Six

Anarchy and Analogy

THE VIOLENCE OE LANGUAGE IN

BERGSON AND SORBL

msashi Fujl'ta

rranslated by Melissa Mmahon

郡安

VIoしENCとANDしANGUAGE

The work ofHenri Bergson represents a point oE

hte購eCdonゐr me q血e a如ated血S帥SSion h

the Grst halt of the twendeth century on the theme of"violence and language･n The famous French Hterary cridc

Jean Paulhan, Eor e-plc, labelled as "terrorists" the..A_temporary authors and critics who were wary oE language

a年中吐血op-on'i血eren叫dmgemus to mou虫t-``me

simplest dention one can鏡ve of the Terrorist is that he is

a misologisrLand mentioned Bergson as the person who

ga代Philosophical epreSSion to this tenorism. At a time

when those interested in language were thereby led to the

problem of violence, omers dismSSmg Violence were led to

the question of lmguage･ Dr細心ng a contrast with the tact

that the supporters oE the parliamentary system tmder the

Third Repubhc, mostly lea wingI Were Very O危en Carte-

sian, Franeois Azowi whtes: ``Bergsonian Frmce recruits

its largest battaHons缶om the nadonalist and consemtive

right, ready opponents oEthe parhamentary systeml SOme-

times even openly anti-Repubhcan, but also-at least md

1914-LOP a lea that is also anti-parlimentarian, a revolu-

tionary or anarchist lea."2

As it happensl dmost me same obsemdons were made

in Ge-any by more or less contemporary political think-

ers･e Let'S examine here the sharpest of these, &om carl

ANARCHY AND ANALOGY ＼⑨ 127

schmitt･ Not only does he make the observation that Bergson innuenced

both the extreme Right and the far LeRl he also highhghts the fact that

heir sh祉ed hte鵬t h Bergson was 孤 mq)a血ament血sm mat rehses

all rational discussion･ In me Crisis ofmrtiamentaヮDemocraヴ(1923),

schJnitt devotes the whole of chapter 4 tO analyzhg Ale ``imdonahst

theories of the direct use oE force (the theory of myth in Georges Sorel;

the mythical image of the bourgeois; class stmggle and mdonal myths in

Bolshevism and Fascism)･" According to Schmtt, Bergson is an enemy of

pa山amentahsm and a血end ofme血mdon祉sm mat, S血也ng Vim SoreL

cdls Eor ``the direct use of Eorce''by re血sing the dise皿Sive e償)rt of

もrmg a consensus:

One ca-ot object to me魚ct 血種t Sorel rehes on Be聯On. ms mdpo心血

cal (i･e･, anti-intellectual) theory is based on a pmosophy of concrete life,

and such a philosophy hasJ like Hegelimisml a Variety oEpractical apph-

cations･ In France Bergson's philosophy has served the interests oE a

retum to conservative tradition and Catholicism md, at dle Same time,

radicall atheistic anarchism･ ･ ･ I One could say that pmosophy has its

0- red life iE iJt can bring into ehstence actual contradicdons and

organize batthg opponents as hving enemies･ From this perspecdve it is

remarkable that only the opponents of parliamentarism hve dram this

vitalityをom Bergson's philosophy･4

This image of Bergson-that is, his ''andpathy to Home loquaN" (cM

67/1325)-COmeS揖ec叫をom me "msologist" hage mat ha血ts hh

throughout his philosophical career:.'My initiation into the tme phil0-

sop址cd mehod began he moment I thew oveho虹d ve血d soludonS,

having Eo-a in the i-er life an important Geld of e坤eriment''(cM

71/1329-30). Hence the altemadve: rational dis脚ssion or immediate

action, language or violence･ A certain (distorted Eom our point oEview)

hage of ``me po虹cd Be堪SOn''血us presupposes me (ms-)hteやreta-

tion of Bergson's theory of language･ From language to violencelをom

violence to language-either wayl SOmething cmcial took place on this

very subject, and predsely around Bergson, in the Grst half of the twen-

tieth century･ The present piece attempts to show how what is required

md appmphate h order to dsentmgle his problem of五〇lence md

1-帥age is, on he one hmん economcs (marchy) ramer mm Pohdcs

andl On the other handl analogy as well as metaphor･ Hence the tide:

a-rchy md amlogy･

12,8 Ge′/ Hisashi Fujita

First we wm give a quick overview oE Bergson'S theory oE languageJ in

order to try to show that it does not in anyway Imply the Hse altemative

between language and violence but rather his singular vision of the Jn･0-

lence oflanguage and of trope (metaphor and analogy), which brings us to

me economic dimension･ Once ths is done, we pmpose, second to re-

e粉mhe the much-discussed Sorelian notion of "violence;'which has too

oRen been interpreted as a fom ofphysical violence or direct action such

as a ''general strike," whereas for Sorel it concems above all a language of

yf'01ence, namely what he cans myfh･5 If the intenectual dialogue between

Bergson and Sorel takes place around the issue of ''violence and lan-

●タ

guagel We gO a Step hrther by seeking out what makes it possible: the

very foundation oE Bergson's theory oE language･ Although this last stage

can only be sketched outl We Win at least try to stress the decisive impor-

tance of analogy not only in Bergson'S theory oElanguage but also for the

whole system oE his philosophy･

FR°M LANGUACE TO VIOLENCE: BERCSON's TR°POLOGY

At血St glance BergSon seems contradictory when he addresses the ques-

tion of language･ We know on the one hand his avowed hostHty toward

lan糾age: "h shom me word Vim weu-de血ed outhesl me rough md

ready word, whid stores up me stable, co血on, md conse叫en母心-

personal element in the impressions oE mankind, overwhelms le'crase] or

at least covers over the delicate and hgitive impressions of ou individual

consciousness''(TFW 132/87)･ But on me other hm寄, Bergson is howれ

Eor his elegant style and his sophisticated linguistic practiceJ making good

use of metaphorsl analogiesl imagesl丘糾reS-in shortJ trOPeS･ Let us

bheny remhd ouselWs of a危w examples･ The hage of dumfion: ``H I

want to mix a glass of sugar and waterl I mustI Milly-nillyJ wait und the

sugar melts''(cB 9/502)･ The魚gue of the inverted cone as planes of

consdousness and memoly (MM 162/SO支). The metaphor Eor lire and the

e'lan Vital: "AH the living hold togetherl and all yield to the same tremen-

dous push･ The animal takes its stand on the plantl man bestrides ani-

malityl and the whole ofhumanityI in space and in timeJ is one immense

a-y galloping beside and before and behind each of us in an overwhelm-

mg charge able to beat dm eveヮresistance md cle虹me mostもmhda-

ble obstades, perhaps even death" (cB 2,71/724-75).

And想田y me mdogy of emotion as l追's brce of a的acdon‥ `Ⅷen

ANARCHY AND ANALOGY ､､⊆⑪ 129

music weepsJ all humanityl an natuel Weeps With it･ In point of fact it

does not introduce these feelings into us; it introduces us into them, as

passers-by are forced into a street dance･ Thus do pioneers in morality

proceed" (rs 40/loos)I How should we understand this apparent con-

tradiction? Bergson himself was my aware orthese two sides of language

thatl even if they always appear inextricably connectedI are able to be

distinguished: ''To maintain the stmggle on equal tens, lthe impres-

sions of our individual consciousness] ought to epreSS themselves in

precise words; but these wordsJ as soon as they were fomedl Would tub

against the sensation which gave birth to theml andl invented to show

that the sensation is unstablel they would impose on it their om sta-

bility" (TFW 132/87).

We are thus natually led to the hypothesis that there are two violences

oE language in Bergson's philosophy･ On the one handl the violence crit-

icized by Bergson is the symbol,'c abstraction that ordinary language oper-

ates on reality･ We simply don't reahZe that the spatial understanding of

the world through language is already a violence that cuts up reality

arbitrardy with a view to the conmnience of action･ On the other hand,場

there is a violence that language undergoesJ a violence that writers and

thinkers practice on it in order to rediscover the reahty that is thus

distorted, a violence that takes the E0- oEmetaphorsJ analogiesJ imagesl

68mesI in shortl a new Style･ This is what we call metaphorl･cal a請raction･

Diverted in this wayをom ordimry usagel forced and innectedl language

also serves the pmosopher in order to suggest a more intense dimension

oElifeI to broaden and deepen h-an life･ Bergson speaks ofa need to``sha慣er heを-ework oflm糾age''(rFW 134/89;血msladon mod範ed),

to "remold language and get the word to encompass a series of eperi-

ences instead of an arbitrary de正nition''(TS 2,63/1199; trmSlation modi-

Ged); ``we have to violate words''(rs 254/1191; translation modiaed).

What is important here is that when he analyzes phenomena related to

languageI Bergson oRen uses economic metaphors･ Wth respect to Cre-

atl'ye Byolufionl Eor exampleI Sorel writes: `Ⅷen Bergson wishes to clar-

iq his thought, he oRen borrowsをOm economists their considerations

on convenience, economy of e餓)rt, and, oE louse, interest:'6 For our

part, let's just cite one e-ple･ A a passage in Two Sources, where he iseplaining the creative force of mystical lovel Bergson compares two

attitudes that the writer can take to writing･ tlo dahをhis point, he makes

use ofm economc mdogy:

130 @…ンmsasfli Fujita

[Intellectual writing] WⅢ be but an increase of that year's income; social

intemgence will continue to live on the same capital, the same stock･ Now

mere is 帥omer memod of composidonl more ambidousl less ce賀ahl

mabletosaywhenitwⅢsucceedandevenifitwmsucceedat肌-n

obey it completely new words would have to be coined, new ideas would

have to be created, but this would no longer be communicating some-

thingI it would not be writing･ Yet the whter wⅢ attempt to realise the

unrealisable.... He will be driven to strain words, to violate speech･ ･..

But iE he does succeed, he will have enriched humanity with a thought

that can take on aをesh aspect for each generationl With a capital yielding

ever-renewed dividends, and not just with a sum down to be spent at

once. (TS 253-54/1190-91, translation mo亜ed)

The intenectual and amlyticd whting that provides a ready-made

language by combining existing words and concepts, namely the violence

of what we ea血er c皿ed ``symbohc abstracdon''is comp祉ed to me亀山e

increase of the year'S revenuel which draws on the same core capital and

the same stock. On the other hand, there is another fop or writing, an

intuitivel Syntheticl and creative writing that crane tailor-made language

with the violence oE metaphorical attraction that is compared with the

proHerating movement oE capital･ These are only metaphors oE couse,but the fact remains that when it comes to eplaining hguistic phe-

nomenal Bergson prefers metaphors of an economic kind much more

than ones that have a political dimension･7

Sociopolitical thinkersJ beginJmg With Carl Schmittl are too inched

to edito五山ze BergsonI puShng址m toward 孤 dtema同e between "km-

guage or violence･n The questions become: Was the ememist reading,Right and Le島, that used Bergson to reject a E0- 0f parliamentarism

based on radond ds即SSion a complete msrepresentadon7 0r is it h

tact true that Bergson's philosophy has a Eascistic and/or anarchistic sidei

But doesn't such an altemative itseH sh" the limits of the pohtical point

of view? Ad as such it does not managel in ou viewl tO grasp Bergson'S

血eoヮoflm糾ageI Or even me購d te-s of me problem of "1m糾age

md violence:'Isn't he Be聯0mm的polo靭Wmd represents he的o

violences of language as hate grow血 on revenue and inhite prolifera-

tion of capitalJ better understoodをom the economic point of view?

