Читать книгу The Summer of Theory - Philipp Felsch - Страница 23

That is not merely a retrospective observation: it was the editors’ intention. Their correspondence, preserved in the German Literature Archives in Marbach, reveals an ambition to give form to a new style of thinking which was not only in tune with the times, but practically inevitable from their view of history. In the sixties, scholars had still favoured the big stories. Jacob Taubes, for one, certainly did: his arguments as one of the Suhrkamp consultants followed eschatological patterns. ‘There is no doubt’, he informed Karl Markus Michel in 1965, ‘that philosophy today is lagging behind, condemned to “thinking back”. Ethnology, linguistics, psychoanalysis, literary theory, film theory, even archaeology and history are modes in which the new consciousness is trying to express itself.’⁴⁸ The verdict that philosophy was at an end, which Taubes had phrased more drastically elsewhere, was not based on the observation of business cycles in academic scholarship: Taubes saw it, rather, as an inevitable consequence of the legacy of Hegelian dialectics, which had staked out the horizons within which the human mind, ‘from Ionia to Jena’, might find itself.⁴⁹ What came after it, in a society with division of labour, must necessarily take place between several disciplines. The committee of series editors cast about for a fitting name for ‘that field’.⁵⁰ The ‘consciousness of the present’ that they wanted to capture called for a style of modern objectivity.⁵¹ Dieter Henrich tossed ‘Critique’, ‘Argument’, ‘Concept’ and ‘Diagnosis’ into the hat.⁵² Taubes proposed ‘Humanitas’, after the example of a series of books that he had conceived in the 1950s for Beacon Press of New York.⁵³ The label that finally prevailed, however, as reflecting most of the participants’ ideas, was Theorie. One factor in the decision was no doubt the fact that the Parisian philosopher Louis Althusser had started a series called Théorie at Éditions Maspero in 1965.⁵⁴ Legions of French readers, and still more German ones, have him to thank for crucial reading experiences.

To readers of theory, the distinction between theory and philosophy has always been important – although not always for the historical reasons that Taubes mentioned. Taubes himself noted another critical difference – the new series, he wrote in a memo to Unseld during a flight back from Paris, should dispense with the ‘professorial philosophy of philosophy professors’: ‘The field lies between philosophy (“indirectly”), ethnology and literature.’⁵⁵ On this point at least, Taubes knew he was in agreement with Adorno, who had also proclaimed the ‘time of theory’ in his 1965 lecture: both saw the academic orientation of philosophy as an obstacle to knowledge. For that reason, theory’s self-conception has been, since the days of the Frankfurt School, that of a counter-discourse – against the question of Being, against the curriculum, and against the systematic philosophizing that Adorno had encountered as early as 1958 in the form of the essay: ‘radical in its non-radicalism, in refraining from any reduction to a principle, in its accentuation of the partial against the total, in its fragmentary character’.⁵⁶ Siegfried Unseld also insisted on publishing only short texts in the Theorie series.⁵⁷ In the 1970s, Peter Gente would make even shorter forms a hallmark of Merve. Theory was evidently not just a type of content, but a whole new culture of books. The genre’s form corresponded with the potential of the paperback.⁵⁸

Referring to himself in a letter to Unseld as a ‘hunting dog’ for Suhrkamp, Taubes threw himself with zeal into the task of defining the intellectual profile of the new series.⁵⁹ ‘He’s always thinking of new things, among which there are no doubt many important, even necessary works’, Karl Markus Michel noted in 1965 after a meeting in Berlin. But he added that Taubes’s proposals not only needed supervision – ‘they are almost eager for supervision’.⁶⁰ ‘Theory’ in 1965 mainly meant critical social theory along the lines of the New Left, and the idea of Taubes’s that met with the greatest approval from Michel was Karel Kosík’s Dialectics of the Concrete, the manifesto of a humanistic materialism from the thaw of Czechoslovakia. But Unseld had intentionally put together a group of series editors with internal checks and balances. Dieter Henrich was worried that Suhrkamp might use the series that he co-edited as an ‘ideological forum’.⁶¹ ‘All of that is indispensable’, he wrote to Unseld, who had set out for him what he understood by Enlightenment, ‘but is it everything? Enlightenment didn’t always come from “the left”. And when it did, often enough it was the adversary who had provoked the best arguments, or even supplied them.’⁶²

How deeply the Suhrkamp culture had intervened in the intellectual economy of West Germany can be seen from the misgivings of Hans Blumenberg. To Karl Markus Michel, he remained ‘the great unknown’ of the four-man editorial board: ‘How will he react when we show him our planning? Will he reject titles like Kosík?’⁶³ In the event, Blumenberg was opposed at first, but his hostility to the project was general. The very prospect of being one of a group of series editors rubbed him up the wrong way: he had had too many bad experiences ‘with collective enterprises’, he intimated to Michel. A more serious impediment was his scepticism towards the development ‘of our publishing industry, which is more and more turning into a brand segment’. As late as 1965, the project of an academic paperback series was still met with resistance among German scholars. It was the indefatigable Jacob Taubes who hit upon the idea of recruiting Blumenberg not only as an editor but as an author. ‘Hans Blumenberg has almost finished a book with the title “The Legitimacy of the Modern Age”’, Taubes wrote to Unseld in April of 1965. ‘I would ask you to ring him as soon as possible. He has offers from traditional philosophy publishers. But I think we can commandeer the work for Suhrkamp.’⁶⁴ The swashbuckling metaphor was well chosen: as it happened, Blumenberg had to be coerced to publish with Suhrkamp. Although Taubes’s plan called for The Legitimacy of the Modern Age to appear not as a paperback, but in the regular academic catalogue, Blumenberg baulked. He had no intention of entrusting his work to a publisher with a ‘yet unspecified reception’, which he saw as the home of ‘the more rhetorical Enlightenment authors and the philosophical essayists’.⁶⁵ To Karl Markus Michel, he expressed his trepidation ‘that the publisher might interfere in the preparation of the text and back matter for extraneous reasons’.⁶⁶ Blumenberg’s self-image as a philosopher was incompatible with the project of harnessing intellectual goals to the needs of the audience.

Only Jacob Taubes had no such qualms. He took up his activities as a Suhrkamp advisor with the objective of ‘overrunning and transforming the academic market’.⁶⁷ His tone in the reports he sent to Frankfurt from Paris and New York is thus not professorial; they read more like the situation analyses of a professional industry journalist. ‘Competition is keen’, he wrote to Michel from the US, where he was taking soundings, and recommended securing as many options as possible ‘because the market is rapidly being picked over from Germany.’ The publisher Rowohlt also had agents on the ground, whose monstrous salaries alone were evidence that they were expected to deliver results.⁶⁸ It is no coincidence that Taubes often slips English vocabulary, such as the word ‘competition’ above, into his market reports: only a knowledgeable scout would have been capable of his incisive analysis of the American culture industry.⁶⁹ His intellectual promiscuity, practically free of ideological reservations, also went well with his American habitus. As he later admitted in a book published by Merve, he even supported recruiting the ill-famed constitutional lawyer Carl Schmitt for Unseld’s academic catalogue – a project which failed to overcome Habermas’s resistance and Schmitt’s refusal to ‘enter the Suhrkamp culture’ with his books.⁷⁰

Taubes was a global player, however, concentrating his activities mainly on the international market. This was no doubt the role for which he had been chosen. And his dossiers taking stock of the theory books on the market in English and French say a great deal about the West German reception context. Who was Claude Lévi-Strauss again, the guy who landed a big hit in 1955 with Tristes tropiques? ‘The master who connects everything and has held the interest of intellectual circles in post-Existentialist France for years. L.-S. an ambivalent phenomenon. He thinks he’s the successor of Rousseau, Marx; has integrated elements of Marx, but his “structuralism” is ahistorical.’ And what should one make of Serge Maillet, the young author of The New Working Class, a book everyone was talking about among the Parisian Left? ‘Highly gifted, long in communist unions, but sees that the unions don’t see that a whole new physiognomy of the working class has evolved. Apart from him, such insights are pronounced only “from the right” (since E. Jünger’s The Worker). A talent for journalism; no professorship; not likely to get one.’⁷¹ Perhaps it is true that Taubes was able to grasp the content of a book just by touching it. What is certain, however, is that he knew how to sketch an intellectual landscape in a few quick strokes of the pen.

