names the set cannot be part of it" Chat the rhetorical turn

would add to this ar$ument is that the term namin$ the set would be one of the particular

elements of that set which splits its own identity between its own particularity and its role of

si$nifyin$ the totality" It is this double role which is at the root of all tropolo$ical displacement"

?2 5hetoricity' as a dimension of si$nification' has no limits in its field of operation" It is

co-terminous with the !ery structure of ob:ecti!ity" 0his is' first of all' connected with the

notion of ,discourse that we ha!e used in our work' which is not e*clusi!ely or primarily

linked to speech or writin$' but to any si$nifyin$ practice" 0his in!ol!es that it is equi!alent to

the social production of meanin$' that is' to the !ery fabric of social life" 0here is no

possibility of any strict separation between si$nification and action" E!en the most purely

constati!e of assertions has a performati!e dimension' and' con!ersely' there is no action

which is not embedded in si$nification" #or the same reason' there cannot be any stark

separation between si$nification and affect' $i!en that the latter is only constituted throu$hdifferentially cathectin$ the !arious components of a si$nifyin$ chain" As in Citt$ensteins

,lan$ua$e $ames' words and actions to which we should add affects2' are part of an

interdependent network2" 0his means that lin$uistic cate$ories such as the si$nifierKsi$nified

and synta$mKparadi$m distinctions ) if properly theori9ed ) cease to belon$ to a re$ional

discipline and come to define relations operatin$ in the !ery terrain of a $eneral ontolo$y"

>ut' secondly if si$nification could close itself in synta$matic terms ) ie" if paradi$matic

relations of substitution could themsel!es be reabsorbed by combinatorial rules ) the role of

rhetoric could not be ontolo$ically constituti!e" 0he structuralist closure of the relation of

10


11/22

mutual determination between %1and %(could be achie!ed without any tropolo$ical de!ice

bein$ brou$ht into the picture' and so rhetoric would be rele$ated to its traditional role as

adornment of lan$ua$e" >ut it is here that our remarks concernin$ the impossibility of

achie!in$ any closure of a si$nifyin$ system without representin$ the irrepresentable become

rele!ant" ;nce the centrality of catachresis is fully accepted' rhetoricity becomes a condition

of si$nification and' as a result' of ob:ecti!ity"

0hirdly' once the status of rhetoric has been reco$nised in its true ontolo$ical $enerality'

relations that in this essay we ha!e approached in a strictly tropolo$ical terminolo$y' are

likely to be reproduced at different le!els of analysis of human reality' e!en when the

rhetorical nature of the distinction introduced is not percei!ed or reco$nised" In

sychoanalysis' to $i!e the most ob!ious e*ample' the rhetorical character of the workin$s of

the unconscious has been e*plicitly reco$nised a lon$ time a$o" =ondensation has been

assimilated to metaphor and displacement to metonymy" 0he lo$ic of the ob:ect ain!ol!es

precisely an in!estment by which an ordinary ob:ect becomes a substitute for the

unreachable 0hin$" In Lacans terms8 sublimation is to ele!ate an ob:ect to the di$nity of the

0hin$" 0his operation of in!estment is catachrestical throu$h and throu$h" And =op:ec' in

her film studies' has shown how the close ups are not a part within the whole but a part

which functions as the !ery condition of the whole' as its name' leadin$ to that contamination

between particularity and totality which' as we ha!e seen' is at the heart of all tropolo$ical

mo!ement"

In the rest of this essay I will try to show the operation of those distinctions that we ha!e

been discussin$' within the political field" I will ar$ue that the tensions that we ha!e detected

alon$ the continuum metaphorKmetonymy' can be seen as fully operatin$ in the structuration

of political spaces" I will discuss two cases" In the first' we will see an almost complete

unilaterali9ation of the metaphoric operation" In the second' a systematic blocka$e of the

transition from metonymy to metaphor ) ie" the pre!ention that conti$uity shades intoanalo$y" 0he first possibility I will illustrate with the lo$ic of the $eneral strike in %orel8 the

second' with the political strate$y of Leninism"

