Пигалев А.И. Призрачная реальность культуры: (Фетишизм и наглядность невидимого)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

ÇÀÊËÞ×ÅÍÈÅ. ÐÀÇÐÓØÅÍÈÅ «ÖÅÍÒÐÈÇÌÎÂ» 341

ìó, â ñóùíîñòè, âñå òðè ïîçèöèè ñâîäÿòñÿ ê îäíîìó è òîìó æå.

Èõ ñóòü â êîíå÷íîì èòîãå — ýòî îïðåäåëåííîå îòíîøåíèå ê

ñóòè è ðîëè ýòîãî òðàíñöåíäåíòàëüíîãî ñóáúåêòà â êà÷åñòâå

íàäûíäèâèäóàëüíîãî àíòðîïíîãî «Ýãî», ò. å. àáñîëþòíîé ñóáúåê-

òèâíîñòè.

Ïðåæäå âñåãî, ñëåäóåò óêàçàòü íà ïðîäîëæàþùèåñÿ ïî-

ïûòêè íàéòè íåêóþ îêîí÷àòåëüíóþ ýìïèðè÷åñêóþ ðåïðåçåí-

òàöèþ àáñîëþòíîé ñóáúåêòèâíîñòè (íàèáîëåå ñîäåðæàòåëüíî —

ó ðàííåãî Ò.Â. Àäîðíî, Ã. Ìàðêóçå, Ì. Õîðêõàéìåðà). Îäíàêî

ïîñëå îïûòà îñóùåñòâèâøèõñÿ óòîïèé ýòè ïîïûòêè íà÷èíàþò

âûãëÿäåòü âñå áîëåå ïîäîçðèòåëüíî, ïðèîáðåòàÿ îòòåíîê àðõà-

èçìà, íàèâíîñòè è îïàñíîãî èíôàíòèëèçìà. Íåçàâèñèìî îò íà-

ìåðåíèé èõ àâòîðîâ, ðå÷ü èäåò, ôàêòè÷åñêè, î ïðîäëåíèè ñó-

ùåñòâîâàíèÿ êîíöåïöèè òðàíñöåíäåíòàëüíîãî ñóáúåêòà «ïîñëå

Àóøâèöà» ïóòåì ìîäèôèêàöèè ïåðèôåðèéíûõ îáëàñòåé òðàäè-

öèîííîé ìåòàôèçèêè.

Ñþäà æå, êàê ýòî íè ïàðàäîêñàëüíî, ñëåäóåò îòíåñòè è

ðóññêóþ ñîôèîëîãèþ, ïîñêîëüêó â òåõ åå âàðèàíòàõ, êîòîðûå

íàèáîëåå îòêðîâåííî óêàçûâàþò íà åå ñîöèîêóëüòóðíûé êîí-

òåêñò (Âë.Ñ. Ñîëîâüåâ, î. Ñ.Í. Áóëãàêîâ), òàêæå âîñïðîèçâîäèò-

ñÿ îïèñàííàÿ ñõåìà ïîèñêà ýìïèðè÷åñêîãî êîððåëÿòà òðàíñ-

öåíäåíòàëüíîãî ñóáúåêòà. Ïðàâäà, â ñîôèîëîãèè ñïåðâà ðå÷ü èäåò

î ÷èñòî òåîðåòè÷åñêîé çàìåíå ïîñëåäíåãî, è ëèøü çàòåì îò-

êðûâàåòñÿ, ÷òî èíòåðåñ ê Ñîôèè îêàçûâàåòñÿ ïðîÿâëåíèåì ïðè-

ñòðàñòèÿ ê îñîáîìó òèïó îíòîëîãè÷åñêîé è ñîöèîêóëüòóðíîé

öåëîñòíîñòè («âñååäèíñòâó» è «áîãî÷åëîâå÷åñòâó» ñîîòâåòñòâåí-

íî). Ïðè ýòîì Ñîôèÿ âûñòóïàåò â êà÷åñòâå ïðåòåíäåíòà íà ðîëü

òåîðåòè÷åñêîé çàìåíû òðàíñöåíäåíòàëüíîãî ñóáúåêòà ïðè ñî-

õðàíåíèè îáùåé ïàðàäèãìû ìåòàôèçèêè.

