Abstract
An ontological understanding of complexity amounts to the view that complexity is irreducible for the reasons that there is no central organising principle, and complex systems are open. In this chapter, the notion of a complex, open system is reinscribed, and further explored, in terms of a theoretical understanding of economy.
The notion of economy, which denotes any constrained set of relations, was introduced into the philosophical literature by Bataille, who, in his work, distinguishes between a utilitarian or restricted economy and an excessive or general economy. In complexity terms, Bataille’s central insight is the following: complexity is generated by a constrained set of relations, which gives rise to a system (the restricted economy of codified knowledge), but also to excess. The excess forms part of the system’s environment (the general economy).
The exact manner in which the relation between the restricted and the general economies, or the system and its environment, should be conceptualised forms the grounds for different conceptions of economy. In this chapter, five views on economy are forwarded, namely: Hegel’s totalising economy, Nietzsche’s and Bataille’s dual economy, Derrida’s aporetic economy, and Nancy’s immanent economy. The implications that these positions hold for understanding both systemic openness and relationality are explored at the hand of critical analyses in order to provide a philosophical account of the ontological view of complexity.
The full consciousness of the uncertain, the fortuitous, the tragic in all things human is far from having led me to despair. On the contrary, it is tonic to swop mental security for risk, since we gain opportunity thus… It is tonic to tear oneself away forever from the master word which explains everything, from the litany which pretends to resolve everything. It is tonic finally to consider the world, life, man, knowledge, action as open systems.
- Edgar Morin ( 1973 ), Le Paradigme perdu: la nature humaine
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
- 2.
In this regard, see the journal Acéphale, founded by Bataille and Pierre Klossowski; as well as Bataille’s On Nietzsche ([1945] 1992).
- 3.
Maturana’s work on the perceptual system and colour vision of frogs cited in the previous chapter also validate this point from a scientific perspective.
- 4.
Habermas and Lawrence (1984: 85) note that, for Bataille, ‘the heterogeneous is related to the profane world as what is superfluous—from refuse and excrement, through dreams, erotic temptations and perversions, to contaminating, subversive ideas; from palpable luxury to exuberantly electrifying hopes and transcendences. In contrast to this, the homogenous and conformist elements of everyday life are the result of profane processes of production and exchange.’
- 5.
In Derrida’s (1978a: 265) words: ‘sovereignty has no identity , is not self, for itself, toward itself, near itself… [I]t must… lose itself, lose consciousness , lose all memory of itself and all interiority of itself.’
- 6.
- 7.
Bataille (1992) states in On Nietzsche, which is partly written in diary form, that it is only with his life that he could write a book on Nietzsche, and that his book is, in part, an account of the daily casting of dice.
- 8.
It should be noted that Nietzsche was not blind to the workings of chance. In a passage from Daybreak, Nietzsche (1982: 80; 81) writes: ‘Purposes? Will?—We have accustomed ourselves to believe in the existence of two realms, the realm of purposes and will and the realm of chance… [but] all is not purpose that is called purpose, and even less is all will that is called will! And if you want to conclude from this: ‘so there is only one realm, that of chance accidents and stupidity?’ – one will have to add: yes, perhaps there is only one realm, perhaps there exists neither will nor purpose, and we have only imagined them.’
- 9.
See Sect. 2.5, feature 8.
- 10.
See Sect. 6.5.1 for the full citation.
- 11.
As will become clear from the analysis (and as argued in Sect. 6.2), Derrida does not view possibility and impossibility as modal opposites. Rather, the condition of possibility is premised on (and hence tied to) the condition of impossibility . For this reason, he visually links the terms in his formulation of the (im)possible.
- 12.
It is interesting to note that the question of the gift also concerned Bataille, who, in his texts on economy, draws heavily on Marcel Mauss’s work, titled The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic societies ([1950] 1990). The opposition between the commodity and the gift in this work resonates strongly with Bataille’s understanding of the opposition between the restricted and the general economy . According to Shershow (2001: 483), this ‘moral opposition’ essentially amounts to the difference ‘between the economistic commodity and the generous gift .’ For a detailed critique of this view of the gift see Shershow, especially Sects. 3 and 4. For a comparative exposition of the question of the gift in the works of Bataille and Heidegger (who influenced Derrida’s understanding of the gift ), see Comay (1990).
- 13.
Derrida (1999: 79) remarks on the problem of overdeterminacy in writing that: ‘I would say that the text is complicated, there are many meanings struggling with one another, there are tensions, there are equivocations; but this doesn’t mean that there is indeterminacy. On the contrary, there is too much determinacy. That is the problem.’
- 14.
This point is explored at length in Sect. 4.3.1.
- 15.
See Sect. 3.2.2.
- 16.
Nancy makes extensive use of hyphenated compounds, either by inserting hyphens in words that are usually unhyphenated (e.g. ex-posed, im-mediation) or by constructing hyphenated phrases (e.g. outside-of-self). In French the term for hyphen is trait d’union, which literally translates as ‘line or mark of union’. Bearing this in mind, Peggy Kamuf (2005: 278) summarises Nancy’s reasons for using the hyphen as follows: On the one hand, the hyphen represents ‘the graphic imperative… [the] necessity of going over the articulating trait that has been covered or closed down.’ On the other hand, the hyphen as ‘graphic practice is thematized… around the preposition “with” or “avec”, which serves as the mark of union/disunion, and which marks the interval between/among substances.’