III

Ce ha!e to $i!e some precise theoretical status to the operation in which we en$a$e

oursel!es when tryin$ to see the way rhetorical cate$ories are implicitly2 present in those

lo$ics $o!ernin$ the distinctions which structure areas different from those in which rhetoric

was ori$inally thou$ht to be operati!e" Ce should basically a!oid two temptations" 0he first

is to make of rhetorical cate$ories the locus of a hard transcendentality' that is' of a le!el in

11


12/22

which all pertinent theoretical distinctions would be formulated and which would reduce the

terrains of their ,application to the empiricity of ,case studies" >ut we should also a!oid the

other e*treme' consistin$ of seein$ the two le!els as fully enclosed uni!erses' whose mutual

relations could only be concei!ed in terms of purely e*ternal homolo$ies" 0he question of

the comparison itself between re$ions and le!els should be concei!ed in tropolo$ical terms+

no le!el has a transcendental priority o!er the other' so that their !ery interaction should be

seen as an area of displacements blurrin$ the frontiers between the empirical and the

transcendental" Each should theoretically enrich the understandin$ of the other in an

interte*tuality which has no ultimate anchorin$ point"

If we try to think those or$anisin$ cate$ories of the political field which make possible a

comparison with out rhetorical analysis' we could ad!ance the followin$ thesis+ politics is

articulation of hetero$eneous elements' and such an articulation is essentially tropolo$ical'

for it presupposes the duality between institution and sub!ersion of differential positions

which we found as definin$ a rhetorical inter!ention" %ocial or$anisation is not' howe!er'

e*clusi!ely political8 to a lar$e e*tent it consists of differential positions which are not

challen$ed by any confrontation between $roups" It is only throu$h this confrontation that the

specifically political moment emer$es' for it shows the contin$ent nature of articulations"

&sin$ a Fusserlian distinction' we could say that the social is equi!alent to a sedimented

order' while the political would in!ol!e the moment of reactivation" =ontemporary forms of

technocratism would e*press this dissolution of the political and the reduction of the

mana$ement of the community to a mere question of e*pertise" It is the replacement of

politics by knowled$e' whose earliest formulation we find in lato"

Ce ha!e here the basis for a comparison between this duality politicsKadministration and the

two a*es of si$nification ) that of combinations and that of substitutions" 0he more social

order is stable and unchallen$ed' the more institutional forms will pre!ail and will or$anise

themsel!es in a synta$matic system of differential positions" 0he more the confrontationsbetween $roups defines the social scene' the more society will be di!ided into two camps+ at

the limit' there will be a total dichotomisation of the social space around only two synta$matic

positions+ ,us and ,them" All social elements would ha!e to locate their identities around

either of these two poles' whose internal components would be in a mere relation of

equi!alence" Chile in an institutionalist political discourse there is a multiplication of

differential positions in a relation of combination with each other' in an anta$onistic discourse

of rupture the number of synta$matic differential positions is radically restricted' and all

identities establish paradi$matic relations of substitution with all the others in each of the two

poles" In my work I ha!e called these two opposed political lo$ics' lo$ic of difference and of

12


13/22

equi!alence' respecti!ely" Gi!en that the equi!alential chain establishes a paratactic

succession between its component links' none of them can ha!e a position of centrality

founded in a combinatorial lo$ic of a hypotactic nature" %o if the unity of the equi!alential

chain is $oin$ to be or$anised around a pri!ile$ed si$nifier' such a pri!ile$e cannot be

deri!ed from a differential structural position' but from a cathectic in!estment of a radical

kind" 0he symbols of %olidarnosc in oland $ot their success not from any structural

centrality of the Lenin shipyards in the country' but from the fact that they e*pressed radical

anti-status quo feelin$s at the moment in which many other social demands were frustrated

for not findin$ institutional channels of e*pression within the e*istin$ political system" 0his

process by which identities cease to be purely immanent to a system and require an

identification with a point transcendent to that system ) which is the same as sayin$+ when a

particularity becomes the name of an absent uni!ersality ) is what we call hegemony" Its

lo$ic is identical with the lo$ic of the ob:ect a' which we ha!e already referred to' and' for the

reasons that we ha!e $i!en' it is essentially catachrestical Q rhetorical2"

