This article aims to elucidate the relationship between Agamben’s notion of messianism and his project of philosophical archaeology. Whereas the former relates to political and ethical aspects of Agamben’s philosophy, the latter belongs to the domain of methodology of philosophical research itself. The main thesis of the paper argues that these two components rely on each other and constitute one and the same project. The author demonstrates that Agamben’s notion of messianic action and scholarly activity of philosophical archaeology overlap, which (...) leads to a problematization of political dimension of Agamben’s messianism. The orientation towards the past in Agamben’s understanding of the messianic is its crucial presupposition that imposes limits on its applicability to the realm of politics. This thesis is substantiated by an investigation of the problem of relation between theory and practice in Agamben’s thought and by a close reading of the ‘Mystery of Anomia’ section in The Time that Remains. Beginning with the problem of the possibility of a transition from the tragic narrative elaborated in the Homo Sacer project to the messianic state of lawlessness, the author demonstrates that in Agamben’s thought this transition is made possible only by means of an archaeological inquiry. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 1, February 2019, Page 54-70.

ABSTRACT This article reconstructs Agamben’s contribution to the secularization debate. To this aim it clarifies Agamben’s determination of the category of secularization as a signature. It first presents the relevant passages on secularization from across Agamben’s corpus, placing them in the context of the classic secularization debate between Blumenberg, Schmitt and Löwith. Second, it elaborates on Agamben’s theory of the signature. Third, it proposes how we can understand secularization as a signature. Fourth, it examines the different strategic functions of secularization (...) and profanation in Agamben’s critical philosophy. The article argues that Agamben’s account of secularization comprises two distinct levels. Agamben develops a general theory of secularization as a signature, which implies that it is an operator that orients hermeneutic understanding by referring secular elements to the discursive field of religion and theology, and that always performs a strategic function. To what strategic function Agamben puts secularization to use himself, corresponds to the second, particular level of Agamben’s understanding of secularization. Secularization is in Agamben’s critical project subservient to the operation of profanation. The article is in light of the secularization debate most concerned with the general level of Agamben’s account of secularization. (shrink)