[MONSTROSITY AND THE POSTMODERN: ‘MICHEL FOUCAULT'S APPROACH TO JorGe Luis BORGES Bruno Bosteels University of Pennsylvanla In his preface to Beyond Good and Evil, Niewsche writes that “n order to inscribe themselves In the hearts of humanity with eral demands, all great things have first to wander the earth as ‘monstrous and fear-inspising grotesques” (31). The case of the re- txption of jorge Luis Borges constitutes an eloquent example of tits pattern, AS Is wellknown, Borges is neaily unanimously pre- sented today as a great “precursor,” If not the fundamental ‘paradigm’ of what has become canonized as postmodern titera- ture. What is less known, however, Is that a number of ‘commentators, especialy in Europe, have also highlighted an as- pect of Borges's texts which they fall to describe in tems other than “monstrous. The "greatness" of the Latin-American author ‘would thus be at one with a kind of fear-inspliing “monstrosity.” Ever since the discovery of the Americas, "monsters" have ‘veen common currency in the Okt World, for example in eatly rep= resentation of "monstrous" regions at the corners of the map. oF in Calibanesque descriptions of the "monstrous" Inhabitants of the New World, The clalin about Borges's “monstrosity” certainly re- fects a similar stategy to cope with the uncanny. However. i is also part of a mote compelling project to Incorporate the eccentricity of the "monstrous" in an unusual theory of language nd Interpretation. Borges thus offers the occasion for what might be called an “hermeneutic of monstrosity.” which | propose to study with respect to the postmodem on the basis of one10 Lets a Sc Centers ane Mags srounbreaing instance, namely Miche Fowct's commenty on Boges in is pete 0 The One of Tings An Avchaclogy of the Puan Scenes heres OF) Foucaults book, as he wites In the opening lines of the preface, it arose out of» passage in Borge, out ofthe ugher tha har, ne fen the pgs fan aaa of tougheof our thought, shat of our age and cur geography {Ors The pasngevteed fo a Fagment om Bowes ey “The Anata! Language of John Wikins” pblshea in Orher Inqustons (On ths esay. Borges presents a taxonomy taken fom ‘a crain Gineseeneycopeda ented Celestial Prporiam of Benevolent Knowledge’ (0! 103). Acoing to this chsieaton quoted by Foicaut,snmals ae cide int a) those thet hong {© the Emperor, (0) embalmed ons (ame one) sung psn (© sens 1 abulous ones, () stay dogs (h) those cluded In th dasiteaton,() those that tremble I Oey were mad) Innumerabie one those dawn with very Bre camels tt Brash) et caters, ehose tht have Just Oren the Mower ‘ase those that reer fics om a stance (0 108 ans, modfed) According to Foucault, what this texonomy Semon: States“ the exte cam of anainer system ef tought the Tmtaon of our oun, the sack imposlly oF ning tt (OF ss autho’ empha) Commentators nave given lite attention so far to the profound resonances between Foucault's Interpretation of is Borgesan passage an the projet of The Oder of Tings in o- tality.2 An important occasion has thereby been missed for the reassessment of Borgess impact. not only om Foucault but ase Imo gently. on French cit theory and posh. Foucault “arehaccogy ofthe human sciences may be feed ts Making threshold between the modern and the posimodesn, a wel Between srcturism and possum, Towards the end of The Order of Tings nthe one hand. fowl announces te famous “aeath of man thereby asa henge eminent end of the ‘human scencer” and the docu of the socalled, modern age Foucault's “archaeology” thus prophetclly lays the {oundworks for what nowadays would be eae te epitome of the “postmodem age."3 On the other hand, The Order of Things a5 Monstrsty and the Postmodem 1 well as its theoretical and methodological counterpart, The ‘Archeology of Knowledge, have generally been Interpreted as Imarking at once the culmination and the consummation of the Structuralist. paradigm.4 Hence, to the extent that Foucault's commentary on the Argentine and the ‘monstrosity’ of his Chinese tencylopedia proves vital fo the project of The Order of Things. we mighe also conclude that Borges plays a pivotal roe atthe historical [juncture between the modern and the postmodem. and promises | to be instrumental in the formulation of a poststructural discourse. | the main question that needs-to be answered In this respect | concems the articulation of the fist and the second half of Foucault's preface. In other words, how does the commentary on the Chinese encyclopedia relate to Foucaults brief remarks In the preface about his archaeological method? How can Foucault's Cassfcation of eplstemal arise out of the “impossibility to think that* namely Borges taxonomy? The effectiveness of this ar- ticultion, | will argue, depends upon a reversal which Is made possible by the ambivalence of the "monstrous," which, to use Nietssche's words, Is at once “great” and “grotesque for Foucault, “the monstrosity [in Borges’ classification] does not fect any real body. nor does it produce modifications of any kind in the bestiary of the Imagination’ (OT xl). In fact, “Imonstrosity| would not even be present at all In this classiica- tion had it not insinuated itself into the empty space, the Intrst- tial Banks separating all these entities from one another (OT xv) More specifically, Foucault adds, "the monstrosity that runs through Borges's enumeration consists ... In the fact that the ‘common ground on which such meetings are possible has itself been ruined" (OT x0), In other words, Borges “simply dispenses with the least obvious, but most compelling of necessities: he ‘does away with the site, the mute ground upon which It is possi ble for entities to be juxtaposed’ (OT xu, author's Italics). In Borges's Chinese encyclopedia, “things are ald,” ‘placed, ‘arranged’ in sites so very diferent from one another that I im- posible to find a place of residence for them, to define a locus ‘communis beneath them all" (OT xull-xvi, Foucault's emphasis) The reader who is familar with Foucault's ambitious project £0 order five centuries of European knowledge into three major epochs12 Literature and Society Cents anc Margins (F epistemal will no doubt wonder how The Order of Things can arise out of this “monstrosity” of Borges’: Chinese encyclopedia Only by virue of a paradoxical reversal can Horges's “unthinkable space.” or ‘non-place’ (OT xvi), constitute what Foucault literally «alls the “place of birth” of his archaeology of the human sci fences.® Before { discuss the logic behind this reversal, however, a few words are in order about the archaeological method itself, be- ‘cause itis only against the background of the problematic status of Foucault's own discourse that the hermeneutic of monstrosity ‘an fally be understood. To put the paradoxical status of Foucault's archaeology in ts most dramatic form, one could say that The Order of Things is @ book which sets the scene, both historically and theoretically, for ts own impossibility. As for the historical position of his own ds- ‘course, Foucault explicitly claims to write from within what he considers “our” modernity, ‘a modemity that we have not yet left behine" (OT xxiv). Yet, he also apocalyptically announces the end Of the ‘modern age." and thereby suggests that tis own discourse fon the human sciences somehow already comes after the modern ‘episteme, or is at least sufficiently distanced from modern humanism to be able to foretell ts imminent end. Foucault thereby forces himself into a well-igh impossible position, standing on Doth sides of the fence that separates the modern from Its as yet unnamed otiner—even though the Foucauldian view of radical epls- temic breaks clearly prohibits the crossing of such thresholds, On the theoretical and methodological level, the paradoxical status of Foucaults archaeology is even more glaring. Most commentators ‘agree that the method of archaeology itself cannot legitimately di entangle itself from the methodology of modern human sciences hich if aggressively cejects.© In other words. Foucault would be tunable not only to make an historical claim to come after the modem age. but he would also lack the ground theoretically to reach beyond the modem episteme, Im his most theoretical work. The Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault recognizes that it is perhaps impossible to situate his own discourse with respect to the modern human sclences. In the book's opening: pages, for example, he writes: have tried to de- fine this blank space ftom which | speak, and which is slowly ‘Monstosy and the Postmadem 13 taking shape in a discourse that {stil feel to be so precarious. and ‘so ursure" (17). Even toward the end of the book, Foucault's ar- chacology femains marked by a profound uncertainty: “Yor the moment, and as far ahead as | can see, my discourse, fa from de- ‘ering the locus in which it speaks. is avoiding the ground on \hich it could find support (205). The point to be made here, however, is not so much that Foucault ls conceding the fallure of his archaeological method. Rather, if one compares such alleged confessions in The Archaeology of Knowledge to Foucault's com- mentary on the "monstrosity. of Borges's encyclopedia in The (Order of Things. the conclusion imposes Itself that. In both cases, Foucailt arduously formulates an unusual theory of language and interpretation, namely one which no longer seeks support in any stable “ground” whatsoever. Far fiom leaving the door ajar for what cates consider the solutions of his “genealogical” works, Foucault is affiming a permanent feature of his discourse here, namely its Inesczpable groundlessness. None of the subsequent works of Foucault seeks to compensate for this absence of a ‘common locus" by providing his discourse with a stable polne of view from ‘where to speak. On the contrary, “as far ahead as he can see,” Foucault will write from a “blank space," that 1s, from the “unthinkable space’ or the “non-place of language’ found in Borgers Chinese encyclopedia, By nestling his discourse In the “Interstitial blanks" of the ‘order of things," Foucault grounds his archaeology of the human sciences In nothing less, and nothing, mote, than the “monstrosity” of Borges’ classification, ‘And yet, the question remains whether the anti-foundational hermeneutic of monstrosity is any better equipped to tear itself fee fiom the impasses of thought which Foucault reveals In mod- fem fumanism. As other commentators have Indicated, for example, the archaeological discourse cannot entirely free itself from the strategies of reversal which Foucault rejects so forcefully under the heading of what he calls the “analytic of nitude. One must discuss the proximities, therefore, between the hermeneutic fof menstrosity and the modern analytic of fnitude. ln a section from The Order of Things called ‘Monsters and Fossils.” moreover, Foucault provides us with the details to understand how positivity and monstrosity paradoxically are at one during the classical age.14 Literature and Society: Canters and Margins Finally, in later texts such as The Discourse on Language and “Monstrosities in Crltism,” Foucault retums once mote to. post- tion deliberately entangled in the hermeneutic of monstrosity, ‘According to Foucault, the analytic of finitude is what marks. ‘the threshold between the classical and the modem age (OT 312. 35), With the modern emergence of ‘man’ as both the subject and ‘object of the human sciences, the task of thought no longer con- sists in setting up a taxonomy or a theory of representation, a6 It was the case during the classical age. Instead, with language hav | ing ceased to be transparent. modern citical thinking is concerned | with an analytic of the conditions of possibility for any represen. | tation. Given the inescapable fintide of man, however, this | _anaytic will have to rely on a strange reversal By which, paradox | cally, man’s limitations double back upon themselves +o. provide thought with its intrinsic foundations. In other words, in the ana. Iytic of finitude. as Foucault writes, “the limits of knowledge Drovide the positive foundation forthe possibilty of knowing” (OT 317) To itystrate this reversal, Foucault gives an account of three ‘ways In which the fiitude of man's knowledge folds back upon i. self a5 If to liberate its foundations in a “veciprocal return or rcularity’ (OT 316). Only one of these so-called “doubles” will ‘occupy us here in the context of Borges and the hermeneutic of ‘monstrosity, namely the double of thinking and the unthought In the modem age, as Foucault polnts out, the human sclences Inevitably depend upon “the articulation of thought on everything Within it. around it, and beneath it which is not thought” (OT 324), Moder knowledge of the human being would be impossible, Foucault writes. without ‘the existence-mute, yet ready to speak, And secretly impregnated with a potential discourse—of that nor ‘known from which man Is perpetually summoned towards self knowledge" (OT 323, author's emphasis). Far fom constituting, an insurmountable obstacle to knowledge, the obscure and unre. fected double of man paradoxically ‘plays the role of a preliminary {round upon which man must collect himself and recall hime a ‘order to attain hls truth" (OT 327). Hence Foucaults assertion that “the whole of modern thought IS imbued with the necessity of thinking the unthoughe (OT 327) [Monstosty and the Postmedem 15 Paradoxically, the human sclences thus establish thelr knowledge against the background of “the whole sllent horizon of ‘what I posited In the sandy stretches of non-thought” (OT 323). However, considering Foucault's commentary on Botges's Chinese encyclopedia, should one not conclude that the discourse of ar chacobgy, 100, situates itself “In that dimension where thought addresses the unthought and articulates itself upon i" (OT 325)? By traysforming the “unthinkable space’ of ‘monstrosity’ into the absent ground of his discourse, Foucault Indeed repeats a scenario Of the analytic of fnitude, which he fejects as an essential part of the modern episteme. Through aberrations such as Borges's un- thinkable taxonomy, a culture, as Foucault writes. “Ands Itself faced with the stark fact that there exists, Below the level of spontaneous order, things that ate in themselves capable of being, fotdered. that belong to an unspoken order’ (OT xx). Yet this “un spoken order" is what atchaeology Intends to “uncover’ and “restore (OT xxiv). Paradoxically, therefore, Foucault grafts his ar chaeology. which Is an analysis of “the pure (naked, nue] experience of order and of lis modes of being’ (OT 0%), onto the wonderment” of Borges's taxonemy, which discloses “the stark naked, nue| impossibility of thinking that" (OT xy). By articulating itself fom the outset on the collapse of order, The Orcer of Things repeats the anatytic of fnitude of modem thoughe, passing almost imperceptibly from the “unspoken” and the “unthinkable” to thought, and from the “Impossibility of thinking” to Its recondite “eondiions of possibilty. The hermeneutic of monstrosity not only harks back t0 the analytic of fnitude of the modem age. One can also consider The Onder of Things a table ot taxonomy of the kind typically found in the classical age.® In that case, the fallure of Foucault's commentators to consider the double role of Borges's “monstrosity.” both as a thyeat and as a promise for archaeology, becomes even more surprising, Foucault dedicates Indeed an entire section of The Orcer of Things to the function of "Monsters and Fossils within taxonomies of the classical episteme (OT 150-57) Classfcations of forms of life and theie evolution, Foucault wetes, ‘often cary with them “the necessity of introducing monsters Into the scheme—forming the background noise. as it were, the endless16 etn ac Soe Contes ane ergs tmurmur of nature’ (OT 155) lgmeentvcentuy scents who wy the order o things. fhe most apoaenty Base fone) Cone toe Iris ony, perhaps. By dof that nature succeeds in producing wih a more symmeticalstctue” (OT 59). hee Aton of monsters Fuca exis. "snecesnay to onebe ag work down again fom the contium - tothe ttle wor ioe Appi to Foucauts own csieaton, tis means tit the One| of Tangs provides ws withthe hey to andentand the ners Borgee's ‘monstiour Invention for Fotcalts choca ea “able” | ‘Thus, at the margins of his corpus, in one Argentine’s fvocnpl Ceseencydopeda. Fost dcovrs te sas center of hs archaeology ofthe human scenes, te Secon | Pole, a ft were the endless mum of nature: welch cena | within stound ad beneath the “nce ef ngs tn the cone af the vst fertory charted. namely ‘Eropean atte sree ae de teenth century {OT 386), Fovcaut covers lank space fon wee he can speak the only space: pemap, Hinting nha Ahead on the ether side of the fence, beyond amen a Bolnting toward the posimodem, yor sill neatly eroore the impasses of modem thought and easel one In Foucault racing of Borges, monsrosiy- has become the absent center ofan una too of language ont near As Foyt ineates in The Discourse on Language note te own lis, eveycacipnerecgntacs te ah ble pone but. on the other se offs main. repuses wile onc of knowledge" 223). Te innovation of foveits homeneae, morse, then, consis in gang the aichology ot hee sige onto tis teatology of hnowledge. by aleeevetne we condone ofboth tive and false Knowedge even among te ‘onsters om te prow (228) Tb 4 lesson Fost ee cnly fom Borges but fom hs menor, Ceonges Coreen wn insist, In The Nomal and the Fusotagal, the receigy mea even the obligation of enhancing the knowledge ot oer fornation by wing knowledge about monstous feeaiens (oh Perhaps no One hes accomplished thy feat bette Ten rewceg ‘Monstrosity and the Postmedem ~ 17 Thus, Foucault quotes one When he reveals Borges to be something of “a true monster” at sites that “ar fom dlsturbing ONCE “seat” and “grotesque. By way of conclusion. I would like to turn to a short text Producing monstrous beings publsted by Foucault in reply to two reviews of his work. inthis, beings of greater regularty and text, “‘Monstrosities in Criticism,” Foucault starts out by question- “the prolifer- Ing the distinction between “good” and "bad" criticism: hope that one day the old eivisions willbe abolished, ‘The vague moral criterion will no longer be used which op poses the “honest” and. ‘dishonest’ criticism —the ‘good fxicism whieh respects the texts of which fe speaks, and the baat criticism which deforms them. All crtcismy wil appear as transformations. .. which al have their principles land their laws. And these petits textes with the sloping brow, the crooked legs, and the veering eye, that one commonly despises, will enter in the dance where they will execute movements nelther more nor less honorable than the others. One will no longer seek to reply to them nor to silence thelr din, but rather fo find the reason for their mis- shapenness, their lameness. thelr sightess eyes, thelr ong. fea. (58, author's italics) Foucault here offers his readers a splendid summaty of the hermeneutic of monstrosity and the role played by a petit texte lke Borges's Chinese encyclopedia In The Order of Things. The “'monstiosity’ of Borges's crooked classification of animals in one way foms an Imposture within the