The administrative state as second Leviathan. A response to Giacomo Marramao. By Gerardo Muñoz.

The two day conference “All’ombra del Leviatano: tra biopolitica e postegemonia” in Rome Tre University, was extremely productive and rich for continuing thinking the effectivity of posthegemony as a category for contemporary political reflection. Giacomo Marramao made this very clear in his generous introduction, as well as Mario Tronti, who took up the term several times in light of the crisis of depolitization and neutralization in democratic societies on both sides of the Atlantic. Sadly, at times conferences do not allow more time to reshuffle ingrained beliefs and hardened convictions. Thus, I just want to return to a question that was thrown by Giacomo Marramao regarding my paper on posthegemony, constitutionalism, and the administrative state [1]. 

I do not have a recording of Giacomo’s commentary, but from my notes, I recall he asked me a question that had two separate parts: a. whether the administrative state was synonymous with the securitarian state, b. why did I refer to the administrative state as a “second order Leviathan”, which I do explicitly in my text without much elaboration. This a central question, which I would like to elaborate in writing a little bit more, as to get me started thinking about a further relation between posthegemony and legality.

So, I will start with the first question: is the administrative state the same as the security state? My gut reaction in the exchange with Marramao was to say no. However, perhaps today the security state is a compartmentalization within the administrative state. In the United States, there is a clear and substantial difference between the rise of the administrative state and the security state in two separate tracks. In the historical development of American legality, we tend to associate the administrative state with the robust state building social policies of the New Deal, that is, with the classic welfare state. In fact, Moreiras argued a few years back that Keynesianism is one of the last figures of modern katechon [2]. Of course, Keynesian economics is somewhat different from the administrative legal development, but I do think that they complement each other. On the other hand, the so called securitarian state, is usually understood in the wake of the the emergency executive power, the torture memos, Guantanamo, and the expansion of other federal agencies to biometrically further deter terrorism after 9/11. At first sight, it seems to me that in Europe the securitarian state has now normalized and conquered the legal paradigm. In the United States, paradoxically, there seems to be a minimal difference between the security and administrative state.

A good example, in fact, is the case of Kris Kobach, a constitutionalist who favors legal securitization against illegal immigration, but not so much in the name of the administrative state. On the contrary, Kobach wants, very much in line with Steve Bannon, to ‘deconstruct the administrative state’. So, my intuition is that whereas in Europe legal developments have led naturally to the securitarian state, in the US the natural development has been towards deference and the delegation principle of administrative law [3]. We have yet to witness a securitarian state as fully hegemonic within the American legal development.

Now, the second question: why do I (should we?) call the administrative state a second order Leviathan? It is true that I should have made clearer that I was implicitly trying to turn around Schmitt’s argument in The Leviathan in The State Theory of Thomas Hobbes. Everyone remembers that in this book, Schmitt revises the state form in the wake of modern political theology, as already a ‘big machine, a machina machinarum’ within the age of technology [4]. To put it in Gareth Williams’ terms, the katechon was already post-katechontic, unable to fully give form to disorder, and incapable of providing long-lasting authority. In this sense, I agree with Marramao’s paradigmatic thesis that power today lacks authority, and authority lacks power. This seems to me a variation that fully applies to the administrative state. Of course, Schmitt thought administration dispensed anomy. But I think it is quite the opposite. The administrative state has become a great neutralizer of the political as defined by the friend-enemy distinction in the second half of the twentieth century. This is the second katechon.

This administrative katechon withholds the anomy of the full-fleshed market force, as well as the potential force of total politization. This is why both Schmitt from the political sphere, and Hamburger, from the market’s sphere, despise the administrative state. They both seek its destruction, which is an assault against the rule of law. But again, these positions grossly misunderstand the internal development of law’s abnegation, to put it Vermeule’s terms (2016). This katechon has internal legitimacy, but it lacks ex-terior democratic legitimacy of participation and dissent. But the argument of absence of dissent from administration has also been contested (Rodriguez 2014, Williamson 2017). Can one probe the administrative katechon today?

Interestingly, Mario Tronti wrote an essay on the Leviathan to challenge this question. As a Marxist, he called for a will to resist it. Let me briefly quote Tronti: “Men confront the archaic symbols of evil, and against them, they struggle. When men think that, through some of sort divine grace, they do not longer need to struggle, is when they become even more defeated. If time dispenses the tragic, we end up with just a positive acceptance of the world” [5]. This is what Tronti calls the “red heart of conflict”. I have doubts that a principle of subjective will to power can do the work to deactivate the katechon as it stands for the administrative state. In fact, I wonder whether any ‘willing’ against the katechon is even desirable. At the same time, doing so will not differ much from the libertarian position that in the name of an abstract freedom, forgets the infrahuman base of any social existence.

But I also wonder whether Tronti himself still believes in resistance today, since in the conference he called for a reformist political praxis and revolutionary intellectual ideas. I tend to agree more with this scheme, since the administrative state also stands for a process of rationalization. No subjective practice can emerge as an exception to this new katechon without automatically appearing as a bate for this monstrous apparatus. Perhaps another way of thinking about Marramao’s dual question is whether the security state can dethrone the administrative state. Could it happen? If that happens, I will be willing to accept that it will be the end of the second historical katechon as we know it.

 

Notes

  1. My essay written for the Roma Tre Conference on posthegemony can be read here: https://infrapolitica.wordpress.com/2017/05/23/posthegemony-and-the-crisis-of-constitutionalism-in-the-united-states-paper-presented-at-allombra-del-leviatano-tra-biopolitica-e-posegemonia-universita-roma-tre-may-2017-by-gerardo/
  2. Alberto Moreiras. “Keynes y el Katechon”. Anales del Seminario de Historia de la Filosofia, Vol.30, N.1, 2013. 157-168.
  3. This is the central argument in Adrian Vermeule’s important book Law’s abnegation: from law’s empire to the administrative state (Harvard U Press, 2016).
  4. Carl Schmitt. The Leviathan in The State Theory of Thomas Hobbes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008. 44 pp.
  5. Mario Tronti. “Leviathan In Interiore Homine”. La Política Contra la Historia. Madrid: Traficantes de Sueño, 2016.

A Friendly Katechon: on Adam Joseph Shellhorse’s Anti-Literature: The Politics and Limits of Representation in Modern Brazil and Argentina. By Gerardo Muñoz.

shellhorse 2017Adam Joseph Shellhorse’s Anti-Literature: The Politics and Limits of Representation in Modern Brazil and Argentina (U Pitt Press, 2017) is a bold and timely intervention in a dire moment for “literary studies” in the field of Latin American Studies. What is the epistemological status of the ‘literary’ today, if not an ambiguous force driven by machinistic inertia? The institutional erosion of the discipline’s legitimacy cannot easily be ignored, as every scholar is confronted today with interrogative demands for ‘definition’. Ambitious in scope, theoretically sophisticated, and generous in its readings of a heterogeneous corpus, Shellhorse attempts to understand “what is meant by “literature in contemporary posthegemonic times” (Shellhorse 3). Whether such interrogation opens up a desirable future, is the very heart of this important book.

Anti-Literature departs from the wake of the exhaustion of a well known triad: the Boom as a last attempt to generate a strong allegorical machine; Ángel Rama’s culturalist thinking to come to grip with the uneven development through transculturation; and the political vanguard experiment of the Cuban Revolution in 1959. The aftermath of these watershed moments has led to what is now a permanent state of crisis. The end of ‘hegemony’ in Shellhorse’s reflection demands the end of the centralized state form of the literary, but also the turning away from models of ideological Marxist critique, over that of affect, the multiple, and the experimental in writing. Compensatory to this insolvent condition, Shellhorse proposes ‘anti-literature’ as a new framework for literary studies. Although, more urgently, it offers the minimal condition for the task of reading in a present devoid of objective legitimacy, or what Shellhorse calls, perhaps more prudently, a ‘perilous present’ (Shellhorse 16).

