In 1926: living at the edge of time - Monoskop

352 CODES COLLAPSED
agree with Kracauer's view that the term's canonical meaning has become
unacceptable. For among the key premises of contemporary intellectuallife
is that the grounds for ethical norms and cognitive certainties
have vanished [see Present vs. Past, Uncertainty vs. Reality], whereas
Tragedy generally involves conflicts between intrinsically stable normative
systems. In situations of generalized uncertainty, however, when all
norms have disappeared and when people cannot be held responsible for
the consequences of their Actions, the one gesture that counts is to place
Action, as a form that resists chaos, in opposition to the threat of
disorder. [see Action vs. Impotence] Once the concept of Action is thus
defined from both an aesthetic and a pragmatic perspective, Actions that
fail can still be as valuable and beautiful-at least from the point of view
of the agents-as Actions that turn out to be pragmatically successful.
Nevertheless, Actions that fail have a far higher risk of fading into
oblivion, and this is why failure ultimately jeopardizes even their existence
as forms. It is through this paradoxical convergence of the beauty
of Actions with the threat of their annihilation that a new, nonclassical
notion of Tragedy comes into use. Calling an Action "tragic" means to
protect its presence as a beautiful form.
But why would the Berlin press describe as tragic the case of a nineteen-year-old
delinquent who has enjoyed all the privileges of an upperclass
education? If the young man went too far in his endeavor to gain
independence from the austere mode of life imposed on him by his
family, he now exaggerates his good will as a defendant by confessing to
more crimes than he can possibly have committed. Both reactions win
him the sympathy of the public because they both almost touchingly
exceed what would be necessary for him to acquire an individual profile:
Yesterday a grand jury in Berlin had to deal with the tragedy of a young
life. The accused was a nineteen-year-old man whose face clearly
showed a superior intelligence and whose entire behavior could only be
the product of an excellent education. Indeed, it became clear that he
is from a well-respected, thoroughly religious family. Up until the war,
his development was quite normal, but then he began to be confused.
When his father came back from the war, he was probably too strict
with the boy-which the father now greatly regrets, because this may
have been the origin of his son's misfortune ... In his very first interview
with the police, the young man confessed to fourteen cases of