https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8367-3371
![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
Friedrich A. Kittler’s canonical Aufschreibesysteme 1800/1900 (Discourse Networks 1800/1900) threatened the very idea of the canonicity of German literature. Yet Kittler’s readings systematically dismiss, mishear, and distort foreign voices who resist and cannot easily fit into his rigid theoretical framework. This discursive strategy is most apparent in his formative reading of E.T.A. Hoffmann’s 1814 “Der Goldene Topf: Ein Märchen aus der neuen Zeit” (The Golden Pot: A Fairy Tale for the Modern Age). Despite its erasures and repressions of difference, his reading of this text has had a largely positive reception. A re-reading of his formative reading is thus long overdue. By closely analyzing Kittler’s interpretation of Hoffmann’s text, this article demonstrates that Kittler's expressed claim to challenge a canonical approach to German literature and his disruptions of disciplinary norms and behavioral conventions mask his fundamental affiliation with processes of canonization.
Notes
1 Friedrich Kittler, Aufschreibesysteme 1800/1900 (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1985); English: Discourse Networks 1800/1900, trans. Michael Metteer and Chris Cullens, with a Foreword by David E. Wellbery (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990). It includes two blurbs with high praise by Stanley Corngold and Wlad Godzich. All citations are from this English translation because this is the edition that has been popularized globally as a best seller for a wide range of disciplines in the humanities.
2 For details of the North American reception of Kittler, see Geoffrey Winthrop-Young, “The Kittler Effect,” New German Critique 44.3 (2017): 205–24 and Winthrop-Young, Friedrich Kittler zur Einführung (Hamburg: Junius, 2005) for details on the trajectory of his career and the evolution of his works.
3 “At times Kittler reinhabits traditional institutional spaces and affirms the inherent value of Wissenschaft, but he also often plays the role of the anarchic provocateur able to see through the pretentions of outmoded disciplinary constructs,” as Sean Franzel succinctly puts it in “Kittler’s German Media Histories,” part of a forum on “The Legacies of Friedrich Kittler” ed. Carl Niekerk, German Studies Review 38.1 (2015): 145. Kittler’s prominent friends, former students, colleagues, and commentators have repeatedly voiced the paradox that “on the one hand, Kittler was unconditionally admired, yet on the other, he faced unyielding academic skepticism until the end of his work—and life,” in Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, “Media History as the Event of Truth: On the Singularity of Friedrich A. Kittler’s Works,” in The Truth of the Technological World: Essays on the Genealogy of Presence (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2014), 307. See also Gumbrecht, “Mythographer of Paradoxes: How Friedrich Kittler’s Legacy Matters,” Critical Inquiry 42 (2016): 952–58.
4 Hans Martin Gauger in Manfred Frank, Hans-Martin Gauger, Gerhard Kaiser, Friedrich Kittler, Rainer Martin, Wolfram Mauser, Gerhard Neumann, Peter Pütz, Manfred Schneider, and Gottfried Schramm, “Aufschreibesysteme 1980/2010. In memoriam Friedrich Kittler (1943-2011),” Zeitschrift für Medienwissenschaft. 4.6 (2012): 114–92, here 184-6. This collection of evaluations of Kittler’s Habilitation includes Kittler’s preface which he wrote in 1983 in response to a request from his committee to clarify his methodology and situate it in contemporary debates. See Florian Sprenger, “Academic Networks 1982/2016: The Provocations of a Reading,” Grey Room 63 (2016): 71–88 for more details about his Habilitation process, the committee’s evaluations, as well as Kittler’s preface.
5 Manfred Schneider, “In Memorium,” 152.
6 Schneider, “In Memorium,” 191. He wrote these words in his February 2012 “Postscriptum” once Kittler was already canonized.
7 Winthrop-Young, “‘Well, what socks is Pynchon wearing today?’ A Freiburg Scrapbook in Memory of Friedrich Kittler,” Cultural Politics 8.3 (2012): 361–73, here 363.