Äàëåå, íåîáõîäèìî óïîìÿíóòü áîëåå ðàäèêàëüíûå ïîïûò-

êè âîîáùå îòêàçàòüñÿ îò ìåòàôèçèêè êàê îñíîâàíèÿ êóëüòóðû

è îáðåñòè «íåòîæäåñòâåííîå», ïîçâîëèòü åìó çàòðîíóòü íàñ

íàïðÿìóþ, áåç îïîñðåäîâàíèÿ «ïîíÿòèÿìè». Ñþäà ñëåäóåò îò-

íåñòè íàñòîé÷èâîå ñòðåìëåíèå ïîçäíåãî Ì. Õàéäåããåðà ïðîáèòüñÿ

ê «alhqeia», èñòèíå êàê «íåñîêðûòîñòè», íå ïðèâåäåííîé ê íà-

ñèëüñòâåííîìó òîæäåñòâó. Èìåííî ýòà íåíàñèëüñòâåííàÿ «ðàñ-

ïàõíóòîñòü» îáúÿâëÿåòñÿ ïîäëèííûì áûòèåì, êîòîðîå íèêîãäà

íå ìîæåò áûòü îòîæäåñòâëåíî ñ ñóùèì

. Òîëüêî â ýòîì êîí-

òåêñòå ñòàíîâÿòñÿ ïîíÿòíûìè âñå ïîïûòêè ðàçðóøåíèÿ «öåíò-

342 À.È. ÏÈÃÀËÅÂ. ÏÐÈÇÐÀ×ÍÀß ÐÅÀËÜÍÎÑÒÜ ÊÓËÜÒÓÐÛ

ðèçìîâ» è ïðåâîçíîøåíèå «îïûòà íåòîæäåñòâåííîãî». Ðàçóìå-

åòñÿ, ýòî ïðåäïîëàãàåò ïåðåñòðîéêó íå òîëüêî ìûøëåíèÿ, íî è

êóëüòóðû â öåëîì.

Ñàìûå ðàäèêàëüíûå ïîïûòêè ïðåîäîëåíèÿ ïîñòìîäåðíà

ñîäåðæàòñÿ â «äèàëîãèçìå» («äèàëîãè÷åñêîé ôèëîñîôèè», «ôè-

ëîñîôèè äèàëîãà»), ïðåäñòàâëåííîì Ì.Ì. Áàõòèíûì, Ì. Áóáå-

ðîì, Ý. Ìèõåëåì, Ô. Ðîçåíöâåéãîì, Î. Ðîçåíøòîêîì-Õþññè,

Ô. Ýáíåðîì, Õ. Ýðåíáåðãîì è äð. Íàçâàííûå ìûñëèòåëè ïðåä-

ëàãàþò íåêîòîðóþ àëüòåðíàòèâó ïîñòìîäåðíèñòñêèì ïðîåêòàì

äåêîíñòðóêöèè è ðåêîíñòðóêöèè êóëüòóðû. Â ðåàëüíîì âðåìåíè

îíè, äàæå îïåðåæàÿ èõ, ïîïûòàëèñü îñâîáîäèòü ÿçûê èç ìîíî-

ëîãè÷åñêîãî ïëåíà. Çàìûñåë ñîñòîèò â òîì, ÷òîáû ïðåäîñòàâèòü

ñëîâî Äðóãîìó âî âñåé åãî íåòîæäåñòâåííîñòè, íå ïðåâðàùàòü

åãî â íåñàìîñòîÿòåëüíîãî Äâîéíèêà è òåì ñàìûì àêòèâèçèðî-

âàòü æèâóþ äèàëîãè÷åñêóþ ñóùíîñòü ðå÷è.

Ïðîäåëàííûé â ìîíîãðàôèè àíàëèç âïîëíå ñîçíàòåëüíî

äèñòàíöèðóåòñÿ îò ñòîëü ðàñïðîñòðàíåííîãî â íàøè äíè òðàâ-

ìàòè÷åñêîãî âîñïðèÿòèÿ ñîâðåìåííîé êóëüòóðû. Èìåííî ïî-

ýòîìó îí îãðàíè÷èâàåòñÿ êëàññè÷åñêîé ïðîáëåìàòèêîé ñîöè-

àëüíîãî è êóëüòóðíîãî ôåòèøèçìà, íå çàòðàãèâàÿ ìîäíûõ òåì

âèðòóàëüíîé ðåàëüíîñòè è èíôîðìàöèîííîé àãðåññèè. Îäíàêî

íå ñòîèò çàáëóæäàòüñÿ, ñ÷èòàÿ ýòó ïðîáëåìàòèêó ïðåõîäÿùåé.

