Divine Violence: Walter Benjamin and the Eschatology of Sovereignty

by James R. Martel

Divine Violence looks at the question of political theology and its connection to sovereignty. It argues that the practice of sovereignty reflects a Christian eschatology, one that proves very hard to overcome even by left thinkers, such as Arendt and Derrida, who are very critical of it. These authors fall into a trap described by Carl Schmitt whereby one is given a (false) choice between anarchy and sovereignty, both of which are bound within―and return us to―the same eschatological envelope. In Divine Violence, the author argues that Benjamin supplies the correct political theology to help these thinkers. He shows how to avoid trying to get rid of sovereignty (the "anarchist move" that Schmitt tells us forces us to "decide against the decision") and instead to seek to de-center and dislocate sovereignty so that it’s mythological function is disturbed. He does this with the aid of divine violence, a messianic force that comes into the world to undo its own mythology, leaving nothing in its wake. Such a move clears the myths of sovereignty away, turning us to our own responsibility in the process. In that way, the author argues,Benjamin succeeds in producing an anarchism that is not bound by Schmitt’s trap but which is sustained even while we remain dazzled by the myths of sovereignty that structure our world. Divine Violence will be of interest to students of political theory, to those with an interest in political theology, philosophy and deconstruction, and to those who are interested in thinking about some of the dilemmas that the ‘left’ finds itself in today.

Genres: Philosophy

168 pages, Hardcover

First published September 1, 2011

Reviews

[xDEAD ENDx · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was mad good and I'm struggling to think of how to even summarize it. The description is pretty accurate, in that it's a reading of Benjamin's messianism alongside that of Derrida and Arendt, and basically says that the idea of divine violence is the way to escape the aporias of the latter two. There's also some fair interaction with Agamben, Schmitt, Kafka Hardt & Negri, and Badiou.

For me, though, the next to last chapter on Hobbes and Spinoza was the most illuminating. He looks at their ideas on the Kingdom of Heaven to put forth some great thoughts on how a direct rule by God (eg. Benjamin's telling of the earth swallowing Korah) is destabilizing towards state-based sovereignty because there is no interpretation of God through prophets ("mythological law" in Benjamin's parlance). That isn't to say the author is wanting this, but it does help explain the nod Agamben keeps giving to this idea.

The conclusion comes out strong towards an anarchism that is neither liberal/utopian nor reactionary, where we have to continue struggling within the conditions we live in until they've completely decayed. In the messianic world to come, "everything will be as it is now, just a little different."

[Aung Sett Kyaw Min · Rating 3 out of 5]

A clear exegesis of one of Benjamin's enormously influential essays--"A Critique of Violence" in which he proposes the notion of 'divine violence' that intervenes in the world in the here and now and smashes the mythical/idolatrous authority of all terrestrial sovereigns. The author intends to place Benjamin in a conversation with Arendt and Derrida to tease out the significance and the ramifications of the distinction between transcendent[al] violence (divine violence) and mythical violence of kings, nation-states and rulers.
According to Martel, Benjamin is not suggesting a return to theocratic republic of the past epoches. His is a vision of politics that does not try to do the impossible, to abolish the place of sovereignty/power altogether, a temptation which many emancipatory leftist projects fall pray to. Instead sovereignty is to be constantly de-mythologicised and demystified as a contingent exercise that, because it is contigent, is something that can be 'revisted' over and over again. If the founding violence can be reopened, then this means every legal order continually founds itself on violence, and that the cherished distinction between founding and law preserving violence cannot be maintained. Divine violence is precisely the sort of an invasion from the beyond that wipes out of the false truths of this world, leaving everything in ruins (for Benjamin, we only ever have access to false truths and idols); divine violence only ever negates, never itself lapsing into an affirmation.