;ne last point requires our consideration" A he$emonic operation is essentially tropolo$ical'

but requires !ery particular strate$ic mo!es to be performed within the

metaphoricKmetonymic continuum" ;ther mo!es' howe!er' are equally possible' $i!en that

the continuum does not prescribe a priori either the direction that inter!entions in it should

take' or the different forms of articulation between its two e*treme poles" Genette presents

the decision by roust which made possible the e*istence of a narrati!e' as precisely that+ a

decision" >ut he himself points out that other decisions would ha!e been equally possible' in

which case we would not ha!e had a no!el but' for instance' a succession of lyrical

moments" In the same way' the emer$ence of a he$emonic lo$ic in Gramscis political

thou$ht takes place a$ainst the back$round of !arious different ways of concei!in$ politics in

the 7ar*ist tradition which' while still bein$ describable in terms of the possibilities opened by

the metaphoricKmetonymic distinction' are different from the he$emonic turn" It is to that

history that we ha!e now to address our attention"

IO

Ce ha!e spoken about a 9ero-de$ree of the rhetorical' whose attainment would ideally

require that the synta$matic differential lo$ic is able to dominate the whole field of

si$nification in the e*panded sense that we ha!e $i!en to this last term2" 0he pre-requisite

for attainin$ such a 9ero de$ree would be' of course' the ability of the synta$matic lo$ic to

fully control paradi$matic substitutions an ability which we ha!e $ood reasons to be rather

sceptical about2" Fowe!er' we ha!e so far limited the question of the 9ero de$ree to its

structuralist !ersion ) ie" to a purely synchronicsystem ) while identifyin$ the notion of

13


14/22

diachrony to a retroacti!e fi*ationKtrans$ression which would operate from ,outside the

structural ,inside" Is this' howe!er' the only true alternati!eP Is it necessary that a purely

synta$maticKcombinatorial space is or$anised in a synchronic wayP I think it is not" As far as

diachrony is not concei!ed as a contin$ent' e*ternal inter!ention' but as structured by a

teleolo$y' a diachronic succession is perfectly compatible with a 9ero de$ree of the

tropolo$ical" ure differentiality our 9ero)de$ree2 is not necessarily linked to either

simultaneity or succession"

It is from this point that we ha!e to start in our consideration of the 7ar*ist tradition" #or at

the root of this tradition there is a discourse anchored in Fe$elian teleolo$y" Ce know the

definin$ features of the latter+ the essential determinations of any entity are to be found in its

conceptualspecificity8 the conceptualcontradictions inherent in this specificity force us to

mo!e to a new entity embodyin$ a new conceptualsta$e' etc" 7ar* did not chan$e thin$s in

the least with his ,in!ersion of Fe$elian dialectics+ if the $round is ,matter rather than the

,Idea' but matter has inner laws of mo!ement which are conceptuallyspecifiable' 7ar*s

materialism is as idealistic as Fe$els" ;ntolo$ically speakin$ they are not' actually' different

from each other"

0he important point for our sub:ect is that in the !ision of Fistory which emer$es from this

diachrony' the different sta$es in the succession are not concei!ed as interruptionsof what

preceded them but as teleological $ul$ilments" Ce are dealin$ with a pure combination in

which each actor and task has an assi$ned place in a secular eschatolo$y $rounded in the