- 17.
- 18.
See Sect. 6.3 for a more detailed discussion on Nancy’s praxis.
- 19.
Wessel Stoker (2012: 20) classifies Derrida’s metaphysics as ‘transcendence as alterity’ . In this view, ‘[t]he relationship between transcendence and immanence is no longer viewed as an opposition. Rather, one has learned to think beyond the opposition, whereby the wholly other can appear in every other.’ In contrast to Derrida’s position, Nancy argues that the wholly other appears in me, to the extent that I am defined as singular-plural in that my ontological condition is that of being exposed to ek-sistence or community .
- 20.
In this essay, ‘Shattered love’ , Nancy (2003d) argues that the formulation ‘thinking is love… can… begin the quest for an ignored essence of thinking for which we lack any evident access’ (247). This is because framing thinking in terms of love draws attention to both our preoccupation with thinking (in philosophy , for example) and the elusive character of thinking . For a fuller description of Nancy’s view of the relation between thinking and love, see Sect. 7.4.2.
- 21.
See Sect. 3.3.1.
References
Badiou, A. 2001. Who is Nietzsche? Pli 11: 1–11.
Bailey Gill, C. 1997. Bataille and the question of presence. Parallax 4: 89–98.
Bataille, G. 1970. Sur Nietzsche. In Oeuvres Complètes, vol. VI. Paris: Gallimard.
———. 1984. The notion of expenditure. In Visions of excess: Selected writings, ed. A. Stoekl, trans. A. Stoekl, C.R. Lovitt, and D.M. Leslie Jr., 116–129. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
———. 1991. The accursed shared: an essay on general economy, vol. 1, Consumption. Trans. R. Hurley. New York: Zone Books.
———. 1992. On Nietzsche. Trans. B. Boone. New York: Paragon House.
Baudrillard, J. 1987. When Bataille attacked the metaphysical principle of economy. Trans. D.J. Miller. Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory 11: 57–62.
Bennington, G. 1995. Bataille: Writing the sacred, ed. C. Bailey Gill. London: Routledge.
Cilliers, P. 2001. Boundaries, hierarchies and networks in complex systems. International Journal of Innovation Management 5(2): 135–147.
———. 2004. Complexity, ethics and justice. Humanistiek 19: 19–25.
Comay, R. 1990. Gifts without presents: economies of “experience” in Bataille and Heidegger. Yale French Studies 78: 66–89.
Culler, J. 1983. On deconstruction: Theory and criticism after structuralism. London: Routledge.
Derrida, J. 1976a. Of grammatology. Trans. G. Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
———. 1976b. Entre crochet (An interview). Digraphe 8: 97–114.
———. 1978a. From restricted to general economy: A Hegelianism without reserve. In Writing and difference. Trans. A. Bass, 251–277. London: Routledge.
———. 1978b. Structure, sign, and play in the discourse of the human sciences. In Writing and difference. Trans. A. Bass, 278–294. London: Routledge.
———. 1981. Positions. Trans. A. Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———. 1982. Différance. In Margins of philosophy. Trans. A. Bass, 1–28. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———. 1988. Afterword. In Limited Inc, ed. G. Graff, trans. S. Weber, 111–160. Evanston: Northern Western University Press.
———. 1992. Force of law: The “mystical foundation of authority”. Trans. M. Quaintance. In Deconstruction and the possibility of justice, ed. D. Cornell, M. Rosenfeld, and D.G. Carlson, 3–67. New York: Routledge.
———. 1993. Aporias. Trans. T. Dutoit. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
———. 1994. Given time: 1. Counterfeit money. Trans. P. Kamuf. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———. 1999. Hospitality, justice and responsibility: a dialogue with Jacques Derrida. In Questioning Ethics: Contemporary Debates in Philosophy, ed. R. Kearney and M. Dooley, 65–68. London/New York: Routledge.
———. 2002a. Ethics and politics today. In Negotiations: interventions and interviews, 1971–2001, ed. and trans. E. Rottenberg, 295–314. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
———. 2002b. Negotiations. In Negotiations: Interventions and interviews, 1971–2001, ed. and trans. E. Rottenberg, 11–40. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Fink, E. 2003. Nietzsche’s philosophy. Trans. G. Richter. London: Continuum.
Foucault, M. 1974. A preface to transgression. In Language, counter-memory, practice. Selected essays and interviews, ed. and trans. D.F. Bouchard and S. Sparks. Ithaca, NY: Cornell.
Gillespie, M.A. 1999. Nietzsche and the anthropology of nihilism. Nietzsche-Studien 28: 141–155.
Grosz, E. 1998. The time of violence: Deconstruction and value. Cultural Values 2(2/3): 190–205.
Habermas, J., and F. Lawrence. 1984. The French path to postmodernity: Bataille between eroticism and general economics. New German Critique 33: 79–102.
