( :optinuum

The Tower Building. 11 York Road, London SEI 7NX, 15 East 26th Street, New York, NY 10010

First published in France under the title Le Partage du srnsible: Esthhique ft politique

© La Fabrique-f:dirions, 2000 @ Gabriel Rockhill, 2004

All rights reserved, No p:l.rt of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, elecrronic or mechanical.

including photocopying. recording, or any information srorage or retrie\'al system. withGlIt prior permission in \\'riring fmm the publishers,

British Library CHaloguillg-in-Publication Data A catalogue record fl);' this book is 3\'ailable from the British Lii)rarv.

Typesct by Fakenhanl Photosetting, .'Jorfolk Prillted and bound in Great Britain by

MPG Rooks Lrd, Bodmin, Cornwall

I

Contents

Translator's Preface The Reconfigurarion of Meaning

Tra nslator's Introduction J�lcqlle� Rancierc's Pol itic� of [)crc{'priotl

The DistriblItion of the Sensible Foreword The Distribution of the Semibk: Politic, and Aesthetics Artistic Regimcs and the Shortcomings of thc Noti(ln of Modern ity Mechanical Ans and the Promotion of the A nonvmous fs History a Form of Fiction? Oil Art ;llld \X/or-k

Interview for the English Edition The j;11l1lS- hce of Pol iricized A rt: Jacques I\allcii'rc in Interview with Gabriel Rockhill

Historical and Hermeneutic Methodology Universality, Historicity, Equality Positive Contradiction Politicized Art

A fterword by Siavo; Zizek The Lesson of" Rancicrc

\pf'cndix i ;\ppendix ii

>-Jotcs index

Clmsar), nfTcchnicti Terms Bibliograph)' of Primary ;lI1d Sccondar\' S(lllrCCS

VI! \"11

12

20 \1 )')

102 l()1l

Translators Introduction

Jacques Ranciere's Politics of Perceptimr"

CABRIEL ROCKHIll.

As Alain n:l.di otl has aptly pointed out, Jacques Rancicre's work does not belong to any particular JCademic community but LIther inhabits unknown intervals 'between history and philosophy. het,veen philosophy and politics, and between docllmenrary ;In<1 h,:tio!1' (l')q;.�:

122) . His II nique methodology, eclectic rescHch hahiu.,1Ild v, 'r.l( ;'''.1' propellSity for assimilating European intellccrllal and cultliLll hi<;!(Or" arc comparable perhaps only to the llllCla ssifiahlc work or \1;, hel r()\lCalllr, an a\lthor wi th whom he 11 i fllSf'! r :], k n('wlc,l�('·<; (':rLllll affinities. If his voice has yet to he he.11d in fl)ll !nrcl' i n the Fnglish­speaking world due to a bck ()f trall,,1ario']s :1n,1 SlIrSC;tfll s(,lomb!"; literature, it is perhaps ;lttriblluhlc to whar Rdl1cicrc hiil1selr h,I' called the distr ibution of the sensible, or the sy,tcm of divt,inlls and boundaries that define, among other things, wh:1I is visible �ncl alldihle within a particular aesthetico-pnlitic:l.1 regime.

Although closely affiliated with the group or neo-i'vlarxists wnrk;ng around A Ithusser in the 19()Os, Ranciere's vi I'ulenr criticisms of r he latter a:; of 1968 served to distance him from the author with whom he had shared the common project Lire lc Glpit(;/in 19()5. As Rancii:re explained in the Preface to La Ler;oll dAft/'llsse]" (1974), the thcor etical and political distance separating his work from Althusserian )vlarxism was partially ;1 res.tlt of the event, of 1 968 and the realization that Althusser's school was a 'ph i 10soph;T of ordcr' whose very pri nciples anaesthetized the revolt against the bourgeoisie. Uninspired by the political options proposed by th in kers such as Dclcuzc ;ll1d Lyota rd,

Rancicre saw in the politics of dift��rence the risk of reversing M:HX'c statement in the TtlPsis (1(7 FC!tCr/;f!ch: 'Wc tried t(1 tra nsform the wnrid

2 THE POLITICS OF AESTH ETIC S

in diverse ways, now i t is a matter of interpret ing it' (]974: 14). These criticisms of the response by certain intellectuals to the events of May 1968 eventually led him to a critical re-examination of the socia l , polit ical , and historical forces operative i n the production of theory.

I n the fi rst two books to fol low the collection of essavs on Althusser, Ranciere explored a question that would continue to

'preoccupy h i m

in his later work: from what position do we speak a n d i n t h e name of what or whom? Whereas La Nuit des proletaires (1981) proceeded via the route of meticulous historical research to unmask the il l usions of representation and give voice to certain mute events in the h istory of workers' emancipation, Le Philosophe et ses pauvres (I983) provided a conceptualization of the relationship between thought and society, ph ilosophic representation a nd its concrete historical object. Both of these works contributed to undermining the priv i leged position usurped by phi losophy in its various attempts to speak for others, be it the proletariat, the poor, or anyone else who is not ' destined to th ink '. However, far from advocat ing a popul ist stance and claiming to fina l ly bestow a spec ific identity on the underprivileged , Ranciere thwarted the artifice at work in the discourses founded on the singularity of the other by reveal ing the ways in which they are ultimately predicated on keeping the other in i ts place.

This general criticism of social and politica l philosophy was counter­balanced by a more posi tive account of the relationsh ip between the 'intellectual' and the emancipation of society i n Ranciere's fourth book, Le Maztre ignorant (987). Analysing the life and work of Joseph Jacotet, Ranciere argued in favour of a pedagogical methodology that would aboli sh any presupposed inequalities of intelligence such as the academic hierarchy of master and disciple. For Ranciere, equa l ity should not be thought of in terms of a goal to be attained by working th rough the lessons promulgated by prom i nent socia l and polit ical t h i nkers. On th/: contrary, it i s the very axiomatic poin t of depa rture whose sporadic reappearance v ia disturbances in the set system of social i nequalities is the very e�sence of emancipation. Th i s expla ins , in part, Ranciere's general rejection of pol it ical ph i losophy, understood as the theoretical enterprise that abolishes politics proper by ident ifying it with the 'police' (see below). It also sheds l ight on his own attempt to work as an 'ignorant schoolmaster' who - rather than transmitting

TRANSL\TOR'S INTROD UCTION

performatively contradictory lessons on the content of em;) ncipation - a i ms at giving a voice to those excluded from the hierarchies of knowledge.

With the more recent publ ication of AIiX Bord, dN politiCju{' (j9<)O) and La Mlj'entrnte (1995), Ranciere has further elaborated a politics

of democratic emancipation, which might best he ulldersrood in terms of its central concepts. The po/icc, to begin with, is defined as an organizational system of coordinates that establishes a distribution 01 the sensible or a la,v that divides the community into grollPS, social positions, and functions. This law implicitly separates those who take part from those who are excluded , and it therefore presupposes '1 prior aesthetic d ivision between the visible and the invisible, the ;]ud iblc and

the inaudible, the sayable and the unsJyahle. The essence of /)(}/itlcs consists in interrupting the distribution of the sensible hv supp le­

menting it with those who h;lve no part in the pcrceptll<ll C()(lrciinates

of the community, thereby modifying the vcry ;1Csthetico-politicd field of possibility. It is partially tor this rcason that Railciere defines t!,(� political as relational in nature, founded on t1lf' intervention of politics

i n the police order rather than on the estahlishment of ;] particular governmental regime. Moreover, pol itics in its strict sense never presup­poses a reified subject or predefined group of I Ild ividuals such,]s the

prolctJriat, the poor, or minorities. On the contra r\', the only possible

subject of pol itics is the p{'op/{' or the diil7!os, i.e. the supplementary part of evcry account of the population. Those who have no name, \vho remain invisible and inaudible, can only penetrate the po l ice order via a mode of JU/;jectilJizatiol1 that transForms the ;lesthetic coordinate� of the commun ity by implementing the un iversa l pw;upposition of pol itics :

we arc all equal. D{,l7!oCfacy itsel f is defined by these intermittent acts of political subjectivization that reconfigure the communal distribution of the sensible. However, j\lSt as {'Cj1lfdity is not a goal ro be attai ned hut a presupposition in need of constant verification, democracy is neither ;]

form of governmellt nor a style of social life. Democratic rmr7riClj}(ltirJrl is a random proces,� that redistrihutes the system of sensible coordin;ltes without being able to guarantee the ahsolute elimination of the social inequa lities inherent in the police order.

The irresolv;lhle conAict between polit ics and the police, most visible perhaps in the perennial persistence ofa lllrrJllgth,lt cannot be resolved

•

4 THE POLITICS OF AESTHETICS

by juridical l it igation, h as led many readers to i n terpret La Mesentente as a s imple continuation of Lyotard's Le Diffirend ( 1983) . A l though a conceptual proximity is readily apparent, Ranciere is careful to d istin­guish his p roject from what he considers to be the essentially discu rsive n ature of Le diffirend. Accordi ng to his defi nition, disagreement is neither a misunderstanding nor a general lack of comprehension. It is a conRict over what is meant by 'to speak' and over the very distri­bution of the sensible that delimits the horizons of the sayable and determines the relationship between seeing, hearing, doing, making, and th ink ing. I n other words, disagreement is less a clash between heterogeneous p h rase regimens or gen res of d iscourse than a confl ict between a given d istribution of the sensible and what remains outside it.

Begi n ning with the publication of Courts Voyages au pays dtt peuple ( 1990) and up to h is most recent work on film and modern a rt, Ranciere has repeatedly foregrounded his long-standing i nterest i n aesthetics while at the same t ime analysing its conjunction with both politics and history. I n position ing h imself aga inst the Sartrean preoccnpation with engagement and the more recent hegemony of the Tel Que! group, Ranciere presents h i s reader with a un ique account of aesthetics as well as an i nnovative description of its major regimes. Accordi ng to the genealogy he has u ndertaken, the ethical regime of images character­istic of Platonism is primarily concerned with the origi n and telos of i magery in relationship to the ethos of the community. It establ ishes a distribution of i mages - without, however, identifyi ng 'art' i n the singular - that rigorously d istinguishes between art istic s imulacra and the 'true arts' used to educate the citizenry concerning their role in the communal body. The representative regime is an artistic system of A ristotelian heritage that l iberates imitation from the constra ints of ethical utility and isolates a nMmatively autonomous domain with its own rules for fabrication and criteria of evaluation. The aesthetic regime of art puts th is enti re system of norms i nto question by abolish ing the dichotomous structure of mimesis in the name of a contradictory identi­fication between Logos and pathos. It thereby provokes a t ransformation in the distribution of the sensible established by the representative regime, wh ich leads from the primacy of fiction to the primacy of language, from the h ierarchical organization of genres to the equality

TRANSLATOR'S I NTRO DUCTI()N

of rcprescnted subjecrs, from the principle of appropriate discourse to the indifference of stvle with regard to subject matter, and from the ideal of speech as act

'and perf{m�lanCe to the model of writing.

Ranciere has forcefully argued that the emergence of literature in the nineteenth century as distinct from Irs iJel!es-i('ttres was a central catalYST in the development of the aesthetic regime of art. By rejecting the repre­sentative regime'� poetics of mimesis, modern l iterature contributed to a general reconfiguration of the sensible order linked to the contradiction inherent in what Ranciere calls iitf'rarit)', i.e. the status of a written word that freely circulates outside any system of legitimation. On the one hand, literarity is a necessary condition for the appearance of modern literature as such and its emancipation from the rcpresentJtive regirrw of a n. However, it si multa neously ;lCts as the comr;ld ictory I i III it at which the specificity of literatur e itself disappears dlle rn the bet thal lt no longer has any clearly identifiahle characteristics that would distin­guish it from any other mode of discourse. This partially explains the other major fcmn of writing that has been in constant struggle with democratic l iterarity throughout the modern age: the idea of a 'tme writing' that would incorporate language in sllch a way as to exclude tile free- Roating, disemhodied discollfse of lireraritv. The 'positive comr;1-diction' between these two f{)tms of writing, as well ;IS the parado\ til;'l defines the unique discursive ,tatllS of liter;1tllrt' as sllch, has given risc to numerous and v;Jried responses through the COllrse of time. In other words, this contradiction has played a productive role in the emergence of modern literature, and it has also been decisive in setting the stage for later developments in the aesthetic regime of art. To take one example among many, Ranciere has recently argued in Lfl FaM(' cinrma­tographique (2001) that a positive contradiction - between elements of the representative and aesthetic regimes of art - is also operative in film. On the one hand, the very invention of film material ly realized the properly aesthetic definition of art, first elaborated in Schelling's Systnll of Ti"flrlscOldmtai ldM/ism, as a union of conscious and unconscious processes. On the other hand, however, film is an art of fiction that bestows a new youth on the genres, codes, and conventions of represen­tation that democratic literarity had put into question.

J n h is cr it ical genealogy of art a nd pol itics, Ra nciere has also dealt extensively with the emergence of history as a unique discipl ine (res

6 THE POLITICS OF AEST H ETICS

Noms de l'histoire, 1992) and, more recently, with psychoanalysi s (L'fnconscient esthCtique, 2000) , photography, and contemporary art (Le Destin des images, 2003) . Beh i nd the in tricate ana lyses present in each of these studies, a central argument i s d i scernible: the h istorical conditions of possibi l ity for the appearance of these practices are to be found i n the contradictory relationship between elements of the repre­sentative and aesthetic regimes of art. Thus continuing to work i n the i n tervals between pol itics, philosophy, aesthetics, and h istoriography, Jacques Ranciere wil l u ndoubtedly leave h i s own i ndelible mark on one of his privileged objects of study: the distribution of the sensible.

The Distribution of the Sensible

Foreword

The following pages respond to a twofold solicitation. At their origin was a set of questions asked by two young philosophers, Muriel Combes and Bernard Aspe, for their journal, AliC{', and more speciflcally for the section entitled 'The Factory of the Sensible'. This section is concerned with aesthetic acts as configurations of experience that create new modes of sense perception and induce novel forms of political subjec­tivity. It is within this framework that they interviewed me on the consequences of my analyses-i n DiJagrrcment-of the distribution of the sensible that is at stake in politics, and thus of a certain aest hetics of politics. Their questions, prompted as well by a novel reflection on the major avant-garde theories and experiments concerning the fllSion of art and life, dictate the structure of the present text. At the request of Eric Hazan and Stephanie Cregoirc, T developed my responses ;lnd chrified their presuppositions [8] as fH as pmsihle.'

This particular soliciration is, however, inscrihed in ;1 bro;lder context. The proliferation of voices denouncing rhe crisis of art or irs fatal capture by discourse, the pervasiveness of the spectacle or the death of the image, suffice to indicate that a hattie fought yesterday over the promises of emancipation and the illusions and disillu­sions of history continues today on aesthetic terra i n. The trajectory of Situationist discourse - stemming from an avant-garde arristic movement in the post-war period, developing into a radical critique of pol itics in the 19(iOs, and absorhed today into the routine of the d isen­chanted discourse that acts as the 'critical' stand-in for the existing order - is undoubtedly symptomatic of the contemporary ebb and Row of aesthetics and politics, and of the transformations of avant­garde thinking into nostalgia. [t is, however, the work ofJean-Fran<;:ois Lyotard that best marks the way in which 'aesthetics' has become, in the last twenty years, the privileged site where the tradition of critical thinking has metamorphosed into deliberation on mourning. The reinterpretation of the Kantian ;In:1lysis [9] of the suhlime inrroduced

10 T H E POLITICS O F AEST H ETIC S

into the field of art a concept that Kant had located beyond it. r t did this in order to more effectively make art a witness to an encou nter with the unpresentable that cripples all thought, and thereby a witnes� for the prosecution against the arroga nee of the gra nd aesthetico­political endeavour to have 'thought' become 'world'. In thi� way, reflection on art became the site where a mise-en-scene of the original abyss of thought and the disaster of its misrecognition continued after the proclamation of the end of political utopias. A number of contem­porary contributions to thinking the disasters of art or the image convert this Fundamental reversal into more mediocre prose.

This familiar landscape of contemporary thought defi nes the context in which these questions and answers are inscribed, but it docs not specify their objective. The following responses will not lay claim yet again, in the face of postmodern disenchantment, to the avant-garde vocation of art or to the vitality of a modernity that links the conquests of artistic innovation to the victories of emancipation. These pages do not have their origin in a desire to take a polemical stance. They arc inscribed in a long-term project that aims at re-establishing a debate's conditions of intelligibility. This means, first of all, elaborating the very meaning of [10] what is designated by the term aesthetics, which denotes neither art theory in general nor a theory that would consign art to its effects on sensibility. Aesthetics refers to a specific regime (or identifying and reflecting on the arts: a mode of articulation between ways of doing and making, their corresponding forms of visibility, and possible ways of thinking about their relationships (which presupposes a certain idea of thought's eFfectivity). Defini ng the connections with in this aesthetic regime of the arts, the possibilities that they determine, and their modes of transFormation, such is the present objective of my research and of a seminar held over the past few years within the framework provided by the University of Paris-VIII and the College !nternational de Philosophie. The results of this research will not be found in the present work; their elaboration will follow its own proper pace . I have nevertheless attempted to indicate a few historical and conceptual reference points appropriate for reformulating certain problems that have been irremediably confused by notions that pass off conceptual prejudices as historical determinations and temporal delim­itations as conceptual determinations. Among the foremost of these

F()RFW()f{D 11

notions figures , of course, the concept of modernity, today the source

of all the jumbled miscellany that arhitrarily sweeps [11] togetht'r such figu res ;IS H6ldnlin, Cezanne, rvlallarmc, Malevich, nr Duchamp into a vast whirlwind where Canesi;]n sc ience gets mixed lip with rC\'0Iu­tionary parricide, the age of tilt' masses vvith Romantic irrationalism,

the ban on representat ion with the techn iques of mechanized repro­

duction, the Kanri;]n sublime with the Freudian primal scene, the Right

of the gods with the extermination of the Jews in Europe . I ndicating

the general lack of evidence supporting these notions obviously does not entail adhering to the contemporary discourses on the return to

the simple reality of artistic practices and its criteria of assessment. The

connection between these 'simple practices ' and modes of di'course, forms of life, conct'ptions of thought, and figures of the community

is not the fruit of a maleficent m isappropriat ion. On the contran', rhe

effort to think through this connect io n requires forsaking the 1lIlS,lt­

isfactorv mise-en-scene of the 'end' and the 'return' that persisrc lltlv

occupids the terrain of art, politics, and any other ob ject of thought. [12J

. " J -,

The Distribution of the Sensible: Politics and Aesthetics

In Disagreement, politics is examined from the perspectilJe of what you call the 'distribution of the sensible: In your opinion, dors this expression providr the key to the necessary junction between aesthetic practices and political practices?

I call the distribution of the sensible the system of self-evident facts of sense perception that simultaneously discloses the existence of something in common and the delimitations that define the respective parts and positions within it.5 A distribution of the sensible therefore establishes at one and the same time something common that is shared and exclusive parts. This apportionment of parts and positions is based on a distribution of spaces, times, and forms of activity that deter­mines the very manner in which something in common lends itself to participation and in what way various individuals have a part in this distribution. Aristotle states that a citizen is someone who has (1 part in the act of governing and being governed. However, another form of distribution precedes this act of partaking in government: the distri­bution that [13] determines those who have a part in the community of citizens. A speaking being, according to Aristotle, is a political being. If a slave understands the language of its rulers, however, he does not 'possess' it. Plato states that artisans cannot be put in charge of the shared or common elements of the community because they do not have the time to devote themselves to anything other than their work. They cannot be somewhere elsr because work will not wait. The distribution of the sensible reveals who can have a share in what is common to the community based on what they do and on the time and space in which this activity is performed. Having a particular 'occupation' thereby determines the ability or inability to take charge of what is common to the community; it defi nes what is visible or not

THE [)[STRTRlITTON OF THE SFNSIllLF

in a common space, endowed with a common langu,lge, etc. There is thus an 'aesthetics' at the core of politics that has nothing to do with Renj:llllin's discllssioll of the ';lCstheticizatioll of politics' specific to the 'age of the masses'. This aesthetics should not be understood as the perverse cOllltllandeering of politics by a will to art. by a consid­eration of the people qU:l work of ;Ht. If the reader is r()nd of analogy, aesthetics can be understood in a Kantian sense - re-examined perhaps by Foucault - as the system of rt priori forms determ in ing what presents itself to sense experience. It is a delimitation of [14] spaces and times, of the visible and the invisible, of speech and noise, that si tllul ta neouslv determines the place and the stakes of politics as a form of experience. Politics revolves around what is seen and what can be said abollt it. around who has the abi lity to see and the t;l iem to "peal<. ummd the properties of spaces and the possihi I ities of ti me.

It is on the basis of this primary aesthetics that it is possible to raise the question of 'aesthetic practices' as r understand them, that is /<)f'I)lS of visibility that disclose artistic practices. the pLtce they occupy, what they 'do' or 'make' from the standpoint of what is common to the community. Artistic practices are 'ways of doing and making' thar intervene in the general distribution of ways of doing and making as well as in the relationships they maintain to modes ofheing and f(m)ls of visibility. The Platonic proscription of the poets is hased on the impossibility of ooing two things at once prior to heing based on the immoral content of fables. The question of fiction is first a question regarding the distribution of places. From the Platonic point of view. the stage, which is simultaneously a locus of public activity and the exh ibition-space for' fantasies', d isrurbs the clea r partition of identities, activities, and spaces. The same is true orr15] writing. By stealing away to wander aimlessly without knowing who to speak to or who not to speak to, writing destroys every legitimate foundation for the circu­lation of words, for the relationship between the eFfects of language and the positions of bodies in shared space. Plato thereby singles out two main models, two major forms of existence and of the sensible effectivity of language - writing and the theatre -, which are aL'io structllre-givi ng forms for the regime of the arts in genera I. However, these forms turn out to be prejudicially linked from the outset to a certai n regime of pol ities, a regi me hased on the indetermination of

14 THE POLITICS OF AESTHETICS

identities, the delegitimation of positions of speech, the deregulation of partitions of space and time. This aesthetic regime of politics is strictly identical with the regime of democracy, the regime based on the assembly of artisans, inviolable written laws, and the theatre as institution. Plato contrasts a third, good form of art with writing and the the�tre, the choreographic form of the community that sings and dances Its own proper unity. In sum, Plato singles out three ways in which discursive and bodily practices suggest forms of community: the surface of mute signs that are, he says, [16J like paintings, and the space of bodily movement that divides itself into two antagonistic models (the movement of simulacra on the stage that is offered as material for the audience's identifications and, on the other hand, the authentic movement characteristic of communal bodies).

Here we have three ways of distributing the sensible that structure the manner in which the arts can be perceived and thought of as Forms of art and as forms that inscribe a sense of community: the surface of 'depicted' signs, the split reality of the theatre, the rhythm of a dancing chorus. These Forms define the way in which works of ;lrt or performances are 'involved in politics ', whatever may otherwise be the guiding intentions, artists' social modes of integration, or the manner in which artistic Forms reflect social structures or movements. When Madame Bovary was published, or Sentimental Education, these works w�re imn:edi�telY

'perceived as 'democracy in literature' despite Flaubert's

anstocratlc SituatIOn and political conformism. His verv refusal to entrust literature with any message whatsoever was considered to be evidence of democratic equality. His adversaries claimed that he was [17] democratic due to his decision to depict and portray instead of instruct. This equality of indifference is the result of a poetic bias: the equality of all subject matter is the negation of any relatiomhip of necessit� between a determined Form and a determined content. Yet what is thts indifference after all if not the very equality of everything that comes to pass on a written pag�, available as it is to everyone's eyes? This equality destroys all of the hierarchies of representation and also establishes a community of readers as a community without legitimacy, a community formed only by the random circulation of the written word.

In this way, a sensible politicity exists that is immediatelv attributed to the major forms of aesthetic distribution sllch as the �heatre, the

THE mSTR IFlUTlON OF THE SENSlHLE 1')

page, or the chorus. These 'politics' ohev their own proper logic, ;ll1cl

thev offer their service, in \,er\, different contexts and time pl'l'iods.

CO ;lsider the wav these p<na�1 igms functioned in the con necrion

betwecn art and politics at the end of the nineteenth century and the

beginning of the twentieth. Consider, ror example, the role taken on

by the paradigm of the page in all its different forms, which exceed

the materiality of a written sheet of paper. Novelistic democracy, on

the one hand, is the indifferent democracy of writi ng sllch as [ 1 8] it is

symbolized by the novel and its readership. There is also, however. the

knowledge concerning typography and iconography, the intertwining

of graphic and pictorial capabilities, that played such an important

role in the Rena issa nce and vvas revived by Roma ntic typography

through its me of vignettes, cllis-de-lampe, and variolls innovations.

This model disturbs the clear-cut rules of representative logic that

establish a relationship of correspondence at ;1 d ista nce between the

sayable and the visible. It also disturhs the clear partition between

works of pure art and the Orn;lll1ent� made by the dccorative arts.

This is why it played such an important - and gener;ll1y underesti·

mated - role in the uphe;lval of the representative paradigm and of its

political implications. I am thinking in parricuhr of its role in the ,\n,

and Crafts movement and all of its deriv;Hives (;\rr Dcco, Bauh:l1IS,

Constructivism). These movcments developed an idea of furniture - in

the hro;ld sense of the terlll - for a new com Tllll n ity, wh ich also i nspi red

a new idea of pictorial surface as a surf;!ce of shared writing.

Modernist discourse presents the revolution of pictorial abstraction

as painting's discovery of its own proper 'medium': two-dimensional

surface. By revoking the perspectivist illusion of the third dimension,

pai nti ng was to rega i n (19] the mastery of it, own proper slld�lce. [ n

actual flet, however, this surface does not have any distinctive feature.

A 'wrface' is not simply a geometric composition of lines. It is a certain

distribution of the sensible. For Piato, writing and painting were cquiv­

alent surflees of mute signs, deprived of the hreath that animatcs and

tramports living speech. Flat surface" in this logic, arc not opposcd

to depth in the sense of three-dimensional surfaces. They are opposed

to the ' living' . The mllte surface of depicted signs stands in opposition

to the ;lCt of 'living' speech, which is guided hy the speaker towards

its appropriate addressee. Moreover, p<linting's adoption of the third

16 THE POLITICS O F A E S T HETICS

dimension was also a response to this distribution. The reproduction of optical depth was linked to the privilege accorded to the story. In the Renaissance, the reproduction ofthree-dimensional space was involved in the valorization of painting and the assertion of its ability to capture an act of living speech, the decisive moment of action and mean ing. In opposition to the Platonic degradation of mimi's;s. the classical poetics of representation wanted to endow the 'Bat surface' with speech or with a 'scene' of life, with a specific depth such as the manifestation of an action, the expression of an interiority, or the transmission of meaning. Classical poetics established [20] a relationship of correspondence at a distance between speech and painting, between the sayable and the visible, which gave 'imitation' its own specific space.

It is this relationship that is at stake in the supposed distinction between two-dimensional and three-dimensional space as 'specific' to a particular form of art. To a large extent, the ground was laid for painting's 'anti-representative revolution' by the flat surface of the page, in the change in how literature's 'images' function or the change in the discourse on painting, but also in the ways in which typog­raphy, posters, and the decorative arts became interlaced. The type of painting that is poorly named abstract, and which is supposedly brought back to its own proper medium, is implicated in an overall vision of a new human being lodged in new structur es, surrounded by different objects. Its flatness is linked to the Batness of pages, posters, and tapestries. It is the flarness of an interface. Moreover, its anti-repre ­

sentative 'purity' is inscribed in a context where pure art and decorative art are intertwined, a context that straight away gives it a political signification. This context is not the surrounding revolutionary fever that made Malevich at once the artist who painted Bi{ld� Square and the revolutionary eulogist of [21] 'new forms of life'. Furthermore, this is not some theatrical ideal of the new human being that seals the momentary alliance between revolutionary artists and politics. It is initially in the interface created between different 'mediums' - in the connections forged hetween poems and their typography or their illustrations, between the theatre and its set designers or poster designers, between decorative objects and poems - that this 'newness' is formed that Ii nks the artist who abolishes figurative representation to the revolutionary who invents a new form of life. This interface is

THE DISTRlRUTfON Of' THE SENSlBLF 17

political in that it revokes the twofold politics inherent in the logic

of representation. On the onc hanel, this logic separated rhe world

of artistic imitations from the world of vital concern" and polltlco ­

social grandeur. 011 the other hand, it!; hierarchical organ iTation - in

particular the primacy of living speech/action over depicted Images -,

formed an analogy with the socio-political order. With the triumph of

the novel's page over the theatrical stage, the egalitarian i nrert wining

of images and signs on pictorial or typographic surfaces, the c\ev;ltion

of artis�ans' art to the staniS of great art, and the new cbim to bring art

into the dt(cor of each and every life, an entire well-ordered dim'iblltion

of sensory experience was overturned. [22] This is how the 'planarity' of the surface of depicted sigm, the

form of egalitarian distribution of the sensible stigmatiTed hy Plato,

intervened ,1S the principle hehind an art's 'formal' revolution at the

same time as the principle behind the political redistribution of shared

experience. The other m.1jor forms, among which there are those of the

chorus and the theatre that I mentioned earlier, could he cOllSidered ill

much the samc wav. 1\ historv of aesthcric politic" I1llcit'rstooc! ill this

sense, has to take 'into accOl;nt the wav in which these m;ljor t�)fIllS

stand in opposition to one ;mother o� intermingle. I am thinking"

f()f example , of the wav in which thi� paradigm of the su rface of signs/forms entered into conflict or joined f�)rces with tb

,e theatrical

paradigm of presence, and with the diverse forms that tll1.'; paradigm

itself has taken on, from the Sy mbolist figuration ()f a collective legend

to the actualized chorus of a new humanity. Politics plavs itself olit

in the theatrical paradigm as the relationship hetween the stage and

the audience, as meaning prod\lced by the actor's hody, ;IS g;lllll'S of proximity or distance. Mallarmc\ uitical prost' writings stage. in ;111

exemph ry ma n ncr, the play of cross-rderences, oppositiol:s or ass! III i­

lations between these forms, from the intimate theatre 01 the page or

calligraphic choreography to tbe new 'service' performed by concerts,

[23J In one respect, these forms therefore appear to bring fo rth,

in very different contexts, figures of community equal to themselves.

However, they are sLlsceptible to bei ng assigned to contradictory political

paradigms. Let us take the example of the tragic stage. Itsillluitan­

eouslv carries with it, according to Plato, the svndromt' of democracy

and (he power of illusion. By is�)lati l1g rnimt'sis 'in irs own proper SP;1Cl'

18 THE POLITICS OF AESTHETICS

and by enclosing tragedy within a logic of genres, Aristotle -- even if this was not his intention - redefined its politiciry. Furthermore, in the classical system of representation, the tragic stage would become the stage of visibility for an orderly world governed by a hierarchy of subject matter and the adaptation of situations and manners of speaking to this hierarchy. The democratic paradigm would become a monarchical paradigm. Let us also consider the long and contradictory history of rhetoric and the model of the 'good orator'. Throughout the monarchical age, democratic eloquence ala Demosthenes denoted an excellence in speaking, which was itself established as the imaginary attribute of the sllpreme power. It was also always receptive, however, to the recovery of its democratic function by lending its [24] canonical forms and its consecrated images to the transgressive appearance of unauthorized speakers on the public stage. Let us consider as well the contradictory destinies of the choreographic model. Recent research has evoked the metamorphoses undergone by Laban's notation of movement. It was developed in a context favouring the liberation of bodies and became the model for the large Nazi demonstrations before regaining, in the anti-establishment context of perf(Jrma nee art, a new subversive virginity. Benjamin's explanation via the t:ltal aestheticization of politics in the 'era of the masses' overlooks, perhaps, the long-standing connection between the un an imolls consensus of the citizenry and the exaltation of the free movement of bod ies. In a city hostile to the theatre and to written law, Plato recommended constantly cradling unweaned infants.

I have evoked these three forms because Plato conceptually charred them out and because they maintain a historical constancy. They obviously do not define all of the ways that figures of community are aesthetically designed. The important thing is that the question of the relationship between aesthetics and politics be raised at til is level, the level of the sensible delimitation of what is common to the community, the forms of its visibility and of its organization. [25J It is from this perspective that it is possible to reflect on artists' political interventions, starting with the Romantic literary forms that aimed at deciphering society, the Symbolist poetics of dreams or the Dadaist or Constructivist elimination of art, and continuing up to the contemporary modes of performance and installation. From this

THE DISTRlRUTION O F TIlE SENSIBLE

perspective , it is possible to challenge a good many Imaginary stc:ries

about artistic 'modernity' and vain debates over the autonomy of an

or its submission to politic.�. The ;Hts only ever lend to project" or domination or emancipation what they are ahle to lend to them, th;lt

is to say, quite simply, what they have in common with them: bO�1ily

positions and movements, functions of speech, the parcelling Ollt of the visible and the invisible. Furthermore, the autonomy thev can enjoy or

the subversion they can claim credit for rest on the same foundatIon.

Artistic Regimes and the Shortcomings of the Notion of Modernity

Certain of the most fundamentrtf categories used for thin/"ing (zbout (Irtistic creation in the twentieth century, namely the cf1te,<ori('s olmodernitv, the avant-garde and, for som(' time now, postmodernity, als; !lappn! t(; /i{we a politiral meaning. Do these Cfltegories seem to VOIf to have tI,(' sli,<htcst

interest for conceiving, in precise terms, wh{lt tics' acsthetirs ' to 'politics '?

I do not thi n k that the notions of modern ity and the avant-garde have b�en very enlighten ing when it comes to th ink ing about the new forms of art that have emerged si nce the last century or the relat ions between aesthetics and polit ics . They actual ly confuse two very di ffercnt thi ngs: the h istoricity specific to a regime of the arts in gcneral and the decisions to break with the past or a nt i cipate the fllture that take place withi n this regime. The notion of acsth e t i c modern itv concea ls ­without conceptual iz ing i t i n the least - the si ngularity o(a p a r t i cu l a r regime of the arts, that i s [27J to say of a specific type of connection between ways of producing works of art or developing practices, forms of vis ibi lity that d isclose them, and ways of conceptual iz ing the former and the latter.

A detour is necessary here in order to c1arifv th i s notion and s i tuate the problem. With regard to what we ca l l {;rt, it is i n fact poss ib le to d is t inguish, with in the Western trad i t ion, t h ree m ajor regimes o f identification . There i s fi rs t of a l l what I propose to ca l l an eth ical regime of images. [n this regime, 'a rt' i s not identi fied as such but i s subsumed under the quest ion of images. As a speci fie type o f c n t i tv,

images are the object of a twofold question : the question of the i r or ig{n (and consequently thei r truth content) and the question of thei r end or purpose, the uses they a re put to and the effects they resu l t in . The question of images of the d ivine and the r ight to produce sLlch images or the ban placed on them falls with i n this regi me, as wel l :lS the

T H E Dl S T R l I HJT I O N OF T I ll' S E N S I B LE 2 1

question of the status a nd s ign i ficat ion of the i ma ges produced . T h e ent i re Platon ic polem ic a ga i ns t t h e s i mu l acra of pa i n t i ng, poems, a nd the stage a l so [;l l l s w i th i n t h i s regi me . l, rLlto does not , :lS i t is o ftcn cl a i med, p l ace an u nder the yoke of pol i t ics . T h i s very d i s t i nct ion wou ld have made no sense for P lato s i n ce :Ht d id not ex i s t for [ 2 R I h l l11 hut on ly a rts, ways of doi n g :l nd 1ll :l k i ng. A nd i t i s a m o n g these t h ,l t he traces t h e d iv i d i n g l i n e : t h ere a rc true a rt s , t h a t i s t o say fo rms of knowledge based on t he i m itat ion of a model with p recise cnds , ,1 11c! :nt i s t i c s i mu lacra that i m i ta te s i mple appcarances. These i m i ta r iom. d i fferent i a ted h y t h e i r or ig i n , a rc t h e n d i .') t i ng u i s hcd hy the i r cnd n ! pu rpose, hy t h e w a y i n w h i c h the poem's i m af:.';es prov id e the S peCLl tnrs, hoth ch i l d re n and ad u lt c i t i 7cll S . w i t h a ccrLl i n educl I lon ,1 1 ld fit ; 11 w i th t h e d i s t r ibut ion of t h e c i t y,", oCCl lp;n i o 11 .\ . I t i .s I n t h i s SC I l ." .· 1 1 1 .1 1 1 spc :d< of' :1 11 c r h i C l l reg i m c o f i 11 l ;l ges . I n th i s rC"l.; i nl t:". it IS ,1 m ;l t tcr o f k now i n g i n \l'h ;l t \\,;l �' i m ages' Ill(�d c o f bei n g ;lhccts t he I't/'Ol , t h e mode o f b; i n g of i n d iv i(lu a I s and comlllun it ies . Th is quest ion preye tw, ' ar t' from i nd iv idua l iz i ng i tse l F as slIch .-

The poet ic - or representative - reg i me of the a rts hrea ks away from the ethical regi me of i mages. It idcn t i flcs the suhs ta nce of a rt - o r rather of the a rt s - i n the cou ple poihslminll�,i;s. T h e m i met ic pr i nc i p l e i s not a t i ts core a normat ive pri n c ip l e stat i n g t h a t an mu s t m a ke cop ies resembl ing t h c i r models . I t i s fi rst of ;d l a pra gm at ic p r i n c ip le t h a t i .sobtes, w i t h i n t h e gencr;d doma i n of the ;lr ts (wa\'s o f dOl ll " a n d m a k i n g ) , cert a i n part icl�LH fo rms of a rt t h a t prod uce

'spec i fi c el� i t i l>s

[2()] ca l l ed i m i ta t ions . These i m itat iom a rc extr icltnL :J t one a n d the

same t ime, from t h e ord i nary conrro l of a rt i s t i c p roducts by t he i r usc and from t h e leg i s lat i ve reign or truth oyer d i scourses a nd i m :1ges . Such i s t h e V;l s t ope ra t io ll ca rr i ed out hy the :\ r i s ro tcl i a n ebhorat ion of InimeJsis a nd by the pr iv i l ege accorded ro traf:.'; i c ac t ion . I t is t h e wbstf/III'I' of the poem, the Elb r icat ion of a plot ;l rra n f:.'; i n g :lct ions t h :l t reprcc;ent the ;1 Ct iv i t i es of men, wh i c h i s the foremost i ssue, to the d e t r i mcn t of the cssol(c of rhc i m a ge. a copv exa m i ncd with rega rd to i ts Illode l . Such i s rhl" p r i nc i p l e gu id in g the (u n c t i o n :1 1 c h a n <'c i� t h e t hc;l t r i c ;J ! lllodel I wa s speak i n g (�r ea rl i� r. The pr i n c ip l e rq!,u rl t i ng r i l l" e, te rna l del i m i , ta t ion of ;l wc l l-fou nded doma i n of i m i ta t ions i� t h u s ar t h e s a me t i llle a norma t ive pr i n ci ple of i nc lus ion . It deve lops i n to for m s of llOr l11 ;]­t iv i ty that d e fi ne the cond i t ions accord i n g to wh ich i m itat ions c;l n he

22 T H E POLITICS O F AESTH ETICS

recognized as exclusively belonging to an art and assessed, with i n this framework, as good or bad, adequate or inadequate: partit ions between the representable and the u nrepresentable; the d i st inction between genres accord ing to what is represented; principles for adapti ng forms of express ion to genres and thus to the subject matter represented; the d istribution of resemblances [30] accordi ng to pri nciples of veri s i m i l ­itude, appropriateness, o r correspondence; criteria for dist inguish i ng between and compar ing the arts; etc.

I call th is regime poetic i n the sense that i t ident ifies the arts - what the Classical Age would later ca l l the 'fine arts' - within a classification of ways of doing and making, and i t consequently defi nes proper ways of doi ng and making as well as means of assess ing i mitations. I ca l l i t representative i nsofar as i t i s t he notion of representation o r mimesis that organ izes these ways of doi ng, making, see ing, and judging. Once aga in, however, mimesis is not the l aw that br ings the arts under the yoke of resemblance. I t is first of a l l a fold i n the distribution of ways of doing and mak ing as wel l as in social occupations, a fold that renders the arts visible. I t is not an artist ic p rocess but a regime of visibi l i ty regarding the arts . A regime of v is ib i l ity is at once what renders the arts autonomous and a lso what l i nks th is autonomy to a general order of occupations and ways of doing and making. This i s what J evoked earlier concerning the logic of representation, which e nters i nt o a relationship of global analogy with an overa l l h ierarchy of pol it ical and socia l occupations. The representative primacy of action over characters or of narration over [3 1 ] description, the h ierarchy of gen res according to the d ign ity of thei r subject matter, and the very pri macy of the art of speak ing, of speech i n actual ity, a l l of these clemenrs figure i nto an ana logy with a fu l ly hierarch ical vis ion of thc commun ity.

The aesthetic regime of the a rts stands i n contrast with the repre­sentative regime. I cal l th is regi me aesthetic because the identi fication of art no longer occurs via a division with i n ways of doi ng and making, but i t is based on dist inguishing a sensible mode of being speci fic to artistic products. The word aesthetics does not refer to a theory of sensib i l i ty, taste, and pleasure for art amateurs. It strictly refers to the specific mode of being of whatever Lll l s with in the domain of art, to the mode of being of the objects of art. I n the aesthetic regime, artist ic phenomena are identified by their adherence to a spec ific regime of

THE DIST R I B U T I O N O F T H E SENS I B L E

the sensible, wh ich is extricated from its ord i na rv con nections a n d i s i n h ab i ted b y a heterogeneous power, the pO'Ner �f a form of thought that has becom e fo reign to i tsel f: a product identical with someth i I lg nor p roduced, k n owledge tra n s formed i ll to Iloll-k nowl edge, /ogos ident ica l w i t h p;l thos , the i nte nt ion oC t lw \ 1 n i '1tent iona l , etc. Th i s idea of a reg i me of the sens ible that h a s hecome (�)rei gll to itsel f the locus for a f;rm of thought that has hecome �(Jreign to �se l r: i s the inv;1f iable core i n the [32 ] iden t i ficat ions of a rt t h at h ave con figured the aesthet ic mode of thought from the outset : Vico's d iscovery of the 'true I- lomer' as a poet in spite of h i msel f; K a n t i a n 'ge n i\1 s' that i s u n aware of t he Ll\v it p roduces , Sch i l ler's 'aesthetic state' that suspend s both the act iv i ty of the u nderstandi ng and sensible pass iv i ty, Sche l l i n g's d e fi n i t ion or a rt as the identity between a conscious p rocess a n d a n \1 nconscio\ 1s p rocess, etc. The aesthetic mode of though t l ikew i se ru ns th rough the speci fi c defi n it ions t h at t h e a rt s have given to them selves i n t h e Modern Age: P roust's id e a of a book that wou l d he ent i re ly pla n n ed out a n d ful ly removed from the rea l m of the wi l l ; M a l l a rllle's idea of a pocm by the spectator-poet, written 'without t h e scribe's appa ratm' bv the steps of an i l l i terate d a ncer; the S u rreal i s t pract ice of p roduc i n g work t h a r expresses the :Ht i ,st\ u nconscio\ 1s w i t h r h e olltd a ted i l lustrat ions i n cata logues or newspaper ser i a l s from the prcvious cen tu ry; B n'sson's idea of fi l m : tS t h e fi l m-ma ker" tho\ 1ghr w i t h d r; twn frolll the hodv ()r t h e ' models' wh o, hv l l nt h i n k i n gIv repea t i tw the words a n d <Yl'S tl i rcs he lays down fo r thdm, ma n i fcsr' r ile i r prope� truth w i thout ei;hcr t l 1(' fi l m-m a ker or t h e models k now i ng i t ; etc.

It i s po i nt l ess to go on with d e fi n i t ions and exa mples , We need to ind icate, on the contra ry, the heart of t he probl e m . The aesthet ic regi me [.13] of t h e arts i s the regime that str ict ly idcnt i fi es a r t in the s i n g ll i a r a nd f-rees i t from ;1I1�,' speci fic ru le , from any h iera rclw of the arts, subject m at ter, and ge nres . Yet i t docs so hy destroy i ng the m i me t i c harr ier t h a t d i st i ngu ished ways of doing a n d m a k i n g a ffi l ia ted with a r t from other ways of doi n g a n d making , a ba rr ier that sepa r;ltcd its rules from the order of soc ia l occupations . The aesthetic regime asserts the absolute s ingular i ty of art and, at t he same t ime, destroys any pragmatic criterion for isola t i ng this s ingularity. It s i multaneously estab l i shes the autonomy of art and the identity of i ts forms with the forms that l i fe uses to shape i tsel f. Sch i l ler's aest/;rtic strltl', wh ich is th is

24 THE POLITICS OF A ESTHETICS

regime's fi rst manifesto (and rema ins, in a sense, u nsurpassablc) , c lear l.Y indicates this fundamental identity of opposites. The aesthetic state IS

a pure i nstance of suspension, a moment when form is experienced for itself. Moreover, it is the moment of the formation and education of a

specific type of humanity. . .

From this perspective, it is possible to u nderstand the tunctlons served by the notion of modern ity. The aesthetic regime of the arts, i t

can be said, is the true name for what is designated by the incoherent label ' modernity'. However, ' modernity' is more than an i ncoherent label. I t is , in its different versions, the concept that d i l igently works at [34] m asking the specificity of this regime of the arts and the very mean ing of the specificity of regimes of a rt. It traces, in order either to exalt or deplore it , a s imple l i ne of transition or rupture between the old and the new, the representative and the non-representative or the anti-representative. The basis for this s impl ist ic h i storical account was the transition to non-figurative representation i n pa int ing. This transition was theorized by be ing cursor i ly ass imi lated in to art IstiC ' modernity's' overal l anti-mimetic destiny. When the eulogists of th i s for m of modernity saw the exhibition-spaces for the wel l-behaved desti ny of modern ity i nvaded by all kinds of objects, mach i nes, and u nidentified devices, they began denouncing the 'trad ition of the new', a desire for i nnovation that would reduce a rtistic modern ity to the emptiness of its self-declaration . However, it is the starti ng poi:1t that.

is erroneous. The leap outside of mimesis is by no mea ns the refusa l ot figurative representation. Furthermore, its i naugural moment h a� of:en been called realism, which does not in a ny way mean the valoflzatlon of resemblance but rather the destruction of the structu res with in which it functioned. Thus, novelistic real i sm i s fi rst of a l l the reversal of the h ierarchies of representation (the pr imacy of the narrative over the descriptive [35] or the h ierarchy of subject matter) and the adoption of a fragmented or proximate mode of focalization, wh ich imposes raw presence to the detriment of the rational sequences of �he story. The aesthetic regime of the arts does not contrast the old WIth the new. It contrasts, more profoundly, two reg imes of h istoricity. I t is within the m imetic regime that the old stands in contrast with the new. In the aesthetic reg ime of art, the future of art, its separation from the present of non-art, i ncessant ly restages the past.

TH E O I ST R I R UTr O N O F TI l E S E NS I B L E 2')

Those who exa lt or denou nce the ' t rad i tion of the new actu;] I ! \, forget that th is trad i t ion h a s as its s tr ict complement the 'ncwnc<s of the trad it ion'. The aesthetic reg ime of the arts d id not begin wi t h decisions to in i t iate an a rt ist ic ruptu re. I t began with decis ions to reinterpret what m a kes a rt or what a rt makes: Vico di scovering the 'true Homer', that i s to say not an i nventor of fables and c h a racters but a witness to the image-laden l anguage and thought of ancient t i mes; H egel i nd icat i ng the true subject matter of Dutch genre p a i nt i ng : not in stories or descr ipt ions of i nteriors but a nation's freedom d isplaycd i n reAections o f l ight; Hold.erl i n rei nventi ng Greek tr:lgedy; Balzac [.)(i ] contrast i n g t h e poetry of the geol ogist who reconstructs worlds o1lt of t racks and. fossi ls with the poetry that makes do with reprod u c i n g a b i t of agitat ion i n the sou l ; Mendelssoh n replayi ng the St. Mflft/}('1{ ' Passion; etc. The aestheti c reg ime of the a rts is fi rst of a l l a new regi me for relati ng to the past. It a ct u a l l y sets lip as the very pri nciple of artist ic ity t h e expressive relationsh ip i n herent in a t ime and a state of civi l i zat ion, a rel ationsh ip t h a t was previously considered to he the 'non-a rt is t ic' pa rt of works oLl I·t ( the part t h a t was excused bv i nvok i n g the crudeness o f the ti mes when t he author l ived) . The aesth�t i c regi m� of t h e a rt s i n vents its revo lut iom on the has i s of the same idea t h a t callsed i t t o i nven t the museum a nd a rt h i sto rv, the not ion of classic i sm and new f() rms of reproduction . . . A nd it dcv(�tes i tsel f to the i nvent ion of new forms of l i fe on the bas i s of an idea of what a r t was, an idea of what art would ham: heen. \XThen the Futu rists or the Construct iv i sts decla red the end of art and the ident i ficat ion of i ts p ract ices w i t h the practices that construct , decorate, or g ive a certa i n rhyth m to the t i mes and SfXl ees of com ll1u n:l l l i fe, they propmcd ;]n end of a rt equ iva l en t to the identificat ion of art with the l i fe of t he commu n ity. Th is proposal i s d i recdy dependent on t h e Seh i I Icr i a n ; J nd Roma ntic rei ntcrprna t ion of Creek a rt as a commun i ty's mode of l i fe, wh i le a l so cOllllll u n i ca t i n (>, [37] in other respects, with

'the new styles i ntroduced by the i nvento�s

of advert is ing who, for their part, d id not propose a revolution but only a new way of l iv ing amongst words, images, and commodities. The idea of modernity is a questionable notion that tries to make clea r­cut d istinctions i n the complex con figurat ion of the aesthet ic regime of the a rts. Tt tr ies to retai n the forms of rupture , the iconoclast ic gestures, etc . , by separat ing them from the co l1text that a l lows for t h e i r

26 THE POLITICS OF AESTHETICS

existence: h istory, i nterpretation, patrimony, the museum , the perva­s iveness of reproduction . . . The idea of modernity would l ike th e re

.to

be on ly one mean ing and di rection i n h istory, whereas the te.mpora l lty specific to the aesthetic regime of the arts is a co-presence of heteroge-neous temporalities. . The notion of modern ity thus seems to have been del iberately i nvented to prevent a clear understand i ng of the t ransformations of art and its relationships with the other spheres of col lective experience. The confusion i nt roduced by this notion has, i t seems to me, two major forms. Both of them, without analysi ng it, rely o� the contra­d iction constitutive of the aesthetic regime of the arts, wh Ich makes art i nto an autonomous form of Lift and t hereby sets down, at one and the same t ime, the autonomy of art and its ident ification with a moment i n l i fe's process of self-formation. The two [38J major var iants of the discourse on 'modernity' derive from th is contradiction. The fi rst variant would h ave modernity ident ified s imply with the autonomy of art, an 'anti-mi metic' revolution i n art identical with the conquest of the pure for m of art fina l ly l a id bare. Each i ndividual art would thus assert the pure potentia l of art by exploring the capabi l it ies of its specific medium. Poetic or l iterary modernity would explore the capab i l it ies of a language d iverted from i ts com mun icational uses. P ictor ia l modernity would bring pa inti ng back to its d isti nctive feature: coloured pigment and a two-dimensional surface. Musical m.adel�n ity would be identi fied with the l anguage of twelve sounds, set free hom a ny ana logy with expressive l anguage, etc. Furthermore, these speci

.fic

forms of modernity would be i n a relationship of distant analogy WIth a polit ical modernity susceptible to being ident ified, depending Ol� the t ime period, with revolutionary rad ica lity or with the sober and d Isen­chanted modernity of good republ ican government. The ma in feature of what is called the 'crisis of art' is the overwhe lming defeat of t h i s s imple modern ist paradigm, which i s forever more d istant ftom the mixtures of genres and mediums as well as from the numerous political poss ibi li t ies i nherent in the a rts' contemporary forms. [39J

This overwhelming defeat is obviously overdeterm i ned by the modern ist paradigm's second m ajor form, which m ight �e cal led modernatism. I mean by th i s the identification of forms from the aesthetic regime of the arts with forms that accompl ish a task or fll l fi I

T H E f) I ST R T R U T I O N O F T H E S F N S I I\ L F

a d cs t i n y spec i fi c to modern ity. At t h e root 0(' t h i s iden t i flcat ion rhere i s a spcci fic i nterpretar ion of thc s t ructu ra I a nd ge n erat ive con tra­d ict ion of aesthet ic ' form'. It i s , i n t h i s CJse. the dcterrn i nat i oll of a rt q u a for m a nd sel f-form at ion of l i fe t h a t i s va lori zed. The sta rt i ng po i nr , Sch i l lcr's not ion of the (Icsthctic a/lItrltirill of man, const i tutes an un s u rpassable reference point. It i s t h i s not ion that csta b l i s hed thc i d e<l that d om i n at ion and servitude <He, in the fi rst place , pa rr of an o n to log ical d is t r i bu t io n (the act iv i ty of thought versllS the passiv i t y of sens ib le m a tter) . It i s a l so t h is not ion t h at d efi ncd ;l ncutral s t;1 tc, a st;l tc of dual canccl l at ion, where th e act ivity of thought a n d sens i ble recep­t iv ity become a s i ngle rea l ity. Thcy con st i tute a sort o f new region of being - the region of free play and appcarance - that makes i t poss ib l e to conceive of the equal ity whose d i rect mater i a l izat ion , accord i ng to Sch i l ler, was shown to be i mpossible by the French Revolution. I t i s r h i , spec i fl c mode or I iv ing i n the sens ib le world that mllSt he d eveloped by 'aesthetic education' [40] i n order to t ra i n men suscept ihle to l ive i n a free pol i t i ca l com m u n i ty. The idea of mod ern i t y ;lS a t i me devotcd to the m ater i ;l l rca l i z;1 t ion of a h U l11 a n i tv st i l l brent i n m a n k i nd was constru cted on th is foundation . It G� n he sa id , regard i n g t h i s poi nt , t h at t h e 'aesthet ic revolut ion' p roduced a new ide;� o f p(�l i t ica I revolution: the matcrial rea l ization of a com mon h u m a n i tv st i l l on ly exist i ng as an idea. Th i s i s h ow Sch i l l er's 'aesthet ic st;l�(, ' heG1 \l1

'c

the ' aesthet i c programme' or Germ a n Romant ic i sm, t h e progr;l ll1 mc s u m m a r ized i n the rough d ra ft written together by Hegel , Holderl i n , a nd Schel l i ng: the mater ia l rea l i zat ion of u n cond it ion a l freedom a n d p u r e thought i n com mon r()rms or l i fe a n d hel ief I t i s t h is p;H;l d i (�m o f acsthet ic autonomy that beca me t he ncw pa rad i gm kl\' 1'C\'ol ut i o n , J n d i t su hseljuent ly a l lowed f�)r t h e hr ief h u t dec is i \'(' encou n ter hetween the a rt i sans of the M a rx i st revol ut ion and the a rt i s a n s of fo rms fo r a ncw way of l i fe. The fa i l ur e o f th i s revolut ion determ i ned the d est i ny - i n tw� phases - of l11odernatism. At fi rst, art ist ic modern at ism, i � i ts authentic revohltionJ ry poten t ia l r<)r [4 1 ] hope and defla nce. wa <; set aga inst the degeneration or pol i t icl 1 revoillt ion. Surreal i sm a nd the Frankfurt School were the pr incip:d veh ic les for th is cou lltcr­modern ity. The fa i l ure of po l it i ca l revolut ion was la ter cOl1 ceived of ;lS the fa i lure or i ts o ll tologico-;1 Csth et ic model . Modern i t v thus heca me somet h i n g l i ke a fa tal dcst i n v hased on a fu nd;l lllenta l fO I"(rctt i n<' : t- / 0 ;-.

