General Economics and Postmodern Capitalism

Author(s): Jean-Joseph Goux, Kathryn Ascheim and Rhonda Garelick

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Yale French Studies, No. 78, On Bataille (1990), pp. 206-224
Published by: Yale University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2930123 .
Accessed: 09/10/2012 16:46

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.

Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Yale French
Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
 JEAN-JOSEPHGOUX

GeneralEconomics and Postmodern

Capitalism

La Part maudite, Bataille's most systematicand long-considered

work,provokesin thereaderan inescapablefeelingofmingledenthu-
siasm and disappointment. There is somethingstrikingand gran-
diose aboutBataille'sattemptto subvertexistingpoliticaleconomy,
caughtwithinthelimitsofa utilitarianorcalculatingrationality, in
orderto replaceit witha "generaleconomics"thatwould make of
unproductive expenditure(sacrifice,
luxury,war,games,sumptuary
monuments)themostdeterminant phenomenonofsociallife.Atlast
a critiqueofpoliticaleconomywhich,while remainingon the de-
cisiveterrainofthesocial circulationofwealth,escapestheconfined
atmosphereof the bourgeoisethic-so oftencaricatured-, the
crampedand grayishworldofpettycalculation,quantifiableprofit
and industriousactivity!It is the most extravagantwaste-gra-
tuitous,careeningconsumption,whereaccumulatedwealthis set
ablaze and disappearsin an instant,wreathingin ephemeralglory
himwho makestheoffering ofthisblaze whichbecomesthecentral
phenomenon,the one throughwhicha societydiscoversitselfand
celebratesthe deepestvalues thatanimateit: its religion,its meta-
physics,its sense ofthe sacred.
Bataille's"Copernicanreversal"ofpoliticaleconomyis a remark-
able and dazzlingoperationofethnologicaldecentering. It is notthe
storeand theworkshop,thebankand thefactory, thathold thekey
fromwhich the principlesof the economycan be deduced.In the
bloodthatspurtsfromtheopenchestofvictimssacrificed to thesun
in an Aztecritual,in thesumptuousandruinousfeastsoffered to the
courtiersofVersaillesby themonarch ofdivine in
right, all thesemad

YFS 78, On Bataille,ed. Allan Stoekl,C 1990byYale University.

