An immediate concern of a blog with "Anarch" in its title is to establish the fundamental differences in political, social, metaphysical, and spiritual terms between the anarch in Jünger's sense and the anarchist as the figure is commonly understood. This difference is also one important aspect of a definition of the anarch.
Although the fully conceived figure is first and most comprehensively presented in the 1977 novel Eumeswil, anarch-like figures and spiritual precursors to the anarch appear in other works, most notably in Der Waldgang ("The Forest Flight", untranslated into English).
Ernst Jünger develops the anarch figure mostly through the reflections and conclusions of the protogonist of Eumeswil, Manuel (Ernst Jünger in disguise), as he pursues his historical studies and ruminates on the role and survival strategies of the individual throughout history. According to Manuel's studies and conclusions, the anarch is the figure most suited to the survival of the individual in an ahistorical postmodern world of totalitarian states.
Manuel is a historian in the small state of Eumeswil, an imaginary country in an undefined post-apocalyptic world. (The setting is perhaps not that important to the understanding of the anarch, so we won't develop that much here). Manuel pursues his historical interests in his own time: privately with his teachers, by attending or even holding the occasional seminar at the university, and above all, working at night on the Luminar, an internet-like apparatus by which an enormous archive of historical information can be accessed almost at the speed of thought. (The Luminar is incidentally an uncanny vision of the present Internet, probably the first to appear in world literature. )
Manuel is also an employee of the ruling tyrant, the Condor, whom he serves as a bartender in the Condor's nightbar. In this setting, Manuel has an ear onto the inner workings of the state and the men behind it.Conveniently for us, Manuel's reflections on the anarch are presented in the form of short aphorisms, even mini-essays within the text. This lends itself to a study of the anarch via a compilation and analysis of the individual aphorisms. Which is how this current project will be structured - via a systematic analysis of each appearance of the anarch in aphorisms from the text of Eumeswil.I will go through the book and present citations which discuss the anarch, not necessarily in order of appearance in the book. To provide some context for the reader, a short explanation of the setting or background for the citation will usually precede the citation. After the citation, I will make a few comments and hope readers of this blog will contribute their own.I am using the English translation by Joachim Neugroschel, published by Marsilio Publishers (New York, 1980) in their Eridanos Library, ISBN 0-941419-97-5. Citations will be referenced according to the page numbers of this edition.
We begin with a quote from Eumeswil, in which the protagonist, Manuel Venator, describes the interview process for his employment in the tyrant of Eumeswil's personal entourage.
Although the fully conceived figure is first and most comprehensively presented in the 1977 novel Eumeswil, anarch-like figures and spiritual precursors to the anarch appear in other works, most notably in Der Waldgang ("The Forest Flight", untranslated into English).
Ernst Jünger develops the anarch figure mostly through the reflections and conclusions of the protogonist of Eumeswil, Manuel (Ernst Jünger in disguise), as he pursues his historical studies and ruminates on the role and survival strategies of the individual throughout history. According to Manuel's studies and conclusions, the anarch is the figure most suited to the survival of the individual in an ahistorical postmodern world of totalitarian states.
Manuel is a historian in the small state of Eumeswil, an imaginary country in an undefined post-apocalyptic world. (The setting is perhaps not that important to the understanding of the anarch, so we won't develop that much here). Manuel pursues his historical interests in his own time: privately with his teachers, by attending or even holding the occasional seminar at the university, and above all, working at night on the Luminar, an internet-like apparatus by which an enormous archive of historical information can be accessed almost at the speed of thought. (The Luminar is incidentally an uncanny vision of the present Internet, probably the first to appear in world literature. )
Manuel is also an employee of the ruling tyrant, the Condor, whom he serves as a bartender in the Condor's nightbar. In this setting, Manuel has an ear onto the inner workings of the state and the men behind it.Conveniently for us, Manuel's reflections on the anarch are presented in the form of short aphorisms, even mini-essays within the text. This lends itself to a study of the anarch via a compilation and analysis of the individual aphorisms. Which is how this current project will be structured - via a systematic analysis of each appearance of the anarch in aphorisms from the text of Eumeswil.I will go through the book and present citations which discuss the anarch, not necessarily in order of appearance in the book. To provide some context for the reader, a short explanation of the setting or background for the citation will usually precede the citation. After the citation, I will make a few comments and hope readers of this blog will contribute their own.I am using the English translation by Joachim Neugroschel, published by Marsilio Publishers (New York, 1980) in their Eridanos Library, ISBN 0-941419-97-5. Citations will be referenced according to the page numbers of this edition.
