There are, in the
notes for Kierkegaard’s Repetition, a
number of variations around the subtitle, which Howard and Edna Hong translate
as “A venture in Experimenting Psychology”. Kierkegaard also tried
“Experimenting Philosophy” and “Experimental-Philosophy”.
This is a suggestive
subtitle for a book about – or at least entitled – repetition, since experiment
itself is a form of human activity that, ideally, verifies the theories that it
is meant to test by creating a situation that can ideally always be repeated by
any competent operator. In the dialectical sense in which Constantine Constantius
(who may be the experimentor of the book – or may be the subject of the book’s
experiment), in a sense the experiment is already repeated even in its very
first instance, since it is intended from the beginning to be repeatable – it
is designed along the lines of repetition.
But there is another
sense in which just the opposite is the case. In Hans Christian Ørsted and the
romantic legacy in science, Robert M. Brain points to the Danish scientist
Ørsted’s distrust, perhaps via Goethe or
Schelling, of the Newtonian kind of experimentum cruces on the grounds that
what the experiment shows may well very with the angle of observation: “It is
inherent in the infinitude of Nature that no observer can discover all that is
implied by an experiment.” Ørsted is not a negligible figure. This account from Physics World gives the
abbreviated version:
:”While giving a
lecture on electricity, electrochemistry and magnetism in the spring of 1820,
the Danish scientist Hans Christian Ørsted noticed something remarkable: the
magnetic needle he was using for one of his demonstrations was deflected by an
electric current in a nearby wire. The discovery of this (at first sight)
simple and feeble phenomenon came as a great surprise to the scientific
community. According to established beliefs among leading scientists in Paris
(then the centre of physics and chemistry research), an interaction between
electricity and magnetism was not to be expected. Therefore, nobody in Paris
was looking for such a connection. But as soon as its existence was realized,
electromagnetism sparked a new and extremely fruitful area of physics research.
Its discovery was a key step towards understanding the unification of the
forces of nature, and it is hard to imagine what life would look like today
were it not for the countless telecommunication inventions based on
electromagnetism.”
Brain argues that the
Romantic fascination with the fragment served as an image for the experiment –
which, instead of presenting itself as a designed repetition, becomes, instead,
an insight into some particular in the infinite stream of nature. Schlegel’s
aphorism goes:
“A fragment must be
like a little artwork taken totally away from the surrounding world and perfect
in itself, like a hedgehog.”
From this point of
view, the design of an experiment, and its performance, was as singular as a
poem or painting, requiring the high ingenuity of a … well, Dr. Frankenstein or
Faust, to name the avatars.
2.
The experiment in
psychology calls to its mirror image, or negative: the psychology of the
experiment. Which, I believe, is a rather neglected subject. If we take
repetition to be at the heart of the experiment, the Freudian hypothesis that
repetition is connected to the death drive – a hypothesis that Freudian normalizers
in the U.S. considered an embarrassment – then we have at least one entrance to
the experimental framework: it must be cruel.
The notion of the
experiment as an exercise in cruelty played a major role in Kierkegaard’s
battle with the Corsair, when Moller, his opponent, rightly picked up on the
cruelty involved in using an ‘experimental’ method on people, or putting a girl
in the “experimental rack.” The point of view on cruelty shifts in relation to
the terms in which the discourse is expressed – what is cruelty from the
ethical point of view is not so from the aesthetic – and from the religious
point of view, as Kierkegaard writes in the Edifying Discourse, “… the cruelty
consists in the fact that the Christian has to live in this world and express
in the environment of this world what it is to be a Christian.”
There is, at this
point, a two-fold question: the first is, what kind of ‘experimenter’ is
Constantin Constantinus, the pseudonymn-author of Repetition? And the second
is, what does it mean to write a text under the sign of the ‘experiment”? How
is a text, formally, an experiment at all?
The first question
returns us to the romantic view of the experiment. The romantic physicist
Johann Wilhelm Ritter, as Brain notices in his essay on the Experiment as
Fragment, actually classified physics and poetry as similar kinds of fields,
and wrote an essay entitled Physics as Art. Kierkegaard’s notion of the
aesthetic seems, similarly, to extend to the observation and construction of
science as well as poetry. What may seem to be temptation, in the religious
sphere, is here a kind of trial and error procedure.
In Repetition, C.C.
refers to a story by Justinus Kerner. Kerner, as it happens, wrote the official
biography of Mesmer – and it was certainly in Mesmer’s circle that the first
‘psychological experiments’ were carried out. As it happened, many of the
‘subjects’ who became most famous for being easy to induce into trances were
women. The Marquis de Puységur left a note about a conversation he had with one
of his sonambules, a woman named Genieve. I can’t say that Kierkegaard read
these memoirs – I can say that there is an intersigne between Repetition – in
which, at one point, C.C. describes himself chasing flies with a fly swatter –
and Puységur’s note:
One day I questioned a
woman in the magnetic state about the extension of the empire I could exercise
upon her. I had without even telling her forced her, as a joke, to give me some
blows with a fly swatter that she held in her hand. Well, I said, since you are
obliged to hit me, who are only doing you good, I bet that I could, if I
absolutely wanted to, make you do anything I wanted; for instance, I could make
you take off your clothes, for instance, etc… No, monsieur, she said to me, it
isn’t the same; what I am doing doesn’t seem good, and I resisted doing it a
long time, but in the end it is only a joke so I yielded, since you absolutely
wanted it; but as to what you just said, you could never force me to take off
my last garments – my shoes, my bonnet, as much as you please, but after that
you will obtain nothing.”