archaeology of epistemal ‘charted by Foucault. And yet, this “monster provides the ideal “birthplace” for Foucault's Inquiry, because It summons the ar- ‘chaeologist to find the reason for its misshapenness, the principles and the laws that govern its monstrosity, For an hermeneutic of ‘monstrosity, as Foucault writes in the same reply, the impostures ‘within ertical space are lke monsters within the realm of ling: nevertheless coherent possibilities" (58). Hence, even when George Steines, one of the targeted reviewers of The Onder of Things, allegedy “transforms the book into a sort of monster of In- Coherence,” Foucault seems willing to grant him the honor of hhaving Invented a kind of “rticism-Retion,” which deserves an feamest archaeological reading precisely because of the monstrosity. Only. as Foucault concludes, “it is a shame that18° unveate ana Society Centers and Margins ‘Monstrosity and the Pestmedem 19 GES whe has genius, has already invented citism-Retion! bia Sbreytus and Rabinaw, “The Methodological Flue of Archacology” —— (79-100), and the conclusion of Harland’s chapter “Foucault ae Notes Archeologist” (116-20), Toreyfus and Rablnow, “Man and Hils Doubles: The Analytic of Finute” anc “Concision: Double Trouble (26-43 and 90-100), To menton only few examples: Ec Pama labels Berges “at even erally, Foucault draws up a General Table’ of the seventeenth, Renate chaud one spontaneously identies with titeature Lien (acne SAN Seats a Teneoay to Berger pacts ef ctaton eM an ictonth canes {OT 200, ee Be se apes oa len ere Mowry aries Ct Borger rare Dus ale ofthe Case ‘Age ae eee ak too wenn eee SIE WIG Is monte forthe sector ef tence on te aly break becscon the Ree of Renee conan nents acs Sau 8, Serge Chanpen gous" Ae an, a ep contnaty ih epee on Ramite Phenomenology” In the Borscsan oxperence’ othe] matroue's Gérard Ganette speaks about “Pleie Menard? se “el Mave haere aansion of the principle of minimal parody” (366), whne| WORKS Cited mene Hust ascuses the sae soy as one of Berges exeapnn Borges, Jorge Luis. The Analytical Language of John Wilkins.” Oeher “als of patimpsests and monstrous hon” (250-65, Ingulsttions 1937-1952 . Trans: Ruth L. C. Simms, Introd. gre reel aay, Desa ain fx maple] es Eby cate ive Ce SSMS, od Sol lore Foucault's prac. Genty OSulvan does aoote Foon] BE fey aa arate ths fone foe of the queston of er | Mgt, Georges. The Normal and the Pathologic, Tas, fermi. An excalent analysis of Foucault's comm “a{_ Cifolyn R Fawcett anc Robert S. Cohen. Intcod, Michel avid Carrots (3-59) menuss Somemeneary on Borges ts} Foucault. New York Zone, 1931 ES Carol, Davi. Paraestheties: Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida, New York: rea, Rabinow, for example, mention Foucault's “promised | Ae Dav: Para Resigns nace eh ores miseries unpeat Soge pone an CCompagnon, Antoine. La seconde main, ou le travail de la etstion, Suggestive, as though we the histay of he : Pas: Ecitions dy Seul, 1979. Pee eee eed eae pees eee Abnége de cuture borgésienne, cam Sea Heistnc, Gas, Moder, and Posen | RM Noé! Blandin, 1987, m Stu (109) Foucault, Michel. Les mots et les choses: Une archéologte du savoir ona Se Same, the chapters “oucaule and Stuctutism’ ana} OUR: Mahal Les mers cro eaten’ in Alin Meghl (188-56). Whether or oot| —. Ihe Orter oF oe An Achacology ofthe Himan Sciences. New Yorke Vintages 1970. oe a ets om he dcotnay ox} _ NEW York: Vinge, 1970 ooo Fovcnlts work, usualy te sti fom Fovcaudan "ciacelogy : : - ens. Alan M. Sheridan Smith. New York: Pantheon, 1975 pvc Fa cn fam, ee, sam te] — yeasts Sh: New Yor: Fate, 1978. Cranage Hm, CE Hata, Toucaut ws Artaeniogs” and Touenut as | ~~ ovate in Genelots (101-2, an 155.60, Genete, Gerard, Palimpsestes. La feature au second degre, Pat: Pl Tech opening of Les mots at choses Weray reas. | ions a Seah Ss "| Harland Richard. Supersructuralism; The Philosophy of Struc: "Cente a son teu de aisance dans un tents de Bowens : . baeeellll ‘urs and Post-Stracturalism, London: Methuen, 1987. Huet, Marie-Helene. Monstrous Imagination. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.20 teratre and Society Ce and Mergins ‘Megil Allan. Prophets of Extremity: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Dertda. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1885, ‘Mourey, Jean-Pierre, jorge Luis Borges, vérté et univers fctionnels. Liege: Pierre Mardaga, 1988. Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil, Prelude to a Philosophy of the Futute. Trans. R'}. Hollingdate, London Penguin, 1990, OSulivan, Gerry. “The Libray Is on Fire; Intertextuality In Borges. and Foucault Borges and His Successors. ‘The Borgesian Impact on Literature and the Arts. Ed. Edna Alsenbers, Columbia: University of Missourl Press, 1990, 109-121Literature and Society: Centers and Margins