28 THE POLITICS O F AESTHETICS

the essence of technology accord ing to Heidegger, the revolutionary severing of the k i ng's head as a severi ng of tradition in the h i story of humanity, and final ly the original s in of human beings, forgetfu l of their debt to the Other and of their submission to the heterogeneous powers of the sensible.

What is cal led postmodernism i s real ly the process of this reversal. At fi rst, postmodernism brought to l ight everything i n the recent evolution of the arts and possible ways of th ink ing the arts t h at destroyed modern­ism's theoretical edi fice: the crossing-over and m ixtu re between the arts that destroyed Lessi ng's conventional set of principles concern i ng the separation of the arts; the col lapse of the parad igm of fu nctional ist archi tecture and the return of the curved line and embel l ish ment; the breakdown of the p ictorialltwo-dimensionallabstract model through the return of figurative representat ion and [42) s igni fication as wel l as the slow i nvasion of paint ing's exhibition-space by th ree-di mensiona l and narrative forms, from Pop Art to i nstallation art and 'rooms' for video art;R the new combinat ions of paint i ng and language as well as of monumental sculpture and the projection of shadows and l ights; the break-up of the serial tradit ion through new m ixtures between musical systems, gen res, and epochs. The teleological model of modernity became untenable at the same t ime as its d iv isions between the 'distinctive features' of the d ifferent arts, or the separation of a pure domain of art. Postmodernism, i n a sense, was simply the name under whose guise certain artists and th i n kers real ized what modernism had been : a desperate attempt to establish a 'distinctive feature of art' by l ink ing it to a simple teleology of historical evolution and rupture. There was not really a need, moreover. to make this late recogn ition of a fundamental fact of the aesthetic regi me of the arts i nto an actua l temporal break, the real end of a h istorical period .

However, it was p recisely the next episode that showed that postmod­ernism was more than this . The joyful , postmodern artistic I icense. i ts [43) exaltation of the carnival of simulacra. all sorts of in terbreed i ng and hybrid ization, transformed very quickly and came to cha l l enge the freedom or autonomy that the modernatist principle conferred - or would have conferred - upon art the mission of accompli shi ng. There was thus a return from the carn ival to the pri ma l scene. H owever. the primal scene can be taken in two senses, e ither as the sta r t i n g poi n t ofa

THE DlST R IB UTTO"l OF T i l E SENS I B L E

process or as a n origi na l sepa LHion . Modern ist b i th had l atched 01 1 to thc idea of t h e ';lesthet ic cduca t ion of m:l n ' that Sch i l ler had extr: 1cted from the K a n t i a n a n a lyt ic of r iw heaut i fu l . The pnstl110dern revers;l l h a d as i ts theoret ica l r(l l lndat ion Lvota rd 's a n a lys i s of the K a n t i �l n subl i me. wh ich was rei nterpreted as

'the scene of � fO l l nd ing dista nce

sepa rat ing the idea from any sensible presentation. From t h is moment onward, postmodernism came i n to h a rmony with the mOllrn i ng a nd repenting of lllodernat ist thought . a n d the scene of sub l i me d is ta nce came to epitom ize a l l sons of scenes of or ig i n a l d i s tance or orwi n a l S i l l : the H e ideggcria n fl ig h t or t h e gmk

'the i rreduc ib le aspe��r of

the l I f1 S: ' l ll hol i z;1h le ohject ;1 1 1<1 th e c 1earh d r i \T ;l S ;) 11 ; I i vsed h\' [ ITI I ( ! ,

the vo icl' of the A hsolute lv (Jrher dec la r i n g ; 1 h:1 11 on reprl''C'll t ;l l !n / l , the ren) l lI t ion a ry mu rder of t he f :a thcr. Pmt T1lndnn i s lll t l l l l ' hl'Cl ll1l' thc gra nd r h renod)' ofthe u n reprcse l l ta hie Ii n tracra hie [;fl; 1 I i rredeem ;l hk, denou nc i ng t h e modern m;ld ness of the idea of a se l r�e m a ncipat i ()n of m a n k i nc\ \ h u m a n i ty a n d i ts i n ev i tah le a nd i n term i n able cu l m i n at ion in t he death camps .

The notion of the ava nt-garde dc fi n es t h c type of sub ject su i tah le to the modern ist vision and appropriate, accord i ng to th i s v i s i o n , for con nect i ng the aes thet ic t o t h e pol i t ica l . I ts ,success i s due: l ess to the conven i e nt con nect ion it proposes between the a rt ist ic idea of i n novat ion a n d the idea of pol i t ica l ly-gu ided c h a n ge, t h a n to the m ore covert C()n nect i o n i t estahl i shes between two ideas of the ' ava n t-ga rde ' . O n the one h a ne! , t here is the topograph ica l a n d m i l i tary not ion

Lof rhe

f() I"Ce t hat marches i n the lead, that h a� a c lear u ndersta n d i n u o f rhe o movement, emhod ies i rs forccs , deter m i nes t h e d i rect ion of h i s tort c a l evo lut ion , a n d chooses subject ive pol i t ica l or ientat ion s . ' I n shor t , there is t h e idea t h at l i n b pol i t i ca l subject iv i ty to a cert a i n f()t' Jn : the pa m,:, ;1 Il advanced deL1C h lllem t h a t deri ves its ;l hi l i rv to k;lll from i ts �l h i l in '

to rCHI a nd i nte rprcr the ., ig l l s of h i ston'. On t he other h a n d , tiJne I S ; 1 t1othcr idea of the ; ,va n t-ga rde t h a t , i n ;l C (( l rlh I l C C w i t h \ch i l l cr', model , i , rooted I II t he aesthcr ic ;l llti c ipa t ion o f the {'l1 ll1re. I I' I h e concept of t he a\'a nr-ga rd c h a s ;1 111/ 1l ll';l 11 l n g i n t h t' ;1C'it I lt' t ic rC(, l m e o f the a rts , i t i s on t h i s sid e o r- th i n g,, : nor O il r 1�e s i ck o f f hl' H'5 i ; \( i�';l I 1 ccd detac h m e n ts of a rt i s t iC i n novat ion hut Oil the s ide of the i lWc'11Iiol l of sens ib le r()rms and m ;l tcr i a l s t rt l c t l. I ITS ri l l' a ! i k to come. Til l S i s wiLl f the 'aes t het ic ' aval l t-g;nde hrou g h t 1 0 rhe 'poi i t i Cl i ' ; 1 V;] tH- f', a n i c , or

30 THE POLITICS O F AESTHETICS

what it wanted to bri ng to it - and what it bel i eved to have brought to it - by transformi ng pol i t ics i nto a total l i fe progra m me. The h istory of the relations between pol it ical parties and aesthetic movements is fi rst of a l l the h istory of a confusion, someti mes complacently mai ntai ned, at other t imes violently denounced, between these two ideas of the avant-garde, which are in fact two different ideas of polit ical suhje,c­

t ivity: the a rchi-pol it ical idea of a party, that is to say the idea of a for m of political i ntel l igence that sums up the essential conditions for change, and the meta-po lit ica l idea of global pol itic;].1 subject ivity, the idea of the potential ity i nherent in the i nnovative sens ib le modes of experience that anticipate a com mu n ity to come. There is, however, noth ing accidental about this confusion. It is not the case, as today's doxa would have us believe, that artists' ambitious c laims to a tota l revolution of the sensible paved the way for tota l itarian i sm. I t is rather that the very idea of a political avant-garde is d ivided between the strategic conception and the aesthetic concept ion of the avant-garde. [46]

Mechanical Arts and the ProJ11otion o.f the A nonymous

111 011(' of)'our t('xts, )'ou ('sta!J!ish (I cormcrtion /Jct/I'cer! tI,(, d(,l'r'/(;pmcnt o(

photogr�phy {/J1d f/;n rlJ 'mcr/wnim/ ' {Irt' {lI1d thc hi! 't/; 0("J70U j,i(tr;}'l" , " ,

Cart YOIl explain this COIII/('rtI0J1 ? noes it mrrn/,ond to RCl1j!llnin :' i(:(r'(1

tiJrlt t/J(' n7(I.UCS (1.1 SIIr/' flrqllirer/ lliribi!it), fit tl,c 17c,r;il1l7 il/g o(tll(' { ('II / l i l T witl, thc help o/thr' 'mecj,{lI7icrli ' (Irt.r?

Perhaps first r shOll Id cle;Jr lip a m iSll ndnsta nd i ng COil cern i ng the notion of 'mecha n ical a rts'. The con nect ion r establ ished was between ;1 sciell­t ific paradigm and an fl('rth('tir parad igm . Benjam i n's thesis presupposes somer h ing d i fferent, which seems questionable to me: the deduction of the aesthetic and pol iti ca l properties of a form of a rt from irs tech n ica l properties. Mecha n ical a rts, qua medifln;ca! arts, wou ld resu l t i n a change of a rt ist ic paradigm and a new rela tionsh ip between art a nd [47J i ts subject matter, Th is proposit ion refers hack to one of modern ism's m;l i n

theses: t h e d i fference between the a rts is l i n ked to the d i fference between thei r tech nnlogiCl I cond itiol1S or the i r specific med i u lll or mater i a l . This assim i lat ion c a n b e u nderstood either i n t h e si mple modern ist mode, or i n accordance with modernatist hyperbole. The persistent success of Benja m in's theses on J rt in the age of mecha n ical repro-­d uction is, moreover, u ndoubted ly due to the crossi n g-over they a l lo'", for between the categories of ivfarxist materia l i st expb n;lt ion and those of I--Ieideggeri;lll ontology, wh ich ascribe the age of modern ity to the u n fu rl i ng of the essence of tech nologv. This l i n k hetween the aesthetic and the onro--t ech nological h ;ls, 1 11 fact, heen slIhjectcd to the general f:l te of modern ist categories. Tn Benja m i n , Duchamp, or Rodchenko's t ime .

it coex i sted with the El i th i n the clpabi l i ties of electricity a nd machines, i ron, glass, and concrete. With the so-cal l ed 'postmodern' reversal , it has kept pace with the return to the icon, wh ich presents the vei l of Veron ic;] as the essence of pa i nting, fi l m , or photography.

32 T H E POLITICS OF A ESTHETICS

I t is thus necessary, in my opin ion , to take t h ings the oth er way around. I n order for the mechanical arts to be able to confer visi bi l it y on the masses, o r rather on anonymous i nd ividuals, they [48] fi rst need to be recogni zed as arts. That i s to say that they fi rst need to he put i nto practice and recognized as someth ing other t h a n tech n i ques of reproduction or transmission. I t i s thus the same pri nciple that confers visib i l ity on absolutely anyone a nd a l l ows for photography a nd fil m to become arts. We can even reverse the for m u l a : i t is because the anonymous became the subject matter of art that the act of record i ng such a subject m atter can be an art. The fact that what is anonymous is not only susceptible to becoming the subject matter of art but also conveys a spec ific beauty is an exclusive characteristic of the aesthet ic regime of the arts. Not only d id the aesthetic regime begi n wel l before the arts of mechanical reproduction, but it is actually th is regime that m ade them possible by its new way of th in k i ng art and i ts subject matter.

The aesthetic regime of the arts was i nit ially the breakdown of the system of representation, that is to say of a system where the d ign i ty of the subject matter d ictated the d ign ity of genres of representation (tragedy for the nobles, comedy for the people of meagre means; h istorical painting versus genre paint ing; etc.) . A long with genres, the system of representation defined the situations and forms of expression that were appropriate for the lowl iness or loft iness of the subject matter. The aesthetic regime [49] of the arts d i smantled th is correlation between subject matter and mode of representation. This revolution first took place in l iterature: an epoch and a society were deciphered through the features, clothes, or gestures of an ord inary ind ividual (Balzac) ; the sewer revealed a civi l i zation (Hugo) ; the daughter of a farmer and the daughter of a banker were caught in the equal force of style as an 'absolute manner of see ing th i ngs ' (F laubert) . A l l of these forms of cancellation or reversal of the opposit ion between h igh and low not only antedate the powers of mechan ical repro­duction, they made it possible for th i s reproduction to be more than mechan ical reproduction. I n order for a technological mode of act ion and production, i .e . a way of doing and mak i ng, to be qua l ifi ed as falling withi n the domain of art - be it a certa in lISe of words or of a camera -, i t i s first necessary for its subject matter to be defi n ed as

T H E D ISTRTIHJTlON O F T H E S EN S lH L E

such . Photography was not establ i shed as a n art on the grou nds of iu; tech nologicl l nature. The d iscollrsl" 011 the origina l ity of p hotogr3 plw as an ' i ndexica l ' art is very recent. a n d i t is less a part of the h istory of photography t h a n of the h i story of the post modern revers;l l touched upon above. 1 1 Furthermore, photography d id not become a n a rt hy i mi t atin g the m a n n er i s ms of a rt . Benja m i n accu rately demonstrated t h i s regardin g [50] David O ctavius H i l l : i t i s with the l i t t le a n onymous fishwife from New H aven , not wit h h is grand pictori a l com positions . t h a t he h rought photogLl phy into the world of a rt . Likewise. ir is not the ethereal s uhject matter ;lTld soft foclls of pictor ia l is m that secured the status o f photogra ph ic art , i t is rather the appropriation of the com monplace: the emigra n ts in S tiegl i tz's The St('('rtlge, the fronta l portraits by Pau l S tra nd or Walker Evans. 1 2 On the one hand, the tech n olog i ca l revolut i o n comes a fter the aesthetic revolut ion. On the other hand, h owever, the aesthet ic revo lut ion i s fi rst of al l the h onour acquired by the commonplace, wh ich i s p ictori a l and l i terary before bei ng photographic or ci nematic.

We should add that the honour con fe rred on the com monpbce is part of t h e science of l i teratu re hefore be ing part of the science of

h istory. Fil m and ph otography d id not d etermine the suhject m ;l t tcr a nd modes o f foc a l izat ion of ' new h istory'. O n the con tr;lf\'. th e n e w sc ience of h i story a n d the a rts of mech a n i�al reproduction a r� i n scr ibed i n the same logic of aesthetic revolut ion. T h i s progra m me is l i tera ry before bei n g scienti fic: it s h i fts the focus from great names and events to the l i fe of the anonymous ; it fi nd s symptoms of a n epoch, a soc iety,

or a civi l i zat ion i n the m i nute deta i l s of ordinary l i fe [5 1 ] ; it explains the surface lw subterra nean lavers; and i t recon structs worlds from thei r vest iges .' Th i s does not si;llply mean that the science of h i story has a l i terary pre h istory. L i teratu re itsel f was const ituted as a kind of symptomatology of society, and it set th is sym ptomatologr in cOlltrast with the c 1 a mou r a nd i magi nat ion oj' the pub I ic stage. In h i s preface to Cr071I 7{1('//. Hugo ca l led for a l i teratu re hased on thl" story o f the cllstoms of everyd ay life t h a t would be opposed to the story of events practised by h istoria ns . I n War and P('ace, Tol s tov con trasted the documents of l iteratu re, taken from n a rrat ives and tes� i mo n i a l acco u n ts of the action of i n nu merable a nonvmous actors, with the docu ments o f h istoria ns. taken fro m the a rc h i�es - a nd from the im agin ation - o f th ose wll(l

.:: Ii

34 T H E POLITICS OF AESTHETICS

believe to have been i n charge of battles and to have made h istory. Scholarly h istory took over th is opposi tion when i t contrasted the h istory of the l i festyles of the masses and the cycles of materia l l i fe based on reading and interpret ing 'mute witnesses' with the Former history of princes, battles, and treaties based on cou rts' ch ronicles and diplomatic reports. The appearance of the masses [52] on the scene of h istory or i n 'new' images is not to be confused with the l i n k between the age of the masses and the age of science and technology. It is first and foremost rooted i n the aesthetic logic of a mode of vis ib i l i ty that, on the one hand, revokes the representative tradition's scales of grandeur and, on the other hand, revokes the oratorical model of speech i n favour of the interpretation of s igns on the body of people, th ings, and civi l izations . I '

This is what scholarly h istory i n heri ted. However, i ts i n tention was to separate the condition of i ts new object (the l i fe of t he anonymous) from its l i terary origin and from the polit ics of l iterature in which it is i nscribed. What i t cast aside - which was reappropriated by fi lm a nd photography - was the logic revealed by the tradition of the novel (from Balzac to Proust and Surrealism) and the reBection on the true that Marx, Freud, Benjamin , and the trad it ion of 'crit ical thought' i nherited: the ordinary becomes beauti fu l as a trace of the true. And the ordinary becomes a t race of the true if it is torn from i ts obviousness i n order to become a hieroglyph, a mythological or phantasmagoric figure. This phantasmagoric d imension of the true, wh ich belongs to the aesthetic regime of t he arts, played an essential role i n the formation of the crit ical parad igm of the human and social sciences. [53 J T h e Marxist theory of fetishism is the most strik i ng test imony to th i s fact: commodities must be torn out of their trivial appearances, made i nto phantasmagoric objects in order to be in terpreted as the express ion of society's contradictions. Scholarly h istory tried to separate out various features withi n the aesthetico-poli t ical con figuration that gave i t i ts object. It Battened th is phantasmagoria of the true i nto the pos i t ivist sociological concepts of mental ity/expression and bcl ieFl ignorance. [54]

Is History a Form of Fiction?4

You reffr to the idca of fiction flS ('ss('!ltially /;e/ongi71g to tiJe dormlin of empiric{z/ rM!it)'. [-fOil ' ('xact0' is this to !J(' um/('rstoor/? V(!hat ar(' tl,(, (()}JrIr'ctions /;('t1lJ(,(,11 the fIis/o)")' UN' ar(' ' illlJo/lII'r/ ' in (/lid tI,(, s/orin told

(or d('con5trllcted) by the l1arrfitil!(' m·ts? /Inri /'()IIJ ar(' 1 1 '(, to IiIf{/" (' I,(,IISC or the fit'! tb(1I poeti!" or Ii/am)' /omtions '111/.:(, SI'(fPI" , l'rI!'I' (('tTl ('Ikets, mt/'l,)" than being reji('ctior!s of ' the rca!; A )"(' the (()r!CI'/,ts 1If' !)(}!/tiCfl! boriies ' or

(/ 'communa! !Jod i mor(' thlli! l1/etrlpj,on? {JOI'S this ref/atiou inno!!,!, (I redefinition of'utopill?

There a re two p roblems h e re t h a t certa i n people con fuse i n ord er to con s t ru c t the phantom of a h i s tor ica l rea l i t y t h a t wou l d sole ly he m ;lde up of 'fictions'. The fi rst p robl em concerns the reLn iomh i p hetween h i story and h i s toric i ty, that is to say the rela t ionsh ip of the h is torica l agent to t h e speak i ng bei ng. The second p rohl em concerns t h e i d ea of fiction and the rel a t ionsh ip hetween [ 5 ') ] fi c t iona l Ll t ion :l l i ty ;Ind the modes of expl anation used for h i storical and soc ia l rea l i t y, t h e re l a t ion s h ip between t he logic o f fi c t ion and t h e logic of flcts .

I t is preferable to begi n with the second pro h l e m , t h e \l ctll a l i ty ' of fiction ana lvsed by the text V O l l re fer ro. I S T h i s actu a l i tv i tsel F ra ises a twofold �uest io� : t h e gen�ra l ques tion of fl c t ion's ra

'tional i t \" i .e .

the d is t i n c t ion henveen fi ct ion and b l s i ty, ;l I1el the quest ion of t h e d is t i nct ion - or t h e i n d isr i nct ioTl - hetwecn t h e modes of i nr e l l i g i h i l i tv spec i fi c to t h e co nstruct ion of s tories ;1I1et t h e lllodes of i me l l i g i h i l i t \' med for u n ders ta n d i n fl: h istor ica l p h cnomcn;l . let's start frolll the beg inn i ng. The spec ifi�i ty of t h e represen t a t ive reg i m e of t h e ;Hts i s cha racterized by the sepa rat ion he tween the idea o f fict ion and th at of l ies. It is th i s regi m e that con fers auto nomy on t h e a ns' va r ious t(lrmS i n re lat ions h ip to the economy o f com m u n a l occ\ Jpatlons a nd t h e cOll nter­economv of s imulacra speci fi c to t h e e t h i c a l reg i me of i m ages. T h i s is wh a t i s

)esse n t i a I lv ;It s;ake in ;\ ristot le's Poctics, wh ich sa f�gua rd s t h e

fo rms of poet i c �lim(isis from the Plato n i c smpicion conCCfn i n g w h a t

36 T H E POLITICS O F AESTHETICS

images consist of and their end or purpose. The Poetics declares that the arrangement of a poem's actions i s not equ ivalent to the fabrication of a s imulacrumY; I t is a play of [56] k nowledge that is carried out i n a determined space-t i me. To pretend i s not to put forth i l l us ions but to e laborate i ntel l igible structures. Poetry owes no explanation for the 'truth ' of what i t says because, in its very principle, it is not made u p of images or statements, but fictions, that is to say arrangements between actions. The other consequence that Aristotle derives from th is is the superiority of poetry, which confers a causal logic on the arrangement

: of events, over h istory, condemned to presenti ng events according to thei r empirical disorder. I n other words - and th is is obviomly something that h istorians do not l ike to examine too closely - the clear d ivision between real ity and fiction makes a rat ioml logic of h istory i mpossible as well as a science of h istory.

The aesthetic revolution rearranges the rules of the game by ma k in g two th ings in terdependent: the blurring o f the borders between the logic of facts and the logic of fictions and the new mode of rationa l ity that characterizes the science of h istory. By declaring that the principle of poetry i s not to be fou nd in fiction but in a certai n arrangement of the signs of language, the Romantic Age blurred the d ivid i ng l i ne that isolated art from the jurisdiction of statements or images, as wel l as the d ividi ng l i ne that separated the [57J logic of facts from the logic of stories. It is not the case, as is sometimes said, that it consecrated the 'autotelism' of language, separated from rea l ity. It i s the exact opposite. The Romantic Age actual ly plunged language i nto the m ater ia l ity of

I the traits by which the h istorical and social world becomes visible to I itself, be i t in the form of the silent l anguage of th ings or the coded

language of images. Circulation within this landscape of signs defines, moreover, the new fictional ity, the new way of tell i ng stories, which

I is fi rst of al l a way of ass igning meani ng to the 'empi rical' world of lowly actions and commonplace objects. Fictional arrangement i s

: no longer ident ified with the Aristotel i an causal sequence of actions 'accordi ng to necessity and plausibi l ity'. It is an arrangement of s i g ns . However, thi s l i terary arrangement of signs i s by no means the sol itary

I self-referentiality of language. It is the identification of modes of fict ional construction with means of deciphering the signs i nscribed i n the general aspect of a place, a group, a wall , an article of cloth ing ,

' I ' ll I'. DISTRI B U T I O N O F T H E SFNSTH L E

a face. It is the association between , on the one hand, acce lerat ions o r decelerations of l a n guage, i ts shu fH i n g of i mages or s u d d e n cha nges of tone, a l l i ts d i fferen ces of potent ia l hetween the i n s ign i llca n t a n d t h e overl y s ign i fi ca n t or overly me;l n i n gfu l [58 ] , ,md on the other h ;1 nd , r h e mod a l i t i es of a t r i p t h rough the l a n d scape of s ign i fica n t t ra i ts deposired i n the topography of spaces, rhe phys iology of soc i a l c i rcles, the s i l e n t ex press i on of bod i es . T h e 'Ilct io tul i ty' spec i fi c r o the aesthet i c a g e i s consequent ly d i str ibuted hetvveen two poles: the potent ia I of m e a n i n g i n h erent i n everyth i n g s i l ent a nd t h e pro l i fera t ion o f modes o f speech and levels of mean i ng.

The aesthetic s()verei gntv of I i teratl t rc docs not rherefore ; 1 mou nt ro

the reign of Ilcr io l 1 . On'

th� comra rv, i t i s a regi me in wh ich the l ogic of descr ipt ive a nd n a rrat ive a rra n gements i n fi ct ion hecomes fu nda­menta l ly i nd i s t i nct from the a rr:1 I1gements l Ised i n the d escri pt ion :1 nd i n terpreta t ion of the phenomena of the soc i a l a nd h i storica l worl d . \X! hen R a I zac p l aces h is reader before t h e elltwi ned h i eroglyph ics o n the totte r i n g a nd heterocl ite fj <;ade of the hOllse i n I1t tf,(' Sip,n oj'tf,(' Cat and Rrlc/?('t, or h a s h i s reader ente r a n an t ique dea ler's shop, with the h ero o f The Magic Skin, l- where ju mbled up together arc objects hoth profane a n d sacred, unciv i l ized and cu ltured , antique a nd modern, that each sum u p a world , when he m a kes euvier t he true poet recon­structing a world from a foss i l , he establ ishes a regime of equ i va lence between the signs of the new novel a n d t hose of the descr iption or ['59J i n terpretat i on of t he phenomena of a c iv i l izat ion . He fc)!'ges th i s new rat ion a l it y of the obvious and the obscure t h a t goes aga i n s t the gra nd A r istotel i a n a rr:1 l1 gements and that wou ld become the n ew rat ion a l i ty for the h is tory o f m ateri a l l i fe (wh ich sta n d s in oppos i t ion to the histories of great n a mes and events) .

The A r i ,<; corel ia n d ivid i n g l i ne between two 'stori es' o r ' h i s tories' - poets' stories a n d the h istory of h istor i a n s - i s t hereby revoked , the d ividi n g l i ne that nor on ly sepa rated rea l ity a n d fict ion but a l so empi r ica I succession a nd const ructed necess i ty. A r istot l e establ i s h cd the superior i ty of poet ry, recou n t i n g 'wh a t cou l d h appen' accord i n s; to t h e necess i ty or plaus ib i l i ty o f t h e poeti c a rr a n gement o f act ions , over h i story, conceived of as the empi r i c a l success ion or eve nts, of' 'wh a t h a ppened '. The aesthet ic revolut ion d rastfca I ly d is rupts th i ngs : test i mony a n d hct ion come u nder the sa me reg i m e of m ea n i ng . O n

38 T H E POLITICS O F A ES T H ETICS

the one h and , the 'empirical ' bears the marks of the true in the f()rm of traces and i mprints . 'What happened' thus comes cl i rectly under a regime of truth, a regime that demonstrates the necessity heh i nd what happened. On the other h a nd, 'what could happen' no longer has the autonomous and l i near form [60] of the arrangement of actions . The poetic 'story' or ' h istory' henceforth l inks the rea l ism that shows us the poetic traces i n scribed d i rectly in real ity with the artificialism that assembles complex machi nes of understand ing.