The archive Shellhorse attends to is minimalist, functioning hyperbolically for a larger and more programmatic invitation to read in the anti-literature key. The works sketched throughout the book are the following: Lispector’s language of life and the specular feminism of immanence; David Viñas’ ‘half made literature’ as a de-spiritualized materialist gesture in his novel Dar la cara (1962); concrete poetry as a post-culturalist and post-conceptual artifact; Haroldo de Campos and Osman Lins’ poetics of the baroque; and last but not least, a mediation on historical redemption and the messianic in Salgado’s photography and De Campos’ poem “O anjo esquerdo da historia”. Irreducible in style and geopolitical demarcations, all these anti-literary projects negotiate language within the limits of its own materiality while assuming a writing of finitude. This is crucial, as it is what distinguishes Shellhorse’ anti-literature from John Beverley’s known ‘against literature’.

Whereas Beverley demanded an exception to literary hegemony in the name of a subalternist ‘subject’ formalized in the testimonio, Shellhorse’s following Moreiras’ predicament on exhaustion, does not seek to close off the promise and secret of literature, but only to interrupt its identitarian and representational pretensions (Shellhorse 42). Therefore, against the Boom as an ideological critique towards state building on one hand, and testimonio as exception to high literary sovereignty on the other, Shellhorse proposes anti-literature as posthegemonic experimentation through affect and the sensorium. Whereas testimonio demanded hegemonic filiation until the triumphant victory, anti-literature endorses the post-hegemonic in the face of defeat. Anti-literature is only anti-literary to the extent that it demands a relation to the secret of ‘what might come’. This is why Shellhorse’ Anti-Literature is untimely tied to literature as a singular procedure of writing, instead of organizing a counter-canon, in what could be taken as an effort to immunize itself through an alternate ‘aesthetic form’. This is why, it is important that Shellhorse tells us very late in the book:

“…it could be said that anti-literary writers hook up writing to literature’s outside, to nonwriting and egalitarian modes of imaging the community. What is at issue is precisely this: the concept of anti-literature need not restrict itself to an avant-garde, modernist paradigm of the arts. Rather an approach to the anti-literary entails reconceptualizing the problem of writing as a sensory procedure and perpetual force. The question of what is anti-literature can perhaps best be posed only in the wake of literature’s exhaustion, when the arrival of defeatist accounts demands the time for speaking concretely” (Shellhorse 164).

This comes as a warning to careless readers who, perhaps too hazily, will try to inseminate periodical categories of sociology or history of literature to ensure the timelessness of the boundaries of literature’s autonomy. Indeed, Shellhorse immediately writes: “Indeed, bibliography on the nature of literature in the field is marginal” (Shellhorse 164). We can only guess that the very asymmetry between an understudied Argentine writer (Viñas), ranked among giants of modern Brazilian literature (Andrade, De Campos brothers, Lispector), functions as the affective corpus of Shellhorse’s own singular judgment. This is his secret posthegemonic cabinet, just like everyone has his or her own.

By taking distance from an overdetermination based on a ‘historical period’ or a particular ‘literary movement’, Shellhorse performs his own affective caesura against the hegemonic temptation that demands age-old historico-metaphysical entelechies; such as periodization, social context, base/superstructure dichotomy, form, or aesthetic framework. If the book’s starting point is the fall of the legitimacy of Latinamericanism or Hispanism at large, this means that there is no calculative arrangement that can sustain the alleged bona fide of ‘literature’. The polyphonic assemblage regime of tones and signs is also irreducible to a life, to any life, that belongs to the student and professor of literature in the exercise of the imagination. And as I see it, this is what the anti-literature tries to register so suitably to us.

Yet, at first sight there appears as a latent paradox in the book, and it is a problem that I would like to convey, since it remains of one the strong effects of its reading upon me. Of course, I can only hope to solve it in my own name and style, and I hope that others find their own ways to wrestle with the problem. Basically, the problem could be advanced in this way: if we are in a present condition of interregnum, of the total transitional epoch in the field within a larger transformation that Moreiras has called full machination through the principle of general equivalence, where anything is replaceable and interchangeable, why does the book offers yet another frame to re-invent literary studies? [1]. What is the need of literature at a time in which it can no longer speak for itself (the ‘being’ of Literature)? Isn’t the literary today a mere defunct fossilized object, a repetition for commemorations, and museum-like artifact that only seeks the stimuli of social-media to imagine itself Eternal? Literature automatically wants to be part of the ‘museum’, but the trade-off is that the museification of the new demands its own concrete death. It is difficult to name anything interesting in contemporary literature (nothing that can compare with the Boom), and the fact that we keep reading Lezama Lima or Haroldo de Campos or Borges, bears witness to the aftereffect of being able to establish some livable relation with nihilism at the end of literature. Shellhorse does well to inscribe this important symptom in a crucial moment at the end of the book, which opens to an important discussion:

“If “literature” persists in crisis in our field, the task today is to reconstitute its critical force. Literature becomes anti-literature when it subverts itself. My contention is that it is only by bearing witness to this relation of non-essence, non-identify, and non-closure – literature is not literature – that we can begin to read anew” (Shellhorse 166).

I would like to advance the thesis that Anti-literature as a project comes to us in the form of what I would call a friendly katechon. While it is clear that Shellhorse is not proposing a new “turn” beyond literature, anti-literature is not just repetition of the same as the new. To do so would be “old”, since it would be integral to the register of High Modernity up to the readymade, that is, to the museum. Rather, anti-literature is something akin to a shadow that overlaps in what we call “literature”; a sort of dirty stain in the tradition and in the immemorial institutionality of texts. At same time, anti-literature has a reformist undertone, in the theological sense of celebration and transformation through transference.

But it is a katechon to the extent that Anti-literature retains and delays the temporal disappearance of the evermore so irrelevance of literature. As we know, the Pauline Greek word katechon (κατέχον) means restrainer (who or what), a mysterious force that helps avoiding the fall unto the anomia that imposes illegitimacy in any particular historical epoch. Although at times the katechon is understood in tandem with its own archaic regression, I do not think this is Shellhorse’s intention or effect in inviting us to partake in Anti-literature to “begin anew”. The reason is fairly simple: to the extent that we have literature, there is always already excess to every hegemonic phantasm, and that is enough to retain literature as a residual condition for thought, even when we move beyond textualism or politization.

Like Carl Schmitt, who appears in Ex captivate salus, as the last conscious representative of Modern European Law of Nations, Shellhorse appears to us as the last existential witness of the literary in the form of the anti-literary. But like an Anti-Schmittian, he does not succumb in the myth of political theology and Empire. His katechon can only be one of friendship: in the love of the text, and for the friendship of an-other to come. Anyone, at any time. But isn’t this a mirror of the measureless principle of democracy? The friendly katechon does not seek what Nietzsche called the antiquarian relation to History, but rather a reflexive and disinterested democratic thinking. The katechon, in the platonic reading that I favor here, thoroughly deters disintegration of the authentic life of the mind, which is consistent with Lispector’s language of life [2]. That is, literature is no longer revealed as accumulation and principle (archē of the archive), but as homecoming of Justice. Shellhorse explicitly sets foot on this trail this in his reading of De Campos at the very end of the book (which I would like also to de-center from the given messianism):

“Such a field no doubt defines the logic of domination. Justice as a continuous line of singularities: blurs, bends back, and breaks up the reified character of social relations as well as banal accounts of “progress” that fail to count the part that has no part in society. Citable in all their moments, as freed expressions that articulate the desire to be exception, to think the relationless relation, the affective dimension of Campos’ text inscribe the crisis of poetry in the wake of subaltern tragedy” (Shellhorse 196).