Íàïðîòèâ, âñå ãîâîðèò êàê ðàç î òîì, ÷òî îíà, àêöåíòèðóÿ âå-

äóùóþ ðîëü èìåííî íåòðàäèöèîííûõ ôåíîìåíîâ ñîâðåìåííîé

êóëüòóðû, íàäîëãî âûõîäèò íà ïåðâûé ïëàí.

Òåì íå ìåíåå, â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ ðåæèìîì ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ

ïðèçðà÷íîé ðåàëüíîñòè, óïðàâëÿþùàÿ åþ îáùàÿ òåíäåíöèÿ âñå

âðåìÿ îñòàåòñÿ ïî òó ñòîðîíó ñìóòíûõ ïîäîçðåíèé, à åå ïðîÿâ-

ëåíèÿ ñ çàâèäíûì ïîñòîÿíñòâîì ñìåùàþòñÿ èç ôîêóñà ðàññìîò-

ðåíèÿ. Ïîýòîìó è ïîïûòêó ïðîíèêíóòü çà êóëèñû òåàòðà ïðè-

çðàêîâ êóëüòóðû íåëüçÿ ñ÷èòàòü ÷ðåçìåðíîé ðåàêöèåé íà ÿêîáû

âñåãî ëèøü âîîáðàæàåìóþ óãðîçó. Âåäü îíà è ñ÷èòàåòñÿ òàêîâîé

èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ïîòîìó, ÷òî íå ðàçîáëà÷àåò ñåáÿ ñðàçó æå.

Ïðèìå÷àíèÿ

Íå ìåíåå ñóùåñòâåííûì, ìåæäó ïðî÷èì, ÿâëÿåòñÿ è âîïðîñ î

òîì, âîçìîæíà ëè â ýòîé ñèòóàöèè íåêàÿ îáðàòíàÿ ñâÿçü, ò. å. âëèÿíèå

îïðåäåëåííûõ èíîðîäíûõ ñòðóêòóð ìåíòàëèòåòà íà èçìåíåíèå ïðå-

æíèõ ñòðóêòóð ìåæ÷åëîâå÷åñêèõ îòíîøåíèé.

ÇÀÊËÞ×ÅÍÈÅ. ÐÀÇÐÓØÅÍÈÅ «ÖÅÍÒÐÈÇÌÎÂ» 343

Ñì. ïîäðîáíåå: Äåððèäà Æ. Ñòðóêòóðà, çíàê è èãðà â äèñêóðñå

ãóìàíèòàðíûõ íàóê // Îí æå. Ïèñüìî è ðàçëè÷èå. Ì., 2000. Ñ. 445—450.

Ìàðêñ Ê. Êàïèòàë. Ò. 1 // Îí æå. Ñî÷èíåíèÿ. 2-å èçä. Ò. 23. Ñ. 164.

Ôðàíöóçñêèé ôèëîñîô Æ.-Æ. Ãó çàìå÷àåò îá ýòîé ñòðóêòóðå:

«Òàêóþ öåíòðàëèçàöèþ ñòîèìîñòè è ñòîèìîñòåé ìîæíî íàçâàòü êàïè-

òàëèçìîì. Âñåîáùèé ýêâèâàëåíò ôóíêöèîíèðóåò êàê íåêàÿ “ãîëîâà”

è “ñòîëèöà” ðàçäåëåííîé òåððèòîðèè, íà êîòîðîé îí, ïóñòîé è âñå-

ìîãóùèé öåíòð, èñêëþ÷åí. Ðàçíîîáðàçèå îòíîøåíèé ìåæäó ýëåìåí-

òàìè çàìåùàåòñÿ îäíîçíà÷íûì è åäèíñòâåííûì îòíîøåíèåì êî âñå-

îáùåìó ýêâèâàëåíòó, ïðèòÿãèâàþùèì èëè íàïðàâëÿþùèì ê èõ èäåàëü-

íîìó öåíòðó ìíîæåñòâî îòíîøåíèé ñòîèìîñòåé, êîòîðûå, â ñâîþ

î÷åðåäü, ñòàíîâÿòñÿ òîãäà ëèøü îòíîñèòåëüíûìè. Çàïàäíàÿ öèâèëèçà-

öèÿ ôîðìàëüíî îïðåäåëÿåòñÿ êàê öèâèëèçàöèÿ, äîâåäøàÿ íà âñåõ óðîâ-

íÿõ äî êðàéíèõ ïðåäåëîâ èìåííî òàêîé ñïîñîá îðãàíèçàöèè ñîöèàëüíûõ

ýëåìåíòîâ ïîñðåäñòâîì èõ ïîä÷èíåíèÿ ýêâèâàëåíòó» (Goux J.-J. Freud,

Marx:

Économie et symbolique. Paris, 1973. P. 91).

Adorno T.W. Negative Dialektik. Frankfurt a.M., 1966. S. 177.

Ibid. S. 177—178.

Íàèáîëåå âûðàçèòåëüíî ðåçóëüòàò «öåíòðàöèè» ìåòàôèçèêè

îïèñàí Ì. Õàéäåããåðîì: Õàéäåããåð Ì. Îíòî-òåî-ëîãè÷åñêîå ñòðîåíèå

ìåòàôèçèêè // Îí æå. Òîæäåñòâî è ðàçëè÷èå. Ì., 1997.

Êëàññè÷åñêè çàâåðøåííàÿ ìîäåëü «ðàçâèòîé ôîðìû ìåòàôè-

çèêè» — ãåãåëåâñêàÿ «Íàóêà ëîãèêè».

Æ. Äåððèäà áûë, ïî-âèäèìîìó, ïåðâûì, êòî îáðàòèë îñîáîå

âíèìàíèå íå òîëüêî íà «ôîíî-», íî è íà «ëîãîöåíòðèçì», õîòÿ è íå

ñâÿçûâàë ýòè ôåíîìåíû ñ ïðîöåññàìè ñèìâîëè÷åñêîãî îáìåíà â îñî-

áî ñòðóêòóðèðîâàííîé êóëüòóðå (ñì.: Äåððèäà Æ. Î ãðàììàòîëîãèè.

Ì., 2000).

Â ñóùíîñòè, â ýòîì íåò íè÷åãî ïðèíöèïèàëüíî íîâîãî ïî

ñðàâíåíèþ ñ ïëàòîíîâñêèì ó÷åíèåì îá èåðàðõè÷åñêîì ñòðîåíèè

ìèðà èäåé. Îòëè÷èå ëèøü â òîì, ÷òî öåíòð òÿæåñòè ïåðåíîñèòñÿ îò

«èäåè èäåé», íàõîäÿùåéñÿ â âåðøèíå ïèðàìèäû, ê áåñêîíå÷íîìó

ñóáúåêòó.

Êàê çàìå÷àåò â ñâÿçè ñ ýòèì ôðàíöóçñêèé ôèëîñîô Æ.-Ì. Áå-

íóà, «...ñòðóêòóðàëèñòñêàÿ àíòðîïîëîãèÿ è ôðåéäèñòñêèé ïñèõîàíà-

ëèç ïîêàçûâàþò íàì, ÷òî ñóáúåêò ðàññåÿëñÿ è çàõâà÷åí ñèìâîëè÷åñ-

êèì ïîðÿäêîì, ñòðóêòóðàìè, êîòîðûå ðàñïðîñòðàíÿþòñÿ, ðåãóëèðó-

þòñÿ è âûðàæàþòñÿ ñ åãî ïîìîùüþ. Òîãäà ñóáúåêò — ýòî ïðîñòî òî÷êà

èëè ÷åðòà íàä ìîáèëüíûì è äèíàìè÷íûì ãðàôèêîì, òàê ÷òî ìû íå

ìîæåì ïðåäîñòàâèòü åìó ýïèñòåìîëîãè÷åñêîå ïðåâîñõîäñòâî, ïðèïè-

ñàííîå åìó êîïåðíèêàíñêîé ðåâîëþöèåé (Êàíòà. — À. Ï.). Ñ ïðèõîäîì

ñòðóêòóðàëèñòñêîé ýïèñòåìû ïðîèçîøëà Ïòîëåìååâà ðåâîëþöèÿ, êî-

òîðàÿ, áóäó÷è äàëåêà îò âîññòàíîâëåíèÿ äîãìàòèçìà è ýìïèðèçìà,

344 À.È. ÏÈÃÀËÅÂ. ÏÐÈÇÐÀ×ÍÀß ÐÅÀËÜÍÎÑÒÜ ÊÓËÜÒÓÐÛ

ïðîèçâåëà â êà÷åñòâå êîððåëÿòà ñòðóêòóðàëüíîñòè ñâåðæåíèå Åãî Âå-

ëè÷åñòâà Ñóáúåêòà» (Benoist J.-M. The Structural Revolution. London,

1978. P. 215—216).

Äåëåç Æ. Ëîãèêà ñìûñëà. Ì., 1998. Ñ. 149.

