One can tell a lot about an author by virtue of things that he or she mentions and highlights in his or her writings. Charles Baudelaire, a poet and an incredibly talented prose writer, was fully aware of what is at stake in an essay. And he knew full well that the final “notes” of any essay should hit on the main point.
To be sure, Baudelaire’s essay on laughter ends on a positive note. There, he points out that the Absolute Comic, which is best illustrated in the work of ETA Hoffman, evinces man’s superiority over nature. And that all laughter, all comedy, is inter-subjective and shared by human beings. Baudelaire’s reading of laughter is amplified and given exquisite detail by the philosopher Henri Bergson, who, like Baudelaire, sees an intersubjective element of comedy which is based on the superiority of élan vital over the mechanical. Laughter, for Bergson, is equated with life and becoming (not stasis and empty repetition). And like Baudelaire, Bergson emphasizes the progressive aspects of comedy.
However, Baudelaire doesn’t arrive at such a view without a few misgivings. It must be noted that, earlier in the essay, Baudelaire points out that the significant comic and the laughter that attends it do in fact manifest a kind of (Satanic) madness of superiority. And, as I pointed out in my last blog entry, he also notes that comic madness is diametrically opposed to the madness of humility. Nonetheless, he argues that, in the end, man’s sense of himself as different from nature may manifest madness, but, ultimately, this madness is mitigated by the Absolute comic.
To be sure, Baudelaire says that since the madness of humility is no longer an option for modern society, all nations must become pure by way of a madness that asserts superiority over nature. And comedy is the means to achieving such an intersubjective “purification.”
In other words, comedy, for Baudelaire, is a “good” thing. As Baudelaire notes in his description of mimes like Pierrot, the laughter evoked by the Absolute Comic is intoxicating. It enlivens the crowd and produces joy.
There is one problem.
As I mentioned above, Baudelaire notes, early on, that the comic is Satanic. He points out that it is a manifestation of fallen-ness. But by the time he finishes the essay, this is no longer the main issue. Baudelaire decided that it was more important to emphasize man’s inter-subjective superiority over nature than to emphasize fallen-ness, madness, and the Satanic.
Paul deMan, in his essay “The Rhetoric of Temporality,” was not satisfied with Baudelaire’s conclusion. He ignores Baudelaire’s final note and, instead, focuses in on madness and the hidden meaning of man’s superiority over nature. In deMan’s hands, “superiority” has a very negative and alienating note. In addition, Baudelaire’s insistence that comedy is shared and inter-subjective is rejected.
Right off the bat, deMan notes:
In the first place, the accent falls on the notion of dedoublemant (duality) as the characteristic that sets apart reflective activity, such as that of the philosopher, from the activity of the ordinary self caught in everyday activities. Hidden away at first in side-remarks such as this one, or masked behind a vocabulary of superiority and inferiority…the notion of self-duplication or self-multiplication emerges at the end of the essay as the key concept of the article, the concept for the sake of which the essay had in fact been written (212).
In this gesture, deMan shifts the focus from superiority and doubling to “self-duplication or self-multiplication.” DeMan goes on to argue that “superiority” is not in relation to others – which is what Baudelaire and also Henri Bergson note. Rather, superiority “merely designates the distance constituitive of all acts of reflection.”
In deMan’s reading, Baudelaire is really telling us that the effect of laughter is extreme alienation from the world and oneself. Instead of attaining self-knowledge by way of laughter, deMan tells us that the laughing subject experiences the abyss. His madness is not based on superiority so much as on a radical and debilitating loss of his center.
For Baudelaire…the movement of the ironic consciousness is anything but reassuring. The moment the innocence or authenticity of our sense of being in the world is put into question, a far from harmless process gets underway. It may start as a casual bit of play with a stray loose end of fabric, but before long the entire texture of the self is unraveled and comes apart. The whole process happens at an unsettling speed. (214)
DeMan’s rhetoric, as Jacques Derrida might say, “supplements” Baudelaire and rewrites his text. In deMan’s hands, Baudelaire affirms madness and eschews all forms of inter-subjectivity.
Irony is unrelieved vertige, dizziness to the point of madness. Sanity can exist only because we are willing to function within the conventions of duplicity and dissimulation, just as social language dissimulates the inherent violence of the actual relationships between human beings (216).
By writing in this way, DeMan is, so to speak, going backwards. He is unraveling Baudelaire’s text to show that at the root of his comedy is what Baudelaire would call Spleen: the physical and symbolic organ associated with rage, anger, and melancholy.
Walter Benjamin saw Baudelaire’s allegorical prose and poetry as a response to Spleen – or what Max Pensky calls “impotent rage against the world.” Benjamin saw such aesthetic responses as a manifestation of “Heroic Melancholy.” However, deMan does not. Rather, beneath all of Baudelaire’s laughter he only sees insanity and Spleen.
What we need to ask is whether such a reading has any validity. Is laughter or irony, in reality, an admittance to one’s radical alienation from the world and oneself? Is laughter, in other words, self-destructive and anti-social?
And, with respect to Walter Benjamin, is his ironic return to childhood noting more than the experience and re-experience of his radical alienation from himself and others? In other words, can we apply deMan’s reading of irony and laughter to Walter Benjamin’s humor?
Is Paul deMan right or radically wrong in his reading of irony? To paraphrase Harold Bloom, how do we read Paul deMan’s “map of misreading” Baudelaire? Was Baudelaire – or even Walter Benjamin- hiding something behind his laughter? Namely, his endless comic humiliation and fallenness?