Adopting this hypothesisI we will analyze Bergson's theory oE language

をon me econo-c poht of view

ANARCHY AND ANALOGY ､⑨ 131

0n the socIOPOlitical aspect of Bergson, there have been just a few

readings but serious ones･8 As Eor the economic aspectl there are only two

people to ou knowledge who touch on it: Emst Bloch and Georges

Sorel･ We印ust give a brief su-aJy Of the血st brie皿y here and analyzie

the second in a litde more detail in the next section.

In me Hen'tage of Our T･'mes (1935), Bloch observes that Bergson,

having reached the su-nit with Creative EyolutionJ takes a surpnsmgl(●

unpredictable tun''in order to eGecti"ly show ``something new''in his

last book Two Sources･ BIoch's observationl wme not itself very originall

nonetheless has the invaluable merit oE containing an analysis oE both oE

these two phases ofBergson's Eom an economlC POint ofview･ Parodying

the Famous metaphor according to which Bergson is tryhg to do pmos0-

phy in the haute coutue style of the "-de to measuel" Bloch sees in the

血St Bergson an entrepreneurial spirit that relentlessly strives for progress

and excellence through eGort, "Only `inmition'does jusdce to hfe with

tailor-made suits (instead of with quantitaGve ready-made dothing),･ it

strikes as ilan logique the same zest of life outside in real tems･ ･ 〟 ･ Blab

Vital in Bergson hmseⅢ [as opposed to Sorel and Gende] is still that ofa

bougeoisie - at血s level [it] S皿has he entrepreneu h me細lest

bloom of zest:'9

The arst Bergson, with his ``elan vital of the bou噌eOisie;'thus incorpo-

rated the logic of capitalism･ In contrastl the last Bergsonl aS represented

in Two Sourcesl is described as ``very Marhst''in its sympathies with the

planned economy and thus the logic of anticapitalism: "Thus Bergson's

philosophy has attained two races,I and the second one, even in 1932., does

not extol any nightをom technology of consciousness (as would suely

have been epeCted of the great vitalist)- ･ The creator of the p軸osophy

of life is no stranger to the courage of the most advanced technologyl

indeed he aimsl even iE in mysterious temsl at an equauy anti-individual

and antinationaLplanned economy･" Bergson does in tact propose

some sort oEpla-ed economyin chapter 4 efTwo Sources (TS 306/1236).

It is not a matter oEwhether BIoch's analysis of the ''tuming pointn in

Bergson lS Pe血ent or not･ The imponmt此れg f♭r us here is mat Bloch

o鮎でs a coherent reading of Bergson's entire oeuvreをom an economic

point oEviewJ and that we hd elements in his philosophy that lead us toboth the logic oE capitahsm and oE anticapitalism･ We wm see with the

e-plc oE Sorel that the Sorelian strike also contains these two logicsJ at

血st glmCe mtagOmsdc･ i

132座主// mSaShi FuJ'ita

FROM VIOLENCE T°　LANcUAGE:

THE Sく⊃REしIAN MYTHOJOGY

George Sorel, oRen considered as the ``thinker ofviolence;'is one ofdle

most famous亀gues innuenced by Bergson in the sociall POhtical, and

economic domain･ But on precisely what level do Sorel and Bergson

meetHs it mat Sorel shply msread Bergsonl or hteやreted hh h a

violent way? Ou hypothesis is that Sorell impressed by his reading of

Creative Bt,olution in 1907 and having published his masterpiece Defec-

tions on Ⅵolence in 1908, had indeed understood Bergson in a certain way,

namely on me level of ``血e violence oflm即age;'a level hat concems us

here. Isn't it rather that the reader ofSorel as a thinker oEphysical violence

has misread himi Here agaml an unfortunate interpretation of language

produces an unEortmate political theory･ It is the thatJ in a series oE

reviews on Creatil,e Byolutlon, Sorel declares, `We wm now attempt to

establish that Bergson's creative evolution simply imitates the history of

hman industry･ ･ I ･ The the place for Bergson's phHosophy is in social

studiesl especially those conceming the present day･"ll MoreoverJ Berg-

son himself seems aware of Sorel's singular interpretadon･12 But there a:e

two points to clariq. The血st is that Sorel's point of view is economIC･

Citing a passage aom Creative Byolutl'on ("a species which claims the

entire earth for its domain is truly a donmating and consequendy supe-

h?I species''[cB 134/608] ), and oGering an interpretadon that would

MPG Out Virtually the whole volume (''what biology can only ass-e,

economic history direcdy puts its hger on"), Sorel states, ''here is a

thesis that obviously origimtes in economics and whose m meamng lS

o血y ゐud wimh economics:'ThusI it is not supnSmg tO See Sorel

reading Creatil,e Byolution in constant parauel with Marx's Communist

Mamfesto and CapI'fal: `We could apply what Bergson says much better to

capit揖sm mm to mm:'13

The second point to emphasize is that Sorel's econonhc interpretation

tends to stress me aspects inWhhg techology md h-孤 htemgence:

I.Bergson bases his doctrine oE intelligence on labor-related consider-

ations, which cannot組to strike those aware of the role MaⅨ assigns tO

technology in history･n14 This view has as its nipside in the categorical

rejection of the whole philosophy of evolution and biology m general: ''h

ending this studyJ I e坤reSS my Wish that Bergson would abandon the

largely infertile apphcations of his philosophy to the mtural sciences and

ANARCHY AND ANALOGY S 133

mStead apply it to me problems raised by me great socid movements:'"ら

Bergson's enor isl according to Sorell not tO have taken his theory of

homo faber to "as sign範cant consequences as we might have hoped,

because he is obhged, by me very namre of hs prOjecいo apply it as much

to animals as to man and therefore goes outside of economic history･lタ

me he sep祉a血g Bergson -a Sorel-co-ec血8 -md htemgence

with that oE man (or not) and thus merging (or not) the two kinds of

knowledge, scientifc and subjective-lS Precisely aligned with notions of

"stylel"'analogyJ"'imagel" and/ in the end1 0rlanguage･n For Bergsonl aS

Sorel constmes himI SCientiac knowledge amounts to so much abstract''stylization･" For Sorel, the sin of evolutionist pmosophies lies in "mov-

ingをom analogies dra-をon physics to explaining life wholly though

physics:''7 Ths mdoⅣ creep (We wo血d be tempted to sayh Frend mat

d'analogt'e) drags us into a labyrinth of images: ''In reahty, when we talk

about the intelligence of animalsI We always proceed by way oE imagesl

asking ourselves what we would have done in the same cirmstances as

them･ We moveをom image to imagel ･ ･ ･ we cannot observe this eaort in

any phenomenon･'i18 To navigate this labyrinth, Ariadne's thread is noth一

mg Other than language: ''I must try to show how lmguage could have

origimlly depended on workl because Bergson accords language a deci-

sive importance in the development oEintelligence･"19 Let us simply mke

two remarks here･ Firstl Sorel takes up Bergson's theory oflanguage20 in

order to develop it in his o- direction･ He gives special status to the

verb: "[h remon to me mdhent紬y lm糾ageS Of p心血的e people,

which oRen lack verbs] the addition oEthe verb was a great step forward,

allowing di鉦rent Eo-s oflabor to be more clearly distinguished; ･ ･ ･ the

verb dehes the activity oE the worker･ The verb isJ in some waysJ the

psychological element of the sentence; I ･ I the verb was not intended to

highlight man's wm, but to accentuate the tool, to clariq the meaning of its

operation･"21 Secondl the mobility oE hguistic signs-which wm be at

stak h oⅢ concludng secdon on andogy-is elucidated h Bergson

usmg observations on childrenI whereas Sorel eplains the same phenom-

enon in reEerence to technological or instrumental examples: the mobd-

ity of language comesをOm the Eact that archaic craftsmen would use the

sme tool br severd di銑rent jobs, that traders desi租ated exodc tools

based on -dogies d-をon loc° usagel md so on･ Hencel ``tech0-

10gical considerations fo- the basis of all this正guative language･"22

It is precisely in this context that we can refer to two lettersをom

134 @∋/ mSaShi FuJ'ita

Bergson to Sorel･ TheをSt is dated Z･5 Ap血1908･ This long letter was a

responseをom Bergson tome sehes omW虹tides by Sorel mat were

published in the jo-al Le mouyement socialiste･ ARer noting ``in particu-lar the views you lSorel] present on language in general, and especiauy

on the verbJ" Bergson continues by taking up Sorel's interrogation oE his

discusive strategy: `You observe that I most oRen resort to images･ But

in what other way could I have epreSSed myselE7 Outside of the i-ge′

there is only the conceptl Which is to say a general heading under which

we classiq di鉦rent objects･ ･.. If the concept, the intellectual instment

par鍍Cellencel isl like intemgence itselfJ a Product oflife's evolutionl how

can life'S evolution enter into ou concepts? ･ ･ ･ And this is predsely why it

was hpoSsible to pmCeed by shs-g -der conceptsI Or reduchg to

concepts; I had to proceed by way of suggestionl and suggestion is only

possible by way oE images" (c l95)I The second letter is dated 18 May

1908: "Thank you Eor thinking to send me your latest book lRefections on

Ⅵolence]j I had祉eadyread it h he fbm of me amdes, but as soon as I

have a little more Eee time, I sham reread it in this new Eon. You

conclusions on the subject oEviolence distub me a httle, I confess, but I

孤 very much hterested h me memod mat led you to men. And I was

also very interested in you introductionl Which I read right awayl and

which contains a number oE suggestive positions･ It gives the lie though-

out to you protest at one poht mat you don't how how to whte. m釦k

you Eor the kind allusions you -ke there to my classes and my work･

Your obedient servant''(c 200). Bergson states mambiguously that his

interest Hes not in the conclusions regarding the general strike but in the

pmcess md memodology mat led Sorel to meseI md mat hs hterest is

dsoを- to me p祉ado五cd s巾e Sorel shows h me pre魚ce, 孤 elabo一

輪te style that denounces clevemess in writing･ It is always on the level ot

methodology and language that Bergson sees the e五stence of the phil0-

sop址cd problem h Sorel.

Now that we have seen their relationshipl it's time to tackle Sorel's

central notion:.'violence･" As we knowI Sorel distinguishes ''forceln Which

works to maintain established power, and ''violence," which breaks

through this established power in order to move toward a new tom oE

social orgamzation: `We should say, therefore, that the object of force is

to impose a certain social order in w鵬ch the mhority govemsI Wme

violence tends to the destmction of that order."23 This distinction be_

ANARCHY AND ANALOGY 9 135

tween bougeois force and proletari- violence makes possible another

distinction, according to SorelJ between true sociahsm and the bougeois

tendency that luks within socialism itself･ mat is noteworthy here isthat this distinction corresponds Eor him to one between the political and

the syndicahst (i･e･, the antipolitical and economic) : "The method which

has served us to mark the di統rence that ehsts between bougeois Force

and proletarian violence may also serve to solve many questions which

arise in the course of research about the organizadon of the proletariat･ In

compamg attempts to organize the syndicalist strike with attempts to

organize the pohtical strike, We may onen judge what iS good and what is

badl i･e･, what is speciacally sociahst and what has bougeois tendencies''