This connection was transferred from literature to the new art of n arrative, fi lm, which brought to its h ighest potential the double resource of the s i lent i mprint that speaks and the montage that calcu­lates the values of truth and the potential for producing mea n i ng. Documentary film, fi lm devoted to the 'rea l ', is in th is sense capable of greater fictional i nvent ion than 'fiction' fi lm, readily devoted to a certai n stereotype of actions and characters. Chris Marker's Le Tombeau d'Alexandre (The Last Bolshevik) , the object of the article you refer to, fictionalizes the h istory of Russia from the time of the czars to the post­communist period through the desti ny of a fi lm-maker, A lexander Medvedk in . Marker does not make h i m i nto a fictional character; he does not tell fabricated stories about the USSR. He plays off of the combination of d i fferent types of traces (interviews, sign ificant faces, archival documents, extracts from documentary and fictional fi l ms, etc.) i n order to suggest possibi l ities for th i nking [61] th is story or h istory. The rea l must be fictiona lized i n order to be thought. This proposition should be dist inguished from any d iscourse - positive or negative - accord ing to which everyth ing is 'narrative', with alterna­tions between 'grand' n arratives and 'minor' narratives. The notion of 'narrative' locks us i nto oppositions between the real and arti fice where both the positivists and the deconstructionists are lost. It is not a matter of cla iming that everyth ing is fiction . It is a matter of stat ing that the fict ion of the aesthetic age defined models for con necting the presentation of facts and forms of i ntel l igibil ity that blu rred t l te border between the logic of facts and the logic of fiction . Moreover, these model s were taken up by h istorians and analysts of social rea l ity. Writ ing h istory and writi ng stories come under the sa me regime of truth . This has noth i ng whatsoever to do with a thesis on the rea lity or u nreal ity of th i ngs. On the contrary, it i s clea r that a model for the

T H E D I S T R I B UT I O N O F THE S E N S I B LE j()

fabrication of stories is l i nked ro a certa i n idea of h i story as com mon dest i ny, with an idea of those who 'make h i story'. a nd that th is i ll ter­penetrat ion of th e logic of facts a n d the log ic of storics is speci fi c (1 :I n age when a nyone a n d everyone i s cons idered to he pa rt ic i pa ti ng i n the task of ' maki n g' h istory. Thus . i t i s not a m aner of c l a i m i ng t h ;H [ (,2 1 'H istory' is on ly made up o f stor ies that we tel l ou rselves. but s i mp ! :' that the ' logic of stories' and the abi l i ty to act as h istoric a l agents go together. Pol i tics a nd art. l ike forms of k nowled ge, construct 'fict ions '. that is to say Inrltrrir;/ rearran gements of s igns a n d i mages. re ! at io I 1 sh i ps between what is seen a n d what is said, hetween what i s done a n d what can be done.

It is h ere th ;H we enco u n ter the other qu est ion th ;H you asked . wh ich concer n s the reLH ion sh i p hetwecn l i teLH i tv ;l nd h i s [( l I" 1 c i ty. Pol i t icli -;( : ltclll e rHS a nd l i tera ry locutions produce e ffects I n rea l i t y. The\' defl ne models of s peech or act ion b u t a l so regi mes of sensible i ntemi tv. They d ra ft m a ps of the v i s i b le , trajectories betwee n the visible a n d t he sayable, relationsh ips between modes of bei ng, modes of sayi ng , and modes of doing and maki ng. They denne va riations of sensible i l l ten­sities, perceptions, and the abi I i ties of bod ies. I X Thev therdw ra kc h old of unspecified groups of people. they widen gaps. open up space f(lr deviations, mod i fy the speeds. the trajectories. and the ways i n which groups of people a d here to a cond it ion. react to s i tuat ions . recogn ize the i r i mages. They reco n fi gu re the map of the sens ib le by i nt e rf(:ri ng with the f'unctiona l i ty of gest u res :1 n d rhyth m s [ (,31 ad apted to the natu ra l cycles of production, reprod uct ion , a n d sllh m iss ion . M a n i s a pol itical an imal because he is a l i terary an imal who lets h i mself be d iverted from h is 'natura l ' pu rpose by the power of words. T il i s litrr­rlrity is at once the cond ition and the effect of fhe c i rcu lat ion of 'ac tl la l ' l iterary locutions. However. these locut i o n s take hold of hod i es a n d d i verr t h e m from t h e i r e n d or pu rpose i nsofa r as they a r e n o t ho(I i L's i n th e seme of orga n isms . h u t qllas i-hoel ies. hl ocl�s of speech c i rcu h t i n �� witho l l t a legit i mate bther to ;l Ccompany them w\V:trd the i r al lthori 7.ed acid ressee. Theref()rc. they do not produce col l ect lw hod i e " . [ n s tC:H l . they i n t rod l l ce l i nes or fracture a n d d i s i n corporat ion i ll to i magi n a ry col lec t ive hod ies . Th is has :l lwavs heen , : I S is wel l k nowll , t h e phobi ;l of those i n power a nd the theoret ic i a n s of good go\'t'rn lll cnt . worr icd t h :l t the c i rc u la t ion o f wr i t ing wou ld pro d l lce 'd i sord e r i n the est:lhl i sh cd

40 T H E POLI T I C S O F A ESTHET I C S

system of classi fication'. I t was also, in the n ineteenth century, the phobia of 'actual ' writers who wrote in order to denounce the l iterarity that overflows the i nstitution of l i terature and leads its products astray. It is true t hat the circulation of t hese q uasi-bodies causes modi fica­tions i n the sensory perception of what is common to the commun ity, i n the relationship [641 between what is common to language and the sensible d istribution of spaces and occupations. They form, i n th i s way, uncertai n com mu n ities that contribute to the fonnation of enu nciative collectives that call i n to question the d istribution of roles, territories, and languages. In short, they contribute to the formation of pol it ical subjects that chal lenge the given d istribution of the sensible. A pol it ica I collective is not, i n actual fact, a n organ ism or a com munal hody. The channels for political subjectivization are not those of i magi na ry identification but t hose of ' l iterary' d i s incorporation. I '>

I a m not sure that the notion of u topia takes t h is into account. I r i s a word whose defin itional capabi l i t ies have been completely devoured by its connotative properties. Somet imes i t refers to the mad dellis ions t hat lead to total itarian catastrophe; someti mes i t refers, conversely, to the infinite expansion of the field of poss ib i l i ty that resists all forms of totaliz ing closu re. From t he poin t of view that concerns us here, i .e . the point of view of the reconfigurations of the shared sensible order, the word utopia harbours two contradictory mean ings. Utopia is , in one respect, the unacceptable, a no-place, the ext reme point of a polemical recon figuration of the sensible, which breaks down the categories that define what is considered to be obvious. However, i t is also the con figuration of a proper place, a [65] non-pole mical d istribut ion of the sensible u n iverse where what one sees, what one says, a nd what one makes or does are rigorously adapted to one another. Utopias and forms of utopian social ism functioned based on th i s ambiguity. On the one hand, they dismissed the obviolls sensible facts in wh ich the normal ity of domination i s rooted . On the other hand, t hey proposed a state of affa irs where the idea of the commun ity would h ave i ts adequate forms of i ncorporation, a state of affa i rs that would therefore abol ish the d i spute concerning the relations of words to t h ings that makes up the heart of pol itics. I n The Nights of LfltJOr, I ana lysed from th is perspective the complex encounter between workers and the engi neers of utopia. What the Sai nt-S imonian engi neers proposed was a new, rea l

T H E D 1 ST R J RUTION OF T H E S E N S I BLE 41

body f()r the commun ity where the water and ra il routes ma rked out on the ground wou ld take the p lace of paper d rea1l1� and the i l i l ls ioll� of �peech . The workers, for thei r pa rr, d id not set practice in contrast with utopia; they conferred upon the latter the char:lCteristic of hei ng 'unreal ', of being a montage of words and images appropriate for recon­figuri ng the territory of the visible, the th i nkable, and the possihle. The 'fictions' of art and pol i t ics a re therefore heterotopias rather than utopias. [66]

On Art and Worklo

The link between f1rtistic prf1ctice mzd itJ rlpparent outJide, i. ('. work, is essentif11 to the hypothesis of a 'foctory of the sensible '. How do you yourself conceive of such a link (exclusion, distinction , indifference . . . )? Is it possible to spef1k of 'humrln activity' in general f1nd include artistic prrlctices with; n

it, or are these exceptions when compared to other practices?

The fi rst poss ible mean i ng of the notion of a ' factory of the sens ib le' is the formation of a shared sensible world, a common habitat, by the weav ing together of a p lura l i ty of human activit ies . However, the idea of a ' distribution of the sensible' i mp l i es someth i ng more. A 'common' world is never s imply a n ethos, a shared abode, that resu lts from the sedimentation of a certa i n number of i ntertwined acts. It i s a l ways a polemical d istribution of modes of be ing and 'occupations' i n [671 a space of possibil it ies . It is from th is perspective that it is poss ible to

raise the questi on of the relationship between the 'ord i nar i ness' of work and artist ic 'exceptional ity'. Here agai n referenc ing P lato can help l ay down the terms of the problem. I n the th i rd book of the Republic, the m i metic ian i s no longer condemned s imply for the fa ls i ty and the per n icious nature of the i mages he presents, but he is condemned i n accordance with a pr inciple o f divis ion o f l abour that was a l ready used to exclude art isans from a ny shared pol i t ica l space: the m i metic ian i s , by defi nit ion, a double being. He does two th ings at once, whereas the pr inciple of a wel l-organized commu n ity i s that each person on ly docs the one th i ng that they were dest ined to do by the i r ' nature'. In one sense, this statement says everyth ing: the idea of work is not i n it i a l ly the idea of a determined activity, a process of mater ia l transformation, I t i s the idea of a d istr ibution of the sensible: an i m poss ib i l i ty of doing 'someth ing else' based on an 'absence of t i me'. This ' impossib i l i ty' is part of t he i ncorporated conception of the commu n i ty. It establ i shes work as the necessary relegation of the worker to the private space-t i me of h i s occupation , h i s exclus ion from pa rt ic ipat ion i n what i s common

T H E I l TSTR l B l l T I O CJ O F T H E S F N S I B I . E

to t h e com m u n i tv. " The m i me t i c i a n br i n gs co n fllS ion to r () � ] t h i s d istr ibut ion: he i s ;1 ma n of dupl icat ion , ;1 worker who docs two th i n hs at once. Perhaps the correlate to th is pr i nc i p le is the most i m port ;l ;'l l th i ng: the m i met ic ia n prov ides a puhl i c stage for the 'pr ivate ' pr inCip le of work. H e se ts lip a stage f()r what i s com mon to the com m u n i t\' w i t h what should de term i �e the con fi n e m e n t of each person to h i s (;r her p lace. Tt i s th is red istr ibution of the sens ib le that con s t itutes h i s nox ioll sness , even more t h an the danger of s i m u la cra wea ken i n g sou ls . Hen ce, ;l r t i s t ic p ractice i s not the outside of work hur i ts d i s pl aced for m of v i s i h i l i t y. The democra t ic d i s tr ibu t ion of the sens ib le m a kes the worker i n to a double bei n g. It removes the a r t i san (rolll ' h i s ' place , the domest ic space of work , a nd g ives h i m ' t i me' to occu py the 'p;lce of publ ic d i scussions a nd ta ke on the identi t\' of a del iberat ive cit izen. The m i metic act of spl i t t ing in two, wh i cl� i s at work i n theatr ical space, consecrates this dua l i ty and makes i t v i s ib le . The exclus ion of the m i met ic i ;l I1 , from the PL; ton ic poi n t of vi ew, goes h a nd i ll In nd with t h e fClI"Tll a t ion of a com m u n itv where work i s i ll ' its ' piau.

The p r i nci p l e of flction that gove rn s the represl' l lt ;l t i " e rq.',imc of ,n T i s ; 1 wav of sta h i l iz i n g the a rt i s t ic cXCl'pt ion , of ass ig l 1 l T1 g it to a t('(I,1U�, wh ich mea n s r wo t h i n gs : the a rt of i m i tar ions is ;; recl� ll iqu(' a n d Ilot a l ie, It ceases to be [69J a s imu lacr u m , but at the same t ime it ceases to be the d i splaced vis ib i l i ty of work. as a d istr ibut ion of' the sens ihle. The i m i tator i s no longer the double bei ng agai nst whom i t is necessary to posit the city where each person on ly does a s i n g le th i ng. The a rt of i m itations i s able to i nscribe its spec i fi c h ierarch ies and exclllSions I n the m ajor d i str ibution o f the l iberal arts a n d the mech an ica l a rts .

The ;lesthetic regi me of the a rts d i srup ts th is apportion mellt of spaces. It docs not s i mply ca l l i nto quest ion m i met ic d iv i s ion - i . e . t h e m i metic act of spl i tt i ng i n two - i n favou r of a n i m m ;l nen ce o r thOUGht in sens i b le matter. I t ,� lso ca l l s i n to question the neu tra l ized statll�"() f tec/me, the idea of techn ique as the i mposi t ion of a form of thought on i nert matter. That is to sav that i t bri ngs to l ight o n ce ,wa i ll �h e d istr ibur ion of OcclIpf1tions tba� upholds the apportioll�letlt of:l()n�a i ns of activity. This theoretical and pol i t ica l operation is at the hea rt of Sc h i l ler's On the A nt/wtic EduCflliol/ 0/ !'vian. Beh i nd the K a n t i a n d e fl n i t ion of aesthet ic judgement as a judgement wi thout concepts - w i t h OUT the subm iss ion of the i ll t u i r- ivt' g iven to conceptua l

44 T H E POLITI C S O F A ESTHETICS

determ ination , Schi l ler i nd icates the pol it ical d istribution that is the matter at stake: the d ivision between those who act and those who are acted upon, between the cult ivated c lasses [70] that have access to a total ization of l ived experience and the uncivi l ized classes i mmersed i n the parcell i ng out of work and of sensory experience. Schi ller's 'aesthetic' state, by suspending the opposition between active understanding and passive sensib i l i ty, a i ms at break i ng down - with a n idea of art - an idea of society based on the opposition between those who th ink and decide and those who are doomed to materia l tasks.

I n the n ineteenth century, th is suspension of work's negative value became the assertion of its positive value as the very form of the shared effectivity of thought and community. This mutation occurred via the transformat ion of the suspension i nherent i n the 'aesthetic state' i nto the positive assertion of the aesthetic will. Romantic ism declared that the becoming-sensible of a l l thought and the becoming-thought of a l l sensible materia l ity was the very goal of the activity of thought i n general . In th is way, art once aga i n became a symbol of work. It antic ipates the end - the e l im ination of oppositions - that work is not yet in a posit ion to attai n by and for i tsel f. However, it does this insofar as i t i s a production, the identi fication of a process of material execution with a community's sel f-presentation of its mean i ng. P roduction asserts itse lf [7 1] as the pr inciple beh i nd a new d istribution of the sensible insofar as i t un ites , i n one and the same concept, terms that are tradit ional ly opposed : the activity of manufacturi ng and vis ibi l ity. Manufacturi ng meant i n habi t ing the private and lowly space-t ime of l abour for sustenance. Producing u nites the act of manufactu ri ng with the act of br inging to l ight, the act of defi n i ng a new rel ationship between making and seeing. A rt anticipates work because it carries out its principle: the transformation of sensible matter into the com mu­nity's self-presentation. The texts written by the young Marx that confer upon work the status of the generic essence of mank ind were only possible on the basis of German Idea l ism's aesthetic progra m me, i.e. art as the t ransformation of thought i nto the sensory experience of the community. It is th is i n it ia l programme, moreover, that la id the fou ndation for the thought and practice of the 'avant-ga rdes' in the 1920s: abol ish a rt as a separate activity, put i t back to work. that is to

TTI E DI ST R I B U TI O N O F T il E S EN S I B L E

say, give i t back to l i fe a n d its act iv i ty of work i n g Ollt i ts own proper mea n r ng.

I do not mea n by th is that the modern va lor i zat ion of work i s onl y the res u l t of the new way for th i n k ing ahout ar t . O n the one h ;l n d , t h e t7{'sthf'tir mode of thought i s much more t h a n a wav of th i n k i n g about a rt . I t i s a n idea of th'ought, l i n ked to a n idea of th

'c d istr ibut io�

[72J of the sens ib le. On the other h a n d , it i s a l so necessa ry to th i n k about the way i n wh ich a rt i sts' a rt fou nd itsel f defi ned o n the b:1 s i , of a twofold pr�motiol1 of work : the econom ic p romot ion of work as the name for the fu ndamenta l h u ma n act iv ity, hut a l so the struggles of the proletariat to bri ng labour ou t of t he n ight surrou nd i ng i t , out ( )f i ts exc l us ion from shared vis ib i l i ty a nd speec h . I t i s necessan' to aha ndon the l azv a n d absu rd schema that contrasts the aesthet ic cu l t of ;Ht f� ) r a rt 's saL" wi th the r i s i ng power of i nd ustr i a l l ahou r. A rt e m "how ': igm o f hc i n g an exc lus ive act iv i ty i nsobr ; 1 5 i t i s work . Better i n f()rmnl r- 11 ;1 T1 the dcmysti fiers of the twentieth cent u ry, the cr i t ics i n F l auhe rt\ t i m e i nd icated what l i n ks t h e c u l t of t h e sentencc t o t h e va lor i zat ioT1 o f work, s a i d to be word l ess: the F l a ubert i a n ;l esthctc i s a pebhle brea ker. At the t ime o f the Russ i a n Revolu t ion , a r t a n d product iol 1 wou l d be i cle n t i f-ied because they ca me u nder one a nd the same pr inc ip le concern i n g the red istribution o f the sens ih le , they came u nder one a n d the sarnc v i rtue of action that opens u p a fo�m of v i s ih i l i ty a t the same t i me as it ma n u Elctures objects. The c u l t o f a r t presu pposes a reva l o ri zat ion of the abi l i t i es attached to the very idea of work. However, th i s idea i s l ess the d i scm'Cry of t he essence of h u m a n act iv i ty t h a n a rccompos i t ion of the l a n dscape of the vis ih le , a recom posit ion of the [75 1 relat ionsh i p between doi n g, m ak i ng , be i ng , see i ng, a n d say i ng. \X!h a tever m ight he the speci f ic type of econom ic c i rcu i ts they l ie w i th i n , a rt i s t i c practices are not 'exccptions' to other pract ices. They represent a n d recon figu re the d istribution of these act iv i t ies .

The Janus-Face o.f Politicized Art:22 Jacques Ranciere in Interview lDith Gabriel

Rockhill

H ISTORICAL AND H ER M ENEUTIC METHODOLOGY

- 1 71'(11I!'/ /il:1' t() h(Xin u'itl, (l f/I/f'st/()J/ ('()ural/ in,'!. J)/(,thor/o!o/!,l'. n,; s(,7Jrrfr/ ()((rlSi()fls, ),()JI m!! into qllestioN tilt .1)'JIljJt0 17lrl/n/o,r(l' ti,/it ff!l('I?l,/Jtr t() lImll'i! thc trllth hirldtn h('hind tl,(' ()/;.'olrr' slllI/e(' o( fljJpmrtlll(CS, w/,/'thrr it is A lthuss('r:, scil'r!((" Froid 's cfio/()KJI, or tiJ(' socia! sr/I'r!(('s in g('ncral. fn ),our ()wn rcscf/rci; ()n tile distri/mlions or tf,C '(,II.,ih/c !I'm und('r/i(' hist() ri((!/ ('()nf�l!,lIrations offll't {/nd politirs, how do VOII (woid tim logic of thc hidd('rI rl11d th(' app(zrcnt? HOI/i IU(llIlri V()1I r!f'SITi!,(' yrmr IIII'll hist()rirr;! and hrrmen('1{tir l11('t/J()do!()Kl' if 'th('rl' is 7/11 SOI'r!C(, /. . . ; /m! o! the J,ir/dm ':2 \

- 'There i s n o sc ience r . . . 1 but of the h idden' i s a ph rase hv 8;lChc la I'd that had heen t aken up hy the A l thusscr i a n s . Th us , i t W;l\ a n i ro n i c C]uot;1 t ion agtlimt the v is ion that presupposes the n ecessi ty of fi n d i n g or construct i n g t h e h id d e n . I t was ;1 11 i ro n ic quotat ion d i rectcd ;H A l thusser's ph i l osophy as wel l as at BOlll 'd i eu's socio logy or the h i .\to ry of t h e Annrt/('s Schoo l . I by no mea ns th i n k, ror my parr , that thne i s f l O science but of the h id d e n . r a lw:\vs trv to t h i n k i n terllls of hori70nt ;l l d i str ibut ions , comb i n at ions hetween systems of possib i l i t ies, no r i n terms of surface a nd s l Ibsrra tl i m . W here one searches for the h iddc ll heneath the apparent, ;1 pos i t ion or mastery i s estab l i sh ed . I have t r ied to con ce ive of a topography that does not p resuppose t h i s posit ion of mastery. It i s possible , from a ny given po i n t , [() try to reconstruct the conceptu a l n etwork that m akes it possib l e to cOllceive of a state l i lC" ll 1 . that causes a pa i nt i ng or a p iece of music to make 3 11 i m preSS ion , t h ; i t causes rea l ity t o appea r tra n s formable o r i n ;l i te r;lb lc . f h i , i s t il ; ! \v .l '

50 TilE PO LITIC S O r A ESTH ETI C S

the main theme of my research. I do not mean by that t h a t i r is ;1 pr inciple or a start ing poi nt. I began , myself as wel l , from the stereo­typed vision of science as a search for the h idden . Then I constructed , l itt le by l ittle, an egal itar ian or ana rch ist theoretical posit ion that does not presuppose th is vertical relat ions h ip of top to bottom.

- Does that mean that the regimes of art are not trrlnsc('nd('ntal ((Indi­tions of possibility for history in the sense of FOUCflult, but rather conditiolls of probability that ar(' immanent in history?

- I try not to thi n k about th i s i n terms of the phi losophy of h istory. As for the term transcendental, it is necessary to see what th is word can mean. The transcendenta l i s someth i ng l ike a reduction of the transcendent that can either br ing the transcendent back i nt o the i mmanent or, on the contrary, make the immanent take fl ight once aga in into the transcendent. I wou ld say that my approach is a bit s imi lar to Foucault's. I t retai ns the pri nciple from the Kant ian transcendental that replaces the dogmatism of truth with the search for condit ions of possibi l ity. At the same t ime, these condit ions are not cond itions for thought i n general , bur rather condit ions i m ma nenr in a particular system of thought, a particu la r system of express ion. [ d iffer from Foucault i nsofar as h i s a rchaeology seems to me to j'()l low a schema of h istorical necessity according to wh ich, beyond a certa i n chasm, someth ing i s no longer th inkable, can no longer be formulated. The vis ibi l ity of a form of expression as an artistic form depends on a h i storically constituted reg ime of perception and i ntel l igibi l ity. This does not mean that it becomes invis ible with the emergence of a new regime. I thus try at one and the same to h istoricize the transcen­dental and to de-historicize these systems of condit ions of possib i l ity. Statements or forms of expression undoubtedly depend on h istorica lly constituted systems of possibi l i t ies that determine forms of vis ib i l ity or criteria of eval uation, but this does not mean that we j ump from one system to another in such a way that the possibi l i ty of the new system coincides with the impossib i l ity of the former system. I n th is way, the aestheti c regime of art, for example, is a system of poss ib i l i t ies that i s h istorical ly constituted but that does not abolish the representative regi me, which was previously domi nant . At a given point in t ime, several regimes coexist and i nterm i ngle in the works themselves.

T NTFHV I EW FOH Tl I L F N CUSl l E n I T l ( ) � 51

U N I V E RS,A, Ll T Y, H I S TClR I CTTY, EQLA Ll T Y

- ) (! llr drlim ((I1I(('ming tfl(' IInil '('rSi/! slrltils of/)()lillull ((/II(I/I l )" -'1"1'111.< to ((I1l/mrlia Ihe f!,('J!('mlizeri histoJ'i('isJlI that c/Jrl rrlclcrizc.l your 1"('(le("/ ion on rl('sthetics. fJowl'ver, the 'on{v IIni1J(,J�ial ' is not /Jrl.l"l'ri ;m r/ll ;� pr ior i

j07lndation, and it is pmper{y sperd:ing rl polemiml ullil!ersal that is only actualized in spaces o/dispute. Is u)Jlversrilitv therejYlJ"e (dways riepl'Jlrin;r on rJ historical implementation ! fl' it, so to speak historicized in tll rn : 01' is there f1 trrlnsccndentlll point t/lrlt C\wpcs his/o}')'?

- There a re two quest ions i n vou r quest ion . Fi rst of a l l , is i t a com!";1' diction to emphasize, on rhe one h a neL a po l it i ca l I l n i n'rsa l ;1 n d , on r 1w other ha n e! , rhe h istor icity of reg imes for the i d e n r i flcat ioTl of a n ? I do not t h i n k so. Both of these approaches refer hack to the S;l lll C r;l t i ot] ;1 ! co re, wh ich is the critique of those forms of d i scourse that i n bet play a double game by us ing general ah istorica l concepts of a rt a nd pol it ics , wh i le at the sallle ti me l i nk i n g hoth of" them to h istor ica l destinies Iw decla ring our epoch to be the age of the 'en d ' o f ar t or po l i t ics . \X'h :l t I i n tend to show in both cases i s t hat a r t and /Jo/itin a re con t i n getH not i o n s . T'he f1c t that th ere a re :l lways ffll'm s of power docs nO[ mea 1 1 that there i s ;t 1 w;lYS such ;1 t h i n i� ;l S pol i t ics , and th t' L1c t t h ;1 I rh l' IT i s mus ic or scu lpture i n : 1 soc i ety docs n o r Ill C;1 l1 t h a t ;nt is const i tut('d ;l S an i ndependent clfegory. From t h i s perspec t i ve , I chose nNO d i ff ere l l t forms of a rgu mentation . For the former, I showed th at po l i t ics was not t i ed to a determ i ned h istorical project . as i t is declared to be by those who identi fy its end with the end of the project of em;] ncipation

' begu n

by the French Revol u ti o n . Pol i t ics exists when the flgme of a spec i fic su bject is constituted, a supernumerary sub ject i n rel a t ion to t he calculated n u mber of groups, places, and fu n ct ion s i n a soc i ety. T h i,s

i s sum med up i n the concept of the rlh1711S. Of Cot1rSe, t h i .s does n ot pt"c\TIlf there from bei n g h istor ica l forms of po l i t ics , a n d i t d oes T lot exclude the fact that the forms of pol i t i c a l suhjec t i v i zat ion : h at 1 m ke up modern democracy are of a n en t i rely d i fferent complex i ty tha n l h t' people i n Greek democratic cit ies.