Ñì.: Deleuze G., Guattari F. Capitalisme et schisophrenie: Mille

plateaux. Paris, 1980.

Ñì.: Äåððèäà Æ. Î ãðàììàòîëîãèè.

Äåððèäà Æ. Ãîëîñ è ôåíîìåí è äðóãèå ðàáîòû ïî òåîðèè çíàêà

Ãóññåðëÿ. CÏá., 1999; Îí æå. Î ãðàììàòîëîãèè; Lacan J. Le s

éminaire

sur «la Lettre vole

é» // Lacan J. Écrits. Paris, 1966; Idem. La signification du

phallus // Ibid.

Äåððèäà Æ. Íîñèòåëü èñòèíû // Îí æå. Î ïî÷òîâîé îòêðûòêå îò

Ñîêðàòà äî Ôðåéäà è íå òîëüêî. Ìèíñê, 1999; Lacan J. Le s

éminaire sur

«la Lettre vole

é»; Idem. La signification du phallus.

Ñì.: Culler J. On deconstruction: Theory and criticism after

structuralism. Ithaca (N. Y.), 1982.

Ñì. ïîäðîáíåå: Áîäðèéÿð Æ. Ñèìâîëè÷åñêèé îáìåí è ñìåðòü. Ì.,

2000. (Ðàçä. «Ìîäà, èëè Ôååðèÿ êîäà», «Òåëî, èëè Êëàäáèùå çíàêîâ»).

Ñì.: Áîäðèéÿð Æ. Ñîáëàçí. Ì., 2000. (Ðàçä. «Ýêëèïòèêà ïîëà»).

Ñì.: Ôóêî Ì. Âîëÿ ê çíàíèþ // Îí æå. Âîëÿ ê èñòèíå: Ïî òó

ñòîðîíó çíàíèÿ, âëàñòè è ñåêñóàëüíîñòè. Ì., 1996; Îí æå. Èñïîëüçî-

âàíèå óäîâîëüñòâèé. Ââåäåíèå // Òàì æå; Îí æå. Èñòîðèÿ ñåêñóàëüíî-

ñòè — III: Çàáîòà î ñåáå. Êèåâ; Ì., 1998.

Ñð.: Feminism as critique: Essay on the politics of gender

in latecapitalist society. Cambridge, 1987.

Ñì.: Lloyd G. The man of reason: «Male» and «Female» in Western

philosophy. London, 1984.

Äåððèäà Æ. Ñòðóêòóðà, çíàê è èãðà â äèñêóðñå ãóìàíèòàðíûõ

íàóê // Îí æå. Ïèñüìî è ðàçëè÷èå. Ñ. 466.

Çäåñü òðóäíî óêàçàòü íà êàêóþ-òî îäíó ðàáîòó, ïîñêîëüêó âñå

ñòàòüè è ëåêöèè Ì. Õàéäåããåðà ïîñëå «ïîâîðîòà» âðàùàþòñÿ âîêðóã

èìåííî ýòîé ïðîáëåìû.

Summary

A.I. PIGALEV

THE SPECTRAL REALITY OF CULTURE

(THE FETISHISM AND THE APPARENCY

OF AN INVISIBILITY)

The monograph is the continuation of the book «Culture as Totality:

(Methodological aspects)» (Volgograd: The Volgograd State University Press,

2001). In the monograph that is proposed to the reader now culture is

considered to be just a multidimensional organic totality. Such a totality

gives birth to some specific phantoms or ghosts as the result of its systemic

construction. The intention of the exposition is the consistent interpretation

of the so called «systemic effects» in the very womb of culture as the ground

of the phenomenon of social and cultural fetishism. So, the author tries to

regard fetishism as the irremovable feature of every culture.

First of all, the notion of the «systemic effects» is specified and detailed.

