In Praise Of Profanation

Author(s): Giorgio Agamben and Jeff Fort

Source: Log, No. 10 (Summer/Fall 2007), pp. 23-32
Published by: Anyone Corporation
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41765153
Accessed: 20-11-2015 09:48 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Anyone Corporation is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Log.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:48:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Giorgio
Agamben
Translated
fromtheItalian In Praise
Port
h Jeff
Of Profanation

Editor'sNote: Thefollowing
is The Romanjuristsknewperfectly well whatit meantto
excerptedfromGiorgio "profane." Sacred or religiouswere thethingsthatin some
Agamben' s Profanations, way belongedto thegods.As such,theywereremovedfrom
forthcoming fromZone Books
. thefreeuse and commerceof men;theycouldbe neither
soldnorheldin lien,neithergivenforusufruct norburdened
by servitude.Any act that violatedor transgressedthisspe-
cial unavailability,
whichreservedthesethingsexclusively
forthecelestialgods(in whichcase theywereproperly
called"sacred") or forthegodsof theunderworld(in which
case theyweresimplycalled"religious"),was sacrilegious.
Andif "to consecrate"( sacrare) was thetermthatindicated
theremovalof thingsfromthesphereof humanlaw,"to
profane"meant,conversely, to returnthemto thefreeuse of
men.The greatjuristTrebatiusthuswrote,"In thestrict
sense,profaneis thetermforsomething thatwas oncesacred
or religiousand is returnedto theuse and property of men."
And"pure"was theplace thatwas no longerallottedto the
godsof thedead and was now "neithersacred,norholy,nor
1.Justinian, 11.7.2.
Digesta religious,freedfromall namesof thissort."1
2.Henri
HubertandMarcel
Mauss, The thingthatis returnedto thecommonuse of menis
ItsNature
Sacrifice: and
Function
,trans.
W.D.Halls
(Chicago: of
University pure,profane,freeof sacrednames.Butuse doesnotappear
Press,
Chicago 1964). hereas something natural:rather,one arrivesat it onlyby
meansofprofanation. Thereseemsto be a peculiarrelation-
ship between "using" and "profaning" thatwe mustclarify.

Religioncan be definedas thatwhichremovesthings,places,

animals,or peoplefromcommonuse and transfers themto a
separatesphere.Not onlyis there no religionwithoutsepa-
ration,buteveryseparationalso containsor preserves within
itselfa genuinelyreligiouscore.The apparatusthateffects
and regulatestheseparationis sacrifice:througha seriesof
meticulousrituals,whichdiffer in variousculturesand
whichHenriHubertand MarcelMauss havepatiently
inventoried,sacrificealwayssanctionsthepassageof some-
thing from theprofaneto thesacred,fromthehumansphere
to thedivine.2Whatis essentialis thecaesurathatdividesthe
twospheres,thethresholdthatthevictimmustcross,no
matterin whichdirection.Thatwhichhas beenrituallysep-
aratedcan be returnedfromtheriteto theprofanesphere.
V>

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:48:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Thus one of thesimplestformsofprofanation occurs
throughcontactÇcontagione) during thesame sacrifice
that
and regulatesthepassageof thevictimfromthe
effects
humanto thedivinesphere.One partof thevictim(the
entrails,or exta: theliver,heart,gallbladder,
lungs)is
reservedforthegods,whiletherestcan be consumedby
men.The participants in theriteneedonlytouchthese
organsfor them to become profaneand edible.Thereis a
profanecontagion, a touch thatdisenchantsand returnsto
use whatthesacredhad separatedand petrified.

The termreligiodoesnotderive,as an insipidand incorrect

etymology would haveit,fromreligare(thatwhichbinds
and unitesthehumanand thedivine).It comesinsteadfrom
relegereywhichindicatesthestanceof scrupulousness and
attention thatmustbe adoptedin relationswiththegods,the
uneasyhesitation(the "rereading[rileggere]"^) beforeforms
- and formulae- thatmustbe observedin orderto respect
theseparationbetweenthesacredand theprofane.Religiois
notwhatunitesmenand godsbutwhatensurestheyremain
distinct. andindifference
It is notdisbelief towardthedivine,
therefore, thatstandin oppositionto religion,but"negli-
gence,"thatis, a behaviorthatis freeand "distracted"(that
is to say,releasedfromthereligioof norms)beforethings
and theiruse,beforeformsof separationand theirmeaning.
To profanemeansto openthepossibility of a specialformof
negligence, which ignoresseparationor,rather,putsit to a
particularuse.

