Buch, Englisch, Band 65, 352 Seiten, Format (B × H): 152 mm x 225 mm
Reihe: libri nigri
Dialogues on the Vocation of the Humanities
Buch, Englisch, Band 65, 352 Seiten, Format (B × H): 152 mm x 225 mm
Reihe: libri nigri
ISBN: 978-3-95948-344-5
Verlag: Traugott Bautz
aus dem Klappentext:
Just as Benedetto Croce cleared the way to the individual, concrete work of art by demolishing the doctrine of artistic form, so the purpose of my analyses so far has been to clear the way to the work of art by demolishing the doctrine which would assign art to a distinct domain. The common programmatic aim of these analyses has been to further the process of integration in scholarship, which increasingly transgresses the rigid disciplinary boundaries that characterized its practice in the last century. They do so through a study of the work of art which sees in it an integral expression of the religious, metaphysical, political, and economic tendencies of its age that will not in any sense be pigeonholed.
Walter Benjamin
Autoren/Hrsg.
Weitere Infos & Material
Preface - Madeleine Kasten
List of Abbreviations
DIALETICS AT A STANDSTILL: BENJAMIN'S "DENKBILDER"
Benjamin's Thougt-Images in Einbahnstraße - Gustan Asselbergs
Sichtlich sich verbergend: Die Autor-Figur des Passagen-Werks - Wolfram Malte Fues
LIMINAL FIGURES: CHILD AND FLANEUR
The Child at the Threshold: Walter Benjamin's Berliner Kindheit um 1900 - Corina Stan
The Flâneur and the Socio-Economic Critique - Nassima Sahraoui
UNSIGHTLY FIGURES
Walter Benjamin's Figures of De-Figuration: The Barbarian, the Destructive Character, and the Monster - Sami R. Khatib
ANGELS AND HISTORIANS
Closing Time: Benjamin, Temporality, and the Problem of Political Organization - Bennett Carpenter
Of Fish and Men: Benjamin's Allegorist and the Meaning of Life - Madeleine Kasten
Walter Benjamin on Charlie Chaplin: The Rehabilitation of the Allegorical in Modernity - Daniel Mourenza
THE NARRATOR AND THE POLITICS OF SENSES
"Drawing o an Unlikely Source": The "Erzähler", the Islamic Revival, and Benjamin's Philosophy of Language - Ton Groeneweg
TRANSLATION BETWEEN FOREIGNNESS AND KINSHIP
Bleakness in the Age of Google: Walter Benjamin and the Possibility of Redemptive Translation - Orr Scharf
Walter Benjamin's Translator/Critic as a Model for Transcultural Thought and Practice - Gisela Brinker-Gabler
THE TASK OF CRITIC
Lektüre als Opfer: Der Kritiker in "Wider ein Meisterwerk" und dem Trauerspielbuch - Anna Wotkowicz
THE RIGHTEOUS AS MEDIATOR OF LINGUISTIC EXPERIENCE
"Im Anfang war das Wort": Von Adam, zwei Bäumen und dem Gerechten - Gerard Visser
About the Authors
Indices
reface
Madeleine Kasten
This volume finds its origin in a conference titled Benjamin’s Figures:
Dialogues on the Vocation of the Humanities which took place at Leiden
University, Netherlands, in August 2013. In the meantime, the theme that
inspired the conference – the more or less permanent crisis in the
humanities, reinforced by the economic crisis that hit the world in 2008 –
has in no way lost its urgency. The opposite is true: far from having ended
with the financial crisis, whose effects are still noticeable everywhere, the
need for the humanities to defend their existence appears only to have
increased. Two examples, one from the US and one from the Netherlands,
will suffice to illustrate this point.
In March 2017, US President Donald Trump presented his first federal
budget plan, in which he proposed to end both the National Endowment for
the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. It was the first
time since the creation of the endowments in 1965 that a US president
demanded their termination, and although the House later voted for a
continuation of federal support at a slightly decreased level the proposal
itself is a sign on the wall. A year before, Dutch conservative senator Pieter
Duisenberg had already gained wide support for his view that academic
study programmes in the Netherlands offering no job guarantees (so-called
pretstudies – literally ‘fun studies’, understood to include art, most of the
humanities, and a considerable part of the social sciences) should be axed.
Meanwhile Duisenberg has been appointed chair of the Co-operating Dutch
Universities (VSNU), where he took up his duties on October 1, 2017. One
of his stated aims is to create more incentives for universities to market their
study programmes, and to link the allocation of budgets for tuition to
performance agreements based on quantitative indicators between the
government and ‘internal stakeholders’ (students and university staff) as well
Madeleine Kasten
xii
as trade and industry. In addition, the allocation of research budgets is to be
increasingly geared towards ‘social relevance’.
So the question remains: how can the humanities justify their existence
in an academic environment facing ubiquitous cutbacks – an environment
where, as Stanley Fish has argued, productivity, efficiency and consumer
satisfaction appear to be the only relevant criteria anyway? Even if eloquent
spokespersons such as Fish and Martha Nussbaum are perhaps overstating
the case it appears that the humanities, more than ever, need to reconsider
their specific role for our times. For on the one hand, the institutional call
for more efficiency is seen to conflict with the humanities’ insistence on
academic freedom and interdisciplinary research as essential to the
development of a critical perspective on the operations of culture as a whole.
On the other hand, the notions of freedom and interdisciplinarity must
themselves be constantly rethought to prevent the legacy of ‘the cultural
turn’ from being reduced to an empty cliché.
At Leiden University, we chose to address this need for reflection on
the vocation of the humanities by organizing an international conference
devoted to the thought of philosopher of culture Walter Benjamin (1892-
1940). In doing so, our aim was to consolidate an interdisciplinary initiative
started in 2010, when we marked the recent fusion between our former
faculties of arts, philosophy and religious studies with a conference on the
hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer.
A conspicuous feature of Benjamin’s writing is its lack of any formal
pretence to system building. In fact the bulk of his oeuvre is made up of
short essays and notes on a wide range of seemingly disparate cultural
phenomena, where philological commentary and criticism go hand in hand.
The reason for this absence of closure and the frequent shifts in focus must
not be sought in any incidental default. Instead, they reflect Benjamin’s
experience of his own age as requiring a direct, polemical style and approach
antithetical to incorporation into a fixed order.
If fragmentariness imposes itself as a necessary formal characteristic of
Benjamin’s writing, his project is nevertheless held together by a single
underlying ambition: to study cultural signs as the ideal expression of the
religious, metaphysical, political, and economic tendencies of a specific
historical period. True to the semantic potential of Greek aisthesis, he
promotes aesthetics to the status of an all-encompassing, interdisciplinary
theory of experience. For the timeless idea, says Benjamin, is to be captured
only in the process of its historical becoming – that is, at its origin, the
Preface
xiii
vanishing point where it enters, and dissolves into, the material as the force
determining its necessary form in history. The apprehension of this origin
thus depends on a dual intuition where the singular reveals itself as part of a
structure, a constellation that transcends the realm of the material yet
remains faithful to each of its particulars: ideas stand to objects as
constellations stand to stars (GS I.1, 214).
In his analyses of cultural phenomena and the constellations to which
they belong Benjamin shows himself unusually aware of the role of the
philosopher/critic. Characteristically, this agent takes on different shapes
according to varying contexts: the angel of history, the narrator, the flâneur,
the child, the dwarf, the collector – to name just some central personas.
Indeed Benjamin’s use of multiple, at times carefully orchestrated voices in
his texts radicalizes the notion of interdisciplinarity in ways which, we feel,
provides a vital source of inspiration for the humanities in our times.
For our conference, then, we solicited papers reflecting on the sociocritical
potential of the humanities through one or more of these
Benjaminian figures, and our call was rewarded by a rich response. For three
days we experienced the peculiar energy generated by non-stop discussion,
the atmosphere being enhanced by the material presence of visual art
inspired by Benjamin, a musical performance, and the conference-related art
festival Cultuur?Barbaar! organized by our indefatigable former students
Looi van Kessel and Gerlov van Engelenhoven.
The essays contained in the present volume reflect this energy. Twelve
of them are written in English, four in German. As the conference itself was
bilingual and this bilingualism was experienced by many attendants as a
blessing, especially in view of the long-standing divide between German and
Anglo-American Benjamin studies, we have decided to publish the essays in
their original languages.
The first section, “Dialectics at a Standstill: Benjamin’s ‘Denkbilder’”, opens
with Gustan Asselbergs’s attempt to assess the philosophical nature of the
aphorisms or Denkbilder, sixty in all, which Benjamin collected in his
volume One-way Street. The author begins by justifying the use of the term
Denkbilder itself and develops his analysis in three steps. In the first part of
his argument he focuses on Benjamin’s notion of the idea set forth in the
“Epistemo-Critical Prologue” to his Origin of German Tragic Drama. The
idea cannot be rationally grasped; it can only reveal itself – hence the
problem of representation or Darstellung. The prose form of the thought
Madeleine Kasten
xiv
image, a “kontemplative Darstellung” which forces the reader to pause, was
designed to meet this difficulty. However, One-way Street is not just about
the idea of an ordinary street. In his thought-images, of which Asselbergs
discusses examples in his Part II, Benjamin confronts the shock experience
of modern city life, opening up an ‘image-space’ which at the same time
offers a free playground for the spectator. Asselbergs examines the textual
properties responsible for this effect and concludes: “By this means a space
is opened that distinguishes itself from the mercantile gaze of shock-reality,
in favor of the interplay between distance and nearness; a dimension that
goes beyond the experience of shock.” In the third and last part he analyzes
the critical function of the thought-image through the figure of the flâneur.
Wolfram Malte Fues, in his contribution, draws attention to some wellknown
observations from the Arcades Project, for instance, “In dem
Gebieten, mit denen wir es zu tun haben, gibt es Erkenntnis nur blitzhaft. Der
Text ist der langnachrollende Donner”; “Bild ist Dialektik im Stillstand”; “Das
Ewige ist eher eine Rüsche am Kleid als eine Idee”. These statements are
uttered by an author-subject. But what kind of a subject is speaking here,
and what is the status of the comments themselves? They are apodictic
judgements claiming that something is necessarily the case without
determining this ‘something’ further. Determination should result from the
images themselves; here, however, metaphor assumes the nature of
catachresis, a word meant to fill a semantic gap, and images such as “Blitz”,
“Donner”, “Rusche am Kleid”, turn out to stand for something that is hardly
clarified through examination. The author finds an answer to the question
concerning the nature of the author-subject in the following passage from
Benjamin: “An einem Sommernachmittag ruhend einem Gebirgszug am
Horizont oder einem Zweig folgen, der seinen Schatten auf den Ruhenden wirft
– das heit die Aura dieser Berge, dieser Zweige atmen”. In Fues’s analysis of
the text a complex play of closeness and distance unfolds itself which leads
him to conclude that “Das Autor-Subjekt des Passagen-Werks is dasjenige, das
an einem Sommertag die Konfiguration des Auratischen ruhend auf sich werken
lät, um die in ihm aufgehobenen Konstellationen atmend freizusetzen”. In his
conclusion he locates this attitude, this fixed stare of quiet attentiveness
which enables manifold reflection, in Benjamin’s Denkbild “The Tree and
Speech”, anchoring it retrospectively in the essay “On Language as Such and
on the Language of Man”.
The first paper in the second section, “Liminal Figures: Child and
Flâneur”, is by Corina Stan and contains an analysis of the Denkbilder in
Preface
xv
Benjamin’s Berlin Childhood Around 1900. Stan begins by characterizing this
work as “the subjective counterpart to Benjamin’s Arcades project”. Both
texts represent an in-between space or liminal zone, while the title of the
first “suggests the image of the child playing at the threshold between
centuries”. Berlin Childhood can be dramatically characterized as “a farewell
bid to a Berlin where all places were like so many dwellings, at a moment
when the exiled writer had no proper abode”. Stan explains the nature of the
Denkbilder in the book by means of a fragment from the Passagen-Werk
where Benjamin draws a distinction between his dialectic images and
phenomenological essences. According to Stan, Benjamin’s aim in these
texts was to create a careful balance between two different notions, that of
the allegorical, which imposes meaning on what is lost, and that of the aura,
where meaning or significance comes from the person or object itself. “So
how [one may ask] is it possible for the Berlin texts to occupy a threshold
position between two opposite perceptions, one that emphasizes utopian
wholeness, the other that has precariousness at its core?” Stan relates this
liminal zone temporally to Benjamin’s notions of waking up and the “Jetzt
der Erkennbarheit”, and spatially to the phenomenon of proxemics, a term
coined by cultural anthropologist Edward Hall, here used to denote the
affective realm of desire in which the child interacts with the objects
surrounding it. Stan concludes with a reflection on the possible significance
of Benjamin’s liminal balancing act for the humanities, drawing on one
particular example of Benjamin’s proxemics: little Walter’s habit of always
lagging half a step behind his mother, as this would give him the idea of
being smarter than he really was ...
Nassima Sahraoui, in her contribution, undertakes to show “how a great
number of Benjamin’s motifs are comprised in his comprehensive analysis of
one prominent figure in his oeuvre: the flâneur”. Her starting point is the
“Maxim of the flâneur”, which Benjamin explains through the following
observation by Daniel Halévy: “In our standardized and uniform world, it is
right here, deep below the surface [en profondeur], that we must walk.
Estrangement [dépaysement] and surprise, the most thrilling exotism, are all
close by”. What follows is an analysis of the cityscape that Paris is to the
flâneur, which Sahraoui develops first through Benjamin’s writings on the
medium of the panorama, then through his reading of the experience of
modern space as a “colportage phenomenon” where everything is perceived
simultaneously. The flâneur finds himself on the threshold between “two
spatial contexts: on the one hand he posits himself in a necessary and almost
Madeleine Kasten
xvi
existential relation to the marketplace, while on the other hand
instantaneously abstaining from social reality”. Finally, Sahraoui relates this
doubleness to Benjamin’s critique of what he called the “dialectic of
intoxication”.
Sami R. Khatib’s paper makes up the third section, “Unsightly Figures”.
In his introduction, Khatib claims that the figures in Benjamin’s work are
not “the mere derivative illustrations of concepts”, but rather “the figurative
medium of the elliptical constellations of his thought”. The author focuses
on three of these figures, whose instability, as “figures of figuration and defiguration”,
he reads in accordance with Benjamin’s understanding of the
dialectic image: as disruptive figures whose force at first seems to be purely
destructive, but whose true function is to clear a space for what is yet to
come. In reality, the barbarian, the destructive character, and the monster
(Karl Kraus’s Un-Mensch) are “the figurative harbingers of a new posthumanist
‘real humanism’”.
Section Four, “Angels and Historians”, opens with Rico Sneller’s essay,
whose aim is to elucidate Benjamin’s angel figure through the tradition of
Jewish mysticism. The figure of the angel plays an important part both in
Benjamin’s work and his life. Most famous among its manifestations is
probably the angel of history in On the Concept of History; this angel, which
constitutes a direct reference to the biblical angel protecting paradise against
man’s return to it, may be read as an expression of metaphysical despair vis à
vis the catastrophes of historical ‘progress’. But there are many more angels
to be found in Benjamin’s work, for instance in his autobiographical text
“Agesilaus Santander”, and also in his essays on Karl Kraus and Baudelaire.
Well known are his admiration of Paul Klee’s angel paintings, his purchase of
one of them, and his failed initiative to start a journal titled Angelus Novus.
Benjamin’s friend Gershom Scholem recalls the frequent conversations he
had with Benjamin on the subject of angels, both in literature and in the
Jewish tradition. Sneller approaches Benjamin’s angel figure from the
perspective of kabbalistic angelology. Rather than proving that Benjamin was
actually influenced by this tradition his purpose is to look for convergences
that may shed a new light on the role of the angel figure in Benjamin’s
oeuvre.
Anna F. Köberich’s paper centres on two questions: “How is one to
understand the Jetztzeit? And what does this notion mean for us today?” In
her explanation of Benjamin’s understanding of history as developed in On
the Concept of History, the author zooms in on two figures: the historical
Preface
xvii
materialist, and the angel from the ninth thesis. Essential to the former’s
relationship to the past is the moment of standstill or Stillstellung. It is
precisely this moment that is inhabited by the angel as it takes “an
empathetic stance towards the oppressed of the past”. Köberich continues
with an analysis of David Mitchell’s novel Cloud Atlas, drawing attention to
the ingenious way in which time is fragmented here through Benjamin’s
conceptions of time, history, and Stillstellung. Her conclusion: “The past
triggers an impulse for agency (to act in the now) and the future is not
perceived as a goal or endpoint, but as an ongoing possibility in the present”.
Scholars are no more able to bring the dead back to life than the angel; yet
“the work of the humanities can, in a caring attitude, look backwards and
ensure that the stories of the past are being read and told – every time anew
‘against the grain’ of conformity and progress at all costs”.