8 Winthrop-Young, “‘Freiburg,” 363.
9 Winthrop-Young, “Freiburg,” 368.
10 Winthrop-Young, Einführung, 10.
11 Winthrop-Young, “Freiburg,” 365.
12 I join Pantelis Michelakis’ recent call to read Aufschreibesysteme not as a text on media studies but one on literature, and to “engage more systematically with [its] 418 pages through a slow, careful reading process that revisits and replicates Kittler’s own method” of reading as praxis. See “Thinking with and through Literature in Friedrich Kittler’s Discourse Networks,1800/1900,” in Friedrich Kittler: Neue Lektüre, eds. Jens Schröter and Till A. Heilmann (Berlin: Springer VS, 2022), 82.
13 Kittler considered his interpretation of this text his best and better than that of most others. See “Friedrich Kittler im Interview mit Christoph Weinberger: Das Kalte Modell von Struktur,” Zeitschrift für Medienwissenschaft 1 (2009): 94. Robert C. Holub deemed it an “ingenious reading,” which canonized Hoffmann’s text as the “archetypical fairy tale for the discourse network of 1800” in “Friedrich Kittler as Discursive Analyst,” in Crossing Borders: Reception Theory, Poststructuralism, Deconstruction (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992), 101. Antje Pfannkuchen writes that his reading of “Der goldene Topf” “lured [her] into his classes when he arrived at Humboldt University,” in “Rewriting Romanticism, Again and Again,” in “The Legacies,” 138. In the anonymous and undated Kommissionsgutachten which offered a final judgment based on the collective evaluations, it was an isolated example of a “brilliante Gesamtanalyse” (“In Memorium,” 181). Committee member Peter Pütz appreciated its “Detailfreudigkeit” (“In Memorium,” 165), and Gerhard Neumann called it “ausführlich” (“In Memorium,” 134).
14 “Der Goldene Topf: Ein Märchen aus der neuen Zeit” in E.T.A. Hoffmann Fantasiestücke in Callot’s Manier. Werke. 1814, ed. Hartmut Steinecke (Frankfurt: Deutcher Klassiker Verlag, 2020), 234. English translation in Discourse, 78. All English translations of the story that appear in Aufschreibesysteme are based on Tales of E.T.A. Hoffmann. Ed. and trans. Leonard J. Kent and Elizabeth C. Knight (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969).
15 As translated by Kent and Knight.
16 In Genesis, translation and commentary by Robert Alter (New York: W.W. Norton, 1996), 11. “Cunning” (in Hebrew arum) is also translated as “subtle” in other translations.
17 Kittler, Discourse, 78–79.
18 Kittler, Discourse, 97. His primary examples are the works of Heinrich Stephani and Ernst Tillich.
19 Kittler, Discourse, 78.
20 Kittler, Discourse, 79.
21 Kittler, Discourse, 38.
22 Kittler, Discourse, a.o. 87 for his use of “Woman’s Voice.” “Mother’s Mouth” appears throughout the section on 1800, but see esp. the chapter “Mother’s Mouth,” 25–69.
23 Kittler, Discourse, 51.
24 Kittler, Discourse, 78.
25 As succinctly put by Adrian Johnston, in “Jacques Lacan,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, last modified December 24, 2022, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lacan/(accessed December 18, 2023).