It is emphasized that culture as a multidimensional system is in principle

invisible or, in broader terms, supersensual just because of its

multidimensionality. Nevertheless, culture as a system modifies and regroups

some its internal relations, and they become in a way condensable. The loops,

knots, intersections, superpositions, branchings and ruptures of the relations

within the multidimensional «body» of culture appear in the form of spectral

quasi-objects. Thus, the multidimensional system is invisible as a whole, but

it becomes apparent, easily reveals its multidimensionality, although only in

the reduced form that belongs to the three-dimensional space.

However, the quasi-objectivity of the three-dimensional spectral

images creates illusion of the dense corporeity which allegedly does not

differ from the solidity of the material things. The whole point of this thesis

is that the apparent phantoms are the manifestations of the deep and invisible

«systemic effects». From this point of view every fetish is a kind of «systemic

effects», a corporeal representation of the immaterial relations. Just the

translucent condensation of these relations successfully imitates self-efficiency

346 A.I. Pigalev. The Spectral Reality of Culture

and opacity. It is the constitutive essence of the reality of culture. As a matter

of fact, this reality is essentially spectral and only the analysis of the main

phantasmal phenomena allows to take advantage of the optical effects on

the surface.

And what is more, culture as the sphere of an artificial being is always

accompanied with spectral phenomena. According to the draft of the proposed

investigation, the analysis is concentrated upon the spatial aspects of culture.

Hence, the fetish is interpreted as a reduced form of modified and regrouped

internal relations of any totality. Such an approach paves way to the exposure

of a hidden, but a basic framework that constitutes the artificial being of

every culture. In particular, the specters in the capacity of the constitutive

elements of culture are considered to be the shadows of an incorporeity.

This interpretation allows to establish close links between the notions of

the specter of culture and Plato’s concept of idea.

Then every idea in Plato’s philosophy reveals its systemic character

that is usually obscured by the identification of the idea with a material

entity. Such an identification is a typical form of fetishism, since it makes

every invisibility clearly apparent. So, the research project is represented as

an attempt to know what is going behind the scene of the spectral reality of

culture. This attempt is, in its turn, based upon the notion of the symbolic

exchange or the symbolic metabolism, that is, the exchange of meanings

(symbols) which has analogy with the well-known exchange of wares in

the economical processes. In general case every exchange is the substitution

of one entity (ware, property, meaning etc.) for another.

However, every exchange becomes possible only on condition that

all the elements of the exchange are in some aspects identical to each other.

Therefore, the preliminary condition of every exchange is the identification

of non-identical entities. It is quite clear that the elements of the exchange

can be leveled only by force which is used by the system as a whole. This

force operates as if behind the back of every agent of the exchange, and the

lines of force generate the field of the systemic violence that is the real

substance of the spectral reality of culture. Every specter of culture is in fact

a clot of systemic violence that exists as a quasi-object. According to this

understanding, the specters of culture are steady and opaque day-specters

in contrast to subtle and flickering night-specters of myths, legends, fancy

and fiction.

Despite the fact that the notion of day-specter was not explicitly

used by L.Feuerbach, K.Marx, A.Sohn-Rethel, T.W. Adorno, J.-J. Goux,

their theories were impossible without the concept of spectral reality. In

exactly the same way, the concept of the spectral quasi-objects has the

fundamental meaning in the theories of Rev. P.Florensky and J.Derrida.

They noticed that when all the regions and levels of culture have become

subordinated to the principle of the identification of non-identical entities,

SUMMARY 347

all the kinds of the symbolic metabolism have become of the same type.

Especially important is the paradoxical indistinction of the fluxes of

information and the fluxes of money. Both types of fluxes are penetrated

with the same systemic violence that makes them interchangeable.

The framework of the systemic violence is considered to be the basic

pattern of human behavior that is guided by violence in the form of an

imperceptible suggestion. The various types of the suggestion accompany every

flux of information as well as the flux of money and determine all the aspects

of the human behavior. The field of systemic violence ensures also the

universality of the patterns of mental activity and turns it into abstract thinking

by means of general notions. From the enigmatic uniformity of abstract thinking

results the concept of a transcendental, that is, a joint subject which contains

the complete set of the patterns of violence.

So long as the transcendental subject is a fetish and a specter of culture

as a whole, it becomes an organ of the total control. This artificial organ

substitutes the automatism of the systemic violence for the vacant

consciousness of culture as a totality. This peculiarity of human culture can

be illustrated by an example that, nevertheless, exceeds the bounds of a

mere example. The comparison between human society and the «society»

of insects reveals and sets off the significance of the symbolic metabolism

for the behavior of man. Indeed, one can well understand that the model

of self-adjustment by means of the transcendental subject presupposes the

individual conscious, free behavior of every person.

Just this feature differs human culture from the totalitarian «social

order» of some insects (bees, ants) which was already long since regarded by

some theoreticians as the ideal model of the harmonic and perfect society.

The «culture» of insects that is, by the way, really very complicated, is based

upon the strict programs of behavior which are prescribed to every individual.

Meanwhile, the «social order» of insects proves to be devoid of the individual

consciousness, although the whole population behaves as a conscious being.

The behavior of insects is strictly determined by special diet, by the type of

feeding at the period when they were yet larvae.

The human behavior is determined by the symbolic metabolism, by

the fluxes of signs and symbols as the bearers of meaning, by this very

meaning that creates the quasi-objectivity of the specters of culture. It follows

from this that the spectral reality of culture is just analogous to the feeding

among the insects, and it directs the human behavior through the patterns

of the invisible systemic violence as its substance. That is why the starting

point of the research project is the analysis of the inner tensions that

ensure the very existence of every system. This analysis is based upon the

notion of duality as it emerged in the early mythology.

It is pointed out that the token of human culture is the destruction of

natural (instinctive) programs of behavior, so that just the lack of such

348 A.I. Pigalev. The Spectral Reality of Culture

programs compels to create some artificial mechanisms. From this point of

view the so called «myths of the origin» are examined. According to these

myths, the world came into existence due to the dismemberment of the

huge body of a mythical «First Man». The limits of that body before the

dismemberment coincided with the limits of the universe; that body was in

a way the world in the state of yet undivided totality. The next period, the

state of the divided totality, gives rise to the mechanisms of integration that

unite the uncoordinated parts, and exactly integration becomes the matter

of the human history.

The mythological topic of the dismemberment is interpreted as the

disarrangement of natural programs of vital activity. However that may be,

the artificial mechanisms of adjustment need some basic patterns of structural

unity, and they were found in sexual order. The disarrangement of the

programs of the natural sexual behavior after the emergence of culture

provokes the redoubling, or rather, the bifurcation of the natural sexual

order. In addition to disarranged natural patterns of sexual behavior, within

the limits of culture begin to function also the symbolic ones that do not

coincide with their natural prototypes. The latter of the sexual orders

reproduces the duality of sexes as the duality of being itself.

In this way the empirical duality of sexes is made a cosmic princi ple,

and it becomes the paradigmatic symbolic matrix of all dualisms in the

world. There exists a rule that is able to join the heterogeneous, unlike poles

of the dual structure. Indeed, the exchange is possible only on condition

that the entities to be exchanged are at the same time in some aspects

different and in some aspects identical. This claim means the suppression of

the rigid duality, that is, the abolishment of incompatibility of the entities

to be exchanged. In other words, one unlike pole has to be expressed

through another. It is necessary that they should be homogenous, materially

equal, or rather, homogenized. This object can be achieved by the reduction

of one unlike pole into the direct opposite of another.

The process of such a reduction is examined in the course of the

interpretation of the second mythological archetype that appertains to the

«myths of the origin» — the symbol of nutrition and digestion. This symbol

is even more ancient than the archetype of the dual sexual order as the

paradigmatic matrix of the cosmic framework. The archetype of nutrition

and digestion is based upon the opposition of «entry» and «outlet», so that

the food to be digested secures the unity of these opposites. As a result, the

unavoidable duality of sexes as the unlike poles is replaced by the indissoluble

relation of elements of the exchange. The unity of opposites (the archetype

of nutrition and digestion) is superimposed over the incommensurability

of the unlike poles (the archetype of the dual sexual order), and it assures

the homogenization.

It is emphasized that the homogenization of the unlike poles has

been clearly reflected in mythology and the history of religions. The first

SUMMARY 349

attempt resulted in the domination of the female deities and the subordinate

position of the male ones. In a way, it was the first form of the constitution

of the monistic center of the universe. The reason of the failure of that

project is analyzed against a background of continuos advance of the so called

«phallic cults». After all, the female sex gradually becomes no more than the

non-male one, and the sexuality as a whole is proclaimed to be solely phallic.