Concerning art, i t seemed necess; ny to me to emphasize rhe existence of h istorical regimes of iden t i flcation i n order to d ism i ,s , ;If one and the same t i me, the fa l se obvious n ess of a rt's C'fernal ex i s tence and the confused i mages of art i st ic 'modern ity' i n terms o f a 'cr i t i que

52 THE POLITICS OF AESTHETICS

of representation'. I evoked the fact that art in the s ingular has on ly existed for two centuries and that this ex istence i n the s ingular meant the upheaval of the coord inates through wh ich the 'fine arts' had been located up to then as wel l as the d is ruption of the norms of fabrication and assessment that these coord i nates presupposed . I showed that if the properties of each one of these regimes of ident ification was studied, it was possible to d issipate qu ite a lot of the haze surrounding the idea of a 'modern project' of art and its completion or fa i lure. This was done, for example, by showing that phenomena considered to be part of a postmodern rupture (such as the m ixture of the arts or the combination of mediums) actua l ly fal l withi n the possibi l ities i n herent i n the aesthetic regime of art. I n both cases, it i s a matter of setting a s ingular ized un iversal against an undeterm ined un iversal and contrasting one form of h istoricizing ( in terms of conti ngent regimes organizi ng a field of possib i l it ies) with another form of h istoricizi ng ( in terms of teleology).

The second question concerns the un iversa l and its historici ty. My thesis is i ndeed that the polit ical un ive rsa l on ly takes effect in a s i n gu­

larized form. It i s dist inguished, in th is way, from the State un iversal conceived of as what makes a community out of a mult ip l icity of i nd ividuals. Equality i s what I have ca l led a presupposition . I t is not, let it be understood, a founding ontological principle but a cond ition that only functions when it is put i nto action. Consequently, pol it ics is not based on equal ity i n the sense that others try to base it on some genera l human predisposit ion such as l anguage or fear. Equal ity is actua l ly the condit ion requi red for bei ng able to th ink pol itics. However, equality is not, to begin with, po l it ical i n itself. It takes effect in lots of c i rcumstances that have noth ing pol i t ical about them ( in the si mple fact, for example, that two i nterlocutors can u nderstand one another) . Secondly, equality on ly generates pol i t ics when it is implemented i n the specific form of a particular case of d issensus.

- Is this actualization of equali�y also to be found in aesthetics, find more specifically in what you call democratic writing? f, it the samc

universal presupposition that is at work? - I do not set down equal i ty as a k ind of transcendental govern i ng

every sphere of activity, and thus art i n part icu lar. That s;l id, art as we k now it in the aesthet ic reg ime is the impl ementat ion of a cert a i n

I "T F I<VI FW F O R TI I F F N C I . IS I I E n n l O N

equ a l i ty. I t i s hased on the des r rucr io Jl of the h ieLl rch ica l S l'stelll nf' the fi ne a ns. Th i � docs not mean, however, that eq u a l i ty i n' gcnera l , po l i t ica l e,] u a l i t)" a n d aesthet ic equ a l i ty a re a l l eql l i va len t . L i rcrat ll re s general condi t ion as a modern form of the a r t of w r i t i ng i s what I have ca l led, by rerouting the Platon ic cr i t ique , the democracy of thc written word. However, the democr;lcv of the writ te n word is nor vet

democracy a s a po l it ica l form, And l it� ra ry equal i t)' I S nor s i mph' ;he equal i ty o f the wri tten word; i t i s a certa i n vvay i n wh ich equ a l i ty em fu nct ion t h a t Cl n tend to d i stance it fro lll ;l nv form of po l i t i ca l eq lLd i t v, To s ta te i t verv crudely, l i tcraru re was fo rmed i n the n i ne teenth centu ry hy establ i sh i l�g i ts o\;' n proper equ a l i t v. F laube rt 's equa l i t v or St \'lc i , thus a t once an i mp lemen tat ion of the democracy of the w r i r ren word and its refutat ion. Moreovcr, th is equa l i ty of st),le a i ms ar revea l i ng an immaTwnt equal ity, a passive equa l i ty o f a l l th i ngs t h a t s ra nd s i n �bv ious contrast w i t h the po l i t i ca l s l lhject i v i zat ion of equa l i ty i n ;\ ! I i rs forms.

, - \'(//If1t thclI fl rl' thc hCliristic flril'flnttlgCI' oj' tiJe IIO/ioll 0/ <'f/I 'd/I i ]

/0 1' cXjJ/(lillin,,< /he lIItljoJ' e/Jang!'s /;('/7(1('('11 'c/rIIsim/ III'! ' find 'ilWri(l'il (11'/ '? W"/n, do )'01f propose the /lotioll oj'cqllfl/itl' for thi7ll:ing ff, m llg!} t/li' -'jll'lI/7eit11 oj' thl' flcst/Jetil' regillll' OJ' t/I(' lirts 1 I1stl'l!d 0/ {!((,I'/, f iilg (1// 1) ( t/;c prcCOI!CCiUN/ opiliiorlS 0 1 1 thc (/cstllll' II/ Ii/or/ern fir!: the trllJ/Jlri{l1l

fi'OIJ1 t!le I'cpres('JltfuilJl' to t!lc lI(1 fl - r('jJ/,;'.I I'I; til tii'C, tll{' i'1'f//iz.f!tio/l oj' llli'

autonotrlV o/t/le dcsthetic sphcre, art :,' iliti'tlllsitil'C fifnl, etc, ? .

- O n ce aga i n , T a m not p ro pos i l1 g (,<] LT �\ l i tv as �l cOl1ceptll a l C1tC"OIT to r art , but c1 th i n k that thc notion

' of aes r l�ct i c ellu a l i tv a l l ows l� t�

re t h i l1 k certa i n i ncohere n t cHcgor ics i n tegra l to wiLl! i s ca l l ed a rt i st IC 'modern i t)" . Let's ta ke i nt ra n'" i t i \' i tv fo� example , I mf;l ll\ i t i l' i ry i , supposed t o m e a n t h a t wr i ters wi l l h e l1cd()rth d e a l w i t h l anguage i n s tead of tel l i ng a story, or thar pa i n ters wi l l d i s t r i hute ti ekb of �ol(): l r

i n stead o f pa i nt i ng w;lrh orses or n aked women ( M au r ice Dcn i s ) . However, th i s supposed d ism i ssa l o f s l Thien matter fi rst presu ppos es the estahl i s h mcnt of a reg i me of eq u a l ity regard i n g subj ect matter. This is what 'representat ion' was i n the fi rs t p lace, not resemhlance as some appear to hel ieve, bur the ex i s tence o f necessan' con TWC­t ions hccween a tnJe of sub jec t m a r re r a n d a form of ex prcs

·s ion . Th i ,

i s how r h e h i e ra rchy of gen res fu nct i oned i n poe t rv or p:l i n t i ng, " ' I ntra n s i r ivc' I i tcr:1 t l l rc or p :, i n T i ng I1K, I 11 S fi r , t o r a l l ;j 1 ( ) 1' 111 of l i t cr: l t l l rC

54 T H E POLITICS O F AESTH ETICS

or pa int ing freed from the systems of expression that make a particu la r sort of l anguage, a particular k i nd of compos ition, or possibly a particular type of colour appropriate for the nobi l ity or bana l i ty of a specific subject matter. The concept of i ntransitivity does not al low us to understand th is. It is clear that this concept does not work in l i terature. I n a way, l i terature a lways says someth i ng. I t s i mp ly says i t i n modes that are set off from a certa i n standard idea of a message. Some have attempted to contrast l iterary i ntransitivity with com m u nication, but the language of l i terature can be as transparent as the language of commun ication. What functions d i fferently is the relat ionship between saying and mean ing. This is where a divid i ng l i ne becomes visible, wh ich coincides with the i mplementat ion of another form of equali ty, not the equality of communicators but the equa l i ty of the communicated. L ikewise, for abstract pa int ing to appear, i t is h rst necessary that the subject matter of pai nt ing be considered a matter of ind ifference. This began with the idea that pai nti ng a cook with her k i tchen utensils was as noble as pai nt ing a general on a batt lehel d . J n l i terature, it began with the idea that it was not necessary to adopt a particular style to write about nobles, bou rgeois, peasants, pr i nces, or valets. The equality of subject matter and the i nd ifference regard i ng modes of expression is prior to the possibil ity of abandon i ng a I I subject matter for abstraction . The former is the condit ion of the latter.

I am not looking to establ ish a way of th i n k ing modern ar t on the basis of equality. I t ry to show that there are severa l k i nds of eq u al i ty at p lay, that l i terary equal ity is not the same th ing as democra t i c equa l i ty or the un iversal exchangeabil i ty of commodities.

- Regarding the d�fftrent forms of equality, how do you distinguish writing, criticized by Plato as an orphan letter that freely cirCiliates without knowing who it should {lddress, and the indiffi'rCnt flow of Ctlpit{z/? More specijic{dly, how do you distinguish, in the nineteenth century, hetUJeen the litertlry equality that you pinpoint in an allthor like F/fn/hcrt {mel the equality of exchange?

- The equal ity of the written word is not the same t h i ng as the equal ity of exchange . The democracy of thc written word does not come down to the arbitrary nature of s igns . \'V'hen P lato crit icizes the ava i l ab i l i ty of the written word , he cal l s i nto question a form of unsupervised appropriation of language that leads to the corr uption o r

I NT F. RV I FW rO R TT T F. E :"J ( ; U S I I E D I T I O N

l egi t i ma cy. The ci rcu l at ion of the wri t ten word destroys the pri nc ip le of legiti macy t hat wou lei h avc the ci rcu ! a t ion of !a nguage he <;uch that i t leaves the proper tra n s m i t ter a nd goes ro the proper receiver by the proper cha n ne l . ' Proper' l a n guage i s gua ra meed by a proper d i s t r ihut ion of bodies. The written word opens up a space of ra ndom a ppropria t ion , estab l i sh cs a pr in c ip l e of u nt a med d i fference th ,H i s a l together u n l i ke the u n iversa l exchan geab i l i ty of cO Tll ll1od i t ies . To put it vny crudel \', you c a n not lay you r h ands on capiLl i l i ke you u n l av you r h a nds nn the wri tten word . The p lav o f h n gu age wi thout h i era rchy tha r v ioh rcs an order hased on the h iera rchy of l anguage i s somet h i ng cornpicteh' d i fferent t h a n the s i mple fact that a eu ro i s worth a eum and tha t two commod i t ies that arc worth a eu rn arc equ iva l ent to one a nother. I t is a matter of k now i ng if absolute ly anyone can ta ke over a nd red i rect the power i nvested in language . T h i s presupposes a rnod i fiut ion i ll the re la t ionsh i p between the c i rcu la t ion of l a n guage and the s(le i ;l l d is t r ihut ion o f hod ies , wh ich i s not a t ;1 1 1 a t p lay i n s i mp le moneLHV excha n ge.

An i dea of democrac;' h ;l S been constructed accord i ng ro vvh ich dell10cracv wou ld be t he s i mp le s \'stelll of' i n d i fference where olle vote i s equ a l to a nother just as a cent i s worth a cent , a nd where rhe 'eq u a l i ty of con d i t i om' wOl l l d he equ a l to moneta ry equ i va l ence. rrorn th is perspect ive, i t i s possib le to pos i t l i tera ry i nd i fference, Fh l lhert 's i nel i fference of sty le for example , as a n ;l l ogoll s to democra t i c :l nd com merci;l l i nd i fference. However, I t h i n k tha t i t i s prec i se ly ;H t h i s po i nt th ; ! t i t i s necessary to hri ng t h e d i fferences hack i mo pia\'. There i s not an a n a logy hut a confl i ct hcrween f�)r ll1s of equ ;l l i ty, wh ich i t se l f h l Tl c t ions ;l t severa l l cw' l s i n l i tcLl t l l lT. Let':.. r;l ke ;'v/(lr/f!lIII' RfJ 1J(lrl' as ;I n exa m ple . On the olle h ;1 nd , the ; lbso lut iz;l t lo ll of st; , ic correspond, to ;1 pr inc ip le of del1lOcra r i c equ a l i ty. The adu l terv cOll1 m i t t ed h;' ;l h rll1cr\

d aughter i s ;l S i nteres t i n g as the heroic actions of great men . ivloreover, at a t i m e when nearl y everyone k nows how to re;l(L a l most ;l Iwonc ha .s access, as a res u l t of the ega l i tar ia n c i rcu i :J t ion of wr i t i ng, to the flu i ·· t ioLl s l i fe of E m m a Bov;l ry and can m a ke i t the i r own . Consequent ly, t here i s a veri table ha rmon y hetween the ra ndoll1 c i rc u l at ion of the wr i t ten word ;l lld a certa i n l i terarv ahsolute. On the other ha nc! . however, Fhuhert const ructs h i s l i tcLHY eql l a l i tv i n oppos i t io ll t o the ra ndom c i rcu l a t io n of the wr i tten word a n d to the type o f 'aes thet ic'

56 THE PO LITICS O F A ESTH ETI C S

equality i t produces, At the hea rt of Madame B01/ary there i s a struggle between two forms of equal ity. 1 11 one sense, Em ma Bovary is the heroine of a certai n aesthetic d em ocracy, She wa nts to b r i ng ar t i nr o her l i fe, both i nto her love l i fe a n d i nto the decor o f her home. The novel is constructed as a constant polem ic aga inst a farm g i rl \ de� i re to bring ar t i nto l ife. It contrasts 'art i n l i fe' (th is wi l l l a ter be ca l led the aestheticization of daily l i fe) with a form of art that i s in hooks a nd only i n books.

Nonetheless, neither a rt i n books nor art in l i fe i s synonymous with democracy as a form for construct ing d i ssensus over 'the g iven' of publi c l i fe, Neither the former nor the latter, moreover, is equ iva lent to the ind ifference i nherent in the reign of commod ities a nd the reign of money. F laubert constructs a l iterary ind ifference that ma i nta i ns a d istance from any poli t ical subject ivizatioll . He asserts a molecu l a r equali ty of affects that stands i n opposit ion to the molar equa l i ty of subjects construct ing a democratic po l i t ical scene, This is sum med up in the phrase where he says he i s less interested in someone d ressed in rags than in the l i ce that are feed i ng on h i m, less i nterested in soc ia l i nequa l ity than i n molecu lar equality. He constructs h i s book as an i mplementation of the m icroscopic equ a l i ty tha t make� each sentence equal to another - not i n length but in i n tens i ty - a nd that ma ke� each sentence, i n the end, equal to the entire hoo le He const ructs th i s equa l i ty in opposit ion to several other k i nds of equa l i ty : commerc ia l equality, democratic po l i t ica l equal ity, or equa l i ty as a l i festyle such as the equali ty h is heroine tries to put i nto practice,

POSITIVE CONTRA DICTION

- What is the historical status of the contradiction between incorporation and disincorporation - the struggle between body find spirit - thflt you find at work in Haubert as well as in Balzac, Mallarme, and Proust? l'(lhy hilS this contradiction been (1 crucial determining factor for modern literr;turc, as weLL as for egaLitilriiln democrilCY?

- I ncorporation and d is incorporation do not mean body a nd sp i r i t . In the Christ ian tradit ion, body and spi rit go together and sta n d i n opposit ion to the ' dead letter', Language i s i nco rporated when i t i s

I N T E RV I EW F O R TH E LN C U S H U)IT I ( ) ]\; ')7

guara nteed by a body or <l mater i a l state: it i s d is i ncorporaTed when the on l y materi : d ity t int supports i t is if:., own . The con fl ict hcrwecn these two sCltes of la ngu age is ;H the heart or l i t cr ;l tu re .,uch as it W;lS dew'loped i ll the n i neteenth cc n t t l f\' ,1S a ll ;ll'srhet ic regi m e of wr i t i ng. I n one respect. ! i ter,! t l l re rn l';l I lS d isi nC(lrpor;l t ioJl . The r r;1 < 1 i­t ion :l l express ive relat ionsh ips hetween word s, ItT l i n gs . a nd pos i t ions co l l apsed a t the S ;l me t i me as the 'soc i ;J ! ' h ier;J rch ie .' they corresponded roo There were no longer noble word s and ignoble words , Just a, there was no longer noble subject m atter a nd ignob le subject mat ter. The a rrangement of words was no longer gua ra n teed by an ordered system of appropriateness between words a nd hod ies. There was, on the one h and , a vast egal i ta ria n surElce of free words that cou ld u l t i mate ly a moul l t to the l i m i t l ess i n d i fferent chatter of the worl d . O n the other hand , ho\,vever, there was the des i re to repL1ce the o ld express ive C01l\'C ' l­t ions with a d i rect relat ionsh ip between the potent i ,l i of words a nd th t poten t ia l of bod i es, where language wou ld he the d i rect express io ll o( a potent i a l for bei ng that was i m ma n e n t in hei ngs. This i s wb t is ;It work i n Ba lzac, as r have attempted to show i n [fl Paro/c m l!ctte �l nd The Flesh oflXiord,. I n h is work, i t i s the th i n gs themselves that speak. The cou rse of dest iny i s a l ready wri tten on the EH;;H Ic of a house or O i l the c loth i ng worn by a n i n d iv id u a l . A n 'everyth i ng spea ks' ( Nova l i s) i s i m ma nent in t h i ngs, a nd l i teratll re conceives or i tse l f ;l S a rev iva l . ;1 11 u n fu rl i ng, a dec i pher i n g of t h is 'even·th i n g spea ks'. I t d re:J lll s n f con;;tr l lc t i ng a new hod:' for vvr i t i ng o n th is fou ndat io l l . T h i s wi l l later heco m e R i mhaud's p roject in deve lop i ng an 'A lchemy of the \V'ord ' or

M<l l l a rrn(( \ d rea Tll of a poem choreograph i n g the movements of the Idea, before hecom i n g the Fut u ri s t l a ngua ge of new energies or the Surrea l ist d re:J m of a langu <lge of des i re that can he read i n graffi t i , shop s igm , or cata logues of om-or-d ate merch a nd i se.

The n i neteenth centu ry was hau nted - negat ively - by t he Platon ic pa rad igm of the democrat ic d i ssolut ion of the soc ia l hody, by the h nc i fu l cor re lat i on between democracv/i nd ividu;l l i sm/Protestan t i sm! revol ut ion !the d i s i n tegrat ion of the soc ia 1 bond. Th i s C1 n be expressed in more or l ess poet ic or scient ifi c terms (sociology as a sc ience W;lS horn from th is ohsess ion with the l ost soci a l hon d ) , more or less react iona ry or p rogress ive terms, hut the ent i re cent u ry was hau nted by the i m m i nenr da n ger that a n i n d i fferent equa l i ty wou ld come to

58 T H E POLITICS Of A ESTH ET I C S

reign and by the idea that i t was necess ary to oppose i t with a new meani ng of the commLlnal body. Literatu re was a pr iv i leged site where th is became visible. It was at one and the same t ime a way of ex h ih i t i n g the reign of i nd ifferent language and, conversely, a way of rem a k i ng bodies with words and even a way of lead i ng words toward thei r cancell at ion i n material states. I stud ied th i s tension i n Balzac's The Village Rector. The novel is the s tory of a cr ime caused by a book that in tervenes in the work ing-class l i fe of a young girl not dest i ned to read it. I n contrast with the fatal words written on paper, t here is a good form of writ ing, one that does not c i rculate but is i nscribed i n th i ngs themselves. However, this form of writi ng can on ly mean, i n the end, the self-cancellation of l iterature: the daughter of the people, lost by a book, 'writes her repentance' i n the form of canals that wi l l enrich a vi l lage. This i s the precise equivalent of the Saint-Simon ian theory that opposes the paths ofcommunication opened up in the earth to the chatter of democratic newspapers.

This tension is expressed i n a completely d ifferent manner in the work of Mallarme or R imbaud. Mal larme attempted to identify the poetic function with a symbo l ic economy that would supplement the s imple equal ity of coi ns , words i n the newspaper, and votes in a ballot box. He opposes the vertical celebration of the COlll mu n i ty to the horizontality of the ' democratic terreplein ' (Pl ato's a ri t h met ica l equality) . R imbaud attempts, for h is part , to e laborate a new song for the community, expressed i n a new word that would be accessible to al l the senses.2) This i s , however, where the contrad iction appears. The 'alchemy of the word ' that i s supposed to construct a new body oll l y has a t its d isposition a bric-a-brac o f various forms o f orphaned writ ing: books i n school-taught Lat in , s i l ly refrains , s ma l l erot ic books w i t h spel l ing errors . . .

- Are there authors who escape this logic that dominates the nineteenth century? How would you react to the criticism that co mists in accusingyou of privileging a certain negative dialectic of history, a dialectic with01lt a definitive resolution between incorporation and disincorporruion, at thc expense of the social dynamic of history or the plurality of literruy and artistic practices?

- It a l l depends on what one ca l l s a ' negative d ia lectic'. What I have attempted to th ink through is not a n egat i ve d i a l ect ic but rather

I NT E RV I EW F O R TI l L E N C L] S T-I F D I T I ( ) ;\:

a posit ive contrad iction . Li tC'ra ttI re 11 : 1 S heen con s trl lcted :15 :1 tens ion hetween two oppos i ng ra t i ( )n :1 I i r ies : : 1 log ic of d i s i ncorpor:u ion a lld d i ssol u r i on , who.se ITs l i l t i s t h :l I word s 1 1 0 lo n ger h ave .1 I lV gU:U:l Il tCC, a nd : 1 Il l' rmeneu t ic logic tha t a i 111 s a t e s t ah lish i n g :1 new' hod\' ror wr i t i ng. Th is ten sion i s , for me, a ga l va n i l i ng tens ion, a pri nc ip le of work a nd not by any mea ns a pri nc ipl e of ' i nert ia' or 'non -work '. Ch

A re there authors who escape th i s tem i o n ? Undoubted l y. I have nor soug h t to pr iv i lege :1 pa rt icu b r type of auth or. I h ave obviously c ho<;('n authors t h a t belong to a h omogenolls 1 1 I1 iverse - F ra n ce i n the Cen t l l ry 'a fter the Revol llt ion' -, wh ich very forcefu l l y l ays down the pnl i t i cl i stakes of wri t i n g. A n identical te ns ion is st i l l h owever to h e fou nd i ll nOJ]-f'rench authors from the twent ieth centurv. 'r:1 I<e Vi rgi n i a \Vool r: for i n s ta n ce , an e! \'ou wi l l sec that sh e s t rives (11 rhe S:I 111C\V:1\; tow:ucl :1 l a n guage t h a t �I i m i na tes i ts conti n gen cy, ;I t the r isk of l) rush i n [T shou lders with the l a nguage of t h e mad. Ta'ke Joyce, :l nd VOli wi l l fi nd a vast expa nse of s tereotypes without end a t t h e same t i me as the ascent toward l anguage's necess i ty, wh ich wou l d a l s o he the necessi tv of myth . Take, for i ns tance , a n I ta l i a n com mu n i s I' author l i ke Pavese. I n h i ., work, there i s a paratactic st\'ie a n d a rea l i s t l a n gu age t h a t is h i t h fu l to the W:lyS of med iocre a ncl co m m onp l ace ch :l 1�aet�rs, work i ng-c iass or m idd le-c lass c h a racters with out dept h . T here is a 1l10d e 1'1l i , m t h a t ho rd e rs on m i n i m:l l i s m . A t t h e sa me t i me, t h er e i s :1 11 en t i re Ilwthn­logi c:t 1 d i mens ion that. l i ke in Jovee's work, refers hack to Vic() : a :ks i re to red i scover, w i t h i n 'modern' tr iv i ;l l i ty, the powers of myth enve loped in l a nguage. I a m t h i n k i ng, i n part icu l a r. of the Dialogllf'.l with ifflCO t h a t he wrote a s t h ough i n t h e m a rgi n of h i s ' rea l i st ' narra t ives, :I S ;1 way o f m i n i ng heneat'h the i r hor izo�lta l la n guage . The same k i nd of ten s i o n s a re to be fc)u nd in a l l of modern l i terat l l re .

- !( no/ this I'1J(,f! the ('[/sc with the Scriptures ? YOII finrl therr' to /)(' rlt least [J p roximity between Srriptllr(' and thc cont radictllm Ii(' mor/rrn

literat1lre.

- I a m not :It a l l a speci a l i s t i n Scr ipture. You a rc u ndouhted l " a l lud i ng to The Flesh ofW/ords and to the rem a rks I made in A uerbach 's m a rgi n s . I t is A u erbach who sets the vert ica l i t v of the evan(�el ical , Co na rrative aga i n s t t h e ho r izo n ta l i ty of Homeric descr ipt ion . I n the episode of Peter's denia l , he s tresses t he l i t t l e p ict u resq ue ind icatioJlS that convey the d ra m a of a com 1l1on man t:l ken ho ld or by the gra nd

60 TH E POLITICS OF AESTH ETI C S

mystery. He sees in th i s the origina l model of nove list ic rea l i sm. I oppose th i s idea by ma intain i ng that these l it tle picturesque i nd ica­t ions i n fact amount to a writ ing mach ine. It is less a matter of conveying the i nt imate drama of the common man than l i nk i ng the episodes of the New Testament to t he episodes of the Old Testament in order to show t hat Peter's denia l , l ike the other episodes i n the GospeL h ad already been foretold in the Old Testament. T h i s means that it i s possible to derive two antagonist ic models of i ncarnation itse l f. Accord ing to one model, writ ing conceals itse lf i n the flesh . Accord ing to the other, wr i t ing open ly reveals itse l f as the d isembodied condition of any glorious flesh. I have attempted to show how it was possible to derive from t hese models two opposed ideas of novel istic real ity and how the two paradigms could become i ntermi ngled.

POLITICIZED A RT

- Barring a jew exceptions, you az;oid the concept of commitment. Do you reject this notion because of the folse dichotorrzy it presupposes betwcen art for art's sake and social reality? Are its inadequacies as a concept due to the foct that it is based on simplistic distinctions between the z;oluntary and the inz;oluntary, between the individual and society?