26 Kittler’s commitment to introducing Lacan into German academia is apparent in his 1980 translation of Lacan’s 1938 text on the family, appearing two years prior to the completion of Aufschreibesysteme. Lacan, “Die Familie,” trans. Friedrich Kittler in Schriften, vol. 3 (Olten: Walter, 1980), 40–100. Lacan’s originally appeared as “La famille: les complexes familiaux” in Encyclopédie française, ed. Henri Wallon, vol.8, La vie mentale (Paris: Larousse, 1938). The family’s primary function is, in Kittler’s translation of this work, the “Weitergabe der Kultur,” by which he means cultural transmission, education, and acquisition of language through the mother: “beim Erwerb der zu Recht genannten Muttersprache” as well as “psychische Kontinuität” (42). For Lacan, as per Kittler’s translation, it is the imago of the mother’s breast that dominates the entirety of human life (51). Even the choice of the object of desire is framed by the love for the mother. Such a complex is then applied by Kittler onto the pedagogy of reading and writing around 1800. By the time he wrote Aufschreibesysteme, he had worked out his theoretical framework in three essays where he more explicitly cites his debt to Lacan: “‘Das Phantom unseres Ichs’ und die Literaturpsychologie: E.T.A. Hoffmann—Freud—Lacan,” in Urszenen: Literaturwissenschaft als Diskursanalyse und Diskurskritik, eds. Friedrich A. Kittler and Horst Turk (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1977), 139–66; “Der Dichter, die Mutter, das Kind. Zur romantischen Erfindung der Sexualität”, in “Romantik in Deutschland,” Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geisteswissenschaft 1978, ed. Richard Brinkmann, 102–14 (English: “Poet, Mother, Child: On the Romantic Invention of Sexuality,” in The Truth, 1–16); and “Die Irrwege des Eros und die absolute Familie. Psychoanalytischer und diskursanalytischer Kommentar zu Klingsohrs Märchen in Novalis’ Heinrich von Ofterdingen,” in Psychoanalytische und psychopathologische Literaturwissenschaft, eds. Winfried Kudszus and Bernd Urban (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981), 421–70. See “Autorschaft und Liebe” in Austreibung des Geistes aus den Geisteswissenschaften, ed. Friedrich A. Kittler (Paderborn: Schöningh,1980), 142–73, where he also has a reading of “The Golden Pot,” with a focus on the creation of authorship.
27 Kittler, Discourse, 25. He adds a note that “the capitalized and crossed-out article is a Lacanian notation indicating that woman does not exist as One in that woman, as they exist, exist in a plurality and thus cannot be inscribed in the phallic function (universality).” In the corresponding footnote he writes “see Lacan, Encore passim [Le Séminaire de Jacques Lacan, Book 20 (Paris, 1975)]; in relation to classical-romantic poetry, see Jens Schreiber, “Die Zeichen der Liebe,” in Goethes Wahlverwandtschaften. Kritische Modelle und Diskursanalysen zum Mythos. Literatur, ed. Norbert W. Bolz (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1981), 276–83.” However, his next sentence contradicts his paraphrasing of Lacan since Kittler states that woman exists as One as Mother.
28 Kittler, Discourse, 65. He seems to be quoting “Der goldene Topf” but with no page numbers.
29 Kittler, Discourse, 87.
30 Kittler, Discourse, 97.
31 Kittler, Discourse, 79.
32 As reported by Registrator Heerbrand in “The Golden Flower Pot,” in Best Tales of Hoffmann, ed. E.F. Bleiler (New York: Dover, 1967), 10. The complete description in German “Der goldene Topf,” 241–42: „Es ist hier am Orte ein alter wunderlicher merkwürdiger Mann, man sagt, er treibe allerlei geheime Wissenschaften, da es nun aber dergleichen eigentlich nicht gibt, so halte ich ihn eher für einen forschenden Antiquar, auch wohl neben her für einen experimentierenden Chemiker. Ich meine niemanden anders als unsern geheimen Archivarius Lindhorst. Er lebt wie Sie wissen einsam in seinem entlegenen alten Hause und wenn ihn der Dienst nicht beschäftigt, findet man ihn in seiner Bibliothek oder in seinem chemischen Laborotario, wo er aber niemanden hinein läßt. Er besitzt außer vielen seltenen Büchern eine Anzahl zum Teil arabischer, koptischer und gar in sonderbaren Zeichen, die keiner bekannten Sprache angehören, geschriebener Manuskripte.” The Registrator, who introduces Anselmus to Lindhorst, provides a description of how the community in Dresden perceives Lindhorst. He marks him as an eccentric and mentions his work as an experimental chemist in his isolated house. Although it is not directly relevant for a reading of Kittler’s reading of Hoffmann’s text and he does not quote it, I include the full passage to show how Lindhorst too was othered in the university system around him.