The relation that C.C.
establishes with the young man is, one could say, designed as an experiment in
suggestion; with the woman he is in love with, one could say, C.C. views her as
a side effect – the strong homoerotic band is with the young man; and finally
there is C.C.’s own experiment of a return to Berlin. Yet one view of the book
is that it is itself – in its totality, including its authorship – an
experiment performed by Kierkegaard.
Of course, there are
other psychological experiments in Kierkegaard’s works – which seem, at certain
points, to merge with the idea of seduction.
3.
It is the links here,
always the links: chains, connections,
intersignes, in which an eighteenth century scene of experiment/seduction is
played out on a woman - Puysegur’s patient - who resists him, in the end,
allowing him the fetish objects - shoe or bonnet - but nothing more. And the
odd commonality of the fly swatter to stand out - passed from the patient's hand
to C.C.'s, chasing after the revolutionary flies of Berlin.
Under the pressure of
the observer's gaze, we watch the experiment as a situation under the control
of the pseudonym slip out of his hands, and see it appear in Kierkegaard’s
hands, where instead of an experiment applied by C.C. to his 'subjects', it is
applied to the text itself - the text is an experiment about experiments. And
so we have outlined the first problem, the problem of the first page, the
problem of the title.
The problem – psychological?
Textual? Scientific? then – such is the way of this slippery signifier – seems
to slip at this moment, while we are adjusting our glasses, looking at the
screen - where we read the text - out of Kierkegaard’s hands too - or out of
his control. For what kind of control does our author behind the author have?
Why is it that experiment and seduction, experiment and the female, keep
finding each other? And not according to the protocols of the manipulated
chance in which the experimenter excels, but according to the protocols of
nemesis, of fate, of obsession, of luck, it seems. And the experimenter – who
is he, and what are his standards? What are his ‘controls”? What is his
institutional background?
The institutional
background – science, art, religion – is not just a matter of existential
stages. Constantine Constantinus, after all, appears so unattached to economic
activity, and so, consequently, at leisure to collect cases, a situation that –
perhaps – is the reason the young man in Repetition finds him odd – and later
on, decides that he is mad. If madness
is lack of labor – or if madness is labor that is not socially recognized… And
if madness creates situations that are, to the madman’s gaze, experiments, although
not so recognized by any others in the social order...
Of course, it is true
that this has also happened, in the twentieth century, within institutional
psychology. The famous Milgram experiment, for instance, about which one can
also ask about its double form – for the participants thought they were in one
experiment when they were really in another. They thought they were seeing how
much pain a subject could take, when they were really subjects testing how much
they would obey an order.
The Milgram experiment
is, in a strong sense, a gloss on the psychology of the experiment. It is in a
line going back to Kierkegaard. And going forward to another figure, a
fictional one, who also lacks a socially recognized labor profile.
Who appeared in 1841, in a story in a magazine
published on the other side of the
Atlantic: Dupin.
“A certain set of
highly ingenious resources are, with the Prefect, a sort of Procrustean bed, to
which he forcibly adapts his designs. But he perpetually errs by being too deep
or too shallow, for the matter in hand; and many a schoolboy is a better
reasoner than he. I knew one about eight years of age, whose success at
guessing in the game of 'even and odd' attracted universal admiration. This
game is simple, and is played with marbles. One player holds in his hand a
number of these toys, and demands of another whether that number is even or
odd. If the guess is right, the guesser wins one; if wrong, he loses one. The
boy to whom I allude won all the marbles of the school. Of course he had some
principle of guessing; and this lay in mere observation and admeasurement of
the astuteness of his opponents. For example, an arrant simpleton is his
opponent, and, holding up his closed hand, asks, 'are they even or odd?' Our schoolboy
replies, 'odd,' and loses; but upon the second trial he wins, for he then says
to himself, 'the simpleton had them even upon the first trial, and his amount
of cunning is just sufficient to make him have them odd upon the second; I will
therefore guess odd;'—he guesses odd, and wins. Now, with a simpleton a degree
above the first, he would have reasoned thus: 'This fellow finds that in the
first instance I guessed odd, and, in the second, he will propose to himself,
upon the first impulse, a simple variation from even to odd, as did the first
simpleton; but then a second thought will suggest that this is too simple a
variation, and finally he will decide upon putting it even as before. I will
therefore guess even;'—he guesses even, and wins. Now this mode of reasoning in
the schoolboy, whom his fellows termed 'lucky,'—what, in its last analysis, is
it?"
"It is
merely," I said, "an identification of the reasoner's intellect with
that of his opponent."
"It is,"
said Dupin; "and, upon inquiring, of the boy by what means he effected the
thorough identification in which his success consisted, I received answer as
follows: 'When I wish to find out how wise, or how stupid, or how good, or how
wicked is any one, or what are his thoughts at the moment, I fashion the
expression of my face, as accurately as possible, in accordance with the
expression of his, and then wait to see what thoughts or sentiments arise in my
mind or heart, as if to match or correspond with the expression.' This response
of the schoolboy lies at the bottom of all the spurious profundity which has
been attributed to Rochefoucault, to La Bougive, to Machiavelli, and to
Campanella."
These trans-Atlantic
figures and their experiments. We still live in their shadows.