- It is an i n-between notion that i s vacuous as an aesthetic notion and a lso as a pol it ical notion. It can be said that an artist is comm itted as a person , and possibly that he is com mitted hy h is writ i ngs, h i s paint ings, h is fi lms, which contribute to a certa i n type o f pol it ica l struggle. An artist can be committed, bur what docs i t mea n ro say that h i s art is committed ? Commitment is not a category of a rt. T h i s does not mean that art i s apo l it ical . I t means that aesthetics has i t s own pol it ics, or i ts own meta-polit ics. That is what I was saying earl ier regardi ng F laubert and m icroscopic equa l ity. There arc pol i t i cs of aesthet ics, forms of commun ity laid out by the very regi me of ident i­fication i n which we perceive art (hence pure art as wel l as com mitted art) . Moreover, a 'committed' work of art is always made as a k i nd of combi nation between these objective pol it ics that are i mcribed i n the field o f possib i l ity for writing, objective pol it i cs that are inscribed as plastic or narrative possibi l ities .27 The hct that someone writcs

I N TERV1 EW F O R THE F N G U S H F D lT I O N G1

ro scrve a cause or that someone d i sc l l sses workers or the com mOil people I ll stCld of ;ni s tocrats , wh a t exact ly i s th is goi ng to ch;l Tlge rega rd i n g thc prec i se cond i r ions f<1 r the e l ahoration a nd recept ion of a �vork o'r a rt ? Cert a i n mea ns a rc goi ng t o he chosen i n s tead of others accord I n g to a pr inc ip le of adapta t ion . The prob lem, however, is that the adaptat ion of express ion to subject mat ter i s a pr i ncip lc of the represen t;lt i ve tra d i t ion that the aesthet ic reg i me o f an has ca l l ed i n to quest ion . That means tha t there is no cr i ter ion f<)r establ i s h i n g a corre­spondcnce hetwec n aesthet ic v i rtue ;1 nel pol i t i u l vi rruc. There ;lrC on I v choices . A progress ive or revolut ion ;ny pa i nrer or 11 <1\'el i s t i n the 1 () 2(}; a n d 1 9 .)Os w i l l gcner a l lv choosc a chaot ic f<lrlll i n order to show th ;l f the re ign i ng order i s j us t a s much a d isorder. L i ke Dos Passos, he w i l l represent a shattered rea l i tv : fragmented stories of errat i c i ncl iv idu :d dest in ies that translate. by

't he i r i l log ica l i tv, the log ic of the capi ta l i s t

order. Pa i n tcrs l ike Dix or e rosz in Ger m a ny, on the other hand, wi l l represent a h u m a n / i n h u m a n u n i verse, ;1 u n iverse where h u m a n he i ngs d r i ft hetween m arionettes, masks , and skeletons . They thereby plav hetvveen two types of i n h l lfll an i r v : the i n h l lm :l n i ty of the masks ;] Il d ; ll lWlTlatOll S o f t h e soci a l paLlde a nd rhe i n hu m a n i t\! o f the dcacl k mach i ne th ;l t upholds th i s p a raele. These pla s t i c o r n ;nrat i ve dev ices ca n be ident i fied wi t h an exemplary pol i t ica l awa reness of the conrr ; l ­d ict ions i n herent in a socia l and econom ic order. They can, however, j u s t as wel l be dcnou nced as react ionary n i h i l i sm or even cons idered to be p u re forma l mach i nes wi thout pol i t ica l content . Nove l i s t i c fragmenta t ion or p ic tor ia l ca rn i va l i z;H ion l e nd themselves j l l S t a s wel l to descr i h i n g the ch ;los of the cap i ta l i s t world from the poi n t o f v iew of cla ss s tTU ggle as to descr i h i n g, ('rom :l n i h i l i s t i c poi n t of VI CW, the Ch :l05 of a w(� I� l d where c la ss s t r : l gg lc i s i rsl· l f hur on t' clement I II the D i OIl\'s i ;1 1l chaos. "]";l k(', f() r I n SC1 IlCc, :1 c i n ern :l t i c equ iva lent : t h e A mer iul l fi l ms from the ] 'rlOs , 1 1lc1 l ')SOs Oil \ ' i Cr l1 ;l l11 . l i k e C i m i nCl's The /)ar /-/1111/('1", where I I l l' wa r s c e l l e s ; I re esscll t i ;l l l " scenes nF R 1 1 5S i :1 1 l rou lette . I t ca ll he sa i d rh :n the mess;l g" i s t he dni sory naw re of rhe war. I t can jus t a s wel l he sa id t h a t the mcssage i s the der isory I la ture of the s t ruggle aga i ns t the war.

There are no cr i teri a . There a rc f()r lllubs tha t a rc equ :d l y ;l\'a i l ablc whose mea n i n g is oftcn in Let dec ided upon hv a �ra(e or con A icr th ;H is ex terior to them. ror eX:l m plc , t h er e i s rhe soc i ;l l n ;l rn r ivc I II

62 T H E POLI T I C S OF AESTHETICS

the form of a modern epic that confers a mythological d i mension on its characters. Les Miserables i s the prototype of th i s k i nd of narrative . D epending on the times, i t has been seen as a catech i sm with socia l i � t leanings, ignorant bourgeois sentimenta l i sm over class struggle, or a first-rate poem whose democratic meaning is not to be found in the d in of the revolutionary barricades hut i ll the i nd ividual and quasi­subterranean obstinacy of Jean Va ljean . The core of the problem is that there is no criter ion for establ ish i ng an appropriate correlation between the pol it ics of aesthet ics and the aesthetics of pol it ics . Th is has nothi ng to do with the c la i m m ade by some people that a rt and politics should not be m i xed. They i ntermix i n any case; po l i tics has i ts aesthetics, and aesthetics has its pol it ics. But there is no formula for an appropriate correlat ion. It is the state of pol i t ics that decides that D ix's paint ings i n the 1920s, 'popul ist' fi lms by Reno i r, Duvivier, or Carne i n the 19305, or films by C im ino or Scorsese in the 19805 appear to h arbour a pol it ical critique or appear, on the contrary, to be su ited to a n apol it ical outlook on the i rreducible chaos of human aFfa i rs or the picturesque poetry of soci a l d i fferences.

- Does this mean that the act o/judging the political import o/wor/,s 0/ art is always anchored in a precise socio-historical situation? In that case, just as there is no point of view outside history, as you SlIggested earlier, there is no general formula that est(lblishes (I constant Ii flk between fin artistic form and a political meaning?

- There a re pol i tics of art that are perfectly ident i fiable . It i s thoroughly possible, therefore, to s i ng le out the form of pol i t i c i ­zation at work in a nove l , a fi l m , a pa i nt i ng, or an i nsta l l at ion. I F this politics coincides with an act o f constructing pol i t ica l di ssensus, this is something that the art in question does not contro l . B recht's theatre, the archetypal form of , pol i t ic i zed ' art, is bui l t on an extremely complex and cun n ing equ i l ibrium between forms of pol i t ical pedagogy and forms of a rt istic modernism . He constantly plays between meam of coming to politica l awareness and means of ll nderm in ing the legi t imacy of great a rt , which found expression in the theatre by admixtures with the 'm inor' perform ing arts : ma rionette shows, pantom ime performances, the c ircus, the music ha l l or cabaret, not to mention boxing. H is 'epic theatre' i s a combination between a pedagogical logic legitimated by the Marxist corpus and, on the other

T N T F RV T FW F O R TT-T F, F N (; U S H E ll I T I O N

h a n d , tech n iques of fragmentar ion a nd the m ixt l l re of oppos i te\ t h :, { a rc spec i flc to t il<.' h i story o f ' thC :l t re a nd p roduc t ion i n t h e 1 9 1 0s and 1 920s. The pol i t ica l fo rmula i s iden t i fl :lhk. Nev('!"{ hebs - hcrwCt'll

B rech t 's ex i l e i n Den m:uk or the U n i ted Stares, r il l' off-l e i :l l p os i r ion i n t h e C cr m a n Democra t i c Repll h i i c . a nd h is ado pt io ll h;' t h e E11rOpe:l l1 i nte l lectu a l c l i tes i n the 1 9,)Os - t h e cnCOl 1 nrcr hcr\\,(,Cll r h i s pa r t i ll l i : 1r fo rm of po l i t ics ;l nd i ts suppos e d :l 1 1 d i c l l C C (work ers c ( ) n sc i (l l l .\ of the: cap i u l i s t sysre m ) never took pi : Jce, wh i ch I1l C:l I l S rhat i ts ' l 1 i Ll h i l i t \, to i ts m i l i u lH rerc rcnr was never rl'a l l v tested.

- \V!;al Is ti,t /'Ole plal'l't:! 17)1 /l lh(/t pm mil ' /Jl'ltrology ' II/ polltiriz('(/ flJ'f) J am thin/::ing in prlrtlcu!flr ofont oj)lollr f/JlaZYSes o/Rosscllilli 'r Fli rop" ' c; 1 where you estrlblish (I connectioll hetwccli the main (hrlrr/cte)" :,' Cllr01mtl'1' with the lmcrlrl1�)' - the m0711ent wl'I'1l JrOlt lerl1fts ,/it fi'(II17('1/107i' 0/ her immediate surroundings in order to go and lool:' clsewhere, therd�y con/blinding the cstah!i.,hed aesthetico-political C!ltl'goril's - rllld fhl' fl(lllfl!­

izatiorl ofequa/lty ?2S - Th is means that an aesthet ic po l i t i cs a lwavs defi nes i tse l f Iw a

certa i n recas t ing of rhe d i sr r i htH ion of t he sen s i hlc , a rccon fi gll r:1 t ipn ( )j the g iven percepwa I form s . The not ion o f ' h eterology' refers' to the wa;' i n wh ich the lTlean l Ilgfu l fa br ic of the sens ihlc is d i sr u rhed : ;1 speu;lc ic docs n ot f i t with in the sens ib le framework defi ned hI' :1 n etwork or mean i ngs, an expression docs not f i nd i ts place in the system of v i s ih le coord inates where it appears. The d rea m of a su i tah le pol i t i c a l work of art i s in fact the d rea m of d is rupt i n g t h e rehtio n s h i p hctwcen the vis i hle , the sayah le , ;l nd the th i nkahle w ithou t h a\' i n g to usc rhe te rm, of a message a s a veh ic le . I t i , the d rea m of an a n t h :n would rL1 J 1S 111 i r 11lt':1 l1 i ngs i n t h e f()rm of a m prurc w i t h the verv log ic or mea n i ngfu l s i tua t ions . As a mat ter of (lct, pol i t i c a l :1 1"t ca n nor wo rk I II the s i m ple fo rm of a Il l ea n i n gr'u l spectacle that vvould I c:ld to an 'awa reness' or the state o f the world . Su i table pol i t i Cl l a rt wou ld el lsu re, a t one a n d t h e sa llle ti me, t h e production o f a double effeer: t h e rCldahi l i tv of a pol it ical s ign ificat ion and a sens i b le o r percepttla l shock callsed, conversely, by the 11 ncan ny, by that wh ich resists sign i fication. 1 n r;'ct. th is idea I effect i s always the oh ject of a negot i at ion between opposi tes, between the readab i l i ty of the message that th reatens to destrov rhe

sen s ible r()rm of art and the r;ld i cl i u nc1 11 n i ncss t h ar t h reaten s ro dcs trov a l l pol i r i c a l mea n i n g.

64 T H E POLIT I C S OF A E STH ET I C S

Europa '51 i s , i n poi nt of fact, bui lt on a serie� of ruptures, of d isplacements out of frame (i n the strongest �ense of the word and not the tech n ical sense) . The fi rst semib le or perceptu a l world o f the bourgeois housewi fe, for whom the workers are those unknown people who go on str ike and d i stu rb urban traffic and transportation , i s challenged by a second world: t he v is i t organ ized by her commun ist cous i n to the cheap apartment bui ld ings where the workers l ive. However, th i s structured work ing-class world where the sett i ng a n d i t s mea ni ng coincide is i n t urn chal lenged i n favou r of an open world without coord inates, a world of vague stretch es of l and , shanty towns, and sub-proletarian wandering, where noth i ng coinc ides any longer. The outcome is that the hero ine fi nds hersel f more and more diverted from any system of correspondences between mean i ngs and the visible. Her own spec ific question (what words her son, who threw h imself down the sta irwel l, said or would have sa id) coi ncides with the discovery of a world progressively loos ing i ts s tructure where the only a nswer is charity, accord i ng to her, and i nsan i ty, accord ing to the representatives of society.

A system of heterologies is i ndeed put i n to play here. Furthermore, I had emphasized the way i n which th is system th rows off the pre-consti­tuted poli t ical modes of fram ing. That said, i t is clear that refusi ng to frame the s i tuation i n accordance with the com mun ist schema also authorizes fram i ng i t accord i ng to the Ch rist i an schema, wh ich actually h as the advantage of fram ing without wal l s : the h eroi ne's wandering that I had previously ident ified with Socrat ic atop ia i s , a frer all , a wandering oriented toward the grace of Sp irit, wh ich l ike t h e wind ' blows where i t wi l ls' (even i f i t is Rossel l i ni who is play i ng a b i t the role of God the Father) . 2')

This means that the play of heterologies always has an undecidahle aspect to it . I t undoes the sensible fabric - a given order of relations between mean ings and the vis ible - and establishes other networks of the sensible, wh ich can possibly corroborate the action u nelertaken by poli t ical subjects to recon figure what are given to be facts. There are aesthetic formulas a nd transformations of these formulas that a lways defi ne a certa in 'pol i t ics'. There is not, however, a rule establish ing

� a

concordance, nor are there criteria for dist ingu ish ing good pol it ical fi l ms from bad poli tical fi lms. In fact, we should avoid aski n g the

INTERVI EW F O R TH E E N C L l S H E D l TT ( ) �,

quest ion i n terms of cr iter ia fl)r the po l i t ica l eva l uat ion of works of an.

The pol i t ics of works of art plays i u;e l f out to a l arger extent - i n a gloha I a nd d i ffuse ma nner - i n t h e rcconfigurat ion of worlds of ex perience

based on wh ich pol icc consens u s or pol i t ica I d i ssellSus a re dcfi ned . I t pl ays i tscl f cl I l t i n tlw way i ll wh ich modes ( ) f na rrat inn o r !l C W forms o r vis ib i l i t y establ i shed h y a rt i s t i c practice; enter i n to pol i t ics ' own hcld of ;l csther ic possihi l i t ies . I t i s n ecessary to reverse th l' W;lY in \vh ich the prohlem i s geneLl l l y formu hted. I t i s up to the v;l r ious h)rms of pol i r i o t o appropriate, for t h e i r own proper u s e . t h e Illodes o f p resell tat io l1 or the means of establ i sh i n g expl a natory sequences produced hy a r t i s t ic pract ices rather tha n the other vvay a ro u n d .

It i s i n t h i s sense that I sa i d , at the e n d of Thl' Nt/mes of History. t ha t for t h i n k i n<T a n d wr i t i ng democrat ic h istorv, i t i s necessarv to I nok '" ' , . toward V i rgi n i a Woo l f more so t h a n toward E m i l e 1. o l a . T h i s d o l' S n o r m e a n that Vi rgi n i a Woo l f w rote good soc i a l novek I t mC1 JlS dut

her way of wor k i ng on the contract ion or d i stens ion of tempor;t 1 i t i es , on their coll tempora neousness or thei r d i sta nce , or her way of s i tu at i ng events at a much more m i n ute leve l , a l l of t h i s estab l i shes a gr id tha r

makes i t poss ible to t h i n k th rough the forms of pol i t i ca l d i ssensua l ity more e ffectively t h a n the 'soc i a l epic's' var ious forms . There i s a l i m i t ;H

wh ich the forms of novel ist ic m icrology estab l i sh a mode of i nd iv idu­

at ion tha t comes to c h a l l enge pol i t icd suhjecr iv izat ion . There i s a lso,

however, an ent i re held of p l ay where t h e i r m odes of i nd iv iduat ion

a nd the i r means of l i n k i ng sequences contr ibute to l iherat i ng po l i t i c a l possib i l i t i es hy undo ing the formatt ing of rea l i t y produced hy statl'­

control l ed med i a , by undo ing the relat ions hetween the v i s ihle , the savahl e , a nd the t h i n kable . .

- Is this whrlt you try to rio )'OIII"SI'//ill )'our II')"itll!,('} Oil the IJisto)"), ora!'! and poiitics?

- 1 do i ndeed attempt to pr iv i lege \Vavs of wr i t ing h i s tonl, p rl".,cnr i ng

s i tua t ion .s a nd a rra ng i ng statements. ways or cons t ruct i ng rcl a t io l l S

between cau�e and e ffect or hetwcen a n tecede nt a nd (onscqucll f t h ;n con fou nd the trad i t iona l Ia nel ma rks, the m e a ns or prcsenr i ng nbjecrs.

i nduci ng mean i ngs a nd causal sch e m a t,1 , that construct the s r a mh I'd i ntel l ig ib i l i ty of h i sto ry. [ th i n k that a theoret ica l d i scmm;c is ;dwavs

s i mu lta neousl v a n aesthet ic form, a sens ib le recon figu ration of the

facts i t i s a rgt; i ng about. C la i m i n g t h ;lt any theoret ica l statement has

66 THE POLITICS O F AESTHETICS

a poetic nature is equivalent to breaking down the horders and h ierar­chies between levels of d iscourse. Here we have come back to our starting point. Afterword by Slavoj Zizek

The Lesson of Ranciere

F.W.} . Schel l i n g's statemt'nt, 'The beg i n n i n g is the nega t ion o( that wh ich begi n s w i t h i t', perfectly flts the i t i neLl!'Y OrJ �1 Cq ll cs R a llc i lTC' wll() fl rst appeared 011 the ph i losoph ical q'l' l1c i ll rht' carly 1 9()()s as �1 Y"ll ll g A l t h mseri a n , OIlC of thc conrr i i J l l t ors ( roge r l w r w i r l , ( r i c l1 ll e B:l l i h'lr. Roger Escl hkt a n d Pi CTTe i\tl c h c rc\') T n I' he p;1 t h - h rc;1 k i ng cnl lcct 1 \ , volu mc rirr· /r (�ll'it(7/ f'rol11 I f) ({i , wh i ch . with /\ I r h m,cr\ ('0111' '\,1(1 1'.'\,

dcfl l1ed r h e fi e ld of ' S!Tl l ctl l r;l l i , 1 '\LHx i s rn , I 1 ()wC\'cr, o ll e d i d !lO t have to wa i t I O l1 g fo r R a l 1C 1 ere's u n ique voicc to explode in ;1 r h l l nder w h i c h rocked the A l t h l l sser i a n sce ne : i n 1 974. he publ i s hed IJI Lrum d'A lthllSser ( Thr Lrsson ofA itll1lsscr) , a terocious cr i t ica l cxa m i n at ion of A l t h usseri a n structura l i s t Marx i sm with its rigid d is t i nct ion be tween scient ific t heory a nd ideology a n d i ts d i strust towa rds a ny form of spontaneous popu l a r movement wll ich was i m m ed i a tely d ecried as ; 1 form of bourgeoi s h u m a n i s m . Aga i n st t h i s theoret ic ist el i t i s m . t h i s i ns i ste n ce o n tht' g a p w h i ch forever sepa rates t h e u n iverse or scien­ti fl c cogn it ion from that of idt'ologica l (Ill i s) recogn i t ion in wh ich tht' com mon masses a re i m mersed , aga i n st this sta n ce, wh i ch a l l ows t h eore t i ci a n s to 'speak tor' the m asses, to k nO\\' the truth abou t them, Ranc iere e ndeavo u rs aga i n a nd aga i n to e iabor;1te the conto u rs of t h ose m agic , v io lent ly poet ic moments o f pol i t i ca l sllhject iv izat ion i n w h i c h the excluded C l ower cl asses ' ) p m forwa rd thei r c la i m to spcl k for them selves, t o e ffectuate a c h a n ge i n the globa l percepti o n of soc i a l space, so r h a t r h e i r cl a i ms would h aw a Ieg i t i m a tc place i n i t .

J -fow, for R a ncicre, d id pol i t ics proper Iwgi n ? \Xl i t h the emergcnce of the d{"mos as an acrive agent with i n the C reek po/is, with rhe emergenct' of ;l g roup wh ich . a l though wi thout a ny fl xed p lace in the soc i a l ed i hce (or, a t b est , occupy i n g a subord i n ate place ) , d e m a n ded to be i n c luded i n the publ i c sphere, to he heard o n equ a l too t i n g w i t h the r u l i n g o l i ga rchy or a ri s tocracy, i .t' . recogn i zed as a p a rt ner i n pol i t i c a l d i a logue a n d the exercise of' power. A s R a n c i erT em piJ ;l s i zes ;l ga i ns t H abermas, pol i t ica l s tn tgglc proper is therefore not a rat ional

70 T H E POLITICS OF AESTHETICS

debate between multiple interests, but, s i m ultaneously, the struggle for one's voice to be heard and recognized as the voice of a legit i m ate partner: when the 'excluded', from the G reek demos to Pol ish workers, protested against the ru l ing e l i te (the a ristocracy or the nomrnk!atltrrl) , the true stakes were not on ly the i r expl ic i t demands (for h igher wages, work conditions, etc . ) , but the i r very r ight to be heard a nd recog­n ized as a n equal partner in the debate ( in Pol a n d , the nomrnidatura lost the moment it had to accept Sol idar ity as an equal partner) . Furthermore, i n protesting the wrong (lr tort) they suffered, they a l so presented themselves as the immediate embod iment of society as such, as the stand-in for the Whole of Society in irs u niversa l i rv, af!:;l i nst the particular power- i n terests of the a r istocracy or ol i garchy ( 'we�- the "not h ing", not counted in the order - are the people, we ;He A l l aga i nst others who sta nd o n ly for thei r part icular privi l eged i nterests' ) .

Pol it ics proper thus a lways i Ilvolves a k i n d o f s hort-c i rcu i t between the Universal and the Particular: the paradox of a s i ngu la r which appears as a stand-in for the Uni versal, destabi l iz ing the 'natur a l ' functional order o f relations i n t h e social body. The pol i t ica l co n fl ic t resides i n the tension between the structured soc i al body where each part has its place - what Ranciere calls pol i tics as police in the most elementary sense of maintain i ng social order - and 'the part with no part' which u nsettles this order on accou nt of the e mpty principle of u niversality, of what Etienne Balibar calls ega!ibcrte, the principled equality-in-freedom of all men qua speak i n g bein gs . T h i s ident ifi­cation of the n o n-part with the Whole, of the part of society with no properly defined place within it (or resist i n g the a l located subord i n a te place with i n it) with the Universal , is the elementary gestu re of pol i r i ­cization, d iscern ible in a l l great democratic events, from the french Revolution ( in which !e troisieme hat proclaimed i tself identical to the Nation as such against the aristocracy a nd the c lergy) to the demise of ex-European Socia l i sm ( in wh ich the d issident Forum procla i med itself representative of the entire society aga i nst the Pa rty J10mcnl.:ffltum). I n this precise sense, pol it ics a n d democracy are synonymous: t h e basic a i m of antidemocratic pol iti cs always - and by defi n it ion - is a nd was depoliticization, i.e. the u ncondit iona l demand that ' t h i ngs shou l d return t o norma l ', with each i ndividual d o i n g h is or h e r pa rt i cu l a r job. Ranciere, of course, e mphasizes how the I i nc of separation between the

A f T E RWO R D ll Y S LAVO] 7,1 /.EI< ' 1

pol ice a nd po l i t ics proper i s ;l lw:IYs h lu rred a nd co ntes ted � ,qy, i n the M a rx ist trad it ion, 'proletari a t' can he read as th e subject i v i zat ion of the 'part of no part' elevat ing i ts i n j ust ice to the u l t i m ate test of u n i ver­sa l i ty, a nd , s i m u l taneously, as the operator which w i l l hri ng ahout the estab l i s h m ent of a post-pol i t ica l ra t i ona l soc iety. Our Eu ropc :l l1 trad i t ion conta ins a series of d isavowa ls of th i s pol i t ica l moment, of the p roper logic of pol i t i ca l confl icc Ra nc iere de ve loped t h e m i n lJI Mesf'J1tcnt(' ( 1 99')) , t h e m asterpi ece of h i s po l i t ica l t hou ght :

a rch i -pol i ti cs : the 'com m u n i ta r i :l n' :l t tem pt,s to clefi nc :1 tnd i r iOl l :l 1 close, orga n i ca I I )' structu red ho mogeneous soc ia I sp:lCe w h ich : J i lows for no void in which the pol i t ica l moment-event can e m erge ; para-pol i t ics : the attempt to depol i t i c ize po l i t ics (to tr :l 11 s la tc it I IHO t h e pol i ce-l og i c) : one accepts the pol i t i ca l con fl ict , hur rcf<' rmu i :J t( ' s i t i 1 1 to a compet i t ion, with i n the rep rcs<:' nta t ion a I space . het "' C t' I I

ack nowled ged pa rt ies /age n ts, for the (tempora ry) occlI p;n i ()n or the p lace of execlItive power. H abcrmas i :l n or R.lwl s l ;} n n h ic s :I W

perhaps the l ast ph i iosoph icl i vest iges of th is :l tt i t l lde: t h e a t tcTll f) [ to de-;l ntago n i ze pol i t ics h y W:ly o f rl) J"Jl1U b t i n g t h e clea r r \ l lc� W h e obeyed s o t h a t t he ;lgo n ic procedu re of l i t i gat ion docs n o t cxplode i nto po l i t ics proper� Marxist (or Utopian Social ist) meta-pol i t ics : t h e pol i t ica l con fl ict is ful ly asserted , as a shadow-theatre in wh ich processes - whose proper p lace is on A nother Scene (the scene of econo m ic i n fra­structure) - are played out; the u l t i mate goa l or ' t rue' po l i t i cs i s thus i ts sc i f-cancel lat ion, the t ra nsr()J'matiol1 of the 'ad min i s t rat Ion of people' i nto the 'ad m i n istrat ion of th i ngs' w i th i n a fu l ly se l f� tra nspa rent ra t ion ;l l ord er of col l ective W i l l ; a n d , oll e i s tem p ted to s u p p l e m e n t R a n c ie re , t h e most cI I ll n i n g a n d rad ic a l vers i o n o f t h i s d i savowal i s u l t ra -pol it i cs , t h e ;1 t t <:' Tll p t to depo l i t i c i ze c o n n i ct by way of h r i n gi n g i t to an e x t re m e \' I a t h e d i re c t m i l i t a r izat ion o f po l i t i c s : r h e ' forecl osed ' po l i t i C:l i re t l l rn s i n t h e rea l , i n t h e g u i se o f t h e :l t tempt to resolve t h e <l e : l (l I o c l< of pol i t i c a l con A ict , of mescntmtc, hy i t s fa l s e rad ica l i za t ion , i . e . b y way of refo rm u l at i n g i t a s a w a r hetween ' U: ; a n d ' T h em', O l l r Ene my, where t h ere is n o C 0 11l 1ll 0 n gro u n d fo r .W lll h n l i c co n fl i c t .

72 T H E POLITICS O F AESTH ET I C S

What we have in all four cases - a rchi-, para-, meta- and u l tra-pol itics - is thus an attempt to gentrify the properly traumatic d imension of the pol itical: something emerged in ancient Greece under the name of polis demand ing i ts r ights, and, from the very beginn ing (i .e, from P lato's Republic) to the recent revival of liberal pol i t ical though t , 'political ph ilosophy' has been an attempt to suspend the destabi l iz i ng potential of the polit ical , to d isavow and/or regul ate it i n one way or another: bringing about a return to a pre-political social body, fix ing the rules of political competition, etc. ' Pol itical ph i losophy' is thm , i ll al l its d ifferent shapes, a k ind of ' defence-formation', and, perhaps, its typology could be establ ished via reference to the d i fferent modal it ies of defence against some t raumatic experience in psychoan alys i s , In contrast to these fou r versions, today's 'postmodern ' post-pol i t i cs opens up a new field which i nvolves a stronger negation of pol i t ics : i t no longer merely ' represses' i t , trying to conta in i t and t o paci fy th e 'returns of the repressed ', but much more effectively 'forec loses ' i t , so that the postmodern forms of ethnic violence, with their ' i rrationa l ' excessive character, are no longer simple 'retu rns of t he repressed', but rather p resent the case of the foreclosed (from the Symbo l ic) wh i c h , as we k now from Lacan, returns in the Rea l .

In post-pol itics, the confl ict of global ideological visions embod ied in d ifferent parties who compete for power is replaced by a collaboration of enlightened technocrats (economists , public opinion specia l ists . . . ) and l iberal mult iculturalists ; via the process of negotiation of i nterests, a compromise is reached in the guise of a more or less universal consensus. The political (the space of l i tigation in wh ich the excluded can protest the wrong/injustice done to them) , foreclosed from the symbolic then returns in the real, in the form of racism. I t i s crucia l to perceive how 'postmodern racism' emerges as the ult imate consequence of the post-political suspension of the polit ical in the reduction of the state to a mere pol ice agent servicing the (con sensua l ly establ i shed) needs of the market forces and mult icultural ist tolerant human itar­ianism: the ' foreigner', whose status is n eve r properly regu lated , i s t h e indivisible remainder of the transformation of democratic pol i t ica l struggle into the post-pol it ical procedure of negotiation and fllu l t i ­culturali s t polic ing. I nstead of the pol i tical subject 'wo rk i ng c lass' demanding i ts universal rights, we get , on the one hand, t he fllu l t i -

A FT E RWO R D [ W S LAV()J 7.f;l,EK

pl icity of particu lar social strata or groups , each w i t h i ts problems (the dwind l i ng need tor manual workers , etc . ) , a nd , o n the other hand, the i l11 � igranr , more a n d Illore preven ted from po l i t ic iz i n g h is p red ica menr of exc lusion .

R a n c iere i s right to emph as ize how i t i s aga i n s t t h i s backgrou nd that one should i nterpret the f�lsc i n a t ion of 'puh l i c op i n ion ' wi t l l the u n ique event of the I-jo locaus r : the refere nce to the HoloCl ll s t as the u l t i m a te , u nt h i n kable, apol i t i ca l cr i me, as t h e Evi l so Ll d ica l t h �l l i t ca n not be pol i t i c i zed (accou nted for hy a po l i t i ca l d;'n a m ic) . serve' :1 .<; the operator wh i c h a l lows us to depo l i t ic ize the soci a l sphere . to wa rn aga i nst the presu lllpt ion o f pol i t i c i zat ion . The Holocaust is the n :Ul1e fo r the u n th i n kahle a pol i tica l excess of po l i tics i tse l f: it compels m to

subord i nate po l i t ics to sOl11 e more f'u nda m e nta l eth ic<;. The Otherness excl l lded from the consensu :1 1 dom a i n of toiera n t / rJ t i oll a l post-pol i t i c : d negot i at ion a n d ad ll1 i n i str :1 t ion retu rns i n t h e gl l l St· of i ncxpi iclh le p l l fe Ev i l . Wh :1 t defl n es post ll1 ode rn ' post-po l i t ics ' i s th m rill' secret sol id a r i ty he tween i ts two opposed Janus f�lces: 0 11 the onc h :l !ld , the rep l acemell t of pol i t ics proper hy clepol i t i c i zcd ' h u m a n i Ll ria n ' opna­tiom, on the other h a nd , the vio len t outbu rsts of d cpol i t i c i zed 'pllre Evi l ' i n the gu ise of 'excess ive' crh n ic or rel igious fu nd:l l11e n ta l i s r violence. I n short, w h a t Ra nc iere proposes here i s :1 n e w version of the old Hege l ian motto ' Evil resides in th e gaze itsc l f wh ich perceives the object as Evi l ': the contempor a ry fi gure of Ev i L too 'strong' to he acces­s ib le to pol i t ical an a ly� i s ( the Holocau st. etc . ) , appears as S IKh OIl ]V to t h e g:lZe which const i t l ltes it as slich (as depol i t ic i zed ) .

I n R a ll c iere's d iagnos i s , tod ay's hcgem o n i c tendency towa rds post­pol i t i cs thus compe ls us to rcasse rt tile po l i t i u l i ll i ts key d i mensl < l f1 ; i n t h is, h e be longs to the field one i s te m pted to defi n e a s 'pnsr­A lt h u sscr ian' : authors l i ke Bal iba r, A b i n Bad iou, lip to Ernesto Lacl au , whose start ing pos i t ion was c 1mc to A l thusser. The fi rst th ing to note h e re i s h ow th ey a rc a l l opposed to the m os t elabor:Hed ' forma l ' thcorv of democracy i n contemporary French t hought, that of Claude Lefort . T n a n exp l ic i t reference t o LIC1 n i a n t h eory, lcfort conceptua l i zcd the democrat ic space :I S s l l .s t a i nnl hy t he' �;l P hcrween the RC11 and the Svmho l i c : i n a dC JTlon:lcv, t i,(' plflO' O(!'O I I '1T i.e "t nll'­tum/I)! Ol7pt)', nohodv h :1 5 the 'n a t l l r �l l ' r i t: h t to OCCl l fW I t . th ose \\' ! w e x e rt power cm do so o l l iv tell lpor:l 1' i k � I nd ,h( ) ldcl not ( '\ ' ( 'r co�i 1nct '

74 T H E POLITICS OF A E S T H ET I C S

with its p lace. The elegance of this theory i s that, in the same way that Kant rejected the opposit ion between the t rad it ional eth ics of a transcendent substant ia l Good and the ut i l i ta rian groundi ng of eth ics i n the ind ividual 's contingent emp i r ica l i nterests by way of p ropos i n g a purely formal notion of ethical duty, Lefort overcomes the opposition between the Rousseau ian 'substantia l ist' notion of democracy as expressi ng la volonte generale a nd the l iberal notion of democracy as the space of negotiated settlement between the plura l ity of i nd ividual in terests, by way of propos ing a purely 'formal ' notion of democracy. So whi le Lefort proposes a Kantian transcenden ta l n o t ion of" pol i t i ca l democracy, the 'post-A Ithusser ians' i ns ist that, with i n th e m u l t i rude of real political agents, there is a privi leged O n e, the 'su pernu merary' wh ich occupies the place of the 'symptomal torsion' of the whole and thus a l lows us access to its t ruth - the pure u n i versa l form i s l i n ked hv a k i nd of umbil ica l cord to a 'pathologica l ' element which docs nor fi t i nto the soc ia l Whole.

However, even with i n th i s 'post-Althusserian ' field, th ere a rc considerable d ifferences. Whi le Rancicre rema ins t�l i thft1 1 to the popu l ist-democratic impulse, A la i n Badiou (whose n o t i o n of the 'supernumerary' as the site of the pol i t ical i s very close to Rancicre's notion of the 'part with no part' ) opts for a more ' Platon ic' form of pol it ics grounded in the u n iversal form-of-thought. While a l l democratic Left ists venerate Rosa Luxembourg's famous ' Freedom i s freedom for t hose who th ink differently', Badiou provokes us to sh ift the accent from 'differently' to 'th ink ': 'Freedom is freedom for those who thin k d ifferently' - ONLY for those who R E ALLY THIN K, even if differently, not for those who j ust b l indly (unth inki ngly) act out the ir opin ions . . . In his famous short poem 'The Solution' from 1 9 53 (published i n 1 956) , B recht mocks the arrogance of the Commun ist nomenklaturrl when faced with the workers' revolt : 'Would it not he easier for the government to dissolve the people and elect another? ' However, th i s poem is not on ly pol i t ical ly opportunist ic, the ohverse of h is letter of so l idarity with the East German Commun i st regime published i n Neues Deutschland - to pu t i t bruta l ly, B recht wanted to cover both h i s flanks, to profess h i s s upport for the regime as wel l a s to h in t at h i s sol idarity with the workers, so that whoever won , he wou l d b e o n the winn i ng s ide - , bur a l so simply wrong i n t h e t henret ico-

AFTERWO R D flY S LAVOJ 7,L.l:EK 7')

po l i t ica l sense: one should bravely admit that i t effeer ive ly 1:-; a dmv - T H E du ty even - of a re vo l m i ona ry p a rt y to ' d i ssolve the people and e le er a ,;other', i . e. to b r i n g about the rra nsuh<; ( ;) llt iar iol l of t h e 'ol d ' opportu n i s t ic people ( the i nert 'crowd ' ) i nto ;l revo l u t i() n a r:' hody awa re of i ts h istor ical task. Far from hei n g an CI SY ta s k , to ' d i ssolvc the peopl e and e lect a nother' i s the rnmt d i fficu l t of a l l . . .

I n sp i te of these d i fferences, t h e re i s a fe;ltll re t h a r u n i tes a l l t h e

post-A I thusserian p a r t isa n s o f 'pure po l i t ics ' : what t h ey oppose to rocl ay's post-pol i t ics is more .heoh i n tha ll M a rx ist , i . e . i t s h a res w i th i ts great opponent , ;\ n glo-:-;axoll Cul tu r;l l :-; tt ld i cs a ll d t h e I r foeu.s O i l dl l" stnw<T!cs for l"Cco"n i t io l l t h e d c<rrad ;l r ion 01' t h e 'll h e re n f ,'CO I H l l l l ':. bh ' h ' � . Th;l t is to \;1\', w h ;l t ;1 1 1 the n c w h'c nch (or " rc n c h nrient(·d) thenries of I hL' Pnl i t i c

';] 1 , from B:l l i h a r t h rou g h R ; I I l C i (�'I"' ; l l ld 1� ;1 ( l i ( ) 1 1 1 ( 1 i . . l l I . 1 1 1

;lnd i'vfou flc. a i m at i s - t o p l l t i r 'i ll t r;ld i t io l1 ;J i ph i lo.soph iCl I t er m '

- t h e red uct ion of t h e sphere or eCO I lO I1 l \ ' (of m ;l (n i ;d p ro <i l l C t inn ' I n

an 'ontic' sp h e re depr ived of 'ontologi ca l ' d i g n i t y. \\l i t h l l l t h i , Iwr i zo ll .

there i s s i m ply n o place for th e M a r x i a n 'cr i t ique o f po l i t ica l ecollomy ' :

the structu re of the u n iverse of cotll mod i r ies and cap iLl i i n Iv1 :1 r ,, ·., Crlpitrr! i s NOT j ust t h a t of a l i m i ted emp i r iCl I sphere, hut ;1 k i nd of socio-tr a n scend e n t a l I I priori, the m arr ix wh ich generates t h e (()u l i tv of soc i a l a n d pol i t i c a l rela t i o n s .

The rel ationsh ip between economy a nd pol i t ics i s \ t 1 t i m;l tel ;, I h :l t n f

the wel l-k nown v isu a l pa radox of the 'two faces or a vase ' : n il e e i th er sees t h e two faces or a vase, n ever hoth of them - one h as to make a

choice. I II thc sa me way, o ne e i ther focuses on t h e po l i t i ca l , a nd rhe doma i n of economy is red uced to the empirical 'servic i n g of goods', or on e focllses on economy, and po l i t ics is reduced to a t h ea t re of appCH­ances, to a pass i ng phenomenon wh ich w i l l d i sappea r w i t h the a rri v;l l of th e d eveloped Com m u n i s t (or technocrat ic) society, i n wh i c h , ;l S Enge l s a l ready put it, the 'ad m i n i s t ra t i o n of peop l e' w i l l va n i sh i n th t"

'ad m i n i s t rat ion of th i ngs'. The 'po l i t i c a l ' c r i t ique of ivh rx is !l1 ( t h e c la im th at, when one reduces pol i t ics to a ' fo r m a l ' ex p ress io n pi snnw 11 nd c r ly i n g 'object ive ' socio-eeonol11 ic p rocess, one loses t h e opell ness and comingency cOll 5 t i ru t i vc of the po l i t i ca l fie ld proper) shou l d t h l l S be supplemented by i ts ohverse: the fie ld of eco llol1lY i .s I N I TS V E RY

FOR M i rred ucihle to pol i t i cs - t h i s l evel of the r O R Jvl of t"con o t1l\ (of economy as t h e deter m i n i n g F O R M of t h e s(le i ;l l ) is w h a t French

76 T H E POLITICS OF A E STH ETI C S

'political post-Marxists' m iss when they reduce economy to one of t h e positive social spheres.

I n spite of th is crit ical poi nt, Ranciere's theory provides the clearest art iculation of the motto which appeared at the demonstrations of the French jobless movement in the m id-90s: we 're not a surplus, 1/!e 're a plus. Those who, i n the eyes of the adm i n istrative power, arc perceived as 'a surplus' (laid off, redundant, reduced to si lence in a society that subtracted the jobless from the pub l ic accou nts, that made them i nto a k i nd of res idue - i nvisible, i nconceivable except as a statistic under a negative sign) , should i mpose themselves as the embod iment of society as such - how? It is here that we encoll nter the second great breakthrough of Ranciere articulated in Le Partage du sensible: the aestheticization of politics, the assertion of the aesthetic d i mension as INHERENT in any rad ical emancipatory pol itics. Th is choice, although grounded in the long French tradi t ion of rad ical po l i t ica l spectacle, goes aga inst the gra in of the predom inant notion wh ich sees the mai n root of Fascism i n the elevation of the soc i a l body i nto a n aesthetic-organ ic Whole.

I t i s not only that, apart from bei ng a pol itical theorist , Rancicre wrote a series of outstandi ng texts on art, especially on ci nema - the shi ft from the poli tical to the aesthetic is i nherent in the pol itical itself. The aesthetic metaphor i n which a particular element stands for the Universal, i s enacted in the properly polit ical short-c ircuit in which a particular demand stands for the u niversal gesture of reject i ng the power that be. Say, when people str ike against a particular measure (new tax regulation, etc . ) , the true a im of the str ike is never just this particular measure - which i s why, i f those i n power give way too fast and repeal th is measure, people feel frustrated, s ince, a l though their demand was met, they were deprived of what they were really a im ing at. J\nd what about the ideological stru ggle in which a u niversal conceptua l posit ion is always 'schematized ' in the Kantian sense of the term, translated i nto a specific impressive set of images? Recall how, a decade ago, i n the UK, the figure of the unemployed s ingle mother was elevated by the conservative medi a i nto the cause of all social evi l s : there is a budget deficit because too much money is spent on supporti ng s ingle mothers; there is j uven i le del i nquency because si ngle mothers do not properly educate their offspring . . . Or recall how the anti -abortion ca mpaigns

A 1' T E RWO R D BY S l ,AVOJ ZIZLK

as ; 1 r t I l c pur f()rwa rd the i m ;l ge o f :1 r ich CHeer wom a n neg lect i n g h e r m a terna I 111 iss ion - i n hht:l I1 t contr:1 st to t h e r:l lT th :H m :l llV n w rc ahort i ons a rc pc rfc)rlllcd on work i n g-class women who a I rC1d; , h :l vc m any c h i l d re n . These poct ic d i spL�cemcn ts and cond e ns :nio J1'> a rc not j us r second a ry i 1 l mt rat ions of a n u nd e rl y i n g idcologi ca l struggle , hur t h e verv terra i n of t h i s stru ggle . I f w h a t R a nc i i.:rc refers to as t h e pol ice-aspe�r of t h e po l i t i ca l , th e\�lt iona l ad m i n istra t i o n a n d con t rol of social processes, focuses on th e c lear categor izat i on of every i n d i v i d u a l , of every ' v i s ib l e ' soci a l u n ir , r h e n d i stur h i n g s u c h order, of r h e v i s ih le a n d proposi ng d i fferent l atera I l i n ks of t h e v i s i hle, I I nex pecred ,hnrt­c i rcu its , etc . , i s the e lemcntarv form of rcs ist ;1 I 1ce.

O n :1 m or e genera l leve l , the I csson of lb l l c iere i s t h a t n i l e ,dl Oi d d h e ca refu l n o t t o succl l mh t o t h e l i bera l tcmpt:l t io ll o f condem n i n g a l l col l ective a rt i s t i c pnforma nces a s in herent ly ' to ta l i ta ri a n'. B or h t h e Th i ngsp ie l in r h e early Nazi yea rs a n d Berro l t B rech t's ' lea rn i ng p Ia:·s / le/JrYlIl(c/.:('/ ' i nvolved ;1 mass ideologico-aes rhet ic expcr i cll cc (of' S O il g'; . speech es a nd acts) i n wh i c h ,peer :lfors riwmsekn ,e rvcd a s ;l er{)r� - docs r h i s mea n t h ;l t the I ,eft in rh e :) os p:l rt i c i p:Hed I n rhe \; l nK ' proro- F:l �c i � t' total i ta r ia n exper ience of rhe 'rq;rc,s\vc' i III mnsj O]l i n to p re- i nd i v id u a l cOll l lll u n i ry as N;l'Ij�dn ( t h e t h es is or :l I l lO ll t� other s , S iegfri ed I< r:1 cl u er ) ? I f not , docs the d i ffe rence l"Cs ldc i n t h e fact r h �l t the N azi T h i ngspiel s taged a pathet i c- emotio n a l i m m ers i oll , whi le Brecht a i med a t a d ista nced, sel f.obsel"\· ing , ref1ccred proce�s of lea rn i ng ? However, i � t h i s s ta n d a rd Brech t i a n opposi t i o n of emotiona l i mmersion and reflex ive d istance sufficient? Let us reca l l rhe staged performance of 'Storm ing the \X1i nter Palace' i n Petrograd , on �hc th i rd ann iversary of rhe O c tober R evol u t i o n , o n the 7th of N ovem ber, 1 9 20. Tens of thousands of wo rkers, sold iers, students , a nd a rt i sts worked rou n d the clock, l iv i n g on hsha (the t;l�teless wheat porr idge) , rca, a n d frozen app les , a nd p repa r i ng t h e perform:l n cc a t the ver y phce wh ere t h e ('vem 'rea l ly took p l ace' t h ree yea rs ea rl i er; t h e i r work was coord i n �l ted hy t h e A rmy officers , as wel l as by the aV3 nt-ga rd e �l r t i �ts , mus ic i a m , ;l nd d i rectors , from Ma l evi ch to Meyerhold . J\ lt hough this was act i n g a nd not 'real ity', the sol d i ers a n d s a i l ors were p l ay i l-l g themselves - many of them not o n l v aerll a l l \' p a r t i C i pa ted I n t h e events of 1 9 1 7, but were a l so s i mll i ta neousi:' i n volved i n t h e rea l b a t t les of the C i v i l Wa r t h a t were rag i n s in the near v i c i n i r\' of Pcrrograd , ;, Ci t\'

78 THE POLITICS OF A E S T H ET I C S

under siege and suffering from severe food shortages. A contemporary commented on the performance: 'The future h istorian w i l l rccord how, throughout one of the bloodiest and most brutal revolutions, a l l o f Russi a was acting'; a nd the forma l ist theoretician Viktor Shklovski noted that 'some k ind of elemental p rocess is taki ng place where the l iving fabric of l ife is being transformed i nto the theatrical '.

A nother popular topic of th is kind of analysis is the a l l eged ly 'proto­Fascist' character of the mass choreography d isplay ing d iscip l i ned movements of thousands of bod ies (parades, mass performances in stadiums, etc. ) ; if one also fi nds this i n Social ism, one i m mediately draws the conclusion about a 'deeper sol ida r ity' between the two ' totalitarian isms'. Such a procedure, the very prototype of ideologica l l ibera l i sm, m isses the point: not only are such mass performances not i nherently Fascist; they are not even 'neutra l ', wa i t ing to be appropriated by Left or R ight - it was Nazism that stoic them and appropriated them from the workers' movement, the i r or ig ina l s i te of birth. None of the 'proto-Fascist' elements i s per s e Fascist, what makes them 'Fascist' is only their specifi c articulation - or, to put it i n Stephen Jay Gould's terms, a l l t hese elements a rc 'ex-apted' by Fasc ism . I n other words, there is n o 'Fascism avant la lettre', because it is the letter

itself (the nomination) which malees out o.{ the bundle o/e/ements r��lSmm proper.

A long the same l ines, one should radica l ly reject t h e notion that discip line (from sel f-control to bodi ly tra i n i ng) is a 'proto-Fa scist' feature - the very predicate 'proto-Fascist' should be abandoned: i t is the exemplary case of a pseudo-concept whose funct ion is to block conceptual analysis . When we say that the organ ized spectacle of thousands of bodies (or, say, the admiration of sports which demand h igh effort and sel f-control l ike mountai n climbing) i s 'proto-Fascist', we say strictly noth ing, we j ust express a vague association wh ich masks our ignorance. So when, th ree decades ago, Kung Fu fi l ms were popular (Bruce Lee, etc . ) , was it not obvious that we were dea l i ng with a genu ine working class ideology of youngsters whose only meam of Sllccess was the discipl i nary tra in ing of the i r only possession, t h e i r bodies ? Spontaneity and the ' let it go' att itude of i ndulging i n excessive freedoms belong to those who have the means to aHord it - t hose who have noth ing have only their d iscipl i ne. The 'had ' bod i ly d i scip l i ne, i f

,HTE RWO !{ D BY SLAVO J !: l !: FK

there i s one, is not collective tra i n i n g, bur, rather, jogg i n g a nd hod\'­bu i ld i ng as part of the New Age my�h of the rea l i z;l� i�)n :If the Se l f'\' i n ner poten t i a ls - no wonder tha t the obsession with one\ hod" is a n a l most obI igatory part o f the passage o f ex-Left i st rad ica I s i t�ro the 'maturity' of pragmatic pol it ics: from Jane ronda to Josch ka Fischer, the 'period of latency' between the two ph ases was m:uked bv the foclls on one's own hody.

I t i s often c la imed that, in h is pass ionate ad vocacv of th e ; lCsthet ic d i mens ion as i n herent in the pol i t ica l , R :l nc i c' rc tloSLI l g iCl l ly longs for the n i n e teenth-century popu l i st rehel l i o m whose era is ddl n i t c l" gone - h owever, is i t rea l ly? Is not precise ly the 'pos f il lOdern' pol i t i cs of resist:l nce permeated with aesthet ic phenomen a, from bodv-picrci ng ;I nc! c ross-d ress i ng to publ ic spectacles ? Does not the c u rious phellome no ll of 'Rash mohs' stand for t h e ae�;t het ico-po l i t ica l protest at i ts p urc.st . reduced to i ts m i n i ma l fra me? People s how up at an ass ign ed place at a certa i n t i me, perform some hr ief (and u s u a l l y t r iv i :d or r id icu lo l l s ) acts , and then d i sperse aga i n - no won d er fl ash mohs a re descr ihed ;IS h e i n g u r h a n poetr) " w i t h IlO re;1 1 pu rpose. Nor ro 111en t i o n , of COU Ls t: , cyhCrSp;1Cc wh ich abou nds with po.ss i h i l i t ies o f ' pL1;" i n g with lll l t i t i p ic (d i s ) i dell t i fi Cl t ions and l a tera l cOll nect ions su hvcrt i ng t h c eS l :lh l i shcd soc i a l networks . . . So, (1 1' from SLI nd i l lg for a nosta Igic ;H[;l ch Ill C l l t to ;1 popu l ist past lmt by ou r entry i n to the g loba l post- i nd us tr i a l society, Ranc icre's thought is today more actt l :! 1 t h a n ever: i ll o u r t i me of the disorientat ion of the Left, h is w r i t i ngs ofler one of the few CO I lS lstClH concepru ;1 i i zations of /701(1 I(J{' fire to CO III illll{' to rl'sist.

Appendix I

Glossary of Technical Terms

Nota bene The fol lowing defin it ions a im less at establ i sh ing a systematic lex icon for Ranciere's work than at p rovid i ng pragmatic i nd ications to help orient the reader i n a un ique conceptual and termi n ologi�al framework. For th i s reason, each defin it ion is accompan icd bv references to key passages i n Ranciere's corpus . in order �o encour�:ge the reader to resituate these techn ical terms J t1 the precise t heoret ica l nctworks rhat endow them with spec ific mean i ngs. . . , , S ince the majority of the terms defined are speCIfic to RanClere s most recent publications, most of the references are to the body _ nt work he h as produced s i nee approxi mately 1 990. H()wevc�-, some r�'k�­ences a re made to i mportant conceptual developments 1 11 Ra nC le re s work that do not use the exact same techn ical vocabu l ary. A marked privilege was given to texts ava i l able i n E ng� i sh: a l though references to cer ta in key publ ications i n French were 1 l1d lspensable. Complete b ibl iograph ical i n formation w i l l be found i n Append ix 2 . - Trans .

Abbreviations AT 'Thc archaeomodern turn' BP Aux Bards du po/itique ( 1 99R ed i t ion) eM La Chair des mots CO 'The cause of the other' D Disagreement: Politics (/rid Phi!osop/�)' DA 'Is there a Deleuzian aesthetics ? ' D r Le Destin des images DME 'Democracy means equal i ty' OW 'Dissent ing words' FC La Fable cinematographique

H A5 I E I S

LA LPA M

M L

N H

PA

P;l A

PhP P I S

P M

5 51' 1 '1' 1' \X!;\

( ; LO S S ,\ f(Y O F T F C I I 0J 1 C \ 1 , T F R \IS

'H istory a nd the a rt system' L '1l7(Onsc1ent esthhiquc The 19nrml71t Sc/Joo!mrlst('1" La Lev'on d'Althll.ucr 'L i terature, pol i t ics, aesthetics' 1\1a!!arm/: La Po!itirfllc de fa sirh1C 'Le ma lentendu l i rtcra i re' Thc IVarncs olHistOlJI The Politics o(acstficlin ' Pol i t ics and

'aesthetics '

T/;c Philosopher (/nr/ His 1'001' ' Po l i t ics , ident i fication, a nd s llb jecri\' i zat ion ' Lrl Paro!e 1171(ctll' ' 1,e 1 1 septemhre et apri.'s ' On Ihl' Shor('s o(1'o/itics 'Ten theses on po l i t ics' ' \,\/ h at aesthetics ca n mea n '

Aesthetic Regi me of A rt ( fJc Regime csthhiquc de I'art)

0 1

Although traces of t h i s regi me arc al ready to h e t() l I nd i n s \ lch a urhor:; as Vico and Cervantes, i t has onlv co me to play a dOTnlnanr ro le i n the last two cen tu ries . The aestjl ctic regime abol i shes the h i eLl l­ch ical d istribution of the sensibk charactcrist ic of the representative regi me of art, i nc l u di n g the pr iv i lege of speech over v is i h i l i ty as wel l a s thc h ierarchv o f the ;1 I"ts, th e i r sub ject matter, and the i r genres. Bv p romot i n g the

' equality of rep resen ted suhjects, the i n �i i th:.r('nce of

sty le w i th regard to content, and the im 11l :1nence of mean i ng In t h l tl gs themselves, the aesth etic regime destroys the system of ge nres and i sol ates carr' in the s ingu lar, which it identi ties with the pa rado�ical un i ty of opposi tes: logos and pathos . H owever, the s i ngu l a r i ty of :l rt en ters i n to an i n term inable con trad iction due to the hct th ;lt the aesthetic regimc a lso cal l s i n to (luestio n the very d i sti n ct i o n between art and oth;r activi t ies. Str ictly speaki ng, the egal i tar i an regime of the sens ible can only i solate art's speci fic i ty at the expense of los i n g i t .

DJ 2 1 , R R , 1 20-1, 1 2')-,)3 : FC 1 4 - 1 R : H A S ; I F 25-3 2 ; LPf\ ; PA 22--'), 4.) - 4 ; P M 1 7-30, 43-52, RC;-') ; \\/;\ .

82 GLOSSARY O F T E C H N I CAL T E R M S

Aesthetic Revolution (La Revolution esthhique) By call ing i nto question the representative regime of art i n the n ame of the aesthetic regime around the begi n n ing of the n i neteenth century, this ' s i l ent revolution' transformed an organ ized set of relat ion­sh ips between the visible and the i nv is ible, the perceptible and the i mperceptible, k nowledge and action, activity and pass iv i ty. The aesthetic revolution i n the sensible order d id not, however, lead to the death of the representative regime. On the contrary, it in t roduced a n i rresolvable contradiction between d iverse elements of the repre­sentative and aesthetic regimes of art. DI 84-5, 1 18-22, 1 35 ; HAS; IE 25-33 ; LPA; PA 26-8, 30-7; PaA 205-6 ; PM 5-30.

I Aesthetic Unconscious (L'Inconscient esthhique) I Coextensive with the aesthetic regime of art, the aesthetic u ncon­

scious is paradoxically polarized between the two extremes that characterize silent speech. On the one hand, mean ing is i ns cribed l i ke h ieroglyphics on the body of t h ings and wa its to be dec iph ered . On the other h and, an unfathomable si lence that no vo i ce ca n adequately render acts as an i nsurmountable obstacle to s ignificat ion and mea n ing. This contrad ictory conjunction between speech a n d s i lence, logos and pathos, i s not equivalent to the F reud ian unconscious or other later i n terpretations. It is , in tact, the h i storical terra i n upon

I which competing conceptions of the u nconscious have emerged . I E 4 1-2, 70-1 , 76-7; LPA 20.