,necessary laws of Fistory" It comes as no surprise that the main political consequence of

this approach is to pri!ile$e ,strate$y o!er ,tactics" Lon$ term strate$ic calculations were

considered to be possible because the teleolo$ism of the premises opened the way to

historical predictions' e!en if they were only ,morpholo$ical predictions' to use the words of

Antonio Labriola" And any unfulfilment of those predictions could be dismissed as a

temporary aberration to be superseded once the ,necessary laws reasserted their lon$ term!alidity"

0he most e*treme !ersions of this teleolo$ism are to be found' of course' in the orthodo*

currents of the %econd International' but it is enou$h to read the ,reface to the %riti#ue o$

&olitical 'conomyto realise that' althou$h in less crude ways' it impre$nates the whole of the

7ar*ist tradition" 0hat is why we can speak of a rhetorical 9ero de$ree+ in this synta$matic

succession there is no place for either metonymic displacements or metaphoric

rea$$re$ations" ;ne could' howe!er' ask oneself+ but is it not precisely alon$ the

combinatorial succession of differential positions that metonymy operatesP 0he answer is

14


15/22

yes' but metonymy' as we know' in!ol!es a sub!ersion of the principle of differentiality

throu$h substitutions $rounded in conti$uity' and it is precisely these substitutions that

synta$matic literalism tends to block"

7ar*ist literalism required the reduction of the process of historical de!elopment to a

mechanism which had to be conceptually apprehensible as far as its laws of mo!ement are

concerned" >ut that conceptual apprehensibility also required that anythin$ escapin$ what is

specifiable by those laws should be discarded as historically irrele!ant" ,0he chan$es in the

economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense

superstructure" In studyin$ such transformation it is always necessary to distin$uish

between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production' which can be

distin$uished with the precision of natural science' and the le$al' political' reli$ious' artistic or

philosophical ) in short' ideolo$ical forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and

fi$ht it out" 4ust as one does not :ud$e an indi!idual by what he thinks about himself' so one

cannot :ud$e such a period of transformation by its consciousness' but' on the contrary' this

consciousness must be e*plained from the contradictions of material life' from the conflict

e*istin$ between the social forces of production and the relations of production"1J

Dow' it is precisely this sharp distinction between what is rele!ant and what is not' that is

blurred durin$ the first ,crisis of 7ar*ism at the end of the RIRth century" =apitalism

reco!ered after a lon$ period of depression' and the transition to the monopolistic phase and

to imperialism started" In such a situation the socialist faith in the collapse of the system as a

result of its internal contradictions was shaken" Fistorical de!elopment had re!ealed itself to

be far more comple* than had been assumed' and such a comple*ity took the form of a

contamination between social le!els which' accordin$ to the classical theory should ha!e

remained distinct" ,;r$anised capitalism ceased to be e*plainable by pure market laws and

an element of conscious re$ulation inter!ened at the !ery le!el of the infrastructure8

imperialism led to the emer$ence of a ,workin$ class aristocracy and consequently to anattenuation of class conflicts' etc"2 0he consequence for our analysis is that the !ery terrain

which had made accessible the 9ero de$ree of the tropolo$ical was shattered and rhetorical

mo!ements became hi$hly important both in a metaphoric and a metonymid direction"

0his tropolo$ical turn' howe!er' took a !ariety of forms and directions" As we anticipated' the

first e*ample that well refer to is the later work of Geor$es %orel" As many other socialist

thinkers of his time' %orel' at the time of writin$ the Re$lections on (iolence' had lost faith in

the perspecti!e of capitalism brin$in$ about its own collapse as a result of purely economic

laws" %o in order to keep ali!e the re!olutionary !ocation of the workin$ class' it was

15


16/22

necessary to appeal to somethin$ different from economic determinism" %ome kind of

sub:ecti!e principle had to be brou$ht into the picture" It is important to realise that' for %orel'

his support for the proletarian stru$$le was not $rounded in the :ustice of the workers

demands but in his belief that the proletariat was the only force in society capable or

pre!entin$ bour$eois decadence" #or' the prospect facin$ contemporary societies was a

$eneral decline of ci!ilisation" 0he principle capable of keepin$ the purity of proletarian

identity was violence" #or this purpose' it was essential that the workin$ class did not

inter!ene in politics' for that would co-opt it into the mechanisms of the bour$eois %tate" Fe

opposed ,proletarian !iolence to ,political !iolence ) the latter bein$ epitomised by

4acobinism"

roletarian !iolence had to be or$anised around a myth" ,@7en participatin$ in $reat social

mo!ements represent to themsel!es their immediate action under the form of ima$es of

battles ensurin$ the triumph of their cause" I propose to call mythsthese constructions

whose knowled$e is so important for the historian+ the syndicalists $eneral strike and 7ar*s

catastrophic re!olution are myths"( Fe counterposes ,myth and ,utopia" Chile the latter is

a pure intellectual construction' the blueprint of a future or ideal society' myth is :ust a set of

ima$es capable of $al!anisin$ the masses ima$ination and pro:ectin$ them into historical

action"

0he myth around which proletarian identity should be or$anised is that of the general stri)e"

,I understand that this myth of the $eneral strike horrifies @$roisse many wise peoplebecause

of its character of infinitude8 the present world is !ery much inclined to return to the opinion of

the ancients and to subordinate morals to the $ood mana$ement of public affairs' which

leads to locate !irtue in a :ust middle" As far as socialism remains a doctrine entirely

presented through words' it is easy to make it de!iate towards a :ust middle8 but this

transformation is clearly impossible once one introduces the myth of the $eneral strike' which

in!ol!es an absolute re!olution"(1

And' a$ain+ ,0oday re!olutionary myths are almost pure'they make possible to understand the acti!ities' feelin$s and ideas of the popular masses

preparin$ themsel!es to enter into a decisi!e stru$$le' they are not descriptions of thin$s' but

e*pressions of wills"((

In a myth' the infinitude of the task $oes to$ether with the paucity of its contents" Its function

is' precisely' to separate the militant from the concrete aim of his particular action" Let us

suppose that a $roup of workers participate in a strike for hi$her wa$es" If the strike is

successful' and its only aim was that particular demand' success leads to demobili9ation and

to the inte$ration of the workers into the status quo" Fowe!er' if participation in that concrete

16


17/22

action is seen as a simple episode' educatin$ the proletariat for the final aim' the meanin$ of

the particular stru$$le chan$es alto$ether" >ut' for this' the myth of the $eneral strike has to

be operatin$ from the !ery be$innin$" 0his e*plains the in$initudeof the task' to which %orel

refers+ it cannot be identified with any particular aim" And it e*plains also the po!erty of its

contents which is actually more than po!erty' for' as the name of an infinite task' it ne$ates

the !ery possibility of any content which would necessarily ha!e to be finite2" 0he %orelian

myth is one of the purest e*amples of what we ha!e called ,empty si$nifiers" It does not

matter whether the $eneral strike is an e!ent which could happen or not" Althou$h %orel is

not entirely e*plicit in this respect' I think that the !ery lo$ic of his ar$ument leads towards a

ne$ati!e response' for any finite fulfilment would compromise the infinitude of the task" Its

status approaches that of Sants re$ulati!e idea"