(RV 172)･ Note that the di鮪rence between細se political sociahsm and

the economic socialism is epreSSed directly in their di鮎rent attitudes

toward language･ When he says that ``against this noisyl gamJousl and

lying socialism I I ･ stands revolutionary syndicansml Which endeavors, On

the contraJyl tO leave nothing in a state oE indecisionIn Sorel denomces

血e simadon where pomcd sod祉sm, by r哩ng to me pamamentaヮ

system, delays in his view the revolutionary dedsion (RV 112). what type

oEviolence m practiced by Sorelian socialism theni It is.'the organization

of the imagen that Sorel calls ``myth''‥ "[The general strike is] the 〝り励in

which sociahsm is wholly comprisedl i･e･l a body of images capable oE

evoking instinctively all the sentiments･ ･ ･ ･ The general strike groups

them all in a coordinated picture andl by bringing a.em togetherl glVeS tO

ead one ofhem its ma五mum htensi巾... Mだhus ob址n hat心血筒on

oEsocialism which language cannot give us with perfect deamess･ ･ ･ ･ This

is the global knowledge of Bergson's phdosophy''(RV 118). At血st glance

Sorel seems to oppose i-gee to lmguage･ At the very least his hostility

toward language and discussion would seem beyond any doubt: uTo

es血nate,血enI me sign正Cmce of me idea of me generd Strikl ai肋e

methods ofdt'scuss･'on which are cunent among politicians, sociologists, or

people with pretensions to practical science, must be abandoned" (RV

117; emphasis added). Nevertheless, the altemative here does not reside

between lmguage and images but between the intellectual and analydcal

language that fo-s the Foundation oEpoliticalforce and the intuitive and

imagery-laden language that Eo-s economic w'otence･ The proof:.A

myth camot be rehted since it iS, at bottom, idendcal to the convictions

of a group, being the epreSSion of these convictions in the language of

136 @妾./ Hisashi Fujita

movement''(RV z9). Since we have seen the two violences of language in

Bergson･s philosophy earlier onJ there is nothing surpnslng m Seeing his

name at the very heart of this Sorelian theory oElanguage and violence:

Ordinary language could not produce these results in any very certain

ma-erl･ appeal must be made to collections of images whichl takn

together and through l･ntuition alone, before any considered analyses are

madel are Capable oEevoking the mass ofsentiments･ ･ ･ ･ This method has

an the advantages that integral knowledge has over analysis, according to

the doctrine ofBergson; and perhaps it might lnot] be possible to cite

mmyOherex-plesw軸心woJddemonstrate e中田yweumewom of

the famous proEessor･S doctrines･ ･ ･ I Ibelieve that itwouldbe possible to

develop stimrther the application oEBergson's ideas to the theory of the

general strike. (RV Ilる; translation modiaed)24

We hve thus seen that this Sorelian mythology of the general strike is

in no way a E0- OEpropaganda for physical violence but rather a f0- Or

praise of images and metaphors (the "language of movement") as vio-

lence. Wmat Sorel cⅢS "Ⅵolence〃 is not me pohdcd ⅥOlence mat pushes

us wordlessly tcward i-ediate action but a violence in the economy of

lmguageJ a violence that prompts us to act･ It is a umyth," namely, an"organization of images;'a discⅢsive strategy that works in a mysterious

way on the emotions so that a bond of sympathy is easny estabhshed

beWeen people･止血S is me caseI血s lmguage一皿e operadon ofhages

is intimately and necessarily linked with the violence oE metaphorical

attraction･ It is precisely in this sense that Sorel has inherited the ''vi0-

lence of lm糾age''五〇m Bergson･ h omer words we wo血d be dmost

tempted to say that what makes Sorel a thinker of violence is neither

proudhonl nor Marxl but Bergson･zS Whatever the case, what is certain iS

that Bergson and Sorel share the same theoretical terrain of the ''econ-

omy of languagel" and that the Sorehan strike, unHke other strikes shot

through with the logic of anticapitahsm, is also a radical E0- 0f the logic

of capitalism that makes an entirely positive E0- 0f economic develop-

ment possible･ Let us cite as proofa passage Eom chapter 7, Which is the

conclusion of Refections on Violence; "The preceding eplanations have

show that the idea oE the general striker COnStantly reJuVenated by the

sentiments provoked by proletarian violence, produces an entirely epIC

state of mhd and, at血e same thel bends皿the ener親eS of me mhd

towards the conditions that anew the realization of aをeely hnctioning

ANARCHY AND ANALOGY ､⑨ 137

and prodigiously progressive workshop; We have thus recognized that

mere is a s仕ong reladon血p between me se血nents aroused by me

generd st撤e md moSe w軸ch虹e nec°s-y tO bmg about a con血ued

progress in production" (RV 250)･ The amazingly progressive workplace

where one worksをeely is a realization of the continual progress ofpro-

duction･ In this sense the Sorehan conception of the strike goes toward

me logic ofcapitahsm at me s-e the aS me lo如ofm地中址sm. me

``ethcs of me pmducers''(血e of chapter 7) overcomes me opposidon

between sociaHsm md capit揖sm･

We have thus seen that the most五ui血ll theoretical contribution that

Sorel receivedをom Bergson is his considerations on language･ we have

gone with Bergson aom lmguage to violence and retmed with Sorelをom violence to language･ It remains for us to tmderstand what makes

the Bergsonian violence of language possiblel Which itseHmakes possible

me Sorehm lm糾age OfⅥolence･

THE　°RIGINAL ANAL°GY

書

This amounts to ex-ining the relationship between the two violences of

language, between the utility of ordinary language and the heuristic eHec-

tiveness oEmetaphor･ Elements of an answer are foundl it seems to us, in

chapter a ef Creative Evolution, more speciacally in the three paragraphs

where Bergson characterizes h-an language in relation to intemgencel

mmely in its diHerenceをom the language of animals (cB 158-61/629-

32)･ WhJe ani-ls, Hke humane, have a language whose Action is I.

generalize, the signs that make up this language must nevertheless each

remain invariably attached to a certain object or a certain operation. The

sl糾S Ofh-孤 lm糾ageI br meh pa巾wme not able to be in血庇e h

n-beぅcan be e如nded to 孤 inhite n-her of thgs･ Hence me

crucial importance of what we could call the on.ginal analogy lanaiogie

originaire] ･ To understand the Bergsonian economy of language, it would

be essential to read these three paragraphs in great detailJ but we shall be

happy here just to indicate the direction of ou reading. tlo start with, the

血st paragraph: ``This tendency of the sign to transferをom one object to

帥omer is ch祉adehsdc of h-孤 lmguage･ It is obsemble h me舶e

cⅢd as soon as he b専ns to speak hediately md na山田y he e如nds

me me-g o地e wodS he learnsI Ⅳ址ng hhseⅢofme most accidentd

connection or the most distant analogy to detach and transfer elsewhere

138咳シmstLShl'FuJ'ita

the sign that had been associated in his hearing with a particular object....

What ch虹aCtehzes he si租S Of hm lm糾age is not so much heh

generality as their mobihty" (cB 158/629).

H no-ally we -derstand by analogy a relational connection or a

stmctural simHarity between several te-S (A:B I C:D), here it is a ques-

tion of a completely di銑rent kind of a-logyl Since it is an analogy that

opens up me very hohzon ofh-孤 lan糾age though a process ofradcd

displacement･ It is a-logy as modulationl whichl through the addition a

heterogeneous elementl reveals a completely di銑rent face of the pre-

viously fomed totahty･ It is analogy as metamorphosisJ which brings

disparate elements into an environment where they can exchange their

dete-ha血onsl h shon where hey cm enter a PⅢe bec°-g･ H址s

original analogy is the key to clat埠五g, if not solving, the problem of the

economy of 1-guageJ that isJ the relationship between the two violences

of 1-榊age, it is because it clearly shows me c0-on md c0-0巾

creadve met not ody of mageサladen lm糾age but dso o血naヮ1m一

guage･ If the mobdity oE language liberates the faculty oE renection in

reladon to me h-孤 mtemgence hat亜da叫appears専d so mat

intelligence can exanhe itself what it doesJ this analogy deserves to be

quamed as ``ori豆nal''or even "creative." Let'S move on here to the second

paragraph: `An intelligence which reHects is one that originauy had a su-

plus oE energy to spend, over and above practically use細eHorts....

W.thout lmguagel intelligence would probably have remained riveted to

the -terial objects which it was interested in considering･ ･ ･ ･ Language has

練ea叫contmuted to its的eradon･ The word made to passをom one mhg

to another, is, in fact, by mtue transferable and Eee" (cB 159/629-30).

The language that has given intelligence the opportunity to break Eec

of its own obsession with utilityl Prompts a Certain logic of '.surplusJn not

in the nanow sense of ''surplus value" within political economy but as

''suTPlus energy to expend" in the sense that Georges Bataille in meノ

Accu"ed Share would ascribe to the ''general economy m contrast to thell ●

resthcted economy T軸s suやhs of htemgence md 1-帥age COdd not

in any way be regarded by any political point of view (above all not the

Schm地肌dedsiomsm of "1m糾age Or Violence''), but by 孤 economc

point oE view in the broad sense of the complex relationship between''language and violence･n On the other handl this mobihtyJ by clearing

pathways and lea-g tracesJ can only dete-ine the direction it my take

with intelligence･ This is how Bergson describes it: uLanguage itselEl

ANARCHY AND ANALOGY ､㊧ 139

which has embled it to e虞end its Geld ofoperationsl is made to designate

心血gsI md nought but thhgs; it is ody because the word is mo蘭e,

because it鮎esをom one thng to momeぅhat he hteHect was sure to

take it, sooner or later, on the wingl WhHe it was not settled on anythingl

md apply it to 孤 object w軸心is not a thhg md wmch, conceded皿

then'awaited the com.ng of the word to passをom darkness to light･ But

the word, by covering up this object, again converts it into a thing" (cB

leo/630 -31).

The fact that language lS not Simply mobile is something that needs to

be stressedI especiany when there is a tendency to overestimate the e鉦C-

tiveness of metaphors and images･ As soon as inteuigence discovers a

hitherto unheard ofrealityJ language pins it down and reiaes it･ Symbolic

abs血cdon is momer nmeゐr tHs血mdon md re範cation. Whout

缶楓don md re正cadonl lm糾age WOdd not be able to provide htel-

hgence with a Her- to act on reahty･ It would thus have no utility or

convenience･ But more attention must be paid to the fact that it is mobil-

ity itself, a-Iogy itselEl that makes this缶岨tion and reiacation possible･

Let's reread the pasゐge: "it is onlybecause the word is mobHe, because it

nies Eom one thing to motherl that the intellect was sue to take it,

sooner or later, on the wing･ wMe it was not setded on anything･n lt is in

virtue of this dual natue that the original analogy can be a fob of

creative violence di触entをom metaphorical attraction･ If ordimry lan一

guage IS not Something that Bergson can easHy do away withl it is because

its foundation he§ in this double-sided mobility･ This is why we de血tely

do not adopt the point of view that ordinary language is simply unpro-

ductive and conservative･ In any caseI What we have suggestedl however

sche-ticallyJ with the conceptual couple of the "two violences ot lan-

guage," what we have called ''symbohc abstractionn and umetaphorical

attraction;'namely the analogy that info-S us of the generality oE the

relation and the metaphor that uses images to suggest the singularity oE

being, wm help to renew the too often hasty image ofBergson's theory of

lm糾age md its i血uence on socid pmosophers･

萱

声

華

子

:

-

∴

霊

長

富

里

着

古

140築ンmsashi FuJ'ita

DY WAY OF CoNCLUSION:THE PLACE oF

ANAし°CY iN BERGSONIs pH-しOSOPHY

Bergson had social and pohtical innuence over the extreme Right as wed

as the Ear Lea. But this is not due to an altemative between ``parliamen-

tary discussion or immediate actionln between ''language or violence," in

short because of a supposedly Bergsonian hostihty toward language, but

it is due to his singular vision of language, which allows us to ask the

question: "what kind oEviolence of language?n He considers the problem

をom the econonhc point of view when he contrasts symbohc abstraction

with metaphorical attractionl the血te increase on revenue With the

in血te proliferation oE capital･ Ac脚Sed of forcing his interpretation of

Bergson md regarded as a血inkr ofviolence, Sorel sees at me hea轟of

the opposition between political force and the economic violence of the

st撤e he opposidon beWeen 孤 meuec血md a叫旭cd lm糾age md

孤 hm- 1m糾age hch wih hages･ Sorel's lm糾age Of violence ex

tends a Bergsonian idea: that a new (pohtical) articulation of the real

conEonts the language of force with the language oE violence･ IE Sorel'S･･1m糾age of violence･･ is at work wmh he血mension of economc

a-rchy that leads as much to the logic ofanticapitahsm as to the logic of

capitahsml Bergson･S "violence oE language" derives dom the original

a-logy that dete-ines the complementary economy of language as

mobmty and缶ty･

Be‰e endhgI let'S go one step血her by no血g 血らt Bergson鉱一

presses a wish to work this original amlogy into the very methodology oE

his o- pmosophy･ When he draws on a-logy it is oRen to overcome

the absolute distinction between inside and outsideJ between the fact oE

..nsciousness and the objective phenomenon･ We won't get anywhere by

dem細心g叫hgorous, md mahemadcd e証ence h he dom祖of

consciousnessl says BergSOn･ To have Certain knowledge that a being lS

..nscious, We have to be able to coindde with it, to be it (otherwise'as

Eor Descartes watching unseen the people crossing the street in Amster-

dam, these people would be automatons)･ This is why Bergson uses us

to "fonow the thread of analogy" vhth him: 〃Between us there is an

evident e虹emal resemblance; andをom dlat eXtemal resemblance you

conclude by analogy there is an intemal likeness･ Reasoning by analogy

never gives more than a probability; yet there are numerous cases in

which that probability is so high that it amo-ts to practical certainty･ Let

ANARCHY AND ANALOGY ､㊧ 141

us then follow the thread of the a-logy and inquire how far consdous-

ness e虞ends, and where it stops''(MB 7/819).

H Bergsonism is, as Deleuze says, a philosophy oE probability, we

would Her say that it is a philosophy of the original analogy･ HaroldH68dingl a COntemPOrary Of Bergson'sl wrote: ``Mr Bergson's method is

not solely intuitive; intuition is just the血st step, analogy must take the

ne虹ones･"26 To develop this subject, to ``follow the thread of analogy," we

would have to analyzie the materiahty and incorporeahty of language in

Bergsonl namely the relationship between meanmgl lmagel and schemaJ

between the ''motor schema" and the "dynamic sche-･" But that's a story

fbi mother dme.

NOTES

An early version oE this text was presented in Japanese at the Societe japomise de

langue et litteratureをaneaises (SJLLF ), May 25, 2oo8. AJapanese version appeared

in the血udes de langue ef lI'tte'rature Jansaises, no. 94 (March 2009): 119-31. I

trmSlated mi§ essayをom Japmese to Frend phor to its beh8億mslated hto

Enghsh･

1 Paulhan, The FloyeTS Of Tarbes, 34.

2 Azouvi, La Gloire de Bergson, 17･ Azouvi's schema couldn't be more dear一関t: "Berg-

son'S缶ends are not Descartes,land vice versa. There is therefore no overlap be-

tween Bergsonian France and Cartesian France; We could even say there are two

Frances opposed to each other, two Frances that have neither the same political

roots, nor the same intellectual aspiradons, nor the same調書istic references:'

3 ApaHをom Sch償md Bloch who we mendon h he present piece, we cm hst a

few Ge-an works dlat address this sociopolitical aspect ofBergson's pmosophy:

Mannheim, Conser的tism; Horkheimer, "on BergSon's Metaphysics of Time"i and

Arendt, me Human Condition.

4 Schmitt, The Crisis of助rtiamentary Demo`ray, 109-10･

5 Memer or not Sorel wa§ a asdst iS one hge叫eSdon (wmd we wm nevenheleSs

leave to one Side); whether or not Sorel owed anything to Bergson is another. The

a-lysis of RePedions on VI'olenee has already revealed the key elements; reading

Sorel's long review of Creative Bl,Olution will血rmer strengdlen ou point of view･

But let'S -ke one thing dear, we are not saying that Sorel did not advocate

violence A the physical sense; rod"T, our claim is that the most important thing

Sorel received Lom Bergson concems language and the i-ge･

6 Published in Le 糊out,emenf soeI'atI'ste, this series of reviews appeared in缶ve succeS-

sive io-al issues, 191 (,5 October 1907: 257-82), 193 (15 December 19°7: 478-94),

･94 (lSJanua･y 1908: 34-52), 196 (15 March 1908: 184-94), and 197 (15 Ap血1908:

276-94).