We begin with a quote from Eumeswil, in which the protagonist, Manuel Venator, describes the interview process for his employment in the tyrant of Eumeswil's personal entourage.
"They found no mischief in me. I remained normal, however deeply they probed. And also straight as an arrow. To be sure, normality seldom coincides with straightness. Normalcy is the human constitution; straightness is logical reasoning. With its help, I could answer satisfactorily. In contrast, the human element is at once so general and so intricately encoded that they fail to perceive it, like the air that they breathe. Thus they were unable to penetrate my fundamental structure, which is anarchic.
That sounds complicated, but it is simple, for everyone is anarchic; this is precisely what is normal about us. Of course, the anarch is hemmed in from the first day by father and mother, by state and society. Those are prunings, tappings of the primordial strength, and nobody escapes them. One has to resign oneself. But the anarchic remains, at the very bottom, as a mystery, usually unknown even to its bearer. It can erupt from him as lava, can destroy him, liberate him. Distinctions must be made here: love is anarchic, marriage is not. The warrior is anarchic, the soldier is not. Manslaughter is anarchic, murder is not. Christ is anarchic, Saint Paul is not. Since, of course, the anarchic is normal, it is also present in Saint Paul, and sometimes it erupts mightily from him. Those are not antitheses but degrees. The history of the world is moved by anarchy. In sum: the free human being is anarchic, the anarchist is not.” Eumeswil, Page 41
Immediately, in this first quote in which the anarch is mentioned, Jünger establishes the "normality" of the anarch. Anarchy is intrinsically encoded into the normal human constitution, and is thus something the interviewee and interviewer have in common, indeed something we all have in common, that which is the nature of a normal human being.
Since it is so normal and so obvious, the interrogators aren't able to distinguish it in particular. Yet it is the bedrock of Manuel's being. And, moreover, he is conscious of this and realises its inner invulnerability. So inwardly, he remains inviolate, secure, and himself.
One might imagine that someone so aware of his inner invulnerability, of his anarchic inner nature, might feel free to manifest himself just as he pleases in the world, as a weirdo, an eccentric, a madman even. But Manuel maintains his straightness, with the help of reason, in order to make the right impression and get what he wants, in this case, the job. Since he is so secure in his inner world, he need not make any extravagant shows of his freedom, of his "individuality". His true individuality, his personal anarchic nature, is a secret inner possession, of which he is acutely aware. Consequently he feels no temptation to show off or, but can concentrate on what is required to get what he wants.
As Jünger now explains, each person has this anarchic substructure, which at birth is whole and unencumbered, albeit usually unknown, unconscious to the bearer. From day one, society and the world begin to overlay the individual anarchic material of the individual with their own programs, motives, restrictions. The individual forgets, becomes removed from his origin, the bedrock of his being. This must be, this is the nature of fallen humanity. But a subconscious awareness of his original individual power and identity remains underneath, untouched by the necessary outer corruption, by the encirclement of the unessential.
Later, a return to, a rediscovery of this uncorrupted, incorruptable personal core may happen, may be actively effected. This can be gradual, as a growing illumination of the inner darkness by the light of self-knowledge and the discovery there of the hidden treasure. Or it may happen abruptly, as an eruption that comes after long efforts of self-discovery weaken the containing walls and the pressure of the inner anarchic magma bursts through. This can destroy the individual, if it is not controlled, is accidental. Or it can liberate him from society's bounds, free the individual to see himself, and be himself again.
The anarchic is independent of society, it relates to the essential nature of the person and their relationships with the outside world. Hence Jünger's following comparisons. Love, as a substantial relation between individuals regardless of their social roles, is anarchic; the social institution of marriage is not, although of course a marriage does not preclude the existence of anarchic love between the individuals. Secure in the reality of their love, they make an inexpensive concession to society, if that so pleases them.