Hegel, G.W.F. 1977. Phenomenology of spirit. 2nd ed. Trans. A.V. Miller. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Human, O., and P. Cilliers. 2013. Towards an economy of complexity: Derrida, Morin and Bataille. Theory Culture Society 30(5): 24–44.
Hurst, A. 2004. Derrida’s quasi-transcendental thinking. South African Journal of Philosophy 23(3): 244–266.
Hutchens, B.C. 2005. Jean-Luc Nancy and the future of philosophy. Chesham: Acumen.
Kamuf, P. 2005. Book of addresses. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Kant, I. 1929. Critique of pure reason. 2nd ed. Trans. N. Kemp Smith. London: Macmillan Press.
Kohn, M. 2005. Frederick Douglass’s master-slave dialectic. The Journal of Politics 67(2): 497–514.
Kojève, A. 1969. Introduction to the reading of Hegel: Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit, ed. A. Bloom, trans. J.H. Nichols, Jr. New York/London: Basic Books.
Land, N. 1992. The thirst for annihilation: Georges Bataille and virulent nihilism. London: Routledge.
Libertson, J. 1982. Proximity: Levinas, Blanchot, Bataille and Communication. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Lucy, N. 2004. A Derrida dictionary. Oxford/Victoria: Blackwell.
———. 2000. Why does society describe itself as postmodern? In Observing complexity: Systems theory and postmodernity, ed. W. Rasch and C. Wolfe, 35–49. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
Mauss, M. 1990. The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. Trans. W.D. Halls. New York: Norton.
Morin, E. 2008. On complexity. Trans. S.M. Kelly. Cresskill: Hampton Press.
———. 1992. Method: Towards a study of humankind, vol. 1, The Nature of Nature. Trans. and intro. J.L.R. Bélanger. New York: Peter Lang.
———. 1973. La Paradigme perdu: la nature humaine. Paris: Seuil.
Müller-Lauter, W. 1971. Nietzsche: Seine Philosophie der Gegensätze und die Gegensätze seiner Philosophie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Verlag.
Nancy, J.-L. 1991. The inoperative community, ed. P. Connor, trans. P. Connor, L. Garbus, M. Holland, and S. Sawhney. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
———. 2003a. Concealed thinking. In A finite thinking, ed. S. Sparks, trans. J. Gilbert-Walsh, 31–47. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
———. 2003b. The unsacrificable. In A finite thinking, ed. S. Sparks, trans. R. Stamp and S. Sparks, 51–77. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
———. 2003c. A finite thinking. In A finite thinking, ed. S. Sparks, trans. E. Bullard, J. Derbyshire, and S. Sparks, 3–30. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
———. 2003d. Shattered love. In A finite thinking, ed. S. Sparks, trans. L. Garbus and S. Sawhney, 245–274. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Nietzsche, F. 1967. The will to power, ed. W. Kaufmann, trans. W. Kaufmann and R.J. Hollingdale. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
———. 1974. The gay science. Trans. W. Kaufmann. New York: Random House.
———. 1969. Thus spoke Zarathustra. Trans. R.J. Hollingdale. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
———. 1982. Daybreak: Thoughts on the prejudices of morality. Trans. R.J. Hollingdale, intro. M. Tanner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1989a. Beyond good and evil. Trans. W. Kaufman. New York: Vintage Books.
———. 1989b. Ecce homo, ed. and trans. W. Kaufmann. New York: Vintage Books.
———. 1999a. Sämtliche Werke . Kritische Studienausgabe in 15 Bänden, vol. 10, ed. G. Colli and M. Montinari. Munich/Berlin: DTV/De Gruyter.
———. 1999b. Sämtliche Werke. Kritische Studienausgabe in 15 Bänden, vol. 11, ed. G. Colli and M. Montinari. Munich/Berlin: DTV/De Gruyter.
Poli, R. 2013. A note on the difference between complicated and complex social systems. Cadmus 2(1): 142–147.
Roodt, V. 2005. Amor fati, amor mundi: Nietzsche and Arendt on overcoming modernity. Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch.
Shershow, S.C. 2001. Of sinking: Marxism and the “general” economy. Critical Inquiry 27(3): 468–492.
Spivak, G.C. 1994. Responsibility. Boundary 2 21(3): 19–64.
Stoker, W. 2012. Culture and transcendence: A typology. In Looking beyond? Shifting views of transcendence in philosophy, theology, art, and politics, ed. W. Stoker and W. van der Merwe, 5–29. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Trahair, L. 2001. The comedy of philosophy: Bataille, Hegel and Derrida. Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities 6(3): 155–169.
Van Tongeren, P. 2000. Reinterpreting modern culture: An introduction to Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy. Indiana: Purdue University Press.
Weiss, A.S. 1986. Impossible sovereignty: Between “The Will to Power” and “The Will to Chance”. In Georges Bataille: writings on laughter, sacrifice, Nietzsche, Unknowing. Trans. A. Michelson, 128–146. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Woermann, M. (2016). The Economy of Complexity. In: Bridging Complexity and Post-Structuralism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39047-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39047-5_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-39045-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-39047-5
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)