Fow' howe!er' to read this set of displacements that %orel brin$s about a$ainst the

sequence of cate$ories of classical 7ar*ismP Chere and how e*actly does the tropolo$ical

turn take placeP 0o start with' in %orel there is not any synta$matic plurality of places of

enunciation because they all con!er$e in reinforcin$ a unique proletarian identity" Chether

we are dealin$ with a strike' a demonstration' a factory occupation' they are simply

occasions for the rehearsal of a unique ,future e!ent+ the $eneral strike" 0hese occasions

are certainly plural' but their plurality is present only to eclipse itself as a mere support of the

sin$le e!ent which speaks throu$h all of them" 0hat is' we are faced with a pure

metaphorical rea$$re$ation which is not interrupted by any metonymical plurality" 0here is

nothin$ to displace' because the sites of the metaphorical e!ent are there :ust in order to be

ne$ated by the latter" 0o put it in clear terms+ the re!olutionary break does not proceed

throu$h equi!alence but throu$h absolute identity" %o' in some way %orel is the symmetrical

re!erse side of the ,rhetorics 9ero de$ree of the %econd International" #or the latter' there

was no room for any tropolo$ical mo!ement in the determination of the emancipatory

sub:ect" #or %orel' such a determination could only proceed throu$h an e*treme form of that

tropolo$ical mo!ement' namely' a pure metaphor which has eliminated all traces of itsmetonymical $roundin$" Analo$y unconceals an essence which has broken all links with

conti$uity" Equi!alence is replaced by pure identity" As this identity' howe!er' is constructed

around an empty place ) the $eneral strike ) whose discursi!e effects depend on its lack of

content' its assertion is close to nihilism" Dot surprisin$ly' %orelianism fed !ery different

currents of thou$ht' from radical communism and ultra-leftism' to fascism2" Ce can $o back

here to Genettes analysis of roust" Accordin$ to him' as we ha!e seen' there is narrati!e in

roust only because metaphors are inscribed in a metonymic mo!ement8 otherwise we will

only ha!e a succession of lyrical moments" Cell' this last possibility is what %orels te*t

enacts" Each re!olutionary act does not find its meanin$ in a succession endowin$ it with its

17


18/22

raison d*trewithin the series' but' rather' each of them is the e*pression of some sort of

repetition dri!e constantly reinstatin$' in a %ysifus way' a sin$le identity" 0hat is why

Genettes notion of a succession of lyrical moments as an alternati!e to rousts narrati!e )

ie" pure metaphorical flashes not inscribed in any metonymical succession ) applies so well

to %orels !ision of politics" And' also' why there can be no %orelian strate$y based in a lon$

term calculation" Chile for a Santsky or a lekhano! such calculation was based in

supposedly known laws of history' for %orel the mere idea of a lon$ term prediction makes no

sense" 0he assertion of a re!olutionary sub:ecti!ity lar$ely escapes strate$ical

considerations"

O

If %orels discourse is structured in a terrain in which political sub:ecti!ity can only operate

throu$h a total metaphor which conceals e!en the traces of its metonymic $round' the

e*perience of Leninism is different+ the metonymic sub!ersion of the differential space of

7ar*ist teleolo$y has to remain !isible' to the point of makin$ impossible the mo!ement

towards its metaphoric telos" Leninism emer$es as apoliticalanswer to an anomaly in

historical de!elopment" 5ussia was supposed to follow the pattern of the classical

bour$eois-democratic re!olutions of the Cest" 0he task ahead was the o!erthrowin$ of

0sarism and the openin$ of a lon$ period of capitalist democracy' so that socialism was only

a lon$-term prospect' to be achie!ed as a result of the contradictions of a fully fled$ed

capitalist society" In that democratic re!olution the bour$eoisie was supposed to be the

,natural leadin$ force" 0asks and forces were assi$ned roles accordin$ to a pre-ordained

succession" 0he anomaly was that the autoctonous 5ussian >our$eoisie had arri!ed too late

to the historical scene' when a world capitalist market was already well established' and as a

result it was too weak to carry out its own democratic re!olution" =apitalism' howe!er' was

rapidly de!elopin$ in 5ussia as a result of forei$n in!estments' so that there was the

parado*ical situation - ,anomalous re$ardin$ the canonical pattern ) of a country which was

mature for a democratic re!olution and in which' howe!er' the ,natural a$ent of that historicaltransformation was incapable of carryin$ out its task"