206
 JEAN-JOSEPH GOUX 207
dissipationsis founda secretthatourrestricted economicshas cov-
eredup andcausedtobe forgotten. Wemustrethinksocialwealthnot
fromtheparsimoniousperspective ofan asceticbourgeoisiethatonly
consentsto spendwhenitexpectsa return, butfromthepointofview
(nearlydeliriousto ourmind)oftheerectionofthepyramidsor the
cathedrals,orofthesacrificeofthousandsofherdanimalsin archaic
holocausts.It is in thisintentionally unproductive use, in thisun-
limitedexpenditure, andnotin utilitarianconsumption thata secret
lies hidden,the "generallaw of the economy":"a societyalways
produceson thewhole morethanis necessaryto its subsistance,it
disposesofa surplus.It is preciselytheuse made ofthisexcessthat
determinesit: the surplusis the cause of disturbances, changesof
structure,andofitsentirehistory."'A thesisthatis radicallyopposed
totherationalist, productivistandutilitarian vision.Itis themode of
expenditureofthe excess,the consumptionofthesuperfluous, this
accursedshare,thatdetermines a society'sform.The dominantpro-
saic vision may be only a recentlyformedprejudicecontempo-
raneouswiththereignofthebourgeoisie, usheredin bytheReforma-
tion,andunableto account for the realandineluctablemovementof
wealthin a society,a movementthat sovereignly engageshuman
beings:theirrelationshipto thesacredthroughreligion,mysticism,
art,eroticism.
One cannotdenythatthis"generaleconomics"has a greatforceof
conviction,thestrength ofa newcritiqueofpoliticaleconomywhich
insteadofacceptingthenotionsofthisdiscipline(marketexchange,
need, scarcity,work-value)as Marx did, conteststhe verymeta-
physicalgroundof a utilitarianand productivist rationalitywhose
limitationbecomesevidentin theanthropology ofarchaicsocieties.
Betterstill,farfromretreatingbeyondan economicexplanation, as do
the spiritualistcritiques,this vision generalizesthe economicap-
proach,directlyplacingin its conceptualfieldnotionsthatdo not
seemtobelongthere:religion,art,eroticism. AttheheartofBataille's
thoughtlies thetroubling postulatethatthedistinction betweenthe
profaneandthesacred-a fundamental distinctionofall humansoci-
ety-mergesin a broadsense fromthe economic.Whereasthepro-
faneis the domainofutilitarianconsumption, the sacredis thedo-
main ofexperienceopenedbytheunproductive consumptionofthe
1. GeorgesBataille,La Partmaudite(Paris:Minuit,1967),143.Henceforth
cited
in thetext.This editioncontains"La Notionde depense"whichwaspublishedfifteen
yearsearlier.
208 Yale FrenchStudies
surplus:whatis sacrificed. Henceforth thepositionofreligionorart
withrespectto the "economicbase" as formulated byMarxis com-
pletelytransformed. The religiousor artisticdomainis nota simple
superstructure ofvaguewhimsbuilton theeconomicinfrastructure:
it is itselfeconomic,in thesenseofa generaleconomicsfoundedon
theexpenditure oftheexcess,on theunproductive and ecstaticcon-
sumptionof the surplus,throughwhich the human beingexperi-
encestheultimatemeaningofexistence.Generaleconomics,unlike
restrictedeconomics,encompassesobliquelythe entiredomainof
human activities,extendingthe "economic"intelligenceto highly
symbolicpracticeswhereformidable energiesare consumedforthe
celebrationofthegods,thegloryofthegreatorthedionysiacpleasure
ofthehumble.Whatbecomesapparentthenis thegenealogyofour
economicthought.A completedesacralization oflife(inauguratedby
Calvinismand carriedto itslimitbyMarxism)was necessaryforthe
worldofproductionand exchangeto becomeautonomousaccording
to theprincipleofrestricted utility.The profaneand prosaicreality
thoughtby contemporary economicscan be constitutedonlybyex-
cludingoutsidethefieldofhumanactivity-through thetotalsecu-
larizationof ethicalvalues-any impulsetowardsacrifice,toward
consumptionas pureloss.
Batailleis thusproposing a veritable
anthropology ofhistorywhose
guidingthreadwouldbe theaccursedshareandwhichwouldachievea
unificationofthetwoforcesthathavebeen consideredindividually
the motorsof human societies (religionand economics).But this
history is markedbya break.Untilthebirthofcapitalismeverysociety
is one ofsacrificialexpenditure. Whetherin thepotlatchofprimitive
tribesdescribedby Mauss in The Gift,the bloodysacrificesof the
Aztecs,thebuildingoftheEgyptianpyramids, or eventheopposing
pathsofpeacefulTibetanlamaismandwarlikeIslamicconquest,the
expenditureof excess is alwaysinscribedwithina principleof the
sacred.Withthe birthofthebourgeoisworlda radicalchangetakes
place.Productiveexpenditure nowentirely dominatessociallife.In a
desacralizedworld,wherehumanlaboris guidedin theshortorlong
termbytheimperativeofutility,thesurplushas lost its meaningof
gloriousconsumptionand becomescapitalto be reinvestedproduc-
tively,a constantlymultiplying surplus-value.
In myview it is in thishistoricaloutcomethatthemostserious
difficulty lies. This is also undoubtedlyBataille'sview: he always
wantedto continuehis firstsketchbutthiscontinuationexistsonly
 JEAN-JOSEPH GOUX 209
in fragments. On theonehand,thereis hardlyanydoubtthatBataille
alwaysharboreda will to subvertcontemporary society,a will that
was heightened byhis searingcontactwithsurrealism andpolitically
engagedgroups.On theotherhand,it is clearthatthediscussionsin
La Partmauditeconcerning"thepresentfacts"oftheworldsituation
in termsof generaleconomicsare morethandisappointing. Every-
thingsuggeststhatBataillewas unableto articulatehis mysticismof
expenditure, ofsovereignty, ofmajorcommunication-expressed so
flamboyantly in La Somme Atheologique,L'Erotismeor La Lit-
teratureet le mal-in termsof contemporary generaleconomics.
Wheredo we situateBataille'sclaim? Whathappensto the de-
mand of the sacredin capitalistsociety?How do we reconcilethe
affirmation thatcapitalismrepresents an unprecedented breakwith
all archaic(precapitalist) formsof expenditure and the postulateof
thenecessaryuniversality ofspendingas pureloss? This is thediffi-
culty.Bataillewantsto maintainas a generalanthropological princi-
