If the project of the Infrapolitical Deconstruction Collective has a common genealogy, and it must have it, although it is lived differently by every one of its members, we could probably find it in themes that have been developing since the late 1990s. They would be: the necessary destruction of the general cultural studies paradigm, a critique of the history of the left, including the so-called academic left, a dissatisfaction with dominant theoretical paradigms in the larger field of the humanities and in the smaller field of the Latin Americanist humanities, including subalternism, a critique of the neoliberal turn in the university as such, and, finally, a critique of so-called North American deconstruction. I would myself propose that all of these negative or critical predispositions developed in the wake of a certain congenital marranismo, understood as the interesting side of the Hispanic intellectual and existential tradition.
And yet IDC means to insist on, and to continue to let itself be inflected by, a tradition of thought marked by the Heideggerian scheme concerning the history of being/end of metaphysics/end of epochal history/end of principial thought. The former list of genealogical conditions should make it abundantly clear that it was never our intention to be in favor of any particular valorization (or de-valorization) of particular historico-cultural horizons or specific human profiles. Indeed the notion of value, or any form of cultural value, was denounced by some of us as incompatible with a subalternist approach even at its most superficial. Our marranismo had a few teeth, but not to chew on the exaltation or denigration of any form of human life: letting-be was our fundamental political position, from which every critique sprang.
The ongoing publication of Heidegger’s Black Notebooks makes it clearer than it ever has been–there is now no doubt that Heidegger was also an anti-Semite, and not just merely some sort of idealistic or deluded or merely opportunistic Nazi–that our project must also affirm a radical anti-Heideggerianism as well. If the Heideggerian scheme on the history of being, which is very much a variation of the Hegelian one, hence it pertains to the history of thought as we know it, cannot be renounced tout court, and can only be engaged thoughtfully, the explicit, intentional undertones revealed by the Black Notebooks suggesting an “ontic” or “existentiell” plunge into both anti-Semitism and an overvaluation of “German” destiny in the preparation of the inceptual thought of the Other Beginning must be rejected not just in themselves, but also as master tropology for any kind of alternative cultural-historical valorization. IDC must affirm the radical suspension of any cultural-historical valorization as principial thought, which, as principial thought, would always already be committed to hegemonic power and hegemonic accomplishment.
The Heideggerian thematics of the end of epochal history can only be referred by us to the end of the hegemonic/sacrificial structuration of history and historical life. IDC articulates itself as a renunciation of power as principial force from an idea of an-archy whose foundations can be traced back to Heidegger as well, mediated by Emmanuel Levinas and Reiner Schürmann among others.
There is then a practical question in terms of how to read the Heideggerian text, which is at the same time the text of the end of metaphysics. Given Heidegger`s own use of the tropology of “destruction,” it might not be appropriate to imagine our own reading of Heidegger as a practice of destruction (just as it would seem dubious to claim that one wants to undertake a deconstruction of Derridean deconstruction). But “critique” seems to fall short as well. We have been trying out the notion of “demetaphorization” in the wake of the recent publication of Derrida’s 1964 seminar on Heidegger and the Questions of History and Being. We have used its corollary, “de-figuration.” Catherine Malabou’s book on Heidegger (Le change Heidegger) also insists on a “third incision” in the Heideggerian wake having to do with desymbolization as a new practice or imagination of the real. The object of all of this would be to arrest the very possibility of either of the two false exits from the Heideggerian schematic structuration: the rupture of the principle of general equivalence in favor of an alternative ontic or existentiell hierarchization; or the philosophico-artistic (or poetic) pretension that a refoundation or historial re-inauguration can be prepared by the thinkers or the poets, “the future ones” from Contributions to Philosophy. IDC does not favorably hierarchize the labor of thinking or poetizing because it refuses to hierarchize values. There is no non-somnambulic hero of thought that can claim infrapolitical sovereignty. All of this forms one of the theoretical crossroads of our project. We have tried to address it as the problematic of an infrapolitics of transfiguration or an infrapolitics of “vencimiento.”
Que bien ver esto puesto en limpio luego de la conversacion de ayer. Solo agregaria dos cosas: junto a la desfiguracion de Malabou y la desmetaforizacon del seminario del 64, estaria la deconstruccion del agotamiento de las economias (Schurmann) que me parecen centrales para desactivar el problema del valor, y por consiguiente, el estatuto de la jerarquia epistemologica de todo saber maestro. Lo otro es que es que de esta forma, esas criticas que homologan el “letting be” a la forma neoliberal quedan obsoletas. Es un argumento con el que se la han querido “montar” algunos ortodoxos al ultimo Foucault recientemente (en la revista Jacobin, por ejemplo). Pero lo importante, entonces es decir que ese letting be no esta atado a ningun tipo de equivalencia general – que va del pensamiento del comercio en Smith hasta Marx – ni por la valorizacion de la idea sobre la cosa, o de la “cosa” como restitucion una subjetividad o presencia otra. El letting-be tal cual, ya no puede ser reducido al hands-off del principio archico de la economia an-arquica en su fase neoliberal. G