The passagefromthesacredto theprofanecan,in fact,also

comeaboutbymeansof an entirely inappropriate use (or,
rather,reuse) of thesacred:namely,play.It is well known
thatthespheresofplayand thesacredare closelyconnected.
Mostof thegameswithwhichwe are familiarderivefrom
ancientsacredceremonies, fromdivinatory practicesand rit-
uals thatoncebelonged,broadlyspeaking,to thereligious
sphere.The girotondo a marriagerite;playing
was originally
witha ball reproducesthestruggleof thegodsforpossession
of thesun;gamesof chancederivefromoracularpractices;
thespinningtopand thechessboardwereinstruments of
divination.In analyzingtherelationshipbetweengamesand
rites,Emile Benveniste shows thatplaynot onlyderives
fromthesphereof thesacredbutalso in somewaysrepre-
sentsitsoverturning. The powerof thesacredact,he writes,
liesin theconjunctionof themyththattellsthestoryand
theritethatreproducesand stagesit.Playbreaksup this
24

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:48:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 unity:as ludus, or physicalplay,it dropsthemythand pre-
servestherite;as iocus, or wordplay,it effacestheriteand
allowsthemythto survive."If thesacredcan be defined
throughtheconsubstantial unityof mythand rite,we can
say that one has playwhen onlyhalfof thesacredoperation
is completed,translating onlythemythintowordsor only
3.Emile "Lejeucomme
Benveniste, theriteintoactions."*
structure," 2(1947):
Deucalion 165.
4.Walter "Franz
Benjamin, Kafka,"
This meansthatplayfreesand distracts humanityfrom
Selected Volume
Writings,2, ,ed.
1927-1914 the sphere of the sacred, without simplyabolishingit.The
Michael
W. Howard
Jennings, Eiland, use to whichthesacredis returnedis a
Smith
andGary MA:
(Cambridge, specialone thatdoes
Press,
Belknap 815.
1999), notcoincidewithutilitarian consumption. In fact,the"pro-
fanation"ofplaydoesnotsolelyconcernthereligious
sphere.Children,who playwithwhateverold thingfalls
intotheirhands,maketoysout of thingsthatalso belongto
thespheresof economics,war,law,and otheractivitiesthat
we are used to thinking of as serious.Allof a sudden,a car,a
firearm, or a legalcontractbecomesa toy.Whatis common
to thesecasesand theprofanation of thesacredis thepassage
froma religiothatis now feltto be falseor oppressiveto neg-
ligenceas verareligio . This,however,doesnotmeanneglect
(no kindof attention can compareto thatof a childat play)
buta new dimensionof use,whichchildrenand philo-
sophersgiveto humanity. It is thesortof use thatBenjamin
musthavehad in mind when he wroteof Kafka'sTheNew
Attorney thatthelaw thatis no longerappliedbutonlystud-
ied is thegatetojustice.4Justas thereligiothatis playedwith
butno longerobservedopensthegateto use,so thepowers
[potenze]of economics,law,and politics,deactivatedin play,
can becomethegatewaysto a new happiness.

Playas an organofprofanation is in declineeverywhere.

Modernmanproveshe no longerknowshow to playpre-
ciselythroughthevertiginous proliferation of new and old
at in
games.Indeed, parties, dances, and at play,he desper-
atelyand stubbornly seeks exactly oppositeofwhathe
the
couldfindthere:thepossibility of reentering thelostfeast,
returning to thesacredand itsrites,even in theformof the
inaneceremoniesof thenew spectacularreligionor a tango
lessonin a provincialdancehall.In thissense,televisedgame
showsare partof a new liturgy;theysecularizean uncon-
sciouslyreligiousintention.To returnto playitspurelypro-
fanevocationis a politicaltask.
In thissense,we mustdistinguish betweensecularization
and profanation. Secularizationis a formofrepression. It
leavesintacttheforcesit dealswithbysimplymovingthem
fromone placeto another.Thus thepoliticalsecularization of
25

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:48:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 theologicalconcepts(the transcendence of God as a para-
of
digm sovereignpower) does but
nothing displacethe
heavenlymonarchy onto an earthlymonarchy, leavingits
power intact.
Profanation, however,neutralizeswhatitprofanes. Once
profaned, that which was unavailableand separate losesits
aura and is returnedto use. Botharepoliticaloperations: the
firstguaranteestheexerciseofpowerbycarrying it backto a
sacredmodel;theseconddeactivates theapparatuses ofpower
and returnsto commonuse thespacesthatpowerhad seized.