The «centrism» of Phallus turns it into the designatum and the transcendental

subject of all the meanings in the sphere of the sexual order.

Henceforth, the duality as the cosmic framework is mediated by the

third member which is neither the first member, nor the second one, but

unites both. In the end the duality is really suppressed, and it turns into a

quasi-duality, or rather, monistic unity. The monistic (quasi-dualistic)

model of a system secures the exchange, and it puts in good order not only

the sexual relations, but also the social ones. This model becomes right

away the basic pattern of the abstract thinking. Then the monistic (quasi-

dualistic) model of the system is analyzed in the context of the history of

culture. It is pointed out that the historical development of the principle of

the violent monism can be described as the metamorphoses of «centrism»

and as the appearance of the general equivalent of the symbolic exchange.

It is also the process of unification, the propagation of total power of

the pure quantity. In any case, it is always the identification of non-identical

entities. But the financial and informational fluxes are only aspects of social

exchange which is impossible without the identification of non-identical

entities, since every exchange tries to be an equivalent one. The identification

of non-identical entities can be based only upon the systemic violence that

destroys the peculiarity of local cultural archetypes. That is why the expansion

of the area of social exchange means the leveling of national limitations of

culture with the help of systemic violence which is turning into the

constituent one.

Briefly, all the «cells» of society and culture are saturated with

violence as the «ether» of specific «systemic effects». There is no social

exchange without the violent identification of non-identical entities, and

there is no culture without constituent violence as well. Therefore, this

systemic violence has to be shaped and canalized. In this context the

notion of the organ of culture is discussed. It is interpreted as the product

of the system itself that unites its elements. So, the organ of culture is

considered to be the corporeal existence of the function of unification.

That is why the set of the organs of culture reproduces in a specific form

the figures of the systemic violence.

The «microanalysis» of this constituent violence reveals its significance

for the origin and the very existence of human labor. According to the

anthropological theory of the American thinker R.Girard, labor is regarded

as an aspect of the ritual sacrifice. For all that, there are two «directions of

350 A.I. Pigalev. The Spectral Reality of Culture

use» of enslaved man — an immediate sacrifice and a deferred one. The

second way of consumption is just the beginning of human labor. Having

subscribed to J.Baudrillard’s opinion, the author became convinced that

the symbolic exchange was always unequal, and the symbolic metabolism

was always instable, although their genuine character was reliably hidden

by the ideological veil.

The life of an enslaved man is just consumed gradually, and his

sacrificial death is deferred or even abolished. The deferment of sacrifice is

provided by the wages. Nevertheless, it is wage slavery, since wages cannot

be the compensation for the produced goods. The unequal exchange is very

important also for the genesis of capital and its power. So, labor is the mask

of power (or violence), and power is the foundation of labor. There is no

doubt that an element of slavery remains even at the level of wage labor

that is usually considered to be absolutely free. Wages are paid not for

produced goods, but for reproduction of power, and labor is the result of

deferred sacrifice. That is why in fact the master does not take the produced

goods away.

On the contrary, he gives something, and he does not want any gift

in return. There is no master who wants the immediate death of his slave,

since such a death establishes the equilibrium and destroys the very basis of

power. The capital as the sign of «centrism» is always closely connected

with power and free competition. The tendency to globalism opens a new

epoch of «centrism» that abolishes national capital and the risk of free

competition. Globalism is total «centrism» which does not require previous

forms of violence. Taking into account the connection between traditional

«centrism» and the adjustment of consumption instead of the adjustment of

production, one can easily discern the new quality of social control, that

is, of systemic violence that stops to be constituent.

In this context the various forms of fetishism are analyzed (the fetishism

of the religious idols, names, words, numbers, things, sounds, ideas). The

analysis of the fetishism as the universal phenomenon is concluded with

the consideration of the web (network) of the subject, that is, the

perceptional and mental lattices which are thrown over the surroundings.

The evolution of the principle of subjectivity is retraced in view of the

notion of idea. The culmination of that development was the allegedly isolated

Cartesian subject as the spectral center of culture. The globalism gives birth

to a new form of totality of culture against a background of de(con)struction.

This form can be called «fractal» (the term was introduced at first to

mathematics by B.Mandelbrot).

In the sphere of such a culture the interdependence of a whole and

its parts is submitted to the principle «Everything within everything». The

fractal culture is diffuse, and it does not recognize the difference between

the elements which belong to this culture itself and the fragments of alien