Kierkegaard: The Self in Society , ed. by George Pattison and Steven Shakespeare, London: Macmillan 1998 and e!

"ork: St. Martin#s Press 1998, $ii % &&'pp.( )here are t!o kinds o* +ierkegaard scholars: those !ho side !ith him, b,ilding on !hat he says- and those !ho take his !ords and try to think them thro,gh, adopting a more critical stance. .oth have val,e, especially !hen !hat is at stake, as here, is something a**ecting everyone: ho! to live in society as individ,als. )his book is made ,p o* papers by scholars o* the highest caliber. /t is easy to get sidetracked here by the motley collection o* di**erent interpretations, topics, and names. )his is not by chance: the papers !ere given back in 199', at a con*erence in the 0+, by people *rom many di**erent *ields.1 )hey are, ho!ever, all abo,t ho! the sel* relates to society. )hey try to get beyond the image o* +ierkegaard as a radical individ,alist, !hile staying tr,e 1more or less2 to the te$ts themselves. & )his gives them a thematic ,nity and a coherence o* method despite

( 3orthcoming in Kierkegaard Research: Sources, Reception and Resources , vol 18, 4on Ste!art et al. 1eds.2 15shgate2
1

Kierkegaard: The Self in Society, ed. by George Pattison and Steven Shakespeare, London: Macmillan Press 1998, p. 1. & /bid.

everything. Moreover, since all ma6or pro7+ierkegaard approaches are represented here 1their backgro,nd history is given in the introd,ction2, the book is a per*ect overvie! o* this kind o* scholarship. 8 /t is the *irst anthology to deal !ith the 9post7modern sit,ation.: ; )his is its greatest strength, marking it o** against anthologies that came be*ore. 5s *ar as / can tell, there are t!o basic claims any *ollo!er o* +ierkegaard has to make abo,t ho! the sel* is related to society: )hat the sel* is irred,cible to it 19the irred,cibility claim:2, and that the sel* en6oys clear priority 19the priority claim:2.' .oth m,st be ass,med to have strong te$t,al s,pport in the +ierkegaardian corpus. <hat is not so clear is ho! the t!o claims are related. )o say / am not wholly a prod,ct o* society, a*ter all, is not the same as saying I make mysel*, m,ch less that / am constit,ted by something or someone coming before or standing above society in a broader sense. )he last t!o are m,ch stronger claims, and in*erring a positive *rom a negative 6,dgment like this is a non sequitur. 1)here is a third: sel* and society may mutually influence each other !itho,t either having clear priority, keeping my basic irred,cibility intact.2 )he introd,ction seems to have these t!o claims mi$ed ,p, and most o* the papers slip bet!een them too. )his gives the book a slightly con*,sing look, giving the impression that a *,lly tho,ght7o,t de*ense o* +ierkegaard has yet to be made.
8 ;

/bid., pp. 871=. /bid., pp. 1=719. ' /bid., p. =, p. 11.

5nother thing one notices is the habit o* co,ntering str,ct,ral arg,ments 19ho!7arg,ments:2 !ith te$t,al >,otations 19!hat7

arg,ments:2. Piety#s paper is a good case in point 1?hapter 12. She is responding to Mackey#s criticism o* +ierkegaard, @ namely, that since *reedom or the sel* is e**ectively absol,tiAed in +ierkegaard, others become blank possibilities, losing their ability to bind or even in*l,ence the sel* in a meaning*,l !ay. <ith their reality or act,ality gone, there is a complete loss o* !orld here. )alk abo,t stages !ill not do: the sel* is al!ays *ree7standing in relation to society it seems. = )his is obvio,sly a serio,s charge to make beca,se it !o,ld keep talk o* sociality or politics *rom getting o** the gro,nd. Piety tries a n,mber o* moves to block the arg,ment. )hey all involve >,oting speci*ic passages that say something else, or other a,thorities !ho take a di**erent vie!. 8 )his is eno,gh on an e$egetical plane perhaps, b,t it !ill not !ork against Mackey#s str,ct,ral arg,ment. .esides, i* pressed, he co,ld al!ays >,ote those te$ts in the corpus !here the priority claim is made. )hat !ay too he can e$plain !hy *reedom is absol,tiAed. )his is the gripe many +ierkegaardians have !ith post7modern thinkers. )hey do not like !hat looks like a call *or an endless *ree play beyond any real responsibility or allegiance here. )his theyBrightlyB *eel ,ndermines not 6,st social ties b,t the search *or tr,th,
6