Getting the four professors to sit down together proved to be a difficult task. Dieter Henrich was eager to work with Habermas, but preferably not with Blumenberg. Blumenberg in turn recoiled from collaborating with Taubes, who he thought was an ‘unreliable fellow’.⁷² Taubes, for his part, had the feeling that he was doing more work than the others and refused to do so ‘for the same money’.⁷³ Nor did he make a secret of his disappointment on seeing the proofs of Blumenberg’s Legitimacy of the Modern Age, which he had so warmly recommended to Unseld.⁷⁴ Only Habermas struck Michel as being a dependable partner ‘without compulsion and without ambitions’, one who ‘quite spontaneously makes the most useful suggestions’. But Habermas was the one who, after a particularly tedious session with Henrich and Blumenberg, asked to be discharged from the ‘bubbling cauldron’ of the Theorie series. ‘I told him very plainly’, Michel reported to Unseld, ‘that the series had been conceived with a view to his collaboration, and that we would not be interested in publishing it if he withdrew.’⁷⁵ The editor’s desperate sigh is understandable: ‘It is a shame’, Michel noted, ‘that we do not yet have the technical means to hold conferences without the simultaneous presence of all the participants.’⁷⁶

In spite of the difficulties with the series editors, Unseld and Michel hammered out a first autumn list between 1965 and 1966. The market for theory seemed too promising to permit unnecessary delays. To put weight behind Suhrkamp’s presence, the new series was initially supposed to be flanked by a journal in which ‘in each issue, various philosophers or scholars would critically look at a major philosophical or scientific book (or a life’s work)’.⁷⁷ Taubes was easily won for this project too: ‘The time for a journal is well chosen, since Merkur and Neue deutsche Hefte seem to be nearing their end.’ As titles for a periodical that would carry on the anticipated legacy of those cultural reviews, he suggested ‘Janus’ and ‘Angelus novus’. The rest of his offer to Michel in August of 1965 sounded less like a collaboration than a friendly takeover. The responsible editor would be Taubes’s partner, the Freie Universität philosopher Margherita von Brentano; Berlin seemed to be the best address for the editorial offices. As the chair of a well-endowed department, Taubes held out the prospect of throwing ‘four to five student assistants into the journal’s pot’ as editorial staff – including a certain Peter Gente, whom Michel might know ‘as the editor of an issue of Alternative on French literary theory’.⁷⁸ Thus Gente came within a hair’s breadth in 1965 of landing in the Suhrkamp culture. But the journal, whether Janus or Angelus novus, never saw the light of day. Enzensberger’s Kursbuch, which appeared in a pilot issue the same year, probably made another Suhrkamp periodical seem superfluous.

Nonetheless, the episode left a mark. Taubes’s activity as an editorial advisor brought his assistant Gente into contact with the publishing world. His hope of working in publishing gradually took shape during the second half of the sixties. Gente experienced the events of the period as one of the inner circle of the student movement, from the shooting of the student Benno Ohnesorg by a policeman during protests against the Shah of Iran’s visit to Berlin, to the battle between police and students in front of the Berlin courthouse in Tegeler Weg on the day of a hearing to disbar Horst Mahler.⁷⁹ But even in those tumultuous years of 1967 and 1968, Gente continued to read voraciously. In 1968, he edited a publication of Joseph Stalin’s 1950 pamphlet on ‘Marxism and Problems of Linguistics’ for the Munich publishers Rogner & Bernhard.⁸⁰ The following year, he developed a concept for a book series of his own. In contrast to his uneven seminar papers, the business idea he pitched to publishers is surprisingly mature, reflecting the acumen of a hunter-gatherer who had been roaming the woods of the intellectual journals for the past ten years. Gente’s concept was to publish theory finds ‘whose prior distribution allows us to assume that the reader interest has not been exhausted’ in a booklet format. He was thinking mainly of articles from foreign journals on discussions ‘in which the last word has not yet been spoken’. The little book on the situation at hand: that was a logical next step from Suhrkamp’s Theorie paperbacks, which were just asking to be outbid. Gente imagined catering for the ‘demand for orientation in the social sciences among a broad diversity of readerships’, audiences which ‘up to now have been considered as a relatively unified public only for fiction’.⁸¹ Gente himself had been a part of the chapter of West German intellectual history that this sentence evokes: the shift in reading habits, the declining relevance of artistic writing and the ascendancy of theoretical literature. Theory was to be devoured like novels, and hence made suitable for paperbacks: around 1970, this formula spawned a new growth market. And yet Gente did not succeed in attracting a publisher. Sooner or later, the idea arose of founding his own publishing house. West Berlin, with its low rents, was the ideal place to do so.⁸²