Agamben discusses the concept of “archeology” as a method of philosophical and historical inquiry, emphasizing its role in accessing the present through the past. It explores how this approach differs from traditional historical methods by focusing on “points of emergence” rather than linear origins.
Introduction to Giorgio Agamben’s Philosophical Work
The session begins with an introduction to Giorgio Agamben, a highly influential philosopher whose work has created a new philosophical dimension and introduced concepts that have become integral to the common philosophical debate. His work is noted for its profound articulation, its ability to challenge established disciplinary boundaries, and the significant interest it sparks in young people across various academic disciplines.
Methodological Considerations: Archaeology as a Problem of Method
The discussion shifts to Agamben’s concept of archaeology as a methodological problem. He revisits his earlier work on the subject, aiming to clarify what is meant by archaeology. He emphasizes that method does not precede research but rather follows it, and it cannot be separated from the research itself. Analogous to how no single logic applies to every argument, no single method is valid for every subject. The path of thought is intrinsically linked to the thought process itself, akin to Aristotle’s description of nature as a journey towards itself.
The Significance of “Pathways Not Leading Anywhere”
Agamben explores the concept of “pathways not leading anywhere,” referencing Heidegger’s intention to use “pathways” rather than “works” as an epigraph for his complete works. He notes that Heidegger’s collected essays are titled “Pathways,” which are pathways in the woods that lead nowhere. He finds a parallel in the work of a contemporary poet writing in a dialect of Upper Trevigiano, where such paths are called “troy del mazzariol.” This concept highlights the idea of being led astray by a mischievous spirit, much like thought can lead one down unproductive paths.
Archaeology as the Sole Access to the Present
A central argument presented is that archaeology is the only viable path to understanding the present. Agamben draws upon Heidegger’s concept of “being-in-the-world” and then introduces a French linguist’s 1913 essay. This essay reveals that the Latin term “mundus” originally signified a circular opening connecting the world of the dead with the world of the living. The founding of Rome, according to legend, involved the excavation of such a “mundus,” into which the founders cast a handful of earth from their homeland, symbolizing the inclusion of their past.
The “Mundus Patet” and the Blurring of Past and Present
The “mundus” was typically covered by stone but opened three times a year, during which public activities were interrupted. This interruption occurred because the dead, or the past, would enter the city. The phrase “mundus patet” (the world is open) signifies a moment when the boundaries between past and present, the dead and the living, and the earthly and the celestial worlds become blurred. This concept serves as a guiding principle for archaeological inquiry, aiming to reach this state of openness where distinctions dissolve.
The Non-Chronological Nature of the Past in Archaeology
Agamben emphasizes that the past, in the context of archaeological inquiry, is not a point on a timeline to be separated. Instead, it is contemporary within the moment of “mundus patet,” where past and present, origin and present, are simultaneous. He stresses the importance of not isolating the concept of origin to a point in the past, asserting that origin is always contemporary with the present.
Memory as a Counter-Flow to Tradition
Memory, in this sense, is not a regression to a separate point in the past. Instead, it is an upward movement against the flow of history, intended to liberate the origin from that which keeps it separate. This process involves a destructive element towards historical tradition, aiming to remove what obscures the origin, not because the researcher possesses a more accurate or ancient origin, but to dismantle the elements that obscure it.
The Archetype in Philology: An Unresolved Origin
Agamben uses the example of Lachmann’s philological method, which involves establishing a critical edition of classical texts by tracing manuscripts back to a hypothetical “archetype.” However, this archetype is not a true origin; it is itself a lost manuscript, already corrupted. The work performed on historical tradition is thus always a destructive process, never reaching a point free from error or alteration.
The Concept of “Insorgenza” (Emergence) in Historical Inquiry
Agamben proposes that archaeology is not about finding an origin but about understanding “insorgenza” – the emergence of a phenomenon. This emergence is situated within the gap between the “originario” (the purely present) and the “originale” (the historical origin, the cause of historical development). This “insorgenza” is understood as a prehistoric “gap” inherent in historical tradition, a temporal rupture that allows for the possibility within the present.
Archaeology as the Pursuit of Possibility in the Present
The archaeological pursuit, therefore, is not a return to the past but a search within the past for a possibility for the present. This concept challenges the notion that the past is merely a collection of completed events, arguing instead that it holds latent possibilities. This pursuit of possibility is central to understanding historical phenomena and is not limited to historical research but extends to philosophy and other fields.
The “Unfinished” Nature of Historical Events
Agamben draws a parallel with the concept of the “unfinished” in historical events, suggesting that things become truly interesting when they have “run their course.” At this point, they reveal the ideas and possibilities they contained, both realized and unrealized. This idea resonates with the concept of “recapitulation,” where an entire existence is summarized in a moment, but for Agamben, this is not a mere repetition but a transformative process.
Critique of Nietzsche’s Eternal Return and the Missing Link of Recapitulation
He critiques Nietzsche’s concept of the eternal return of the same, suggesting that it lacks the crucial link of recapitulation, which would transform mere repetition into a salvific process. Without this transformative element, the eternal return risks becoming an agonizing repetition, like a student endlessly copying the same text.