ple thenecessityofunproductive expenditurewhilesimultaneously
upholdingthe historicsingularity ofcapitalismwithregardto this
expenditure. Bourgeoissocietycorresponds to a "generalatrophyof
formersumptuaryprocesses"(41).An anomalywherebyloss is not
absent(whichwould contradictthe generalprinciple)but virtually
unreadable:"Today,the greatand freesocial formsofunproductive
expenditure havedisappeared.Nevertheless, we shouldnotconclude
fromthisthattheveryprincipleofexpenditure is no longersituated
at theendofeconomicactivity"(37).So whathappenstoostentatious
expenditure in capitalism?And can we reallybelieve,furthermore,
thatthe evenmoreradicaldesacralizationeffected by communism
could become a libertarianaffirmation ofsovereignty-thefeastof
self-consciousness, withoutdivinitiesand myths?
Everything suggeststhatBataillewas unableto articulatethemy-
stical tensiontowardsovereignself-consciousness "withoutform
and mode,""pureexpenditure" (224)witha utopiaofsocial lifethat
wouldmakeit possible,norto explainin a developedcapitalistsoci-
etythe consumptionofthe surplusbeyondits reinvestment in pro-
duction.Now it is quiteclearthattoday'scapitalismhas comea long
wayfromthe Calvinistethicthatpresidedat its beginning. The val-
ues of thrift,sobrietyand asceticismno longerhave the place that
theyheldwhenBalzac couldcaricaturethedominantbourgeoismen-
talitywiththecharacters ofpereGrandetortheusurerGobseck.It is
doubtfulthatthe spiritof capitalism,whichaccordingto Weberis
210 Yale FrenchStudies
expressedwith an almost classical purityin BenjaminFranklin's
principles("he who kills a fiveshillingcoin assassinatesall thatit
could have produced:entirestacks of sterlingpounds")[citedby
Bataille,163],could todaybe consideredthespiritofthetimes.Un-
doubtedly, the pace at whichall residualsacredelementsinherited
fromfeudalismare eliminatedhas quickened.Buthasn'tcontempo-
rarysocietyundergonea transformation oftheethicofconsumption,
desire,and pleasurethatrenderstheclassical (Weberian) analysesof
the spiritofcapitalism(to whichBataillesubscribes)inadequate?If
the greatoppositionbetweenthe sacredand the profaneno longer
structures social life,ifcommunal,sacrificial,and gloriousexpendi-
turehas been replacedbyprivateexpenditure, it is no less truethat
advancedcapitalismseemsto exceedtheprincipleofrestricted econ-
omy and utilitythat presidedat its beginning.No society has
"wasted"as much as contemporary capitalism.Whatis theformof
thiswaste,ofthisexcess?
These questions strikedirectlyat the historicalsituationand
philosophicalsignification ofBataille'sthought.Is it not clearthat
his passion forthe "notionof expenditure,"-which, beginningin
1933,is thematrixofall his economicreflections to come-emerge
preciselyat a turningpointin thehistoryofcapitalism,in the 1920s
and 1930s,whichalso saw theappearanceofLukacsandHeidegger?2
Can we not perceivewithinthe principlesofsecularizationand re-
strictedeconomicsthatwerethestrength ofearlycapitalisman inter-
nal conflictthatunderminesthem, putscapitalismin contradic-
and
tionwithitself?
To treattheseproblemsin detailandwiththedevelopments they
deservewouldrequirean analysisthatI couldnotthinkofcomplet-
ingin a fewpages.Almosttheentirety ofpostmodern thoughtwould
bearupon thisproblematic.My taskwill be facilitated howeverbya
recentattemptat a new legitimationofcapitalism-thatofGeorge
Gilder-who situates himself,curiously,on the same terrainas
Bataille,ifonlyto arriveofcourseat oppositeconclusions.Confron-
tationwiththisworkwill lead to a discussionofcapitalistmorality
as envisionedbyBataille,and the correlative conceptofutility.
GeorgeGilderwas one of the most vocal advocatesof the eco-
nomicpoliticsofneoconservative duringtheearly1980s.In hisbook,
of solutionscf.,
2. On thisparallelismof the problematicsand the divergence
Jurgen delamoderniue(Paris:Gallimard,1988),
Habermas,Le Discoursphilosophique
chapter8 on Bataille.
 JEAN-JOSEPH GOUX 211
Wealthand Poverty (1981),whichaccording totheLosAngelesTimes
made him "theprophetofthe new economicorder"(and President
Reagan'sfavoriteauthor),Gilderattemptsto demonstrate once again
the ethicalvalue ofcapitalismagainstthe "intellectualconsensus"
thatstigmatizesthemoralvoidonwhichitrests.The greatinterestof
Gilder'sendeavorlies in its ambition: "to give capitalisma the-
Althoughunaware,we can reasonablyassume,ofBataille's
ology."13
theories,Gilderseemsto respondwordforwordto theauthorofthe
"notionof expenditure," placinghimselfimmediatelyon the same
terrain.Recallingthe analysesofMarcel Mauss in The Giftand of
Levi-Straussin The Savage Mind,Gilderundertakesto demonstrate
thatcontemporary capitalismis no less animatedbythespiritofthe
giftthantheprimitivetribesdescribedby ethnographers. "Feasting
and potlatchingillustratea capitalisttendencyto assembleand dis-
tributewealth" (26). The most elaboratedformsof capitalismare
simplya moreelaboratedformofthepotlatch.The current notionof
a self-interested,parsimoniouscapitalism,motivatedonly by the
interestofmaterialgain,is erroneous. Attheoriginof"capitalism"is
thegift,notself-loveand avarice.The conceptualbasis ofthisseem-
inglyparadoxicalaffirmation is a classicaleconomicprincipleknown
as Jean-BaptisteSay'slaw: "Supplycreatesits owndemand." Suchis
themodern,contemporary formofthepotlatch.The essenceofcap-
italismconsistsin supplying first, andin obtainingan eventualprofit
onlylater.The capitalistinvests(hesuppliesgoodsand services),but
he is neversureofthereturn,oftherecompenseforhis supply.This
movement,says Gilder,is the same as in thepotlatch,wherethe
essenceofthegiftis nottheabsenceofall expectation ofa countergift
butrathera lack ofcertainty concerning thereturn."Likegifts,cap-
italistinvestmentsare made withouta predetermined return"(30).
Thus capitalismwouldbe in essenceno less generousthanritual
tribalexchange.Let us cite at lengththepassagewhereGildersum-
marizes his argument.