In Stefano Marchesoni’s essay, the figure of the historian or the
historical materialist as discussed in Benjamin’s On the Conception of History
once more takes centre stage. Characteristically, Benjamin cares less about
the identity of this historian than about his approach, which distinguishes
itself first and foremost by its being grounded in a peculiar and multi-faceted
experience. This experience, in turn, can be related to the idea of
remembrance (Eingedenken) which Benjamin briefly outlines in the last part
of his text. For Marchesoni, far from being an unambiguous concept,
remembrance is a complex figure of thought in which multiple insights and
drafts converge, and which he undertakes to elaborate in the first part of his
essay. In the second part, this analysis then enables him to address the
urgent question regarding the value of Benjamin’s thought-figure for the
humanities today. The author argues that Michel Foucault’s archaeology of
the humanities in The Order of Things has an important, hitherto underrated
contribution to offer towards the epistemological clarification of Benjamin’s
method that is of special relevance for the Arcades Project.
Section Five, “Allegory and the Politics of Representation”, opens with
a paper by Bennett Carpenter in which he raises the question how one can
offer political resistance to capitalism today. For his answer, the author
focuses on Benjamin’s concept of homogeneous, empty time (On the
Concept of History). Drawing on recent studies by others, he traces the
historical relationship between this concept of time and the rise of
manufactural and industrial labour. To his four aspects of the worker’s
estrangement (i.e., from his product, from himself, from the essence of his
being-human, and finally from his fellow humans), young Marx could have
Madeleine Kasten
xviii
added a fifth: estrangement from time. What ‘time of politics’ do we need to
fight this particular form of estrangement? According to Carpenter, the
format of the political party remains necessary. Here, Novalis’s and
Benjamin’s understanding of allegory as the representation of the
unrepresentable through “the very failure of representation” presents itself
as a useful analogy for the party to avoid the pitfalls of the past. For “such a
reconceptualization shifts the party from symbol to allegory, from the vessel
of truth to its conduit, opening up the problem of political organization as
an autopoietic act of continual self-invention”.
Madeleine Kasten’s contribution is likewise devoted to the
contemporary significance of Benjamin’s critique of allegory for the
humanities, as an antidote against the progressive commodification of
knowledge but also against certain debilitating effects of postmodernism
within the humanities themselves. In her introduction, the author contrasts
the negative moral of Monty Python’s comedy film The Meaning of Life, i.e.,
that the meaning of life resists objectification, to the current pressure on
universities to convert knowledge, their stock-in-trade, into quantifiable
business targets. This is followed by a discussion first of Benjamin’s
distinction between knowledge and truth as elaborated in the “Epistemo-
Critical Prologue” to his Origin of German Tragic Drama, then of his
historical-philosophical positioning of the German baroque Trauerspiel, and
finally of his reflexion on allegory and the figure of the allegorist. One
lesson scholars may learn from the latter is that notwithstanding the
demands of the market it is crucial always to maintain a critical reserve
towards one’s object of study. At the same time the allegorist’s belief that
there is meaning, however elusive, also serves as a call never to betray one’s
hopes for a better world “by promoting difference to the status of either a
given, or an end in itself”.
The last paper in this section is by Daniel Mourenza, whose aim is to
show “that Benjamin perceived in contemporary cultural figures such as
Kafka, Brecht and Chaplin an allegorical intention to express the
fragmentation of modern human beings through different media such as
literature, theatre and film”. The author demonstrates the influence of
Charlie Chaplin on Brecht and his epic theatre as well as on Benjamin’s
reading of Kafka. He shows how, for Benjamin, the medium of cinema is
connected to his understanding of the allegorical. For “it can be argued that
film, by exploding reality with ‘the dynamite of its fractions of a second’ and
turning it into ruins, can to some extent decipher its meaning, bestow
Preface
xix
meaning on a reality which was hitherto incomprehensible”. What unites
Chaplin, Kafka and Brecht is their common interest in Gestus, defined by
Brecht’s assistant director Carl Weber “as the total process, the ‘ensemble’
of all physical behavior the actor displays when showing as a ‘character’ on
stage by way of his/her social interactions”. Benjamin analyzes the concept
of Gestus further, characterizing it as dialectics at a standstill. With regard to
Chaplin he notes that “each single movement he makes is composed of a
succession of staccato bits of movement”. And: “Zerstücklung bei Chaplin.
Er legt sich selbst allegorisch aus”. Invoking Chaplin’s film Modern Times,
which Benjamin probably never saw, Mourenza concludes that “these jerky
movements [made by Chaplin] can be defined as the Gestus of a worker
making readable his bodily and mental alienation in a factory”.
In the sixth section, “The Narrator and the Politics of Senses”, Ton
Groeneweg draws attention to an extraordinary example of the inspirational
force of Benjamin’s work: cultural anthropologist Charles Hirschkind’s
appeal, in his study The Ethical Soundscape, to Benjamin’s essay “The
Narrator”. In the course of his research into the ways in which the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt spread its religious message, especially through
sermons recorded on tapes which could be listened to at work or on the
road, Hirschkind was struck by the sensory and physical nature of this mode
of reception. Groeneweg begins by relating this case to Benjamin’s insights
in “The Narrator”, after which he retraces his steps and elaborates his
argument with the help of Benjamin’s essays on language. In particular, he
focuses on “On the Mimetic Faculty” and Benjamin’s claim that “it is not
through the cognitive act of interpretation that man relates to the nonsensuous
similarities, it is by becoming similar”. In his conclusion,
Groeneweg highlights the affinity between Benjamin’s conception of
language and the religious practice studied by Hirschkind: in both cases,
justice is done to “the embodied dimension of language” or, in Hirschkind’s
words, a “politics of the senses”.
The first contribution in Section Seven, “Translation between
Foreignness and Kinship”, is by Orr Scharf, who condemns the approach
underlying Google’s translation tool as testifying to “a perfunctory
conception of language”. Scharf confronts this approach with the redemptive
notion of translation in Benjamin’s “The Task of the Translator”. In doing
so, he purposely concentrates on the often neglected figure of the translator
– that is, on Benjamin’s own translations. Although Benjamin himself
persistently downplayed his individual role as a translator, Scharf does not
Madeleine Kasten
xx
consider this modesty justified or desirable. After all, Benjamin’s selection of
the works he chose to translate was none but his own. The author elaborates
the significance of this selection through a comparison between Benjamin as
translator of Baudelaire and Proust, and Franz Rosenzweig as translator of
Judah Halevi and (in cooperation with Martin Buber) the biblical Book of
Genesis. In his discussion of Benjamin’s translation essay Scharf aptly
summarizes its paradoxical essence as follows: “Throughout the essay,
Benjamin stresses that translation demonstrates the kinship of languages and
their shared origin from the reine Sprache, while nevertheless warning
translators that they should not strive to produce texts that are faithful to
the original”.
Where the focus in Scharf’s paper lies on Benjamin’s own translations,
Gisela Brinker-Gabler’s essay charts the relevance of Benjamin’s “Task of
the Translator” for postcolonial studies. More specifically, the author argues
that Benjamin’s translator/critic “offers a complex and flexible site for
scholars in language and literature” to reflect on postcolonialism, cultural
difference, heterogenization, and social change. Thus she notes how Homi
Bhabha enlists Benjamin’s translation theory “as a means of thinking
creatively through the concept of nation and cultural difference”. Other
examples of scholars who have taken inspiration from Benjamin’s translation
essay include Tejasvini Niranjana and Joshua Price. The latter, writing about
hybrid languages, elaborates on Benjamin’s conception of all languages as
fragments of the reine Sprache to develop a new understanding of
multilinguality. Here, the notion of the individual language as a necessarily
incomplete fragment works to undermine the colonizing tendency to create
dichotomies between self and other, and to affirm difference instead.
In Section Eight, “The Task of the Critic”, Anna Wokowicz analyzes
the “redeeming paradoxes” which together determine the mission of
Benjamin’s critic. For Benjamin, works of art – including poems, composed
as they are in imperfect human language – belong inevitably to the realm of
fallen creation. The critic’s task is to recognize and represent the work’s
ideal content; a task that not only requires its “mortification”, but that also
compels him to sacrifice the false ‘now’ of its historical emergence by
assigning it to the ideal origin that shaped it. In arguing this point,
Wokowicz traces the metaphor of sacrifice through Benjamin’s oeuvre,
interweaving his critical review of Max Kommerell’s ‘contemplative’
criticism (Schau) with, among other texts, the “Epistemo-Critical Prologue”
to The Origin of German Tragic Drama.