Philologists neverceaseto be surprisedbythedouble,con-

tradictory meaningthattheverbprofanare seemsto havein
Latin:it means,on theone hand,to renderprofaneand,on
theother(in onlya fewcases), to sacrifice. It is an ambiguity
thatseemsinherent in thevocabularyofthesacredas such:
theadjectivesacermeansboth"august,consecrated to the
gods," and (as Freudnoted)"cursed, excluded from the com-
munity." The ambiguity at issueheredoesnotarisesolely
out of a misunderstanding butis, so to speak,constitutive of
theprofanatory - or, of the
operation inversely, consecratory
one. Insofaras theseoperationsreferto a singleobjectthat
mustpassfromtheprofaneto thesacredand fromthesacred
to theprofane,theymusteverytimereckonwithsomething
likea residueofprofanity in everyconsecrated thingand a
remnantof sacrednessin everyprofanedobject.
The sameis trueof thetermsacer.It indicatesthat
which,throughthesolemnact ofsacrario or devorio (when a
commanderconsecrates hislifeto thegodsof theunder-
worldin orderto ensurevictory),has beengivenoverto the
godsand belongsexclusivelyto them.Andyet,in theexpres-
sionhomosacer, theadjectiveseemsto indicatean individual
who,havingbeenexcludedfromthecommunity, can be
killedwithimpunity butcannotbe sacrificed to thegods.
Whatexactlyhas occurredhere?A sacredman,one who
belongsto thegods,has survivedtheritethatseparatedhim
fromothermenand continuesto lead an apparently profane
existenceamongthem.Althoughhe livesin theprofane
world,thereinheresin his bodyan irreducible residueof
sacredness.This removeshimfromnormalcommercewith
hiskindand exposeshimto thepossibility ofviolentdeath,
whichreturnshimto thegodsto whomhe trulybelongs.As
forhis fatein thedivinesphere,he cannotbe sacrificed and
is excludedfromthecultbecausehislifeis alreadytheprop-
ertyof thegods,and yet,insofaras it survivesitself,so to
speak,it introducesan incongruousremnantofprofanity
26

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:48:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 intothedomainof thesacred.That is to say,in themachine
of sacrifice,
sacredand profanerepresent thetwopolesof a
system in which a travels
floatingsignifier fromone domain
to theotherwithoutceasingto referto thesameobject.This
is preciselyhow themachineensuresthedistribution ofuse
amonghumansand divinebeingsand can eventuallyreturn
whathad beenconsecrated to thegodsto men.Hencethe
mingling of thetwo operationsin Romansacrifice, in which
one partof thesameconsecrated victimis profanedbycon-
tagion and consumed by men, whileanotheris assignedto
thegods.

Fromthisperspective, it becomeseasierto understand why,

in theChristianreligion,theologians, and
pontiffs, emperors
had to showsuchobsessivecareand implacableseriousness
in ensuring,as faras possible,thecoherenceandintelligibility
of thenotionsof transubstantiation in thesacrificeof the
massand incarnationand homousia in thedogmaof thetri-
nity.Whatwas at stakeherewas nothinglessthanthesur-
vivalof a religioussystemthathad involvedGod himselfas
thevictimof thesacrificeand,in thisway,introducedin
himthatseparationwhichin paganismconcernedonly
humanthings.That is to say,theidea of thesimultaneous
presenceof twonaturesin a singlepersonor victimwas an
effortto copewithconfusionbetweendivineand human
thatthreatened to paralyzethesacrificial machineof
Christianity.The doctrineof incarnationguaranteedthat
divineand humannaturewerebothpresentwithoutambi-
guityin thesameperson,just as transubstantiation ensured
thatthespeciesof breadand wineweretransformed without
remainderintothebodyof Christ.Nevertheless, in
Christianity,with the entrance of God as thevictim ofsacri-
ficeandwiththestrongpresenceof messianictendencies
thatputthedistinction betweensacredand profaneintocri-
sis,thereligiousmachineseemsto reacha limitpointor
zone of undecidability, wherethedivinesphereis alwaysin
theprocessof collapsingintothehumansphereand man
alwaysalreadypassesoverintothedivine.

