Den franska litteraturforskaren Pascale Casanova (1959-2018) gav 2011 ut boken Kafka en colère 2011 (på engelska Kafka, Angry Poet, 2015). Så här avslutar Richard Lachmannn sin recension av den (det halveta jag):
Casanova’s message is directed not just at analysts like us but also at the oppressed. She argues that understanding one’s situation is the basis of resistance, and understanding needs to be both specific to one’s situation and capable of finding parallels to other dominated peoples, as Kafka succeeded in doing. Kafka offers tools that differ from the ones that Bourdieu or most of us employ. If “the greatest obstacle to freedom lies in submission to authority, in the symbolic potency of power, in the most dominated themselves internalizing a belief in the necessity of obedience to authority which consequently has no need to impose itself by force,” then the dominated and we as analysts can undermine that authority using the tools that Kafka employs in his fiction: unreliable narrators to expose cant and the cruelty of power, and to show the differing yet parallel ways in which domination transforms the oppressors and the oppressed. Kafka’s place on the periphery of the literary world gave him an opening to innovate that elevated him to the apex of twentieth century literature. Those tools can be used by the oppressed in other circumstances. Casanova rightly acknowledges, “In no way did [Kafka] harbor the illusion that he would win out.” Neither should we as academics think that we will win out. However, radical honesty and intellectual innovation are their own victories, ones not available to oppressors.
En trevlig recension, ett år efteråt:
… till min senaste bok Solen går ner det verkar omöjligt är mitt namn tryckt i silverfolie. Men när man placerar pärmen i olika ljus börjar silvret byta färg, färger, och bakgrunden börjar påminna om mosaik i Ravenna (Emma Strömberg!).
Viktigt att komma ihåg i en tid då språket igen anses vara ett enkelt verktyg som man kan behärska, viktigt att komma ihåg i en tid av tro på språkbehärskning och andra totalitära strävanden:
‘For precisely this reason philology is today more necessary than ever, precisely in this way it attracts us and enchants [bezaubert] us most strongly, amidst an age of ”work,” that is to say, of haste, of indecent and perspiring alacrity, which is intent on ”getting everything done” at once, even every book, old and new: – philology itself will not ”get everything done” so lightly: it teaches how to read well [gut lesen], that is, slowly, profoundly, considerately and cautiously [rück- und vorsichtig], with ulterior motives [Hintergedanken], with doors ajar, with delicate fingers and eyes.’ (Nietzsche)
The caution recommended here is aimed toward protesting against those societal pressures that foster hasty productivity and the careless consumerism it serves.
/ – – – /
Within the larger context of Daybreak, as elsewhere across Nietzsche’s writings, the ground desired by metaphysicians is understood as morality, as the clear distinction between good and evil; and it is precisely this distinction that turns out to be not as secure as conventionally surmised. A slow, profound, and cautious excavation of our moral systems reveals that this ”old faith” secures nothing. It aims to demonstrate why every philosophical project erected upon such systems inevitably falls to pieces. / – – – / His patient, critical archaeology problematizes any approach that operates on presumed moral clarity and purportedly unquestionable values – in a word, on hasty readings. The Philologist thus keeps doors open, not only to fresh questions and unexpected associations but also to invasions and assaults from without. Philology cannot ”get everything done” because the system is never airtight. / – – – / Philology’s deceleration is infectious (but not sickly): in slowing down, it slows us down, makes us uneasy, wary, insecure.
/ – – – /
He maintains this indeterminacy precisely by reading and encouraging others to read with care,
cum cura. If we approach Nietzsche as good, slow and careful readers, we would then appreciate the difficulty, if not the utter impossibility, of securing the meaning of any text, including Nietzsche’s own. Nothing is safe; nothing immune. Across his late writings, Nietzsche consistently struggles to alert his readers against taking his words as dogma. He drives us to recoil from resting in orthodoxy. As he reminds us in the pages of Ecce Homo, his Zarathustra should not be regarded or admired as a prophet or preacher, as someone who ”demands belief” –
‘You repay a teacher badly by remaining a pupil. And why don’t you want to pluck at my wreath? You are devoted [verehrt] to me: but what if your devotion [Verehrung] subsides someday? Beware not to be killed by a statue! You say you believe in Zarathustra. But who cares about Zarathustra! You are my believers, but who cares about belivers!’ (Nietzsche)
( Citat ur Security – Politics, Humanity, and the Philology of Care av John T. Hamilton, Princeton University Press 2013)
En del av kreativiteten är alltså banbrytande och lekfullt gränsöverskridande. Det är att inte följa normer och regler. / – – – / Diktsamlingen är lekfull, kreativ och en riktig ögonöppnare. Allt är inte så seriöst, det är bra att ha barnasinnet kvar. Samtidigt är essän en allvarlig text som väcker många intressanta frågor.
/ – – – that false secondary power by which
In weakness we create distinctions, then
Believe our puny boundaries are things
Which we perceive, and not which we have made
Wordsworth, The Prelude, 1799