Contrary to thenotionsofMaussandLevi-Strauss, thegiving

impulseinmodemcapitalism isnolessprevalent
andimportant-no
lesscentral
toall creative
andproductiveactivity,
no lesscrucialto
themutuality ofcultureandtrust-thanin a primitive tribe.The
unendingofferingofentrepreneurs,
investing
jobs,accumulating in-

3. GeorgeGilder,Wealthand Poverty
(NewYork:BantamBooks,1981),7. Hence-
forthcitedin text.
212 Yale FrenchStudies
ventories-alllongbefore anyreturnis received,
all withoutanyas-
surancethattheenterprise willnotfail-constitutea pattern
ofgiv-
ingthatdwarfs inextentandinessentialgenerosity
anyprimitive rite
ofexchange. Givingis thevitalimpulseandmoralcenterofcap-
italism.[30]
Despite theappearanceofparadox,it is understandable whyit is
withina capitalismofconsumption thatSay'sadage,whichunderlies
Gilder'sargument,becomes particularly apt. Supplyprecedesand
createsdemand:thismeansthatthereis no priordefinition ofneed,
no naturaland preestablished demandfoundedon essentialand ra-
tionalexigenciesthatcouldbe fixedin advance.Suchis, accordingto
Gilder,theheresyofthesocialisteconomy:it beginswiththepostu-
late ofa demandassigneda priori,corresponding to an identifiable
essenceofneed and to whicha corresponding productioncouldade-
quatelyrespond.But the capitalisteconomyis foundedon a meta-
physicaluncertainty regarding the objectofhumandesire.It must
createthis desirethrough theinvention ofthenew,theproduction of
the unpredictable.It supplies in orderto createdesire,insteadof
satisfying a desirethatwould alreadybe knownby thepersonwho
experiencesit. The preoccupationwithdemandleads to stagnation.
The preoccupation withsupply-in thegiganticpotlatchofthecap-
italist store,which puts the unpredictableon displayin orderto
seducethepotentialbuyerwithoutcoercionorcertainty-isthe"ge-
nius ofcapitalism"(34),its frenetic pursuitofthenew.
Thus thereis no equivalencein factbetweensupplyanddemand,
contrary to whatWalras'scurvesofgeneralequilibrium, forexample,
mightlead us to believe.The mathematical theoryofvalue,which
locatesthedetermination ofpricesat theintersectionofthecurvesof
supplyand demand,is a falseabstraction, a deceptive"reification"
(45). Demand registersonlythe simplereactionof consumersto a
supplythatcorrespondsto efforts and "sacrifices,"
a veritablegift,
whichis not accountedforbythisquantitativeequivalence.
It is remarkablethatGilder,starting fromthisconceptionofcap-
italismas potlatch(lossbeingmeasuredbythefrightening sumsand
energiesinvested"fornothing"in a societywherethousandsofbusi-
nessesarecreatedanddisappeareachweek),arrivesat an irrationalist
legitimation ofthecapitalistuniversethatstandsin sharpcontrastto
theWeberianthemeofthegenesisofmodernrationality. It mustbe
emphasizedthatforGilderit is because capitalismis irrational(al-
wayssuspendedin uncertainty, theuncalculable,theindeterminate)
 JEAN-JOSEPH GOUX 213
thatitis superiortoall otherformsofsociety.Criticizing"thesecular
rationalistmentality"(310),he praisesthespiritopento theparadox-
es ofchanceand gambling.Forin theend,havingtakenintoaccount
the unmasterablenatureofthe multiplefactorsthatenterinto the
success of a business (not the least of which is the unpredictable
desireoftheclient),profitresidesin chance.Understoodin thisway,
thespiritofcapitalismthusparticipates in thefundamental mystery
ofanyhumansituation:its openingontotheunpredictable and the
undecidable."Eventhemostprimitive societiesinventformsofgam-
bling(dice in manyplaces precedethe wheel)" (296).The ultimate
metaphysics ofcapitalismis thetheologyofchance-our onlyaccess
to thefutureand to providence(299).It is onlyin thiswaythatthe
openingis preserved."Because no one knows which venturewill
succeed,whichnumberwill win thelottery, a societyruledbyrisk
and freedomratherthanby rationalcalculus,a societyopen to the
futureratherthan planningit, can call forthan endlessstreamof
invention,enterprise, and art"(296).
This sustainedpraiseoftheirrationality ofcapitalismstrikesme
as thoroughly remarkable. Is it notrhetoricallysatisfyingthatat the
conclusionof a workon wealthand povertythe term"fortune" re-
gains its most propermeaning:Fortuna,the Roman divinityof
chance-a termwhich had acquiredby metonymythe more re-
strictedmeaningofwealth?Whilea certainphilosophicalleft,since
Lukacs,HorkheimerorAdorno,and in thewake ofWeber-or a cer-
tainphilosophicalrightwithHeidegger-is benton denouncingcal-
culatingreasonas a dominantand alienatingformofthought, inher-
entto capitalism(whosemarket,exchangesideobscuresitsentrepre-
neurialside),a displacementis occurring(whichis not entirelynew
since "capitalistanarchy"was denounceda longtimeago) ofwhich
Gilder'sbook is a frankand unnuancedexpression.Capitalismis
irrational(in the last analysis it can rely only on a theologyof
chance-ultimatelyopeningto the divine,to creativityand to the
future)andthisis whyit is superiorto all rationalist(hencesocialist)
pretentionsto masterthe processof productionand consumption,
and consequentlyto prejudgehumandesire,to mortgageseduction.
Is thisnotin 1981theformulation ofthepostmodern legitimationof
capitalism?Irrationality is no longera denunciationbut a justifica-
tion,a defense.
Letme makeitclearthat,ifthereis no questionofmysubscribing
withoutdiscrimination to Gilder'sapologeticdiscourse,on theother
214 Yale FrenchStudies
hand I take it quite seriouslyas a pointedideologicallegitimation
strategyof eighties-capitalism. Gilder'stheoryis exemplaryas an
attemptto formulatea moralityof capitalismat odds with the
heritageoftheEnlightenment. Ifhis theoryis weakas politicalecon-
omy,it is highlysignificant (althoughat timesdisquieting)4 as eco-
nomicpolitics.Anysocial critic(togo backto a phrasethatBataille
wouldnotdisavow)who overlooksthistypeofcontemporary justifi-
cationrisksmissingthetruetargetand overlooking once morecap-
italism'sresourcesand metamorphoses.
Furthermore, perhapsMauss wouldnothave disavowedGilder's
attemptin principle.The anthropologist does not hesitateto see in
the skillfuloperationsof potlatchon the partof the Iroquois (in
whose simple disinterestedness he is carefulnot to believe)a pre-
figuration ofthe operationsof capitalism. Anditis also his aim,atthe
end of The Giftto searchforsomethingin the contemporary world
that could prolongthe processof giftand countergift of primitive
societies.It is not,however, in "thecold reasonofthemerchant,of
the bankerand ofthe capitalist"(The Gift,Chapter4, Conclusion,
vol.2) thathe detectsthatprolongation, butratherin theliberality of
theindustrialist who createsfamily insurance funds or,better in
still,
nationalhealthinsurance,wherethecommunitygivesto thework-
erssomethingotherthana simplesalary.Wearefarfromtheinsane
squanderingfantasizedby Bataille,as well as fromthe innovator's
generousriskinvokedby Gilder.
There still remains the question of why neitherMauss nor
Bataillehave pointedout,in some decisivemechanismofcapital,a
contemporary continuationofpotlatch,while Gilder,in 1980,does
not hesitateto resortto thatethnologicalreference, and to make it
the guaranteeofa moralbasis. The reasonis thata transformation
(alreadyat workbut still concealed)has become manifest.In the
capitalismof abundancethe distinctionbetweenluxuryand non-
luxuryhas becomeindeterminable. Clearly,it is onlyin a regimeof
luxury,whereeverything is superfluous, thatdemandcannotbe as-
signedandbecomesopentopossibilitiesthatareless andlesspredict-
able. It is onlyin a regimeofsurplusconsumptionthatthe subject
(the client who chooses) does not know his own desire,and that

4. Gilderin factstill returnsto the simplisticnotionof "poverty"of the last

continuing
century, a well-known traditionthatmakespoverty theresultofviceorof
divinedisfavor.
 JEAN-JOSEPH GOUX 215
supply(foundedon still unknown,still unimaginedtechnological
and aestheticpossibilities)must necessarilyprecededemand.The
distinctionis no longerbetweenthenecessaryand thesuperfluous,
but betweenseveralas yet unimaginedpossibilities.This is why
seduction,theaesthetization ofmerchandise, playsa primordial role.
It is vitalforthissupplyeconomyto denythenaturalnessofneeds-
includingtheverynotionofneed and utility(in thetrivialsense).In
thissensewe arewitnessingtheaesthetization ofpoliticaleconomy.
Gilder'spostmodernlegitimizationof capitalismthus resolves
thequestionofthegiftin capitalismbypostulating a continuity with
theritualsofprimitivesocieties.The capitalistcannotcounton an
assured,calculable profitfromhis investment.He agreesto spend
moneyandto spendhimselfin a projectthatis alwaysaleatory. Gilder
sees thenobleandglorioussideoftheentrepreneur; he makesofhim
a gamblerwho sacrificesin orderto "supply"withan alwaysuncer-
tainresult:wealthorbankruptcy. Itis in so gamblingthathe earnshis
rank.We shouldemphasizethatBatailledid not completelyfailto
recognizethisludicdimensionofcapitalism;ratherhe was unableto
integrateit simplywithinhis vision.The fragments show thathe
reflected on thecoexistenceofplayandtheprojectin capitalism,but
onlyto concludethatdespitethiscoexistence(inherent in all action)
capitalismis essentiallya project,even if play and riskintervene
necessarilybetweenthe projectand accumulation."Play in cap-
italismis somewhatheterogeneous, itis theeffectofa relativelackof
power.Capitalismwould avoid play if it could."5Finally,Bataille
summarizes,"the projectdominatescapitalistactivity.Play is re-
strictedto the stock exchange"(OC, 220). Denouncing "the ava-
riciouspracticesofbigbusinessand industry," Bataillethusremains
attachedtotheromanticimageofcapitalismas a moralanomaly.If"a
currentofgloriousactivitiesnaturallyanimatestheeconomy,""the
bourgeoiseconomyalone is exempted"(OC, 201).
But whateverthe clear divergencebetweenthis position and
Gilder'smaybe,one cannothelpthinking thatthelatter'sapologetic
attemptultimatelyendorsesBataille.Forwhatis remarkableis that
Gilderis obligedto resortto the notionofgiftand sacrificeat the
momentwhenhe is givingcapitalisma nobleandgloriousimage,an
adventurouslegitimationthatgoes beyond"the secularrationalist