"Capitalismas Religion"is thetitleofone ofBenjamin'smost

penetrating posthumously publishedfragments. to
According
Benjamin,capitalism is not solely a secularization of the
Protestantfaith,as itis forMax Weber,butis itselfessentially
a religiousphenomenon, whichdevelopsparasitically from
Christianity.As the of
religion modernity, it is definedby
threecharacteristics:first,itis a culticreligion, perhapsthe
27

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:48:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 mostextremeand absoluteone thathas everexisted.In it,
everything has meaningonlyin reference to thefulfillment
ofa cult,notin relationto a dogmaor an idea.Second,this
cultis permanent; itis "thecelebration ofa cultsanstrêveet
5.Walter
Benjamin, as 5
sansmerci."Hereitis notpossibleto distinguish between
"Capitalism
inSelected
Religion," Volume
Writings, 1, and thereis a
Bullock
ed.Marcus
1911-1926, and workdays holidays; rather, single,uninterrupted
Michael
W. MA: holiday,in whichworkcoincideswiththecelebration
(Cambridge,
Jennings ofthe
Press,
Belknap 288.
1999), Translation cult. cultis notdirectedtowardredemp-
emended with
inaccordance Agamben's Third,thecapitalist
Italian
version. tionfromor atonement forguilt,buttowardguiltitself.
6.Ibid,
288-89. infollowing
Citations
from
paragraph samesource. Capitalism isprobably thefirstinstance ofa cultthatcreates
guilt, not atonement ... A monstrous sense ofguiltthatknows
noredemption becomes thecult, nottoatoneforthisguiltbutto
makeituniversal . . . andtoonceandforall includeGodinthis
guilt.. . . [God] is notdead;hehasbeenincorporated intothe
destiny ofman.6
Preciselybecauseit striveswithall itsmightnottoward
redemption buttowardguilt,nottowardhopebuttoward
despair,capitalismas religiondoesnotaim at thetransfor-
mationof theworldbutat itsdestruction. Andin our time
itsdominionis so completethat,accordingto Benjamin,
eventhethreegreatprophetsof modernity (Nietzsche,
Marx,and Freud) conspirewithit; theyare,in someway,
on thesideof thereligionof despair."Thispassageof the
planet'Man*throughthehouseof despairin theabsolute
lonelinessof hispathis theethosthatNietzschedefined.
This man is thesuperman,thefirstto recognizethereli-
gionof capitalismand beginto bringit to fulfillment."
Freudiantheory, too,belongsto thepriesthoodof thecapi-
talistcult:"Whathas beenrepressed, theidea of sin,is capi-
tal itself,whichpaysintereston thehell of theuncon-
scious."AndforMarx,capitalism"becomessocialismby
meansof thesimpleand compoundinterest thatare func-
tionsof Schuld[guilt/debt]."

Let us tryto carryon Benjamin'sreflections fromtheper-

spectivethat us
interests here.We could say thatcapitalism,
in pushingto theextremea tendencyalreadypresentin
Christianity,generalizesin everydomainthestructure of
separationthatdefinesreligion.Wheresacrificeoncemarked
thepassagefromtheprofaneto thesacredand fromthe
sacredto theprofane,thereis now a single,multiform,
ceaselessprocessof separationthatassailseverything,every
place,everyhumanactivityin orderto divideit fromitself.
This processis entirely to thecaesurabetween
indifferent
sacredand profane,betweendivineand human.In its
extremeform,thecapitalistreligionrealizesthepureform
28

