GEO FFR. EY HARTMAN
43
as arti st, the re must be parti al identifi ca tion o r some kind o f emoti o nal rela–
tion: a rati o nal or th erapeuti c empathy that does not resul t in compulsive
bo nding o r ecstatic loss of seW Like LaCapra we are tempted to use Freud 's
"Mo urning and Melancho lia" to di stin t,Tui sh between "working through" and
"acting out."
Yet everythin g we know abo ut empathy suggests how d estabili zing it
is. Th e Illelll o ry o f atrocity is often haunted by images o f th e human body
vio lated by to rture, as in the case ofJ ean Alll ery, or by random and savage
ac ts of mutilati o n . Wh at ca n empathy mean here? It is at bes t an excape
from disremembe rin g di slll embe rlll ent , and somehow pi ece in g togeth er
the ami cted body through a narrati ve courage th at evo kes the o nce
illtegral
person . Empath y ca n also surpri se and go o ut to th e ex-perpetrato rs, th e
very peopl e who betrayed th e prin cipl e o f human so lidarity. Drawin g a
lesson frolll hi s own il1lpri sonmellt in Dac hau and L3u chenwald,
I~obe rt
Antelme insi sts that th e perpetrators remain persons, subj ects with rights,
members o f humanity. " From now o n a man who is impri soned is a man
we have to 'think' abo ut; we arc able to identi fY with him"
( 1I0 1lS
SOlllll/ eS
dalls
SOli
il/lilllite) .
Fraterni ty, however, extended fi-om imlllediate blood relati o ns to nati o n
or mankind has proved to be a cor rupti ble idea l. Instead of reinfo rcing th e
concept o f humani ty, o f Antelme's
('sp(i(r IIIIII/aille,
it turned coercive and
underwrote the political reli gions o f f:1sc islll and Stalini sm. Even in its
Chri stian fo rm it is no t as uni ve rsal as it c1aillls to be, and it often subo rdi–
nates hUlllani tarian pe rspecti ves to fer vid national demands. An exploi ted
ideal , then , helped to promote the C erlll an
vi>lksgclllcillschq{t
and its crimes
aga inst hUlllanity, yet it could not be di scarded after th e Ho locaust.
The quality o f pos twar intell ec tuali slll , however, is influ enced by that
fac t. Hoping to di scover less corruptibl e fo rms o f solidari ty, contempo rary
wri ters have subjected th e language o f soc ial and ethi cal tho ught to a painful–
ly compl ex sc rutiny. As a consequence, publi c di scourse is sometimes
jeopardi zed by the very means ado pted to save it, the deconstructio n of com–
monpl aces and the outw ittin g of wo rds elll o ti o nall y abused by to tali tarian
regimes . I will instance o nl y Den-ida's
771C Politics
(!f
Fricl/dship,
whi ch
expl ores, amo ng o ther tex ts, Mauri ce L3lancho t's
Frielldship
and
The Writillg
~f
thc Disaster.
L3lanchot belongs to th e generation that matured befo re th e
war, but he survived an earli er se lf Ill arked by right-wing j o urnali sti c agita–
tion . Central
to
L3lancho t's and I)cn-ida's effo rts is the attempt to reexamin e
and radi ca li ze an older idea l: th at o f fi-iendshi p. By the tilll e they have ana–
lyzed it and removed solace and sentilll enta li ty, it poses a significant
chall enge to th e intoxicating mass appea l o f fi-a terni ty , communi ty, human–
ity. Yet th e anxiety o f bein g sedu ced by words also crea tes a less
communi ca ti ve style, o ne th at saves fi-i endship by becomin g less reader-