7 See Go-, SymboiJt Bconomies･

8 Besides A20Wi mentioned above, there are at least two other studies. The ast is

142, (堅ンmsashi FuJ'ita

soulez･s Berg"n potitJ･que･ Soulez calls the sodal thinkers who lay enensive daim to

Bergson "ideologicd DergSo血smSr md he obseⅣes 血らt hey細山o me Sme

contradiction: "They haye -de the notion of intuition into a faculty of a practical

mtue. Yet... intuition is a faculty that is theoreGcal and even speculative in mture"

(347). We agree Widl SouleZ in saying that intuiGon is not simply "practical･" but we

would not agree with his claim that it is purely theoretical or speculaCve-tor the

Simple reason that this haracteriZadon of intuidon does not eplain why such

specdation could seduce the social thinkers obsessed by the practical question･ We

daim.athe. that the crudal disdnction Eor Bergson is not between dm theoretical

and de practical but between the used that regulates lire (symbohc abstraction)

.nd th.魂｡tive that intensifeS life (metaphorical attraction), and A,at wme not

direcdy practicall intuition is nevertheless eHective･ The Second important study is

Ladance･s LaphilosophI･e so`iau de Bergson･ This study, which carries the same tide

as an artide pubhshed in 1948by Georges Gurvitch inRetue de mitaphysique etde

moralel approaches the taskhterany･ Wlth the aim of"drawing out the hdamental

elements oE Bergson･s sodal pmosophy and situaGng them in relaGon to their

Contemporary inteuectual cli-te" (7), LaEance oHers intemal analyses ofLaugh-

ter and Two Sources.

9 Blob, Heritage of Our Times, 319-2･0･

lo rbid., 32.1, 322.

1, Le mouyemenf socjaliste 191 (October 15, 1907) : 275･

2 0n this matter, Jacques Chevalier, a disdple oE Bergson'S, made a note of his

master･s private remarks･ On 5January 1937, "I have seen Georges Sorel a fewdmes,

Bergsonteusme･ He･s acuJiousman,this oldenかeepWhosethoughthadSuchan

eGect on Lenin md Mussolini. What he has tried to血d in myworkis the idea ofa

generaGve myth･ But he had his o- ideas in mind more than myo-:'On 3

January 1938: "In this regard, BergSon eplained where Georges Sorel got the idea oE

thevitalimpomnce ofmylhをom･ ･The myth oEthe generalstJike, the mythofthe

proletariat revoludonl etC･, has become the driving force ofMar正st sodahSm･ Sorel

said that he owed it to me･ He wa§ attending my dasS on PlotinuS at the College de

France at hat dme. In the course, I showed the primordial role myth plays in Plato's

p軸osophyl and how Plato′ hving dhbed′ byway of the dialecticIをom sensible

dings to ldeasJ fo-a himselEobuged, when he wanted to move aom Ideas to

hhgsltO aPPealtomyd･ThisideamadeagreatimpreSsiononSorel,anditisaom

this, he tens mel that he drew his notion of myth as A" driving Force of humanity"

(chevaher, Entrefiens avec Bergson, 254, 265)･ 0調analysis attempts to shed hnher

hght in this direction･

13 Le mouyemenl sociaIiSte 191 (15 October 1907) : 277･

14 Le mowemenf socialiste 193 (15 December 1907); 478･

15 近 mouVemenf socialiste 197 (lS A担1908); 294･

16 "HSodal phenomena are able to be kno- scien血cally･ we must nevertheless note

that this knowledge can take place only on the condition it is spedally adapted to

study them･ We need to adopt spedal vie- on those aspects that lend themselves

to regularity'and syli2e those fo-S･ ･ I ･ We can dearly see the appearance here of

ANARCHY AND ANALOGY 9 143

the contempt dlat PmOSOPhers of Leedom have Eor these styH2ed views, without

which sdendfc knowledge is impossible" (Le mowement soeialiste 197 llS ApH

1908]: 289, 291).

17 Le mouuement so`･.aliste 197 (15 Ap血1908): 293.

18 Le mouγementsoeiat細,93 ( 15 December '907): 480.

19 mid., 486.

20 "Whether the movement be quaHtative or eVOludonary or ebensive, the mind

manages to take stable vie- of the instability･ And thence血e mhd derives′ as we

have just she-, three kinds ｡frepresentations: (1) qualities, (2) fobs or essences,

(3) acts･ To a.ese three ways oE seeing conespond three categories of w..ds:

adjeciiye-bstantives･ and verbs, which are the phmordial elements of langmge

(cB 303/751).

zl Le mouyement soeiatiste ,93 (15 December 1907): 487.

22, Ibid., 489.

23 Sorel, RefeeiI'o㈱ on thotenee, 165-66 (hereaner dted in ten as RV).

坤me qualiGer anotn is inserted here in accordance with the original French t曲md

he En如sh寄msladon of 1950.

25 me Eonowing quotation shad serve as the cimstandal evidence that So,el was

always sensitive to dle queSGon of langmge'and that Manl was not in the best

POSiGon to create a concept ormyth" or uviolencen either: "Man had acquired in

Gemany a taste Pr very condensed Eo-ulas and dleSe rOmulas were so adm血-

bly suited to the conditions in the midst oEwhich he worked mat he natuany made

great use oEthem･ ･ ･ I He w躯happy therefore to be able to血d in Geman a.adenhc

wridng a habit of abstract language which allowed him to avoid au dis.ussion of

de血r (RV 130-31).

26 m飯山gl La philosophJ'e de Bergson1 137･