(Studies in German Literature Linguistics and Culture) Rolf J

180
MARC DE WILDE
von allen Seiten durchsichtig. In Wahrheit saß ein bucklichter Zwerg
darin, der ein Meister im Schachspiel war und die Hand der Puppe
an Schnüren lenkte. Zu diesem Apparat kann man sich ein Gegenstück
in der Philosophie vorstellen. Gewinnen soll immer die Puppe,
die man “historischen Materialismus” nennt. Sie kann es ohne weiteres
mit jedem aufnehmen, wenn sie die Theologie in ihren Dienst
nimmt, die heute bekanntlich klein und häßlich ist und sich ohnehin
nicht darf blicken lassen. (GS I.2:693)
[There was once, we know, an automaton constructed in such a
way that it could respond to every move by a chess player with a
countermove that would ensure the winning of the game. A puppet
wearing Turkish attire and with a hookah in its mouth sat before
the chessboard placed on a large table. A system of mirrors created
the illusion that this table was transparent on all sides. Actually, a
hunchbacked dwarf — a master at chess — sat inside and guided the
puppet’s hand by means of strings. One can imagine a philosophic
counterpart to this apparatus. The puppet, called “historical materialism,”
is to win all the time. It can easily be a match for anyone if it
enlists the services of theology, which today, as we know, is small and
ugly and has to keep out of sight. (SW 4:393)]
Considering the many interpretations that have been proposed, Benjamin’s
image of the dwarf in the chess machine has proved to be a source
of confusion rather than of clarity. Although the image itself suggests that
the dwarf (or theology) pulls the strings, guiding the moves of the puppet
(or historical materialism), Benjamin in his explanation of the metaphor
proposes the opposite: theology is merely in the “service” of historical
materialism. This leads to the following question: who is really in charge,
the dwarf of theology or the puppet of historical materialism?
The metaphor of the dwarf in the chess machine, which identifies
the relation between historical materialism and theology as among the
main philosophical stakes of Benjamin’s theses, has prompted a debate
between, on the one hand, scholars inspired by Marxism who, in the wake
of Bertolt Brecht’s observation that “the small work is clear and illuminating
(despite its metaphors and Judaisms),” emphasize the importance
of historical materialism at the expense of theology, and, on the other
hand, cultural theorists who, following in the footsteps of Gershom Scholem,
emphasize the work’s “deep connection with theology,” claiming
that “[often] nothing remains of historical materialism but the word.” 4
Among the former critics, Rolf Tiedemann is the most outspoken, answering
the question raised in the title of his essay “Historical Materialism or
Political Messianism?” in favor of historical materialism. In the theses, he
argues, Benjamin “does not assign the task of redemption to a redeemer
who is to intervene in history from the outside. Instead, it is ‘our’ task: