The position of theology in Walter Benjamin’s intellectual framework is multifaceted and complex. Benjmain’s endeavours entail uniting two conflicting paradigms, historical materialism and theology. This paradoxical attempt provoked endless debates among Benjamin’s interpreters.
Michael Löwy differentiates between three major readings of Benjmain’s work:
1. Benjamin as a materialist who clothed his philosophy in theological metaphors (Bertolt Brecht’s reading)
2. Benjamin as a Jewish messianic thinker and theologian who misappropriated materialist terminology (Gershom Scholem’s interpretation)
3. Benjamin as a thinker who attempted to reconcile theology with historical materialism but failed (the perspectives of Jürgen Habermas and Rolf Tiedemann)
Löwy advances a third interpretation: Benjamin as both a theologian and a Marxist, one Janus head with the two faces, materialism and messianism.
Sheldon Wolin also observed the continuation of messianic theology throughout Benjamin’s work, which invalidates the standard division of Benjamin’s work into early theological phase and later materialism. Indeed, Benjamin used theological motifs from his youth to his final writings.
In fact, Benjamin affirms his debt to theology in his later writings. But his own self-reflections do not make the task of deciphering the mysteries of his arduous pursuit any easier. In The Arcades Project, Benjamin states, “My thinking is related to theology as blotting pad is related to ink. It is saturated with it. Were one to go by the blotter, however, nothing of what is written would remain.”
The blotting pad and ink metaphor imply that theology is not merely allegorical. Theology permeates and steers Benjamin’s thinking; nevertheless, nothing written is left behind. This perplexing articulation does not clarify the relation between theology and materialism in his thought. But the statement indicates that theological motifs are profoundly present in his thought, despite any eventual metamorphoses.
The famous chess automaton that Benjamin invokes is another highly perplexing image. The allegory depicts an undefeated chess automaton, wearing Turkish attire. In reality, the automaton is a puppet covertly pulled by the strings of an expert hunchback. Benjamin emphasizes that “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 wizened and has to keep out of sight.”
Interpreting this puzzling image is a subject of intense debate among Benjamin’s readers. Rolf Tiedmann argues that Benjamin’s “materialist inspiration would be ‘inspired’ in the same way, and his materialism would prove theological in the same way, despite all ‘recasting processes.’ Benjamin’s historical materialism was historically true only as the puppet, ‘which enlists the services of theology.’” Irving Wohlfarth accuses Tiedmann of misreading and misquoting Benjmain. Wohlfarth reads Benjmain’s thought as a significant attempt at recasting theology into historical materialism. Despite recognizing its incompleteness, historical materialism needed “a little help from its theological friend.”
Considering the ambiguity of Benjmain’s thesis, there is great uncertainty in determining the most precise reading. On the one hand, historical materialism is the conspicuous constituent enlisting the dwarfed theology to its service. On the other hand, historical materialism is a puppet steered by the masterful guidance of theology.
Nevertheless, it is undeniable that theology significantly shaped Benjmain ideas and, in turn, Benjamin exerted influence on later theologically-inspired thought. Benjamin’s work became associated with spiritualities ranging from the kabbalistic to the Marcionite. The influence of Benjamin’s religious contemporaries on his thought is also evident, most notably Gershom Scholem. Carl Schmitt’s political theology constitutes another fundamental influence on Benjamin.
But Benjamin formulated a new political theology whereas Schmitt critiques liberalism in service of consolidating authoritarianism; Benjamin’s theological critique strives for liberation from oppression.
This symposium on Benjamin and theology does not attempt to resolve these theological-materialist tensions. Rather, it demonstrates how theology is a fundamental aspect of Benjamin’s work. The essays explore both the strengths and limitations of Benjamin’s engagement with theology while also connecting it to broader, and sometimes unexpected, theological currents.