33 Translation in Kittler, Discourse, 79.
34 Translation in Kittler, Discourse, 86.
35 Translation in Kittler, Discourse, 86.
36 Kittler, Discourse, 81.
37 Kittler, Discourse, 84. He quotes directly from Theodor Hippel, Über die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Weiber, ed. Ralph-Rainer Wuthenow (Frankfurt: Syndikat, 1977; orig. pub. 1793), 61. Schlegel’s alleged prescription is an indirect quotation.
38 Kittler, Discourse, 87.
39 Kittler, Discourse, 87.
40 Kittler, Discourse, 95.
41 Kittler, Discourse, 87–88.
42 Kittler, Discourse, 93.
43 Lacan, “Die Familie,” trans. Kittler, 96–97.
44 The story is a canonical work for Hindus, chanted and read silently and out loud. It is part of the orally transmitted epic Mahabharata about the war between two families, the Pandavas and Kauravas over succession to the throne of the North Indian kingdom of Bharatha. The Gita relates a conversation between the god Krishna and the warrior Arjun on the ethics of leadership and moral action, mirroring the structure of the mentor-mentee relationship between Lindhorst and Anselmus.
45 Hoffmann directly picked up the phrase from Novalis’ “Die Lehrlinge zu Sais.” He was also picking up on the belief disseminated by Friedrich Schlegel in his Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit der Inder that the Indian language was the oldest and Latin, German, Persian, Greek were all related but emerged from it. Schlegel wrote that the forebears of the Germans wandered over from India and considered Ancient Egypt and Israel also Indian colonies. Around 1813-1814, the years Hoffmann wrote and published “Der goldene Topf,” comparative linguist Wilhelm von Humboldt and others re-oriented their attention from commentaries on Ancient Greek and Latin literature and the Hebrew Bible to Sanskrit and other languages outside the European canon, thereby appropriating them into the European canon.
46 Kittler, Discourse, 86.
47 Translation in Kittler, Discourse, 93.
48 Translation Kittler, Discourse, 93.
49 In Hoffmann, “The Golden Flower Pot,” 44-45. In Hoffmann, “Der goldene Topf,” 288.
50 Hoffmann, “The Golden Flower Pot,” 46. German in Hoffmann, “Der goldene Topf,” 289–90.
51 Luce Irigaray, This Sex which is Not One, trans. Catherine Porter and Carolyn Burke (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985), 86. Irigaray is critiquing Lacanian psychoanalytic discourse. That her critique is also in line with my critique of Kittler shows just how close his method is to Lacan’s.
52 In Hoffmann, “The Golden Flower Pot,” 47. German in Hoffmann, “Der Goldene Topf,” 290–91. „Findet sich dann in der dürftigen armseligen Zeit der innern Verstocktheit ein Jüngling der ihren Gesang vernimmt, ja blickt ihn eine der Schlänglein mit ihren holdseligen Augen an, entzündet der Blick in ihm die Ahnung des fernen wundervollen Landes […]. “
53 For Serpentina’s complete story, see Hoffmann, “The Golden Flower Pot,” 45–48. German in “Der Goldene Topf,” 287–93.
54 Kittler, Discourse, 94.
55 Kittler, Discourse, 94.
56 Kittler, Discourse, 100.
57 Kittler, Discourse, 94.
58 Kittler, Discourse, 94
59 Kittler, Discourse, 95.
60 Kittler, Discourse, 94.
61 Kittler, Discourse, 93.
62 Kittler, Discourse, 98.
63 Kittler, Discourse, 100.
64 Kittler, Discourse, 106.
65 Kittler, Discourse, 89.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Tanvi Solanki
Tanvi Solanki is Assistant Professor of German and Comparative Literature at Yonsei University’s Underwood International College. A guiding concern of her work is to develop critical methodologies for investigating the role of sound in concepts and practices of difference, diversity, and alterity within the German literary and philosophical canon.