She ,ses Lo,is Mackey, 9)he Loss o* <orld in +ierkegaard#s Cthics,: The Review of etaphysics, vol. 1', no. ;, pp. @D&7@&D. 7 Kierkegaard: The Self in Society, pp. &'7&@, p. &9. 8 /bid., pp. &@**.

comm,nication itsel*. ?raig#s 1?hapter 82, E,dd#s 1?hapter '2 and Shakespeare#s paper 1?hapter '2 all deal !ith this. / really liked E,dd#s distinction bet!een stable and absol,te irony 1+ierkegaard vs. the German Eomantics2, or bet!een irony as *ig,re o* speech and as a stance 1or attit,de2.9 )hat and ho! he sho!s that Eorty#s post7modern liking *or the second makes his social tho,ght relativistic, !hich means he cannot make an honest plea *or liberal democracy. 1D )o dra! lines back to the past, making +ierkegaard speak to c,rrent iss,es like this is both important and *itting. / *o,nd Shakespeare#s 9Feideggerian: take on negativity, death, and letting7others7be in +ierkegaard highly

interesting.11 / also think ?raig is basically right. Stressing *reedom and possibility can have a liberating e**ect in society- it need not go against other7relatedness, and +ierkegaard#s style and play on a,thority can have a role in this.1& .,t there is the r,b: they do not sho! yo, how to g,ard against an absol,tiAing o* this *reedom or negativity. E,dd and Shakespeare mostly take !hat +ierkegaard says *or granted. ?raig senses that a coherent, tamed de*ense means the priority o* the sel* has to be given ,p,18 and she criticiAes +ierkegaard to!ards this end, 1; b,t she does not have a positive, integrated plan *or carrying it thro,gh. )his arg,mentative lack or *orgetting o* the str,ct,ral side o* things o,ght to
9

/bid., pp. 8&78@, p. 98, /bid., pp. 8@78=, p. 9D, pp. 9&798. 11 /bid., p. 9=, p. 1D1, pp. 1D;71D', p. 1D8, p. 111. 1& /bid., pp. '@7'=, pp. '97@1. 18 /bid., p. @;. 1; /bid., pp. @@7@=.
1D

!orry anyone interested in the +ierkegaardian te$ts and their meaning todayBespecially in light o* Mackey#s arg,ment. )he ne$t batch o* papers deals !ith sociality more head7on in +ierkegaard. Peter George#s *ine paper 1?hapter ;2 begins by contrasting love in !orks of "ove !ith #ither$%r, arg,ing it is spirit,aliAed or made !orldless in The !orks of "ove in a !ay it !as not be*ore. /t is the total denial o* pre*erence and t!o7sidedness that makes ?hristian love 1as pict,red by +ierkegaard2 a negative post,re !itho,t any real s,bstance or !eight *or social living. 1' George denies the simple e>,ation o* pre*erence or t!o7sidedness !ith sel*ishness too, and he has some brie*, phenomenological sketches to sho! this. 1@ )his kind o* criti>,e harks back 5dorno: ho! is ?hristian love not coldBanti7 socialG Str,ct,rally at least it is on par !ith dissocial personality disorder, !ith *orms o* domination in general. either George, nor 5ndic

1?hapter =2, nor Pyper 1?hapter 82 has a good +ierkegaardian reply ready. Cither there is the !ell7kno!n *allback on negativity- or social relationships get s,bordinated !holesale to other7!orldly love. 5gain irred,cibility and priority are mi$ed ,p, or the priority claim and sociality are merely ass,med to be coherent. Fo!7arg,ments are neither made nor dealt !ith. 5dorno#s >,estion still stands.