As a result of capitalist de!elopment' howe!er' a robust workin$ class was emer$in$' which

had none of the limitations of the indi$enous bour$eoisie' and so ) this was the thesis of the

5ussian social-democrats ) it had to take up the historical task of leadin$ the democratic

re!olution in alliance with the peasantry' in the Leninist !ersion2 which its natural a$ent' the

bour$eoisie' had left unfulfilled" 0his anomalous takin$ up of a task by a force which was not

its natural a$ent is what the 5ussian social-democrats called ,he$emony" %o we ha!e a

fracture in historical de!elopment' a discontinuity in the sequence of its cate$ories" 0he

18


19/22

takin$ up of the democratic tasks by the workin$ class was an e!ent politically e*plainable by

a set of historical circumstances' but not insertable as one of the necessary links of the

canonical paradi$m" It was an ,e*ceptionality' to use the terminolo$y of the time"

Dow if we study the structure of this e*ceptionality' we immediately see that it was the

presenceof the workin$ class at the centre of historical e!ents at a moment in which the

country was mature for a democratic re!olution which assi$ned it to that role" It was a

relation of contiguity" %o we are dealin$ with the construction of a new link between task and

a$ent which can only be concei!ed as a metonymic displacement"

Ce know' howe!er' that any metonymy has a natural tendency to shade into a metaphor' the

relation of conti$uity to become' throu$h continuous association' one of analo$y" %o we

could normally e*pect that the nature of the democratic task chan$ed when taken up by the

proletariat' and that the class nature of the latter was also altered as a result of takin$ up a

democratic task" Fowe!er' nothin$ of the kind happened" 0he whole Leninist strate$y was

desi$ned to pre!ent that the e*ceptional task became the site of the construction of a new

political sub:ecti!ity" 0he class nature of the proletariat had to remain unchan$ed" 0he

Leninist motto was+ ,to strike to$ether and to march separately" Chy soP Oarious reasons

conspire to it' but the main one was that for 5ussian re!olutionists ) the >olshe!iks included

) 5ussian e*ceptionality was e*actly that+ an e*ception and' on top of that' one which was

$oin$ to be short li!ed" Deither 0rotsky' nor Lenin ) e!en after the ,April 0heses ) thou$ht

that a proletarian power in 5ussia' $i!en its backwardness' had any prospect unless it found

its natural continuity in a re!olution in Germany and the main other hi$hly de!eloped

capitalist countries in the Cest" If that had been the case' the 5ussian ,e*ceptionality would

ha!e been quickly inte$rated into a ,normal process of historical de!elopment"

If we consider the matter retrospecti!ely' we find here the root of the double discourse which

will be inscribed in the =ommunist e*perience of the years to come" 0he canonicalsequence of cate$ories had to be maintained as an ultimate unsurpassable hori9on ) the

7ar*ist synta$m was ne!er formally questioned ) but' as a counterpart' actual politics was

$oin$ to be dominated increasin$ly by an empiricism of e*ceptionalities which eluded any

theorisation" %talins Realpoliti)was the e*treme e*pression of this di!orce between theory

and practice' but in more attenuated forms it is $oin$ to dominate the whole of =ommunist

e*perience" 0he way in which both le!els were combined can perhaps be seen at its best in

the case of 0rotsky" 0he whole lo$ic of ,permanent re!olution is only thinkable if the

empiricism of the e*ceptionalities is articulated to the discourse of the ,normal synta$matic

de!elopment" 0he ar$ument runs as follows" 5ussia was mature for a democratico-

19


20/22

bour$eois re!olution in which the bour$eoisie ) 0rotsky accepted the point ) was incapable

of playin$ the leadin$ role" 0his would result in a democratic re!olution led by the proletariat"