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:48:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 of separation,to thepointthatthereis nothingleftto sepa-
rate.An absoluteprofanation withoutremaindernow coin-
cideswithan equallyvacuousand totalconsecration. In the
commodity, separation inheres in thevery form of the
object,whichsplitsintouse-valueand exchange-valueand is
transformed intoan ungraspablefetish.The sameis truefor
-
everything is done,produced,or experienced eventhe
that
humanbody,evensexuality, evenlanguage.Theyare now
dividedfromthemselves and placedin a separatespherethat
no longerdefinesanysubstantial divisionand whereall use
becomesand remainsimpossible.This sphereis consump-
tion.If,as has beensuggested, we use thetermspectaclefor
theextremephaseof capitalismin whichwe are now living,
in whicheverything is exhibitedin itsseparationfromitself,
thenspectacleand consumption are thetwosidesof a single
impossibility ofusing.Whatcannotbe usedis, as such,given
overto consumption or to spectacularexhibition.This
meansthatit has becomeimpossibleto profane(or at least
thatit requiresspecialprocedures).If to profanemeansto
returnto commonuse thatwhichhas beenremovedto the
sphereof thesacred,thecapitalistreligionin itsextreme
phaseaimsat creatingsomething absolutelyunprofanable.

The theologicalcanonof consumption as theimpossibilityof

use was established in the13thcenturybytheRomanCuria
duringitsconflict withtheFranciscanorder.In theircall for
"highestpoverty," theFranciscansassertedthepossibility of
a use entirely removedfromthesphereof law [diritto],
which,in orderto distinguish it fromusufructand from
everyotherright[diritto] to use,theycalledususfacti,de
factouse (or use of fact).Againstthem,JohnXXII, an im-
placableadversaryof theorder,issuedhis bullAd Conditorem
Canonum . In thingsthatare objectsof consumption, suchas
food,clothing,and so on, therecannotexist,he argues,a use
distinctfromproperty, becausethisuse coincidesentirely
withtheact of theirconsumption, thatis, theirdestruction
[abusus].Consumption, which necessarily destroysthething,
is nothingbuttheimpossibility or thenegationof use,which
presupposes thatthe substance of thethingremainsintact
[salva reisubstantia]. That is not all: a simplede factouse,
distinctfromproperty, doesnotexistin nature;it is in no
way something thatone can "have."
Theactofuseitselfexistsinnatureneither beforebeingexercised
norwhilebeingexercised norafterhavingbeenexercised . Infact,
consumption , evenin the actin which it is exercised
' alwaysin
is
thepast orthefutureand' as such,cannotbesaidtoexistin
29

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:48:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 nature,butonlyinmemory oranticipation. Therefore,itcannotbe
7.John Canonum hadbutintheinstant
AdConditorem
XXII, ofitsdisappearance.7
inCorpus
(1522), Iuris ed.Emil
Canonici,
Ludwig Richter
andEmil
Friedberg
In thisway, withan unwitting prophecy, JohnXXII
Bernhard
(Leipzig: 1881),
Tauchnitz, the
provided paradigm of an impossibility usingthathas
of
vol.2,1227-28.
reacheditsfulfillment manycenturieslaterin consumer
society.This obstinatedenialof use,however,capturesthe
natureof use moreradicallythancouldanydefinition put
forthbytheFranciscanorder.Forpureuse appears,in the
- indeed,
Pope'saccount,notso muchas something inexistent
-
it existsforan instantin theact of consumption butrather
as something thatone couldneverhave,thatone couldnever
as
possess property (dominium). That is to say,use is alwaysa
relationship withsomething thatcannotbe appropriated; it
refersto thingsinsofaras theycannotbecomeobjectsofpos-
session.Butin thiswayuse also laysbarethetruenatureof
property, whichis nothingbutthedevicethatmovesthefree
use of menintoa separatesphere,whereit is converted into
a right.If,today,consumersin masssocietyare unhappy,it
is notonlybecausetheyconsumeobjectsthathaveincorpo-
ratedwithinthemselves theirown inabilityto be used.It is
also,and aboveall, becausetheybelievetheyare exercising
theirrightto property on theseobjects,becausetheyhave
of
becomeincapable profaning them.

The impossibilityof usinghas itsemblematic placein the

Museum.The museification of theworldis todayan accom-
plishedfact.One byone,thespiritualpotentialitiesthat
definedthepeople'slives- art,religion,philosophy,theidea
of nature,evenpolitics- havedocilelywithdrawnintothe
Museum."Museum"hereis nota givenphysicalspaceor
-
placebuttheseparatedimensionto whichwhatwas once
-
butis no longer feltas trueand decisivehas moved.In this
sense,theMuseumcan coincidewithan entirecity(such as
EvoraandYenice,whichweredeclaredWorldHeritageSites),
a region(when it is declareda parkor naturepreserve),and
evena groupofindividuals(insofaras theyrepresent a form
oflifethathas disappeared).Butmoregenerally, everything
todaycan becomea Museum,becausethistermsimplydes-
ignatestheexhibition ofusing,ofdwell-
ofan impossibility
of
ing, experiencing.
Thus,in theMuseum,theanalogybetweencapitalism
and religionbecomesclear.The Museumoccupiesexactly
thespaceand function oncereservedfortheTempleas the
To thefaithful
placeof sacrifice. in theTemple- thepilgrims
who would travelacrosstheearthfromtempleto temple,
fromsanctuaryto sanctuary- correspond todaythetourists
30

