246
PARTISAN R.EVIEW
background for the vulgarizers and organizers in the foreground.
"Bourgeois individualism" got low marks from the state intelligentsia,
"the world bourgeoisie" even lower; provincialism swaggered. Much of
the inflated moral indignation, indeed, much of the ideologies themselves
stemmed from a lack of familiarity with foreign languages. Insecure egos
found support in peremptory rhetoric. Both collectivisms banned gen–
uine artists and promoted pseudo-intellectuals. Much as we would like
to believe that these subservient sub-intelligentsias played themselves out
during their bloody kitsch heydays, we cannot be certain. How insane it
would be if even now, as we rejoice over communism's death throes,
they dished up a strapping anti-communist fascism.
Nationalism and socialism have lost their timeliness for Europe;
Europe's quests lie elsewhere. Their messages are more nostalgic than cre–
ative: if one goes too far it will turn into fascism; if the other goes too
far it will turn into communism. And because Europe not only attended
their performances but - this being the twentieth century and thus a time
of living theater - took active part in them, I feel we can still use the
notion of antipolitics. Antipolitics: the moral criticism of politics.
Morality cannot be politics, but it can be politics' demon (in Socrates'
sense of the word), its incubus , its bad conscience; it can be politics'
dream work. The cynicism of antipoliti cs can keep us from being duped.
Even when the authorities seem to be taking responsibility, they will not
pay for the harm they cause.
The exciting events accompanying the changes cou ld only have been
followed by a let-down. Transformation there was, not transfiguration.
Despondency in one corner, that morning after feeling in the other. The
same people lining up in different formations . Moreover, whole coun–
tries , whole regions are as capable of changing uniforms as individuals.
Both the bird's eye and the cat's eye view of the new line-ups and uni–
forms make grotesque sights.
It
goes without saying that - in terms of
friendships and animosities and whom one can trust and whom one can–
not - everyone is the same . What modifications there are resemble those
one makes from one marriage to the next. After imposing liberation, the
new system has imposed a new type of accommodation.
The keen observer will note that a new series of buzzwords has
appeared on the scene. Why not, after all? Don't we want to learn
languages quickly and easily and expose quasi-pluralistic self-censorship?
Of course a pluralist intelligentsia can also share in illusions and forced
si lence. During the seventies and eighti es, for instance, the au th or of these
