ABSTRACT
What was referred to as the “move 3” within the game of the archaic is possibly its most elusive aspect. For a clear grasp of this final strategy, some further theoretical considerations will be needed. As demonstrated in previous chapters, the third figure of the archaic is associated with pre-symbolic, almost “inhuman”, “animal” phenomena. It should be noted in passing that this analysis does not claim to offer any definitive truth about animals; it merely seeks to reconstruct the logic of a particular discourse. This being said, two mutually intertwined characteristics of the “animal” must be taken into consideration. First, the animal was depicted as incapable of mimesis, language, or mediation in general. It disposes of nothing but immediate impulses and produces but “barkings of desire” (Bataille 1955, 28). Second, the animal was opposed to all forms of society. To take an example, in George Bataille’s view (1955), a primary articulation of time, work, and language builds the foundations for social organization while excluding “animality” through the same gesture. The third figure of the archaic is thus coded as an outside to both meaning-production and social organization. 1