5. GeorgesBataille,OeuvresCompletes,(Paris:Gallimard,1970-1988),vol. 7,
citedin textas OC.
219. Henceforth
216 Yale FrenchStudies
mentality"(Gilder,310). Whenit is a matterofgivinga theologyto
capitalism,ofinfusingit witha grandeur thatevenitsmostbrilliant
defendersgenerallydo not recognize,thereis no routebut the one
Bataille has alreadymappedout, as if the singularity of capitalism
could onlybe upheldby connectingit, despiteeverything, withan
unchanging, anthropologicalbase,mostclearlyrevealedbyprimitive
societies:thegiftalone createsthegloryandthegrandeur. Therefore,
to
fromthestart,Gilderis obliged positionhimselfon theterrain that
Bataillehas cultivated.He is obligedto beginwithMarcelMauss's
The Giftin orderto bringout,in supportof capitalism,the moral
challengeconstitutedbytheprimitive practiceofthepotlatch.That
Gilder must resortto thisanthropological paradigmdoes nottellus
much about the real mechanismsofcapitaland the multiplestrat-
egiesofprofit(itis onlya legitimation) butit at leastshowstheforce
of the demandof which Bataille has made himselfthe bedazzled
echo.
Morover,Gilder'stheologyrediscovers morethanonenotiondear
to Bataille: the critiqueof profanerationalismas well as the final
appealto chance,notas a simple,favorable coincidence,usefulforits
anecdotalvalue,butas an existentialstructure thatrevealsthemost
profound mystery ofbeing."Chanceis thefoundation ofchangeand
thevesselofthedivine"(Gilder,312). Or again: "The cruxofchange
and creativity is chance" (Gilder,308). Gilderdrawson theworkof
Pierce,well-knownas a pioneerin the foundingof semiotics,and
whose work anticipatescertainaspects of deconstruction. In his
posthumousvolumeChance,Loveand Logic,"Piercehas shownthat
chancenotonlyis at theverycenterofhumanrealitybutalso is the
deepest source of reason and morality"(Gilder,312). Here again
Gilder'sargumentswhich opposethe "closed systemofsecularra-
tionality"to the "prodigality of chance,"strangelyecho Bataille's
notionsevenifthefinalargument is notthesame.6"Themostdireand
fatalhubrisforanyleader"writesGilder,"is tocutoffhispeoplefrom
providence, fromthemiraculousprodigality ofchancebysubstituting
a closedsystemofhumanplanning"(Gilder, 313).Thisis a remarkable
effortto give the risk and chance of economicinnovationan on-
tologicaldimensionwhich contradictsratherthanagreeswiththe
greatnarrativeof the Enlightenment and its secular rationalism.

6. GeorgesBataille,cf.,thethirdpartofSommeatheologique:SurNietzsche,Vo-
lonte de chance,(1945).
 JEAN-JOSEPH GOUX 217
Gilderis admirableinsayingopenly,something whichbothcloudsthe
classical Weberianvisionofa capitalismofrationalistlegitimation,
andilluminatesthehistoricalbasesofthepostmodern rupture:"The
tale of human lifeis less the pageantof unfoldingrationalityand
purposethan the saga of desertwanderingand briefbounty. . ."
(Gilder,315).No, capitalismis notrationalcalculation(individualor
collective)butindeterminable, undecideableplay,andthereinlies its
grandeur, its profoundontologicaltruth,and its harmonywiththe
mysterious originsofthings.Therecouldbe no betterformulation of
whatwe havecalled a "postmodern legitimation ofcapitalism"than
these pages of Gilder.That capitalismlegitimatesitselftodayin a
postmodern version,andcouldnotdo otherwise, notonlyprofoundly
illuminatesits presentnature,butalso permitsus apparently to de-
the
cipher sociohistorical of
meaning postmodernism's philosophical
(andaesthetic)manifestations. Postmodern thoughtis in accordance
withthislegitimation, withoutallowingus toprejudgethemodalities
ofthisagreement.This wouldjustifycertainsuspicionsofsomeone
like Habermas(Introduction) butat thesame timewouldinvalidate
thembyvirtueoftheirlackofadequatehistoricization, andtheirlack
ofa sufficiently articulatedandprofound evaluationofthenecessities
ofthisbreakbetweenrationality and modernity. This is an essential
pointfornotmistakingtheera:theEnlightenment is over.
Therefore, one can now pointto an "antibourgeois" defenseof
capitalism,an appositionoftermswhichresonatedisturbingly, likean
enigmaticoxymoron. Everything happensas ifthetraditional values
ofthebourgeoisethos(sobriety, calculation,foresight, etc.)wereno
longerthosevalueswhichcorresponded tothedemandsofcontempo-
rarycapitalism.Anditis in thiswaythatGilder'slegitimation (which
lendsalmosta senseoftragicheroism,ofsovereign playtothecreation
of businesses)7can echo so surprisingly Bataille's critiquesof the
cramped, profane, narrowly utilitarian andcalculatingbourgeois men-
tality.The entrepreneur can no longer count on pettycalculation,on
theexpectedprofit, at a timewhensupplymustcreatedemand(as in
artisticactivityoranyworkofgenius,stressesGilder)andnotmerely

byBalzac,butin essentiallycritical
dimension(perceived
7. Itis thisadventurous
andsarcastictermsin responsetothenarrowness ofthebourgeoisethosofthe1830s),
whichgivesbirthto thefinancialnovel.Forexample,cf.,themass-producednovelsof
Paul-LoupSulitzer Money,Cash, Fortune,Le Roi vert)fromthe beginningof the
eighties,whichare closelylinkedbytheirthemes,theirideologicaluniverse,to the
visiondevelopedat thesame timebyGilderin Wealthand Poverty.
218 Yale FrenchStudies
satisfyit.Anoverturning ofthefounding valuesofpoliticaleconomyis
occurring.The visionofAdam Smithhimselfis deceptiveand dan-
gerous:"Infact,a rationalcalculationofpersonalgainwouldimpelan
individualabove all to avoidriskand seek security. In ourworldof
fortuity,committedto a secularvision,the invisiblehand of self-
interestacclaimedby Adam Smithwould lead to an ever-enlarging
welfarestate-to stasisandsterility. This is therootofourcrisisand
the crisis of classical economics today"(Gilder,321). There is no
longer,therefore, an "invisiblehand."The divinity ofcapitalismis no
longerthe social insurerthatguaranteesthe bourgeoisharmonyof
egotisms.The entireruseofreasoningwhosegrandiosephilosophical
expressionwas furnishedby Hegel,is, in fact,onlythe ruse of so-
cialism-a "welfarestate"ofthe end ofhistorythatstopschance's
miraculousprodigality. The marriage oftheEnlightenment andpoliti-
cal economyis over."Thefutureis forever incalculable"(Gilder,314).
We mustadd,ofcourse,thatit is preciselyat themomentwhen
the entrepreneur must thinkhimselfinto the model of the most
advancedartisticgenius,at themomentwhentheavant-gardist strat-
egyof innovationat any pricebecomesthe paradigmof dominant
economicpractice,thattheartisticavant-garde necessarilyloses its
difference, its marginality, its deviance-value.The aestheticavant-
gardeshavewon.Thatis whatparalyzesthemso seriously. Whenthe
gadgetmaker,alongwithGilder,borrowsfromthemtheircritiqueof
bourgeoisrationality whichbecomesin his [Gilder's]eyes "themy-
thologyofa secularrationalistworld"(309)andwhichhe calls upon
"to plungeintotherealmofdarktranscendance wherecan be found
all truelightand creativity" (309),it becomesmoredifficult forthe
poet to distinguishhimselffromthe grocer,moredifficult forthe
surrealistto differentiate himselffromthedisheveledmanager.
Alongwiththis "postbourgeois" capitalismthatat once contra-
dicts Bataille's sociological interpretation and confirmshis on-
tological vision, explode the socioculturalcontradictionsof cap-
italism.Daniel Bell has convincingly shownthatwiththedevelop-
mentofmass consumptionandmass credit(whichhe situatesin the
1930s)the puritanideologyofearlycapitalismenteredinto contra-
dictionwithan increasingly hedonistmodeofconsumptionfavored
by capitalism.The entrepreneur's need to reviveseduction,to re-
spondto competitionwithpromisesofevermore complexpleasures,
inscribeshim in a consumeristideologydirectlyat odds with the
"bourgeois"virtuesofsobriety, thrift,andhardworkthathadassured
 JEAN-JOSEPH GOUX 219
thedevelopment ofproduction. In thisway,thestrictmoralconfines
necessaryforproductionenterinto contradiction with the ethical
liberation(evenmorallicense)necessaryto consumption.8 Bataille
does not seem to have foreseenthisconflictbornofabundanceand
theextraordinary sophisticationofproduction. The Weberianimage
ofcapitalismthathe maintains,theslightly obsoleteconvictionthat
Franklin'spreceptsof economyand sobrietyrepresentcapitalism's
moralsin itspurestate,seemtoindicatethatBatailledidnotimagine
theparadoxicalsituationofpostindustrial capitalismwhereonlythe
appeal to competeinfinitely in unproductive consumption(through
comfort, luxury,technicalrefinement, thesuperfluous)allowsforthe
developmentofproduction.
One must recognizethatGilderskillfullyemphasizesthe most
seductiveaspectofcapitalism(thecapitalismofabundanceas seduc-
tion)evenifit is byoverlooking, orfeigningignoranceof,thatwhich
can intentionallymislead, deceive, manipulate the consumer,
whetherit is thefictionofperfectcompetitionorthebuyer'slack of
controlovertherealnatureofthemerchandise(harmfulness, fragili-
ty,plannedobsolescence)to theprofitofits appearance,ofits pure
transient spectacle.If"anAmericanappleis notan apple,"as thepoet
Rilke used to say in an amazingaphorism,it is not only because
generations ofpeasantshavenotcrystallized theirsacredeffortsin it,
butalso becausetheproducerandthesellerofthatapplepreferred to
giveit all the most stereotyped qualitiesofthe "beautifulapple"-
(big,redandshiny,liketheone theWitchoffers to SnowWhite),even
if it is to the detrimentof the real apple (tasteless,fiberless,car-
cinogenic).This substantive, actuallyconsumedapplemustremaina
simple "noumenon,"inexistentand withoutinterestcomparedto
the"phenomenon," thespectacleoftheapple,whichaloneis at stake
in thesale. Butthatdoesnotpreventthisveryspectacle,thisabstract
aesthetizationofthemerchandise, fromgoinghandin handwithan
ideologyofconsumptionthatseems to transgress utilityvalue.
We are touchinghere on difficulties whichare linkedfromthe
startto the terms"utility,""unproductive consumption"etc....
Thereare ambiguitiesherethatBataillehas not dealtwithdirectly,
eveniftheposthumousfragments offer somequestionsthatnuance
and complicatethepositionsofLa Partmaudite.I wouldliketo note

8. Daniel Bell, The CulturalContradictionsof Capitalism(New York:Basic

Books,1975).
220 Yale FrenchStudies
severalobjectionswhichalso concernmorerecenttheoriesinspired
largelybyBataille.
It is clearthateventhemostunproductive seemingconsumption
(forexample:tobacco,alcohol, but also pleasuretrips,moviesetc.)
producesa profit-making industry, and therebyfallsinto the eco-
nomicsphereaccordingto thelogicofthegeneralequivalent.Ifone
remainson strictlyeconomicground,it is in truthimpossibleto
separateproductiveconsumptionfromunproductivesquandering.
Ethicalcriteriaalone could claim to make thisdistinction. It is per-
haps one of the aspects of our societyto have erasedat once the
oppositionbetweenthe sacredand the profane,and withthe same
gesture,thedifference betweentheusefulandtheuseless,theneces-
saryand the superfluous, primaryneed and secondarysatisfaction,
etc. Is it useful or superfluousto manufacture microwaveovens,
quartzwatches,video games,or collectively, to travelto the moon
and Mars,to photograph Saturn'srings,etc.?Condillachad already
written that "What is luxuryforone peopleis notso foranother, and
forthe same people,whatwas a luxurycan cease to be one."9Con-
dillacand manyotherssaw theveryprincipleofthe "progress ofthe
arts"in thisrelativity ofluxury, thismovementwherebythechoicest
goods"enterintocommonuse" (191).Anditis doubtlessthiserasure,
thisblurring, thatmakesit so desperately difficult
forBatailleto find
the oppositionbetweenthe glorious,sacrificial,spectacularcon-
sumptionoftheaccursedshare(foundedupontheprincipleofa loss
that lends grandeurand nobility) and prosaically utilitarian
consumption.
Butifthislineofdemarcationcannotbe found,itis theveryresult
ofdemocraticlifewhichhas weakenedanddismantledtheseopposi-
tions,whichhas madethemlose theirmeaningofsocial cleavageand
confinedthemto therealmofinsularindividualexperience.All the
examplesof consumptionsocieties that fascinateBataille are ex-
tremelyunequal,evencruellyhierarchicalsocietiesin whichspec-
tacularconsumptionis the tool withwhichthe powerfulmaintain
theirpositionabovethedazzled,miserablemasses.The counterpart
oftheerosionofthesehierarchical oppositions(andin thefirstplace,
the antimonysacred-profane) is certainlythe dominationofall ac-
tivitybythecategoriesofpoliticaleconomy.This doesnot,however,

(Geneva:Slatkine
9. Condillac,"Du Luxe,"Le Commerceet le gouvernement,
citedin thetext.
1980),chapter27, 190.Henceforth
Reprints,
 JEAN-JOSEPH GOUX 221
implythe reignof the "implacable,sereneGod of the useful,"as
Baudelairewrites.10Unlesswe understand it as a productionmarked
by completeaxiologicalindifference.
Baudrillardis in factwrongwhenhe contendsthatthenotionof
"use-value"and "utility"has a restrictive
moralsensein economics,
a sensethatimpliesa naturalistmetaphysics ofneed." Itis falsethat
wheneconomistsspeakoftheuse-valueofgoods,theysupposethat
thegoodsproducedmustfirsthavehad "utilitarian" valuein orderto
have exchangevalue. In economics,use-valueand utilityweresepa-
rated,fromthe start,fromany moral evaluationconcerningtheir
legalorillegal"utility," ortheverypossibilityoftheirhaving"use" at
all in thecurrentsense.Ifone mayreproachclassicalpoliticalecono-
my forsomething,it is certainlynot, as Baudrillardbelieves(and
mistakenlycreditsMarx with the same limitation)thatit presup-
poses a metaphysicsof need and of the utilitarian(in the trivial
sense),buton thecontrary, thatitoperatesa radicaldemoralization of
thesenotions(whichgivesthemcompleteaxiologicalindifference). 12
Keepingthisindifference in mind,we see thatit is notreallya break
in historicaldevelopment, buta continuity thatleads to a capitalism
of consumption.From the start,even if the common conscien-
ciousness formedby traditionalmoral values of utilitycould not
perceiveit,politicaleconomyhas effected a denormativation ofuse,
returning"utility"to the most subjectivewhims of individual
choice. Moreover,when Batailleattacks"the principleof classical
utility,"he firstreducesit prudently to "currentintellectualrepre-
sentations("The NotionofExpenditure," La Partmaudite,26),"that
is, he reducesit to the most conventionalnotionof utility.In the
fragments thathe has lefton "thelimitsofthe useful"he has per-
fectlygrasped"themoralindifference ofcapitalism,""The greatest
moralindifference reignsfromthestart,anddoesnotstopreigning in
theuse ofproducts"(OC 7,218).Does thisobservation notcontradict
the "utilityprinciple"thathe denouncesin "The NotionofExpendi-
ture"?
Let us reiteratethatit would be useless to look forany kindof
normativity in the notionsof "use-value"or "utility"as political
10. Les Fleursdu Mal, poem5.
11. JeanBaudrillard,
Critiquede 1'6conomie politiquedu signe(Paris:Gallimard,
1972).
12. Cf.,mytext"Calcul des jouissances"in Les Iconoclastes(Paris:Seuil,1978).
Americantranslationforthcoming in Symboliceconomies,CornellUniversity Press,
1990.
222 Yale FrenchStudies
economydefinesthem,eitherto critiquepoliticaleconomyas an
enslavingmetaphysical vestigeortoseekinita basisforauthenticity.
Veryearlyon, perhapsevenfromthe beginning, politicaleconomy
declinedall responsibility. And it is doubtlessthis disengagement,
this audacious pullingaway,thisautonomizationin relationto all
moralballast(whichthecurrentterms"use" and "utility"stillcon-
vey)thatsoongavecapitalismthisprecipitancy, thiscareeningaccel-
eration,this feverforany formof production,this unprecedented
multiplication ofsupplythatdidnotresponda priorito anydemand.
Letus consider, forexample,Jean-Baptiste Say.Forhim,menonly
attachvalue to somethingin functionofits "uses,"and "thisability
of certainthingsto satisfymen's diverseneeds"is called "utility."
But,he adds,politicaleconomyonlytakesnoteofa fact,itstaskis not
tojudgewhetherornotthisappreciation correspondsto "realutility."
Politicaleconomymustnot judgein the mannerof "the scienceof
moralmen,men in society"'3-the scienceto whichhe leaves the
taskofthisjudgement.Therefore, "themostuseless,mostinconve-
nientitem, such as a royalrobe, possesses what I am here calling
utility,ifa pricecan be attachedtoitsuse,whateverthatmightbe."'4
Elaboratingon the same idea AugusteWalras,clearlymarksthis
extensionofthe term"utility"thatrequiresa separationof "moral
utility"from"economicutility"(Walras,83).This explicitdissocia-
tion,whichis at thebase oftheconceptualization ofpoliticalecono-
myandmarksitsradical breakwith all (ancientormedi-
normativity
eval)oftheuseful,rendersinoperableandnaivethosecritiquesofthe
so-calledutilitarian presuppositions ofthenotionof"use-value."Au-
guste Walraswrites: "There is this difference betweenmoral and
politicaleconomy: the first
terms "useful" onlythoseobjectsthat
satisfythoseneedsexplainedbyreason,whilethesecondgrantsthis
name to all objectsthatman can desire,eitherin theinterestofself-
preservation, orbyvirtueofhis passionsandwhims.Therefore bread
is usefulbecauseit servesas ourfood,andthechoicestmeatsarealso
usefulbecause theyappeal to our sensuality.Waterand wine are
usefulbecause theyquench our thirst,and the most dangerousli-
quorsareusefulbecausemenhavea tasteforthem.Wooland cotton
are usefulbecause one must be clothed;pearlsand diamondsare
usefulas objectsofadornment"(Walras,82).
Say,Trait6d'6conomiepolitique(Paris,1841)57.
13. Jean-Baptiste
14. CitedbyAugusteWalrasin De la naturede la richesseet de 1'originede la
citedin thetext.
valeur(Paris:Alcan editor,)82. Henceforth
 JEAN-JOSEPH GOUX 223
Whathas been describedas a "societyofconsumption," thecon-
spicuousnessin the 1960s, of a consumeristcapitalism,therefore
does notat all subvertthestatusoftheextensiveconceptof"utility"
inpoliticaleconomy,evenifitundoesthetrivial(moral)notionofthe
useful.It is, on thecontrary,theimplicationsoftheaxiologicalindif-
ferenceof economic "utility"and the historicalconsequences(be-
yondall reason)ofSay'sprinciple, thatareexposedandtriumph in the
lightofday.
A lesson,however,emergesfromthis. It is not the quantityof
waste,theamountofsquandering ortheimportance ofunproductive
consumption(whichis impossibleto assignin economicterms,but
whichsupposesa moralcriterion) thatenablesus to distinguishbe-
tweenprecapitalist societies,supposedlygoverned bytheprincipleof
pure expenditure, and capitalistsocieties,supposedlygovernedby
"theutilitarian."Undoubtedly, no societyhas squanderedso much,
producedand spentso much merelyforthe sake ofproducingand
spending, as contemporary industrialsocieties.The differencelies in
the mode ofwaste,its social mise-en-scene, its representation, and
finallythe imaginaryof the expenditure. Withoutarrivingat clear
conclusions,Bataillelookedforthesingularity ofmodernsocietiesin
theindividualismoftheirexpenditure (OC, "The LimitsofUtility,"
232 if.)and its allotment(La Partmaudite,"La Notionde depense,"
37) (whichis opposedto communalandspectacularwaste,offered by
therichfortheirown glorification).
PerhapsBataille'seconomictheoryis explainednotbyhis discov-
eryofpotlachin primitive societies,butbythepresentiment ofwhat
capitalismis becoming.That is whyBataillefindshimselfin such
bad company:in troublingconsonance(althoughone cannotreduce
Batailleto what compromiseshim here)withGilder'spostmodern
legitimation.What Gilderrevealsis the play of capitalism,which
withouthis knowingit overdetermines Bataille's exaltationand
whichalso, at the momentthatit becomesevenmorevisible,daz-
zling, spectacular,sets offBaudrillard'sacceleratedderangement.
Baudrillardand Gilder map out the same configuration of post-
moderncapitalism.But Gilderis the truthof Baudrillardsince he
wantspoliticallyand theologicallythesocial playofwhichBaudril-
lardis contentto be the appalledtelevisionviewer(morethanthe
rationalcritic).At the momentthat Gilderforgesthe ideological
instrumentof a libertarian(orratherneoconservative) politicsand
thus determinesa reality,even indirectly, Baudrillardenduresthe
 224 Yale FrenchStudies
spectacleofthatpoliticsin turmoiland unreality.Gildertheorizes
postmoderncapitalismfromthe point of view of the active en-
trepreneur,whileBaudrillardravesbrilliantly
aboutpostmodern cap-
italism in the televisualarmchairof the stupefiedconsumer.But
Gilder'sentrepreneurial moralityprovesthatthereis indeedin our
eraan economicpoliticalproject,a locatablemetamorphosis ofcap-
ital, whereBaudrillardsees only a desintegrative
and paradoxical
poetry.15

But ifBataillewas unable to thinkthroughconsumeristcapitalism

(whichtookon a morereadableformonlyaftertheupheavalsofthe
1960s),ifhe was unableto thinkthedissolutionofall foundation in
theunconvertibility ofthegeneralequivalent(whichcouldserveas a
definition ofthepostmodern conjuncture)16,ifhe couldnotthinkthe
subsequentlegitimations ofa "postbourgeois" capitalismwhichdis-
missestheEnlightenment andthegreatrationalist narrative,
Bataille
did offera new gridwhich also facilitatesthis thought.Moreover,
withhis fragmented and fissuredwork,he testifiedto an uncondi-
tional demandthat has the volcanic centerof the most powerful
contradictions, a demandbeforewhichhis existentialist contempo-
rariesappear-with thepassageoftime-as mere "men ofletters."
We know thathis workin "generaleconomics"had a majorplace
amongBataille'spreoccupations,and thatit was undoubtedlythe
connectingstrandofhis theoreticalefforts. Eventhemysticalessays
ofLa Sommeatheologiqueare indebtedto thispersistantendeavor,
evenifonlyas a momentofdistancing, ofoverwhelming liberation,
fromtheburdenofhis argumentation. The precedingpagesattempt
onlytomarkseveralguideposts:boththedifficulties ofthe"notionof
expenditure" whenone triestolinkitwithcontemporary conditions,
andthestillunexhaustedrichnessofan openinginwhichwe seekthe
basesofa moralityforwhichthetwomodesofcommunication could
be articulated.One oftheseis daily,prosaicexchange,andtheotheris
the strongermode of love, the festival,and art-communicational
unreason.

TranslatedbyKathrynAscheimand RhondaGarelick

15. Especiallyin Les Strategiesfatales,wherethereference to Batailleis most

direct(Paris:Gamier,1983),119.
16. Cf.,myanalysisin Les Monnayeurs du langage(Paris:6ditionGalilee,1984).
Americantranslation forthcomingat OklahomaUniversity Press.