Thursday, December 01, 2005
(2:24 PM) | Old - Doug Johnson:
Universalizing Divine Law
Ever since my first post here at the weblog, I have been advocating for a position which involves what I have termed 'universalizing Torah.' My apologies to those who have already patiently followed the logic of my position. However, the 'Critique of Violence' reading group over at Long Sunday prompts me to go over some old territory, especially for those who are only now becoming familiar with my writing since I've become basically a weekly contributor to the weblog. (And I am more prone to do this since Agamben has been less prominent at Long Sunday's discussions than one would expect; Derrida's Force of Law is receiving far more extensive treatment).My take on 'Critique of Violence' was mediated through my reading of Agamben's State of Exception during Sovereignty Week here. The first of the two posts is the one that deals with Agamben/CV most extensively, and I'd like to refer to some of that post (Part 1 of Covering Agamben's use of "Critique of Violence") here.
The crux of my position is summed up in the following sentences:
Where Benjamin and Agamben wish to desuture violence and the law (the
former by revolution, the latter by erudite analysis) by means that are forever
reinscribable within the logic of violent sovereignty, we must instead perform
this überimportant task by means of a reengagement with divine law rather than
by means of divine violence. A Law, that is, which is unsuspendable,
unavoidable. Agamben and Benjamin, at least in CV, ignore this possibility
altogether. Strange, a Jewish thinker who bypasses altogether his own
tradition's solution to an intractble problem. Certainly not unheard of in early
20th century Germany, but strange nonetheless, especially from a thinker as
rigorous as Benjamin.
Now, I am subtly hinting that, perhaps, when taken together with the puppet and the dwarf of WB's Theses on the Philosophy of History, we might find hidden in CV a subtle pitch for Divine Law - though, of course, my position does not at all depend on there actually being such a hidden agenda. Jodi has already noted that the Korah story briefly referred to in CV can be read as Divine Violence in support of Divine Law (and I think this is the proper way to read both the Biblical story, and later tradition's expansion upon it, apologies for not having the time to interact with your opposite conclusion more thoroughly, Jodi).
In any event, I suppose that I will keep coming back to restate my position in various forums until I give up on it or until I find someone to critically engage me. The position seems contentious enough to me: I would think it would raise the hackles of those committed to enlightenment secularism (return of the 'religous'), Pauline christians (I am deeply indebted to Paul in every way, but I am arguing that we ought to leave his conclusion behind); and any Jew who rightly fears assimilation. Alas, it is the end of the semester and there is way too much other good reading getting very little attention in our slice of the blogsphere already.