>ut ) 0rotsky added ) the bour$eoisie would not tolerate proletarian power ) e!en if confined

to democratic limits ) and would respond with a massi!e lockout" 0he result would be that

the workers mo!ement' in order to consolidate its power' would ha!e to ad!ance in a

socialist direction" 5e!olutions always start with democratic banners' but their stabilisation

and consolidation requires their transition to the socialist sta$e" 0his model will be repeated

ad nauseamby 0rotskyists in all ima$inable historical conte*ts" 0he classic ,sta$eism'

althou$h interrupted by an ,e*ceptionality is in full operation+ the class nature of social

a$ents is unquestioned as well as that of the tasks and of the succession of phases"

%o the metonymic moment had to be fro9en' pre!entin$ the construction of new identities

throu$h metaphoric rea$$re$ations" Fere we see the difference with %orel" #or him there is

no narrati!e' only the sequence of metaphoric moments throu$h which proletarian identity is

constantly reinforced" #or Leninism' the interaction between the two discursi!e le!els' forces

it to en$a$e in a permanent narrati!e' so that the metonymic moment is ne!er abandoned" It

is for that reason that Leninism is an eminently strate$ic type of discourse' whose difference

with the strate$y of the %econd International is' howe!er' !isible+ for the latter' strate$ic

reflection was based on a historical prediction $rounded in the necessary laws of history8

while for Leninism' $i!en the operation of e*ceptionalities' strate$ies ha!e more the

character of con:unctural analyses"

0his notion of con:unctural analysis forces us' howe!er' to mo!e beyond Leninist fro9en

metonymies and' indeed' beyond the historical hori9on of 7ar*ism" #or the question is+ how

e*ceptional are the e*ceptionsP Accordin$ to Lenin' world capitalist market is not only an

economic but also a political reality+ it is structured as an imperialist chain" =rises can take

place in one point of it which result ) $i!en that the chain is broken by its weakest link ) in

dislocations of the relations of forces in other points of the chain" 0his makes possible asei9ure of power e!en if the ,ob:ecti!e material conditions ha!e not been met" In such

situations there is no lon$er any question of either a pure combination of sta$es ) as the one

postulated by the theory of combined and une!en de!elopment ) nor of a necessary class

belon$in$ of social a$ents' for what is at stake is the constitution of comple* social identities

constructed on the basis of practices homo$enei9in$ the hetero$eneous" 0hat is' we are

dealin$ with metaphoric rea$$re$ations" #ro9en Leninist metonymies no lon$er do the trick"

I think that Gramscis notion of ,collecti!e wills should be read in this li$ht" >ut this

incorporation of the metaphoric dimension does not lead us back to %orels camp either" #or

%orel this is a unilateralisation of metaphor' because the proletarian identity that he tries to

20


21/22

consolidate is $i!en in ad!ance" Do question for him of incorporatin$ hetero$eneous

elements into a wider social identity" 0hat could only lead' in his !iew' to undermine the class

consciousness of the proletariat" Fowe!er' once the political process is seen not only as a

reassertion of an identity but as its construction ) as in Gramscis ,war of position ) the

metonymic dimension cannot be i$nored" Fe$emony means the passa$e from metonymy to

metaphor' from a ,conti$uous startin$ point to its consolidation in ,analo$y" >ut with this we

are !ery close to the relationship metaphorKmetonymy which Genette finds in rousts te*t"

0ranslatin$ it into political lan$ua$e' we could say that because there is Darrati!e Rcit2

there is strate$y" >ut as the identity of the a$ents of that strate$y is not $i!en beforehand'

we will always ha!e short term strate$ic mo!ements' not anchored in any eschatolo$y" 0hey

will e*actly operate at the point in which metaphor and metonymy cross each other and limit

their mutual effects"

21


22/22

1,7tonymie che9 roust' in Grard Genette' +igures ,,,' aris' Editions du %ueil' 1JB(' p61-?/"

2%tephen &llmann' Style in the +rench ovel' =ambrid$e' 1J

laclau_articulation and the limits of metaphor

Documents