Manslaughter represents the opposite relation between human beings, the result of an essential conflict between individuals, regrettable of course but willed by higher forces. But the same act is murder when it is within and as a result of unessential social relationships between people; it is no longer a function of a conflict between individuals but between socialized units. Similarly, the soldier kills in the context of and for society's aims, the warrior because that is his "god-given" nature.
Finally, Jünger compares St. Paul and Jesus, and shows that Jesus' power and action is beyond society, is essential, whereas St. Paul's force is already a derivation, a more superficial force operating in the social sphere. But as he points out, the essential and the incidental, the anarchic and the socialised, represent the extremes of a continuum. Hence St. Paul also has the anarchic within him, even if it is not always manifesting.
Finally Jünger makes a fundamental point about the anarchic: that it is a correlate of freedom. The free human being, the natural essential human being is anarchic. But the anarchist is not anarchic, by which he implies that the anarchist is not free. Thus a crucial difference has been made between the anarch and the anarchist, that of their differing degrees of freedom.
Since it is so normal and so obvious, the interrogators aren't able to distinguish it in particular. Yet it is the bedrock of Manuel's being. And, moreover, he is conscious of this and realises its inner invulnerability. So inwardly, he remains inviolate, secure, and himself.
One might imagine that someone so aware of his inner invulnerability, of his anarchic inner nature, might feel free to manifest himself just as he pleases in the world, as a weirdo, an eccentric, a madman even. But Manuel maintains his straightness, with the help of reason, in order to make the right impression and get what he wants, in this case, the job. Since he is so secure in his inner world, he need not make any extravagant shows of his freedom, of his "individuality". His true individuality, his personal anarchic nature, is a secret inner possession, of which he is acutely aware. Consequently he feels no temptation to show off or, but can concentrate on what is required to get what he wants.
As Jünger now explains, each person has this anarchic substructure, which at birth is whole and unencumbered, albeit usually unknown, unconscious to the bearer. From day one, society and the world begin to overlay the individual anarchic material of the individual with their own programs, motives, restrictions. The individual forgets, becomes removed from his origin, the bedrock of his being. This must be, this is the nature of fallen humanity. But a subconscious awareness of his original individual power and identity remains underneath, untouched by the necessary outer corruption, by the encirclement of the unessential.
Later, a return to, a rediscovery of this uncorrupted, incorruptable personal core may happen, may be actively effected. This can be gradual, as a growing illumination of the inner darkness by the light of self-knowledge and the discovery there of the hidden treasure. Or it may happen abruptly, as an eruption that comes after long efforts of self-discovery weaken the containing walls and the pressure of the inner anarchic magma bursts through. This can destroy the individual, if it is not controlled, is accidental. Or it can liberate him from society's bounds, free the individual to see himself, and be himself again.
The anarchic is independent of society, it relates to the essential nature of the person and their relationships with the outside world. Hence Jünger's following comparisons. Love, as a substantial relation between individuals regardless of their social roles, is anarchic; the social institution of marriage is not, although of course a marriage does not preclude the existence of anarchic love between the individuals. Secure in the reality of their love, they make an inexpensive concession to society, if that so pleases them.
Manslaughter represents the opposite relation between human beings, the result of an essential conflict between individuals, regrettable of course but willed by higher forces. But the same act is murder when it is within and as a result of unessential social relationships between people; it is no longer a function of a conflict between individuals but between socialized units. Similarly, the soldier kills in the context of and for society's aims, the warrior because that is his "god-given" nature.
Finally, Jünger compares St. Paul and Jesus, and shows that Jesus' power and action is beyond society, is essential, whereas St. Paul's force is already a derivation, a more superficial force operating in the social sphere. But as he points out, the essential and the incidental, the anarchic and the socialised, represent the extremes of a continuum. Hence St. Paul also has the anarchic within him, even if it is not always manifesting.
Finally Jünger makes a fundamental point about the anarchic: that it is a correlate of freedom. The free human being, the natural essential human being is anarchic. But the anarchist is not anarchic, by which he implies that the anarchist is not free. Thus a crucial difference has been made between the anarch and the anarchist, that of their differing degrees of freedom.
Posts