The Ambiguity of “Origin” in Foucault’s Genealogy
Agamben addresses Foucault’s concept of genealogy, noting that Foucault distinguishes between various terms for origin and critiques the notion of “Ursprung” (origin) as a pure essence or true identity. Instead, Foucault proposes “point d’insorgenza” (point of emergence). However, Agamben finds Foucault’s concept of “point” problematic and suggests that “histoire de l’insorgenza” (history of emergence) might be more appropriate.
The Heterogeneity of Prehistory and History
Drawing on Franz Overbeck, Agamben discusses the concept of “Urgeschichte” (prehistory) as an heterogeneous dimension that historical research must confront. This “Urgeschichte” is termed “anti-Geschichte” (anti-history) or “Geschichte des Entstehens” (history of emergence). He argues that historical phenomena are split between “Urgeschichte” and “Geschichte” (history), which are connected but not homogenous, requiring different methodological approaches.
The “Mazzariol’s Trails” as a Metaphor for Archaeological Inquiry
The “trails of the mazzariol” serve as a metaphor for the nature of archaeological inquiry. These are paths in the woods that lead nowhere, symbolizing how thought or research can meander through tradition and its gaps, without necessarily reaching a definitive origin. This process involves navigating the detours and hidden paths within historical transmission.
Archaeology’s Confrontation with Tradition
Archaeological research must confront historical tradition. It is through this confrontation that access to the past is gained, but it is crucial not to lose sight of the heterogeneity inherent in this process. The goal is to engage with the tradition without succumbing to its limitations or overlooking the gaps and obscurities within it.
The “Gap” as the Site of Archaeological Inquiry
Agamben posits that the site of archaeology is not origin itself, nor a purer historical origin, but rather the “gap” or “scarto” between the “originario” and the “originale.” This gap is the space where the contradiction within historical tradition resides. Archaeological inquiry must situate itself within this essential gap, recognizing that tradition is always marked by an inherent errancy.
The “Messianic Time” and the Transformation of Temporal Experience
He links this “gap” to Benjamin’s concept of “messianic time,” which represents a transformation of the experience of historical time. This is not about the end of time, but a re-configuration of temporal experience that is neither strictly chronological nor outside of it. It is a temporal zone where past and present are interwoven.
Philology, Linguistics, and Psychoanalysis as Models of Archaeological Inquiry
Agamben presents philology, linguistics, and psychoanalysis as disciplines that, in their practices, exemplify this archaeological approach. He highlights Lachmann’s philological method, which reconstructs texts by analyzing the errors in manuscripts to reach a hypothetical archetype. Similarly, Indo-European linguistics reconstructs proto-languages based on correspondences between existing languages, and Freudian psychoanalysis analyzes slips of the tongue to uncover repressed traumas.
The Archetype and Proto-Languages as Constructions
In philology and linguistics, the archetype and proto-languages are not discovered origins but rather constructions derived from the available traditions. These constructions are tools for organizing and understanding the historical transmission of texts and languages. They represent the inherent errancy within these traditions, rather than a pure, unadulterated origin.
Freud’s Psychoanalysis and the “Lapsus” of Tradition
Freud’s analysis of “lapsus” in psychoanalysis is likened to the philological examination of manuscript errors. Timpanaro’s critique of Freud suggests that many of these “lapses” can be explained by linguistic or cognitive tendencies rather than repressed traumas. This highlights how apparent “slips” in tradition can be interpreted through different lenses, revealing underlying patterns of transmission and corruption.
The Concept of “Possibility” and “Reality”
Agamben addresses the concept of “possibility” versus “reality,” particularly in relation to Bergson’s ideas. He questions the notion that possibility precedes reality, suggesting instead that possibility is created by the realization of the real. This implies that the origin is not a fixed point but something that is constantly being generated through present actions and experiences.
The “Ontogenetic” Principle in Law and the Concept of “Azione”
In response to a question about legal epistemology, Agamben clarifies that his concept of origin is not an ontogenetic principle that causally determines historical processes. He notes that legal thought often involves a “regressive gesture” of imputing responsibility to a subject who caused an action. This implies a backward-looking element in legal reasoning, but it is not about reaching a pure, foundational origin.
The “Scarto” (Gap) as the Continuous Site of Archaeology
He reiterates that the archaeological pursuit is not a regression into the past but a present-day operation that seeks possibility within the past. This process is valid across various fields of study, including history, philosophy, philology, and psychoanalysis. The key is to understand the “gap” between tradition and origin not as a fixed point but as a continuous site of inquiry.
The Anthropocene as an Ongoing Event
The Anthropocene is presented as a prime example of an ongoing event that defies historical categorization. It is an event that has undoubtedly occurred but cannot be confined to a specific chronological point. Instead, it represents a continuous process of human becoming, where humanity is constantly in the making, never fully arriving at a fixed state of being human.
The Persistence of Possibility in Historical Tradition
The inherent “gap” or “scarto” within historical tradition is what allows for the persistence of possibility. This understanding challenges the notion of history as a mere sequence of factual events, suggesting instead that it contains latent potentials. The archaeological quest, therefore, seeks to uncover and preserve these possibilities.
Conclusion: The Unfinished Nature of Archaeology
In conclusion, the session emphasizes that archaeological inquiry is not about reaching a definitive origin or a completed event. It is an ongoing process of confronting the gaps and errancies within historical tradition, seeking possibilities that are constantly being generated. This pursuit is inherently present-oriented, shaping our understanding of the past in relation to our present circumstances.