1' 1@

/bid., pp. =D7=', pp. =87=9. /bid., pp. =87=;, p. =@, p. =8.

)he biggest s,rprise *or me !as Hooley#s paper 1?hapter 92. / !as str,ck by the similarities he ,ncovers bet!een +ierkegaard and Herrida and their lo! vie! o* 9this7!orldly: 6,stice: they both see this as based on nothing b,t mere pr,dence, cold calc,lation, and they go on to contrast it !ith a higher calling or 6,stice. / think Hooley has made a good case *or +ierkegaard in*l,encing Herrida here. 1= <hat / cannot *ig,re o,t is !hy he does not mention the deep criticism Herrida has o* +ierkegaard in The &ift of 'eath. /n the third chapter he sho!s ho! !e cannot avoid pre*erence as *inite creat,res: having a body or lang,age, being here no!, choosing this rather than that. )his str,ct,ral *act abo,t h,mans is tr,e independent o* concretion 1!ho !e relate to, !hat !e choose2, and this makes the in*inite re>,irement to love every neighbor the same impossible. 5gain this is a ho!7arg,ment 1phenomenological analysis2, an internal criticism that cannot be br,shed o** by >,oting te$ts alone. /n the last chapter, Herrida takes ,p !hat +ierkegaard has to say abo,t sacri*ice, lo!liness and man#s higher calling. .y cross7 re*erencing this !ith places in the e! )estament !hich talk abo,t God

seeing and re!arding this kind o* behavior, 18 he sho!s ho! +ierkegaard re6ects t!o7sidedness on a !orldly level only to reclaim it *or the higher, spirit,al !orld. So (hristian love is both preferential and reciprocal to some e)tent, !hich means it cannot be di**erent in kind. Hooley does

1= 18

/bid., pp. 1;171;@. Matthe! ':=.

not have a !ord to say abo,t this, nor does Perkinson 1?hapter 1D2 !ho tries his best to place the s,**ering ?hristian in society. )his challenge has not been met either. My biggest problem !ith socio7political readings o* +ierkegaard is not that they give ,s a +ierkegaard !ho challenges the liberal order 1Perkins, ?hapter &2, being too ris>,I *or the status quo 1+irmmse, ?hapter 112, b,t one !ho has not really tho,ght thro,gh his stance. So it is ,nclear ho! he might ans!er the normative >,estion abo,t ho! individ,als sho,ld live in society. /* my do!nplaying o* !hat7arg,ments seems ,n*air: content is e$istential *or +ierkegaardBnon7eval,able. /t is to be tho,ght abo,t and appropriated in!ardly by the Single /ndivid,al rather than deliberated in p,blic by scholars. 0ntil the ho!7arg,ments have been tackled there*ore, the !holesale appeal to content does not have m,ch *orce on its o!n. Jther than that / en6oyed +irmmse#s sketch o* +ierkegaard#s spiraling radicalism and its *ate in Henmark a*ter his death, and agy#s chronicling 1?hapter 1&2 o* +ierkegaard#s r,n7ins !ith

L,kacs and totalitarianism in Castern C,rope even more so. )he anthology by Pattison and Shakespeare is an e$cellent overvie! o* +ierkegaard scholarship on sociality and politics at the close o* the last cent,ry. 5s s,ch, it is the best staging point *or *,rther !ork.

arve Strand

Bibliography 5dams, oel, revie! in S*ren Kierkegaard +ewsletter, no. ;D, &DDD, pp.

=78. ?ain, Havid, revie! in #thics, vol. 111, no. 1, pp. 181718@. 3erreira, M. 4amie, 95symmetry and Sel*7Love: )he ?hallenge to Eeciprocity and C>,ality,: Kierkegaard Studies ,earbook, 1998, pp. ;17'9.