But can the Poem be a secondary substitute before the ruin, a safeguard against tripping into the abyss? It is useful to paraphrase Derrida here to remember that, neither the poem nor deus absconditus, neither decorative baroque nor the messianic community, neither the experimental sensorium nor philosophy of history, can exert as hyperbolic condition of any possible living democratic construction [3]. This is only literature’s task. Anti-literature as friendly katechon, keeps this unavowable promise as its dearest secret that nourishes from the democratic expectancy in an incalculable waiting. A politics among friends? It could well be, but only with the caveat that like friends, literature also comes like a stranger late in the day. Will it come again? All of this to say that anti-literature resists succumbing in the nihilistic abyss of equivalence as the last avatar of the contemporary university’s death-drive. The friendly invitation of anti-literature confronts us, once more, as a lux acarna. We only hope that it is not too late, and that another path could open in the very place of what has always been.

 

 

 

 

 Notes

1. Alberto Moreiras. “Universidad. Principio de Equivalencia”. Enero 17, 2017. https://infrapolitica.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/universidad-y-principio-de-equivalencia-hacia-el-fin-de-la-alta-alegoria-borrador-de-conferencia-para-17-instituto-de-estudios-criticos-mexico-df-22-de-enero-2017-por-alberto-moreiras/

2. For example, at one point the baroque/ neo-baroque appears as a trope for anti-literature. In my account, this will amount to the ‘catholic’ affirmation the katechon, raising its status in a complexio oppositorum between archaic and an-archy of the eschatology, which is always political theology. Consider this passage cited from Haroldo de Campos: “…Brazilian culture was born under the sign of the baroque…it cannot be understood from ontological, substantialist, metaphysical point of view. It should not be understood from an ontological, substantialist, metaphysical point of view. It should not be understood in the sense of an idealist quest for “identity” or “national” character. Baroque, paradoxically, means non-infancy. The concept of “origin” here will only fit if it does not imply the idea of “genesis”, of a generative process with a beginning, middle, and maturity…Baroque is, therefore, a non-origin. A non-infancy. Our literature, springing up from the baroque vortex, was never aphastic; it has never developed from a speechless, aphasic-infantile limbo in the fullness of discourse”. 115 pp. The baroque as literary form, even deprived of genesis, seems to lead stray into the “frame” whether in transcendental or immanentist planes of the modern metaphysics of the political.

3. Panagiotis Christias has recently offered a very interesting reading of the figure of the katechon in a platonic key, in which he suggests that the restrainer stands against potential rise of tyranny, thus making the Philosopher, the Greek antecedent of the katechon fearing the disintegration of the polis. To what extent philosophy can deter anomia today is a completely different question. I am interested in the figure of the Philosopher as metonymic for life as it converges with passion without sacrifice. See, Platon et Paul au bord de l’abîme. Pour une politique katéchontique (2014).

‘Un pinche infierno’: sobre La fila india. (Gerardo Muñoz)

La más reciente novela del escritor mexicano Antonio Ortuño, La filia india (Océano, 2013) nos coloca al interior infernal de nuestro presente. Al decir “infernal” no recurrimos a un uso fácil de una metáfora, ni remitimos a la innumerable tropología que la literatura le ha dado a esa estación imaginaria desde La divina comedia hasta Libro del cielo y del infierno (Sur, 1960). El infierno que relata Ortuño a lo largo de su novela tiene un nombre: Santa Rita.

Este el nombre de un pueblo al sureste del territorio mexicano, pero podría ser cualquier territorio de los que hoy, en América Latina (de Guerrero al Conurbano), atraviesa y dibuja sobre el mapa un nuevo conflicto social. Santa Rita es tierra de nadie y desocupados, de maleantes y bandas criminales, de migrantes centroamericanos y burócratas de la Conami (Comisión Nacional de Migración). Pero ninguno se identifican con quienes aparentan ser, y por lo tanto ya nada es reducible a la analítica de la subjetividad. Atravesados por distintas fuerzas que imponen sus propias “razones” o “leyes”; esta vecindad descompuesta como el desierto del aburrimiento que tematiza 2666, es una región que lejos de ser “transparente” se caracteriza por nuevas gramáticas de la violencia.