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:48:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 who restlessly travelin a worldthathas beenabstracted
intoa Museum.Butwhilethefaithful and thepilgrimsulti-
matelyparticipated in a sacrificethatreestablished theright
relationships between the divineand the human bymoving
thevictimintothesacredsphere,thetouristscelebrateon
themselves a sacrificialact thatconsistsin theanguishing
experience of thedestruction of all possibleuse. If the
Christians were "pilgrims," thatis, strangers on theearth,
becausetheirhomelandwas in heaven,theadeptsof thenew
capitalistculthaveno homelandbecausetheydwellin the
pureformof separation.Wherevertheygo, theyfindpushed
to theextremethesameimpossibility of dwellingthatthey
knewin theirhousesand theircities,thesameinabilityto
use thattheyexperiencedin supermarkets, in malls,and on
televisionshows.For thisreason,insofaras it represents the
cultand centralaltarof thecapitalistreligion, tourism is the
primaryindustry in theworld,involvingmorethan650mil-
lionpeopleeachyear.Nothingis so astonishing as thefact
thatmillionsof ordinarypeopleare able to carryout on
theirown fleshwhatis perhapsthemostdesperateexperi-
encethatone can have:theirrevocablelossof all use,the
absoluteimpossibility ofprofaning.

It is, however,possiblethattheunprofanable, on whichthe

is
capitalistreligion founded, is nottrulysuch,and that
today thereare still forms
effective of For this
profanation.
reason,we mustrecallthatprofanation doesnotsimply
restoresomething likea naturaluse thatexistedbeforebeing
separatedintothereligious,economic,orjuridicalsphere.As
theexampleofplayclearlyshows,thisoperationis more
cunningand complexthanthatand is notlimitedto abolish-
ingtheformof separationin orderto regainan uncontam-
inateduse thatlieseitherbeyondor beforeit.Even in nature
thereare profanations. The catwho playswitha ball ofyarn
as ifitwerea mouse- just as thechildplayswithancient
religioussymbolsor objectsthatoncebelongedto theeco-
nomicsphere- knowingly usesthecharacteristicbehaviors
ofpredatoryactivity(or, in thecase of thechild,of thereli-
giouscultor theworldofwork) in vain.Thesebehaviorsare
noteffaced,but,thanksto thesubstitution of theyarnfor
themouse(or thetoyforthesacredobject),deactivatedand
thusopenedup to a new,possibleuse.
Butwhatsortofuse?For thecat,whatis thepossible
use fortheball ofyarn?It consistsin freeinga behaviorfrom
itsgeneticinscription withina givensphere(predatory
activity, hunting). The freedbehaviorstillreproducesand
n

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:48:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 mimicstheformsof theactivityfromwhichit has been
emancipated, but,in emptying themof theirsenseand of
anyobligatory relationship to an end,it opensthemand
makesthemavailablefora new use. The gamewiththeyarn
liberatesthemousefrombeingpreyand thepredatory activ-
ityfrombeingnecessarily directedtowardthecaptureand
deathof themouse.Andyet,thisplaystagestheverysame
behaviorsthatdefinehunting.The activitythatresultsfrom
thisthusbecomesa puremeans,thatis,a praxisthat,while
firmly maintaining itsnatureas a means,is emancipated
fromitsrelationship to an end; it hasjoyouslyforgottenits
goal and can now show itself as such,as a meanswithoutan
end.The creationof a new use is possibleonlybydeactivat-
ingan old use,rendering it inoperative.

Agamben
Giorgio of
isprofessor
OF
ATTHEUNIVERSITY
AESTHETICS
Heistheauthorofsev-
Venice.
HOMO
INCLUDING
eralBOOKS,
SacerandStateofException.
12

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:48:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions