The government of time : theories of plural temporality in the Marxist tradition

312 Pages·2018·1.05 MB·English

by  Morfino

TheGovernmentofTime
Historical Materialism
Book Series
EditorialBoard
SébastienBudgen(Paris)
DavidBroder(Rome)
SteveEdwards(London)
JuanGrigera(London)
MarcelvanderLinden(Amsterdam)
PeterThomas(London)
volume151
Thetitlespublishedinthisseriesarelistedatbrill.com/hm
The Government of Time
Theoriesof PluralTemporalityintheMarxistTradition
Editedby
VittorioMorfino
PeterD.Thomas
leiden | boston
TheLibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataisavailableonlineathttp://catalog.loc.gov
TypefacefortheLatin,Greek,andCyrillicscripts:“Brill”.Seeanddownload:brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn1570-1522
isbn978-90-04-29119-5(hardback)
isbn978-90-04-29120-1(e-book)
Copyright2018byKoninklijkeBrillnv,Leiden,TheNetherlands.
KoninklijkeBrillnvincorporatestheimprintsBrill,BrillHes&DeGraaf,BrillNijhoff,BrillRodopi,
BrillSenseandHoteiPublishing.
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,translated,storedinaretrievalsystem,
ortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recordingorotherwise,
withoutpriorwrittenpermissionfromthepublisher.
AuthorizationtophotocopyitemsforinternalorpersonaluseisgrantedbyKoninklijkeBrillnvprovided
thattheappropriatefeesarepaiddirectlytoTheCopyrightClearanceCenter,222RosewoodDrive,
Suite910,Danvers,ma01923,usa.Feesaresubjecttochange.
Thisbookisprintedonacid-freepaperandproducedinasustainablemanner.
Contents
Introduction:Temporamulta 1
VittorioMorfinoandPeterD.Thomas
1 TheTemporalityoftheGeneralWill 20
AugustoIlluminati
2 TheFrenchRevolutionandtheTemporalityoftheCollectiveSubject
betweenSieyèsandMarx 31
LucaBasso
3 LayersofTimeinMarx:FromtheGrundrissetoCapitaltotheRussian
Commune 58
MassimilianoTomba
4 TemporalityinCapital 78
StefanoBracaletti
5 OnNon-Contemporaneity:Marx,Bloch,Althusser 117
VittorioMorfino
6 Fraternitasmilitans.TimeandPoliticsinErnstBloch 148
MauroFarnesiCamellone
7 Gramsci’sPluralTemporalities 174
PeterD.Thomas
8 ‘Space-Time’andPowerintheLightoftheTheoryofHegemony 210
FabioFrosini
9 TheSeedsofAncientHistory:ThePolemicalAnachronismofPier
PaoloPasolini 238
LucaPinzolo
vi contents
10 ModernTimes:SociologicalTemporalitybetweenMultiple
ModernitiesandPostcolonialCritique 265
NicolaMarcucci
References 281
Index 302
introduction
Temporamulta
VittorioMorfinoandPeterD.Thomas
BeyondtheCircleandtheLine
IthasbecomecustomarytocounterposeGreekandChristianconceptionsof
time by means of the metaphors of the circle and the line: while the Greek
worldwassupposedlydominatedbyacircularconceptionofbothnaturaland
historical time, Christian time had an origin (in the birth of Christ) and an
orientation. In the case of the Greeks, while the situation was undoubtedly
more complex, it is nevertheless difficult to deny that the circle seems to
have been the dominant metaphor for conceiving of time’s progress.1 The
‘likelystory’of Plato’sTimaeus,forinstance,affirmstheprimacyof timeover
movement, to the extent that the demiurge ‘first’ generates ‘time [as] the
mobileimageofeternity’,and‘second’thecircularmovementofthestarsand
planets,assignsofitsflow,astheunitofmeasureofthedifferentpartsoftime.2
InAristotle’sconception,ontheotherhand,thereisaprimacyof movement
overtime,intermsof‘numberofmovementinrespectofthebeforeandafter’.3
Nevertheless,inbothcasesthesphereisthegeometricfigurethatdominates
thecosmologyandthecircleisthefigurethattracestheflowoftime.Eternal
repetitionof theidentical,mimesisof aperfectionthatPlatosituatesbeyond
thesensible,andwhichAristotlelocatesinthecelestialworld.Thecirclewas
dominantasaparadigmnotonlyof cosmologicaltime,butalsoof historical
time:itisenoughtothinkof,ontheonehand,theStoicconceptionofcosmic
cycles according to which every historical event is repeated in an identical
way an infinite number of times, and, on the other, the Polybian theory of
anacyclosiswhich,followingPlatonicandAristotelianmodels,thinkstheforms
ofgovernmentinasequencethatrevolvesarounditself.
Christianitybreakswithacircularconceptionof time.Thefigureof Christ
constitutesawatershed,betweenabeforeandanafter,betweenprehistoryand
history,apointofnoreturn.TheadventofChristannouncesthecomingfuture
1 See,forexample,Momigliano1966andVegetti2000.
2 Plat.Tim.37d–38c.
3 Aristot.Phys.220a25–26.
© koninklijkebrillnv,leiden,2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004291201_002
2 morfino and thomas
of hisreignand‘opens’thetimeof historythatleadstoit.Examinedclosely,
thingsareextremelycomplexalsointhiscase,butperhapstwofundamental
paradigmscanbeindividuated:thatexemplifiedbythesequenceofkingdoms
ofJoachimofFiore(whosethirdkingdommakesAugustine’scivitasdeiimman-
enttohistory)andthatof thesuddeneruption,of the‘Godwhocomeslikea
thiefinthenight’,ofPaulofTarsus.Modernitywillwitnesspreciselyasecular-
isationofthesetwomodelsoftemporality:ontheonehand,thephilosophiesof
thehistoryofhumanityinwhichlineartimeisorientedtowardsatelos,and,on
theotherhand,theso-calleddiscontinousphilosophies,inwhichanhomegen-
ousandemptytimeisinterruptedbytheeruptionofaneschaton.Theoneand
theotherareneverthelessfoundedonacommonpresupposition:thedivine
creationthatinstitutesthetemporalline,evenifinordertoexcedeitorinter-
ruptit.
WhetherthoughtundertheGreekformofthecircleortheChristianformof
thelineorientedtowardsthefuture(presentedaseithertelosoraseschaton),
timeisasingletimethatfindsitsmetaphysicalfoundationinthePlatonicidea
of eternity,intheAristotelianmovementof thesphereorinthecontinuous
creationof theChristianGod.Thepluralityof times,thatis,istracedbackto
theunityofafoundation,whethercosmological,metaphysicalortheological.
Whatwouldhappenif thisfoundationwereundermined?Thisisthefamous
question that Augustine poses in order to oppose the reduction of time to
motion:
Ionceheardalearnedmansaythattimeissimplythemovementofthe
sunandmoonandstars.Ididnotagree.Forwhyshouldnottimerather
be the movement of all bodies? Supposing the light of heaven were to
cease, and a potter’s wheel still turn round: would there be no time by
whichwemightmeasurethoserotationsandsayeitherthatitturnedat
equalintervals,or,if itmovednowmoreslowlyandnowmorequickly,
thatsomerotationswerelongerandothersshorter?4
Isitpossibletodelineateamaterialisttraditionthatcouldrespondpositively
toAugustine’squestion,thatis,withtheanswerthattimecannotbethought
without motion and that every motion has its specific temporality? In what
wayscouldsuchamaterialisttraditionofpluraltemporalitieshelptotransform
ourunderstandingoftheMarxisttradition’scapacitytothinkthespecificityof
historicaltime?Andwhatmetaphorscouldthesetraditionsprovidethatmight
helpustomovebeyondthecircleandthelineasdominanttemporalfigures?
4 Augustine1993,p.225(Confess.xi,23)(translationmodified).
tempora multa 3
Thereweresomeofthequestionsthatmotivatedapermanentseminarheld
at the University of Milan Bicocca between 2009 and 2011, dedicated to the
topicof thepluraltemporalitiesof andwithintheMarxisttradition.Despite
recurrentclaimsofMarxism’sinherentteleology,naïvehistoricism,andlinear
progressivism,wewereconvincedthattheMarxisttradition–bothits‘hetero-
dox’currentsaswellasitssupposedlyorthodoxandcanonicalformulations–
offersotherresourcesfortheorisingapluralityofhistoricaltimes.Thiswasnot
aquestionofasserting‘Marxism’conceivedasaclosedsystemalreadycontain-
ingwithinitselfafullyelaboratedtheoryofpluraltemporalities,orofdenying
thoserealtendenciestowardstemporallinearityandunitythathavemarkedits
historicalexistence.Rather,weaimedtoinvestigatehowtheMarxisttradition
itself could be transformed and renewed by reconnecting with the ‘subter-
ranean currents’ of plural temporalities that have traversed it throughout its
development, seeking both to valorise neglected resources from this contra-
dictoryhistoryandalsotoreadagainstthegrainsomeof itsdominantmod-
alities.Reconnectingwith–orrather,constructing–anequallysubterranean
materialist tradition of reflections on the plurality of time within which our
discussionscouldbeorientedthereforeseemedtoconstituteanecessarypoint
ofdeparture–andperhaps,inthealternativemetaphors,figuresandconcepts
thatitprovided,simultaneouslyalsoaterrainofrefoundation.
‘TheOnlyMaterialistTradition’
InatomisticphilosophyandinEpicurustheinfinityof worldsdoesnotallow
thereductioadunumoftimes.TheAristoteliannumberofmovementaccord-
ingtoabeforeandafterdoesn’tfindinEpicuruseitherametaphysicalanchor-
ageinsubstance,oracosmologicalanchorageinthemovementofthesphere
ofafiniteuniverse.Inatomismeverysustanceisatemporaryaggregationand
everysphereissituatedinaninfiniteuniversewithouteitheroutsideorbey-
ond.Timeisthe‘accidentofaccidents’.AsLucretiuswrites:
Thereforebesidesvoidandbodiesnothirdnature
canbeleftself-existinginthesumofthings
[…]
Timealsoexistsnotofitself,butonlyfromthethings
isderivedthesenseofwhathasbeendoneinthepast,
thenwhatthingispresentwithus,furtherwhatistofollowafter.
Normayweadmitthatanyonehasasenseoftimebyitself
separatedfromthemovementofthingsandquietcalm.
4 morfino and thomas
[…]
[…]Youmayperceivethatthingsdone[resgestae]
doneveratallconsistorexistinthemselvesasbodydoes,
noraresaidtoexistinthesamewayasvoid;
butratherthatyoumayproperlycallthem
accidents[eventa]ofbody,andoftheplaceinwhichthethingsare
severallydone.5
The complex texture of things, the textura rerum, cannot be reduced to a
singletime.Everyconjugationofatomshasitsownrhythm,butsimultaneously
doesnotexistinisolation,beingalwaysintertwinedwithinnumerableothers.
Time is nothing but the symptom of this plurality of rhythms, the infinite
intertwining of which does not permit an absolute foundation. As Lucretius
writesagain:
Forwhateverhashappenedmaybecalledanaccident[eventum],
beitofalandorbeitofthepeopleitself[aliudterris,aliudregionibus
ipsis].6
WhatEpicurusandLucretiusproposeatacosmologicallevel,thedeconstruc-
tionofthehypostasisofasingletime,ispursuedbyMachiavelliontheterrain
ofpoliticsandhistory.InTheDiscourseshenotonlydeconstructsboththePoly-
biantheoryofanacyclosisaswellasthetemporallineofbiblicalnarration,but
alsopushesthedefinitionof theobjectof hisresearchmuchfurther.Romeis
notthoughtof asthe‘mixedform’abletosubtractitself fromthecycle,oras
ahumanisticideal,orevenasthesimpleoriginof aphilosophyof history.Its
grandiose historyis analysed bybeginning fromthe primacy of the material
overform,bytheprimacyof thecaseandof conflictoverthemixedformto
whichitgivesrise,beginningfromthepluralityofforcesthatunderlieunity.In
ThePrince,then,politicsisthoughtasanhistoricalhorizonthatappearspre-
ciselyasa‘variationoftimes’,as fortuna,andinwhichoccasionoffersitselfto
virtue(itselfplural,encounterofthefox,manandthelion)notintheformofa
kairos,inwhichadestinyisrevealed,butinthematerialformoftheintertwin-
ingofapluralityofrhythms.7
5 Lucretius1924(Derer.Nat.,i,vv.445–82).
6 Lucretius1924(Derer.Nat.,i,vv.469–70;translationmodified).
7 OnthisdimensionofMachiavelli’sthought,seeDelLucchese2004andMorfino2005and
2012a.