Santa Rita (o La fila india, como máquina de narrar el horror) es una cartografía de los procesos an-arquicos que atraviesa la frontera sureña de México, desde la cual la porosidad entre cuerpos, capital, y muerte van dando la clave del fin de lo político en una guerra que se va desatando transversalmente. Surge la pregunta: ¿cómo narrar esa anarquía sin recurrir a la artificialidad de un nuevo intimismo o a la vieja “totalidad” caída hacia una nueva filosofía (global) de la historia?

La fila india no resuelve esa pregunta, pero si apunta a una sintomatología. En la cartografía que se traza sobre el territorio de Santa Rita – y sus espacios periféricos que emergen como espectros: las ciudades fronterizas de Estados Unidos, la frontera sur, Centroamérica –  abunda en un conflicto multivalencial plegado a varios actores y circuitos que van tramando lo que Diego Sztulwark, vía Rita Segato, ha querido llamar recientemente una nueva política de la opacidad [1].

Desde luego, no se trata de sugerir aquí que el desplazamiento hacia un nuevo exceso (y subceso) de la política pasa meramente por la una política de la oscuridad entendida como un mero “no-saber”, sino que la batalla sobre los territorios hoy son complejas matrices de guerra donde no hay demanda que pueda suplir con claridad y certeza la oscuridad a la cual es constantemente arrojada. De ahí que La filia india, que arranca con la investigación de una matanza en un albergue del pueblo, no se detenga ahí o se limite a esa experiencia como excepción. La matanza, nos van dando señales las múltiples voces de la novela, es moneda corriente de vidas que solo cuentan bajo un nuevo estatuto zoológico. Así, no hay “mapa cognitivo” ni “cartografía de lo absoluto” que valga en el interior de este nuevo desierto que diagrama la guerra global en su máxima expresión: solo hay cadáveres y la putrefacción de una afterlife de la tierra. En un momento en cual Ortuño abunda sobre la naturaleza de Santa Rita se nos da un alegato de esta condición anómica.

“…la Conami de Santa Rita florecía como los basureros con las lluvias. Me hundí en el agua, de noche, imagine la zanja, la peste a mierda y tierra, la boca llenándose de gusanos y piedras, la planta, remandado a que se movieran los que en el lindero de la muerte se agitan, como insectos, pese a tener la cabeza rota. […] En otros países se habrían quedado sentados hasta que llegara la ONU. Pero, bueno, supongo que en otros países no hubieran rematado a los niños a machetazos o a sus madres a tiros ni hubieran puesto a los hombres a pelear entre ellos para ejercer el premio de vivir unas horas más” [2].

La filia india, sin embargo, no solo nos arrastra hacia su interior el exceso del cuerpo sin redención (ese producto para el fuego y la ceniza; un infra-nivel del resto, tal y como lo ha venido pensando Pablo Domínguez Galbraith). El otro registro del infierno se nos da en la fachada misma de la burocracia de la Conami, abundante en todo tipo de gestos del aburrimiento: bostezos, miradas al vacío, silencios, susurros, voluntad de hacer y no hacer. La ‘fila india’ es el último gesto que reinstala la lógica de la amo-esclavo en el momento de la consumación burocrática del Mundo. Y así la repetición: una reiteración de los comunicados (‘una circular eterna’, cuatro en total en la novela) van dando el ritmo de una liturgia burocrática en la  transformación de la política hacia la administración de los infiernos.

Como ha visto Giorgio Agamben en Il regno e la gloria, el infierno en realidad no es más que una forma penitenciaria una vez que los Ángeles han abandonado el quehacer de la política, y que al quedar desocupados de su jerarquías, la distribución de la justicia divina deviene en manos de los demonios que ejecutan una pena eterna [3]. Ante la condena demoníaca de toda forma de vida sobre los territorios, la burocracia como anomia en la tierra solo puede operar a través de una relación promiscua con la esfera del derecho que pone en suspenso y crisis el estatuto mismo de la ética. Y por consecuencia también de lo forense y de la vida social. Así nos dice la funcionaria:

“Los periodistas solidarios también comían, necesitaban premios y becas y algunos temas iban a desarrollos y otros no….La ética de hacer lo que se pueda hasta donde se pueda, identidad punto por punto a la del resto de nosotros. Cruzaban por la frontera los pollos porque podían, los robaban, golpeaban, y violaban por lo mismo pero, a cambio, nadie intervenía porque no, porno como iba a ser. Eso no”. [4]

Las instituciones burocráticas que administran la nueva condición infernal del mundo tan solo encarnan una ética de “hacer tan solo nos permita nuestro poder” (que siempre, claro, termina siendo poco). Y solo queda la voluntad de voluntades como última extracción de lo humano, puesto que su potencia ha sido destruida y finalizada. Un humanismo ínfimo como puesta en escena de la praxis. Hacer y dejar ser, lo cual supone a lo largo de la novela, dejar morir.

Como en Los migrantes que no importan (Sur+, 2010), esa notable crónica del periodista Oscar Martínez sobre las vidas en la “bestia” (marca del ángel caído, además), la zona que ocupa Santa Rita es un campo de guerra donde la astucia del poder encuentra su mayor grado de concreción en los cuerpos vejados y marcados por violaciones, torturas, y extorsiones. La presencia de lo demoniaco ya no aparece en forma figural de una bestia, sino sobre el curso bélico que instala una serie de huéspedes extraños (así le llamó Carl Schmitt a Hitler) como apóstatas de un nuevo reino sin forma (katechon) [5]. Es esa la condición post-formal que Luna brutalmente le relata a la burócrata de la Conami como si fuese una pintura de Grunewald:

“le narró historias sobre migrantes crucificadas en postes de luz, cuerpos sin cabeza, cabezas sin lengua y dedos sin falanges, mujeres a las que les habían sacado para afuera todo lo que tuvieron dentro y hombre as lo que les habían metido todo lo que tuvieron fuera” [5 152].

La llamada violencia expresiva que estudia la sociología hoy en la región (pensemos aquí en los importantes trabajos de Rita Segato, Rossana Reguillo, o Pilar Calveiro) apunta a un nuevo tipo de escritura corporal más allá de lo propio, y por lo tanto inconsecuente con la división entre víctimas y asesinos de la política moderna, ya que esto supondría la naturalización de una forma (gestalt) puesta en crisis en el interior mismo de la guerra encarnada como exceso sobre los cuerpos mutilados y vaciados en la oscuridad del paisaje global [6].

Esta violencia desborda los parámetros de la crueldad establecidos en la co-pertenencia entre injuria y castigo – tal y como lo ha problematizado Jacques Derrida en su seminario The Dealth Penalty (University of Chicago, 2014) para entender las tramas entre violencia y soberanía. Santa Rita en La filia india, como Santa Teresa en 2666, es una nueva localización hiperbólica de un ‘pinche infierno’ que atraviesa, desde ya, el vasto habitar del mundo. Un mundo desnudo de su capacidad de horizonte y forma.

 

 

Notas

  1. Diego Sztulwark. “La opacidad del presente político”. (Clinamen, Radio La Mar en Coche, Marzo de 2015). http://ciudadclinamen.blogspot.com/2015/03/la-opacidad-del-presente-politico.html
  1. Antonio Ortuño. La fila india. 121.
  1. Giorgio Agamben. Il Regno e la Gloria. Il Regno e la Gloria: Per una genealogia teologica dell’economia e del governo. Neri Pozza, 2007.
  1. Antonio Ortuño. La fila india. 128
  1. Carl Schmitt en Glossarium sugiere que Hitler fue un ‘huésped extraño’ que, desde el corazón de la era de era de Holderlin, terminó ocupado el interior de la forma (gestalt) de la cultura alemana, dotándola de una “forma extraña” o fin de la forma.
  1. Alberto Moreiras ha sugerido que este nuevo tipo exceso de violencia y crueldad marca una región externa a la forma clásica de lo político. Ver su “An example of infrapolitics”, una glosa sobre Cruel Modernity (Duke, 2013) de Jean Franco. https://infrapolitica.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/an-example-of-infrapolitics-by-alberto-moreiras/