I Aesthetics (L'Esthetique) I n its restricted sense, aesthetics refers ne ither to art theory in general nor to the discipli ne that takes art as its object of study. Aesthetics i s properly speak ing a speci fic regime for identi fying and th in k ing the arts that Ranciere n ames the aesthetic regim e of art. I n i ts broad sense, however, aesthetics refers to the distribution of the sensible that determines a mode of articulation between forms of action, production, perception, and thought. Th is general defi n it ion cnemis aesthetics beyond the strict realm of art to i nclude the conceptual coord i nates and modes of vis ibi l ity operative i n the pol it ical domain . D 57-9; DA; I E 1 2-14 ; LPA 9-1 2 ; M 53 ; PA 1 0 , 1 3 ; WA.

C LO S S A RY OF T FC l I N I CA L T E RM S

A rchi-Politics (L'Archi-politique) The p rototype of a rch i -pol i t ics , one of t h e t h ree m a jor rypes ( ,f political phi losophy. is to be t(l l i l lcl i ll P l a to 's ;mem pt to es rah l i s h a com mu n i ty hased on the i ntegr;d m a ll i CcsLl r ioll of i rs !ogo" i ll lll a ter i ;1 i form. The act ivi t i es of i n d iv id l tal ci t i zc n s a rc regu l a red i n rcb r i oll rn rheir ro le i n rhe o rg;l n i za r ioll of the cOlll m u n a l bod :' i ll such ;1 wa\" t lu l cveryone ha s a des ign a ted place a nd a n ass igned [ok, T h e dcm ocr,l t i l con fi g u r at ion of politics i s t h ereby replaced b y the police order of a l iv ing nomos that satu rates the ent ire com mun i ty and precludes any breaks in the social ed ifice. 0 61 -93; OW; PhP; TTP.

Com mu n ity of Equals (La C0l111111111/11Ife des egaux) A com mu n i ty of eq u a l s i s not a go:! 1 to he ;l t t;l i n cd hm rather a p resup-' pos i r i on t h a t is i n com ta n t n eed nf ver i ficat ion . a prcsupposi t i on r h ;H c a n ncver i n flct l ead to the estah l i sh ment of a ll q.;a l i ta r i ;\ n s(lc i ;\ i forma t ion s i nce th e log ic of i neC]u a l i ty i s i n h er e l l t i n th�> soc i a l hon d o /\ co m mu n i ty of equal s is therefore a preca r iou s com mu n i ry t h a t i m p le­ments equa l ity i n i n term i tten t acts of' ema ncipation . H A S ; IS 7 1 -.1 ; SP 63-92 .

Consensus (Le Consensus) Prior to bei n g ;1 ph tform t()r ra t i ona l d ehar'c, cOll sensm is ;\ spec i fi c reg i m e o f t h e sen s ihle , a pa r t icu l a r W;\y o r pos i t i n g r t ght� , I S ;1 com mu n i ty's rlrrl7l;. More spcc i flca l ly, conse n su s is the presuppos i t i o n accord ing to wh ich every p a r t of a popub t ion , alo llg with a l l of its speci fic problem s , can he i ncorporated i n to a pol i t i ca l order a nd raken i nto account. By abol ish i ng d issensus a nd placi ng a han on po l i t ica l subjectivization, consenSllS reduces politics to the police. BP 1 37-8 ; 0 95-140 ; OW 1 1 7-26 ; S ; TTP.

Democracy ( La Democratie) Neither a form of gove rn m e n t n or a s tvle of soc i a l l i fe , democ racv i s properly spcaki n g a

Ln act or pol i t i ca l subjectivization t h a t d i stu rbs

'the

police order by pole m i c a l lv ca l l i ng i n to quest io n t h e aesthet ic coord i ­n ares or perception. t h ough t, a nd act ion , Democracy i s t h u s f:J i�c ly identified when i t i s associated with the consensu a l sel t�reg u la t ion o r

84 GLOSSARY O F TECH N I C A L T E R M S

the mult itude or with the reign of a sovereign col lectivity based on subordinat ing the part icular to the un iversal. I t is , i n tlCt, less a state of being than an act of contention that i mplements variolls forms of dissensus, It can be said to exist on ly when those who have no title to power, the dim os, i n tervene as t he d ivid ing force that d i s rupts the ochios, I f a community can be referred to as democratic, it is on ly i n sofar as i t i s a 'commu nity of shar ing' (communaute du partagr) i n which membership i n a common world - not to b e confused with a communitarian soci a l formation - is expressed i n adversaria l terms and coal it ion on ly occurs in con A ict. BP 7-1 5 ; CM 1 26-7; D 61-5, 95-1 2 1 ; DME; DW 1 23-6; LPA; M L; N H 88-103; PA 14- 1 5 , 53-8 ; PM 8 1 -9 ; SP 20-3, 3 1 -6, 39- 107; TTP.

Demos (Le Dimos) Ranciere uses th is Greek term - mea ning 'the commons', 'plebeians', or 'citizens' - i nterchangeably with 'the people' to refer to those who have no share i n the communal distribution of the sensible. The demos is thus simultaneously the name of a commun ity and the t it le sign i Fy ing the d ivision of a com mun ity due to a wrong. I t is the un ique power of assembling and d iv id i ng that exceeds a l l of the arrangements made by legisl ators; it is the force of communal d ivis ion that cont ravenes the ochlos' obsession with un ification . CM 1 26-7; D 6 1-2; DME 3 1-2 ; DW 1 23-6 ; PIS ; SP 3 1 - 6 ; TTP.

Disagreement (La Mesentente) Prior to l inguistic or cultural m isunderstanding, Ranc iere iso l a tes a fundamental d iscord that resu lts from con A icts over the d istribution of the sensible. Whereas la meconnaissance ( lack of comprehension) and Ie mafentendu (misunderstanding) produce obstacles to l i t igation that are - at least i n theory - surmountable, fa mesentcnte is a conA ict over what is meant by 'to speak' and 'to u nderstand' as wel l as over rhe horizons of percept ion that dist inguish the audible from t he i naudible, the comprehensible from the i ncomprehensible, the visible from the i nvisible. A case of d isagreement arises when the perenn ia l persistence of a wrong enters i nto conBict with the establ ished police order and resists the forms of jur idica l l it igat ion that are i mposed on i t . D v i i-xi i i , 43-60 ; DME 35 ; DW 1 1 3- 1 6 ; M L.

(; L O S S A RY Of' TEC II N ICAL T F R � I S R'i

D i spute (Le Litige) i\ poiitical dispute concerns the very exi ,rell cc of pnl itics ; \s d i s r i ll C f from rhe police. U n l i ke juridicai d ispu res , wh ich t a ke place w i t h i n t h e police order, ie litigc poiitiqlll' br i ngs politics proper i n to ex i srence b y i n t roduc ing a ver i t;1ble d issensns that spl i ts i n t wo t h e s h a red wOI"ld of t he com mu n i tv. BP 1 2R-47; TTP.

D issen sus ( Le Dissensus) A d issensu s i s nor ;J q U ; Hrel o\'er pe rsona l i n rerests or 0p1 11 10ns. ft i s a pol it ica l process r h ar res i s rs j \1 r idicI I l i r i gar ion :1 I 1d crea res : 1 h ss ll re i n rhe sen s ib le order hv con from in g t h e estah l i s hnl fra mework of percept ion , tho\1gh t, :I nd :I ct ion w i t h t he ' i n ad m i ss i h le ' , i . e . a polit ical subject. BP 1 2 8 -47; DW 1 23-6; TT P.

Di stribution of the Sen sible (Le Partage rlu sensible) O cca s i on a l l y t rans l a ted as th e 'pa rr i r i on of t h e sc n s i h le ' , II' jif/r/flg(' dl! scmibie re fe rs to r h e i m p l i c i r law gover n i n g t h e s e n s i h l e o rci n r h a r p :nc e ls O l l r p l aces a n d fo r m s o f p a r r i c i p :l t i o n i n ,I C 0 1ll ll H l i l worl d Iw fi rst cS Ll h l i s h i ng rhe modes of l'lTc c p r i n n w i r h i n wh i c h t he se :1 I"e i ns cr i lw c\ . T h e cl i , r r i hur i o t1 ( I f t he sc m i h l c r h m p ro c\ I I C l"S :1 s v.<; t c m of s e l f- n' i d e n r f:1 Crs of p ncq) r i o n h: 1 e;cd on r h e s cr h o r i zo l 1 s :l n cl m o cb l i t ies o f wh :l r i s v is ih l e :I n< l : 1\ 1 d i h k : 1 <; \\T I I :1 5 w h ,n C1 n he s:l id , r h o\1gh r , 111 :)( \ e , or d o n e . S r r i c t l v spea k i n g , ' d i s t r l b \ 1 t l o n ' t h e re fo re refers h o r h t o fo r m s o f i n c l \1 s i o n a n d t o fo r m e; o f e xc l u s i o n . T h e 'sens ih le ', o f ((1 1 1 rse , does n o r re F er to what s h ow, good s e n se o r j udge m en r b u t t o whar i , rlistlii'torJ o r c:t pah l c o f b e i n g ;l pp rehc ndcd h y the s en s es .

I n r h e real m o f aesthetics, R a nc i crc h :1 s a n a l\'sed ,h rec d i fferc n t prlrtrlgcs d1l 5cmiblc: the eth i cal regi m e o f i ma ges , rhe representative regi me of a rt, :1 1 1 < 1 the aesthetic regi me of a rt. I n the lwl i t i c :d doma i n , h e h :1 s studied rhe re l a t i on sh ip between rhe pol i ce, :1 rocI I · i z i ng acco u n t of r h e pop u la r ion, :I n d politics, the d i st u rb a n ce o f t h e police d ist r ibu r ion or the semible hy rh e subjectivization of r h ost" who h ave n o p a rt i n i t . D 57-()(), 1 24-5 ; H i\S ; PA 1 2- U , 4 2-'i ; TTP; \'VA .

86 GLOSSARY OF T E C H NICAL T E RM S

Emancipation (L'Emancipation) Neither the teleological end of a pol itical project nor a state of social l iberation, the process of emancipation consists i n the po lem ica l veri fi ­cation of equality. Since this verification is necessar i ly in term i r tent and precarious, the logic of emancipation is i n fact a heterology, i .e. the introduction of a 'proper-improper' that chal lenges the police order. AT; 0 82-3 ; IS 1 0 1 -39; P I S ; SP 45-52 .

Equality (L'Egalitel A lthough it is the o n ly u niversal axiom of p o l it ics , equa l i ty nonetheless rema i ns u ndetermined i n its content and lacks an a priori foundation . It i s , s tr ict ly speak ing , the presuppos it ion d iscernible in the polem ica l recon figurat ions of the pol ice distribution of the sensible. In other word s, Rancie re's conception of equal i t y must not be confused with the a r i thmet ica l d i s t r ibut ion of r i g h ts and representat ion. The essence of equa l i ty is not to be fo u n d i n a n equitable u n i fication o f i n te rests but i n the acts o f subjectivization that undo the supposed l y natura l order of the sensible. By t re a t i ng a wrong, political subj ects t ransfo r m the aesthet ic coord i n ;1 tes of the commu nity i n o rder to implement t he on ly u n iversal i n pol it ics : we are a l l equa l . BP 14 1-2 ; eM 1 94-5 ; 0 3 1 -5 ; OME; ow; I S 45-73 ; LPA; PA 5 1-8 ; PIS ; S P 3 1-6, 80-9 1 ; TTP.

Ethical Regime of Images (Le Regime hhique des images) A lthough the eth ica l reg ime p redates the representative and aesthetic regimes of art, i t h as by no means d isappea red in modern t imes. I ts paradigmatic formu l at ion was provided by Plato. who established a rigorous d ist ribution of images - not to be con fused with 'art' - in relationship to the ethos of the com mun i ty. By arranging i mages accord i ng to the i r or ig in ( the model copied) and their end or purpose ( the uses they a re put to and the effects t hey p roduce) , the e th ical regime separates a rt ist ic s imu lacra from the true a r ts , i .e . i mitations model led on the ' t ru t h ' whose fina l a im i s to educate the c i t izenry in accordance with the d i s t r ibut ion of occupa­t ions in the com mun i ty. Dr 1 27-8 ; PA 20-1. 42-3 ; PhP; P M 8 1 -5.

C LO S S A R Y O F r F C H N I C A \ r ' F R M S

Litera rity (Ln Utthnritei

0 -(' (

Li tcLnin' IS nnt ;l ter m w;cd to q u ;d i h' the etc I' ll ;] ! (' \ 'C l lll' nf l i tcl'atll re o r :1 pu re lv sub j ec t i n' c1tq�o r\' t h ;l t i .'> ;nhi t Ll 1' i h, ;1l'l' l icd rn v.n; ( 1 \ 1 .\ works of a rt based on i n d iv ic\ u ;1 1 sens i hi l i t ies , I t i s a u n iquc logiC o f t h e sens ih le , wh ich m igh t be refe rred to :IS t l l C democrat ic reg i m e of the 'orphan letter', wl�ere writing freely c i rcu btes wi t hout � l eg i t i ­m a t i ng system and the reby u ndcrm incs the sensihle coord i n a te.'> of the representative regi m e of art. L i terar i ty i s t h u s at onc a n d the s a nw t i me l iteratu re's con d i t ion of poss ih i l i ty a nd the pa r:ldox ica l l i m i t ;H wh ich l i tera t u re as such is no l o n ger d i scern i h l e from a n y other f(1r111 of d i scou rsc.

' .

eM 1 1 5-')() ; D\X/ 1 1 "i ; LPA; N H 52; I)A YJ- 4 0 ; PM "i- I ii , ii l -9, % .

Literature ( Ln Litthtlture) A s a spec i fic fl1rlll o f a r r i s t i c p rod uct iol l d i , t i nc t from les /}('//n-/f'ttJ'I '(, l i teratu re emerged a ro u nd the hl'gi n n i n <' of the n i nCl"ce n t h l etl t\ I I' I ' �l nd W;)s coex tens i ve w i t h the aestll etic ;:voiution r !ur h ro l i giH i !' I l l ex i s tencc t h e aest h et ic regi m e of :l rt . I I {)\\'('\'('r, i i t n;lt l l re i:, Ill t l ch Illn rL' rl Ll 11 ;1 s i m pl e m o d e o f ;nr i s t i c p rod l l c t i n n : i t i , ; 1 ","stenl I ) f 1' ( 1S' I ­hi I it i cs t 1 1 ;] ( a h: l n d o ns the fr:l fllC\vork of recogn i t i o n ;l n c! ;1 ,\l' \ '; I l H' ! H as wel l as the cod l's a l l d h i er ;l rc h i ('s o f the representative regi m e of a rt. Bv nos i t i n g tilt' i nd i flerencc o f fo rm w i t h re<' :l I'd to co n tent a n d . t L b replacing r h e m i met ic pri n c iple of fict ion w i t h r h e ex prcss ive power of I ;)ngllage, l i ter a t u re rejects t h c poe t i c , of Illill! i'I'is : lt t he expense of e nter ing i nto i ts own i nrerm i l1 a h 1c cont rad i c t i o n he t\\'cell two fl)rmS of wri t i ng: the 'orpha n let ter' of d emocra t i c I iter:l rity a nd the g loriol l ,' i nca rnat ion of trut h i n the word m ad e fl esh . B P 1 28-47; eM 14, l J11 -J(), 1 79-2()3 ; LPA ; tv! 1 0,) - 8 : :-\ I! 4 2-()O. 99- 1 03 ; P A 52-4. ,1 (J-40. 5(J-() ; P M 5 - l /f , ii9, 1 4 1 -5/+ ,

1 (i(i-7(i.

Meta-Politics (La Mha-politiqlle) Meta-pol itics, one of the t il ree pri n c ipa l for m s of pol itical phi losophy, emerges out of 1'v'1arx's cr i t ique of the d i stance sepa rat i n g the dllh i (ll ls pretences of rights a n d represen t a t ion from the h a rd t nI t h of soci a l rea l ity. I t t hereby mci l 1 ates hetweel1 tvvo e x t remes: the COndC Ill I1 :l t i O Il of t h e ideo logica l i l l us ions or para-politic.� :l n d th e appea l tn ,1

88 GLOS SARY O F TECHNICAL TERMS

communal i ncarnation of socia l t ruth that i s strictly homologou s with archi-politics. BP 90-1 ; 0 6 1 -93 ; OW 1 17-20 ; LA; PhP.

Ochlos (L'Okhlos) Ranciere uses th is Greek term mea n i n g 'a t h rong of people' or ' th e mult itude' to refer to a com m u n ity ohsessed with i ts own u n i fi cat ion, at the expense of excludi n g the demos. SP 3 1 -6.

Para-Politics (La Para-politique) One of the three k inds of political philosophy, para-pol i tics is the result of Aristotle's attemp t to square the c i rcle by i n tegrati n g t h e egalitar ian a narchy of t h e demos i n to t h e cOl1 s t i tut ional order of the police. This m i metic transformation of the demos i nto one of the p arties of political l itigation, as n atural as i t may seem to modern theories of sovereignty a nd the para-pol i t ica l t rad i t ion of social contract theory, masks the fact that the equality of the demos can never be adequately accounted for wit h i n the police order. D 61-93 ; OW; PhP.

Partition of the Sensible (Le Pl1rtage du sensible) sec Distribution of the Sensible

People (Le Peuple) This term i s not used as a soc ia l , econom ic, pol i t ical . or ontologica l category referr ing to a n ident ifiable group or a pre-const ituted col lec­t ivity. The 'people' are the political subjects of democracy that supplement the police account of the populat ion and d i splace" the establ i shed categories of identi fi cat ion . They are the u n accou nted for withi n the police order, the political subjects that d isclose a wrong and demand a red istr ibution of the sensible order. eM 1 26-7; D 22-3, 6 1 -2 ; PIS ; SP 3 1 -6 ; TTP.

Poetics of Knowledge (La Poetique du savoir) The s tu d y of the l iterary procedures by whi ch a p a r t i c u l a r form of k nowledge estab l i s hes i tsel f as a scient i fic d iscourse (as w a s t h e case ,

G L O S SARY O F T E C H N I C A L TFRMS 89

in the n i netee n t h centu r y, with sociology, h i s tory, and po l it i c a l sc ien ce) . OW 1 1 ')- 16 ; N H 8-9, 23, 9 8 -9.

Police or Police Order (LI1 Police or L'Ordre policier) As the genera l law that determ i nes the d istrihution or parts and role., i n a com mu nity as wel l as i rs forms of exclusion, the police is fi rst ;1 1l cl forcmost a n orga n ization of ' hod ies' h;1 sed Oil a com m u n a l d istrihution of the sensible, i.e. a system or cooni i m tes dcfi n i ng modes of bei ng, doing, making, and communicat i ng that establ ishes the borders between the visible and the invisible, the aud ible and the inaudible, the sayable and the unsayable. This term should not be confused with La bassf po/irf or the low-level police force that the word com monly refers to i n both

French and English. La bassc police is only one particu lar i nstantiation

of an overa l l d istribution of the sensible that purports to provide a tota l iz ing account of the population by assign ing everyonc a t i t le and ;1

role with i n the socia l ed ifice. The essence of the pol ice, thereic)re, is not repression hut rather a certa in distribution of the sensible that precl ude'. the emergence of politics. This bei ng the case. there a re nonetheless better and worse forms of pol ice, depend ing on the extent to wh ich the establ ished order remains open to breaches in its 'natura l ' logic. BP 7- 1 5 ; C O ; 0 2 1 -42 , 6 1 -5 ; OW; ML 40-1 ; PIS ; S 40-1 ; TTP.

The Political ( Le Politique) A l though Rancii.'IT does not m :l i n ta in :1 strict te r m i no l ogica l d ist inct ion betwee�l politics (117 po/itiqllc) :l I ld the pol i t ical ( /(' po;;tiqllr) , he of te l l

d is t i n gu i s h cs the I :Htcr as the m ecl i n g grou nd hctweell politics ;1 n<l the police. Tn th is ,ellSe , the pol i t i ca l i s the terr:l i n upon which the wri fi ­ca t i o n of equality confronts the es ubl ishcd order of i d e n t i f-i ca t i o n ;l I 1d cl assi fi cHion . BP 7-1 5 ; PIS .

Political Dispute (Le Litige politique) ser Dispute

Political Philosophy (LI1 Philosophie politique) Ranci cre has outl i ned th ree forms of po l i t i ca l p h i l osophy t h a t estah l i sh a proper mode of pol i r ical activ i ty : l nd I l lcrc lw d i ssolve , i ll v;uio\ls

90 GLOS SARY O F TECHN ICAL T E R M S

ways, the con fl ict between politics and the police: arch i-politics, para-politics, and meta-pol itics. o vii-x i i i , 6 1-93; OW 1 1 7-20 ; TTP.

Political Subject (Le Sujet politique) A pol it ical subject is ne ither a polit ical lobby nor an individual who seeks adequate representation for his or her interests and ideas. It is an empty operator that produces cases of political dispute by cha l leng i ng the establ ished framework of identification and class ification. Throu gh the process of subjectivization, political subjects bring politics proper i n to existence and confront the police order with the heterology of emancipation. However, the man i festation of pol it ics only occurs via specific acts of implementation, and pol it ical subjects forever remain precarious figures that hesitate at the borders of s i lence mai n tained by the police. o 35-42, 58-9, 1 26-7; DME 3 1-3 ; OW 1 1 5-16 ; NH 88-95 (democratic subject); PIS ; TTP.

Politics (La Politique) I f politics has no proper place or predefined subjects for Ranciere, th i s does not mean that everyth i ng is pol it ical . I n its s t r i c t sense, pol it ics only exists i n i ntermittent acts of i m plementat ion that l a ck a ny overal l principle or law, and whose only common characteristic is an empty operator: dissensus. The essence of pol it ics thus res ides in acts of subjectivization that separate society from itsel f by ch a l leng i ng the 'natural order of bodies' in the name of equality and polemica l ly reconfiguring the distribution of the sensible. Pol it ics is an a n a rch ica l process of emancipation that opposes the logic of disagreement to t h e logic of the police. BP 7-1 5 ; 0 v i i-x i i i , 2 1 -42 , 61 -5, 1 23 ; DME ; OW; Pa A ; PIS ; 5 4 0-1 ; TTP.

Post-Democracy (La Post-democratie) The paradoxical ident ification of democracy with a consensual pract ice that suppresses pol itical subjectivization. 0 95-140; SP 3 1-6.

C J .OSSARY Of ' TFC T l N I C;\ L T F R M S

Regimes of A rt (Les Regimes de tart) I n b road terms , a reg i me of a r t is a mode of art icu b t i on hetween t h ree t h i ngs : ways of doi n g and m a k i ng, t h e i r correspo n d i n g forms of v i s i h i l i t y, a n d ways of conceptu a l i z i n g both the fo rmer a n d t h e Lurer. R;l t1c iere h a s p rov ided deta i l ed accou nrs of t he ethical regi me of i mages, the representative regi me of art, a nd the aesthetic regi me of art . In h is m ost recent work, h e h a s i mroduced t h e term r<rz,irlle d 'irnaght({ ( , i m age regi me' or ' i magi n g regi me') to refer to the speci fic mode of art icu l at ioll he tween rhe v is i hle a n d the sayab le wit h i n ;l g iven regime of art. DI C)-YJ ; WA 1 6- 17.

Representative Regi me of A rt (Le Regime reprisentat�f de lin·t) I\ l so referred to as the 'poet ic regi me of a rt' , the reprcsen tat J " c rq�l Jl1t' em erged Ollt of A ristotle's cr i t iqu e of Phro a n d esta b l i shed a ser ie s

of a x i oms t h a t vvere evcn tu ; d l v cod i fied i n th e C l a ss ical t\ gc. T h e representat ive regime l i bcr;l tecl

'the ;l rts from the mora l , rel i gir;us , and

soc i a l cr i teria of the ethical regi me of i m ages a nd sep;l Lned the l-i ne arts , qua i m itat ions , fro m other tec h n iques and mocks of prod u c t ion . By defi n i n g the essence of POi/iSis as the fI ction a l i m itat ion of act ions a nel isolati ng a spec i fic d o m ;] i n for fIct ion , the representat ive regi m e d id not, however, es t;lbl ish ;1 ,i m pl e regi me o f rcse mbh nec. Rather t h a n rCll rod uci n u rea l i tv, works with i n rhe refl lTSenLl t i ve reg imc nhc\' t b .I � •

a ser i es of a x ioms th ;l t d e fi ll e t h e a rt s ' proper f'o r m s : the h ier;nchv of l�en re, :l n d suhject mattn, the pr i n ci p le of appn)pri a tc il ess r h ;l t ;Hb prs form s of exprcss ion a nd ; lct io l l t o t hc s u h j ec t , rep rescnted ;l lld to the propn gen re. the i d e a l of speech ;1 5 :lCt t h a t p r i v i l eges I a n gl L1 ge over t he v is i h l e i m agery t h a t supplemellts i t . CM 1 1'0-1 ; DI 20-1 , 56 , W i - S , 1 2(), 1 25 -5.) : FC 1 4- 1 1' : I- I ;\ S : I F

2 1 -5, 4()-50 ; LP;\; PA 2 1 --2, 35-- () , 4 .3 : PI\1 1 7-50, if5 -52 ; \VA .

Sensible, The (Le SensiMe) .1'('(' D istrihution of the Sensihle

Si lent Speech (La Parole murtte) A s one of the cemLl l features of the aesth etic regi me of art, s i lenr speech is the contr:H l icto ry con j u ncr ion he tweell t wo e leme ll ts or

92 GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS

this regime. On the one hand, mean ing is taken to be i m manent in th ings themselves and, thus, everyth i ng - from a bu i ld i ng's fac,:ade to a woman's face - takes on a voice of its own. On the other hand , however, the mute th ings of the world on ly begi n to speak i f som eone deciphers their latent meaning and speaks for them (otherwise they rema in completely s i lent) . This contradict ion has given b i r t h to at least two m ajor forms of s i lent speech: the latent mean ing beneath the h iero­glyphic surface of written signs and the brute presence or punctum that remains a deaf and s i lent obstacle to all forms of s igni ficat ion. D I 2 1-2 ; IE 42 ; PM.

Subject see Political Subject

Subjectivization (La Subjectivation) A lternately translated as 'subject i ficat ion' or 'subjectivat ion', fa subjec­tivation i s the process by which a political subject extracts itself from the domi nant categories of ident ification and classi fication . By treati ng a wrong a nd attempting to implement equality, pol i t ical slIbj ect iv i­zation creates a common locus of d ispute over those who have no pa rt i n the established order. However, the very act of ident i fy ing these political subjects necessari ly has recourse to m isnomers, i . e . names that i nadequately refer to the anonymous multitude that has no t i r le in the police order. The logic of subjectivization is therefore based on the impossible ident ificat ion of pol itical subjects, that is to say subjects who remain u n identifiable i n the given field of experience and necessitate ' in audible' modes of enunciation such as: 'We a rc a l l German Jews ! '. D 35-42 , 58-9, 1 26-7; DME 3 1-3 ; DW 1 1 5 - 1 6 ; PIS ; TTP.

Writing (L'Ecriture) Writ ing is not s imply a sequence of typographic s igns whose printed for m is d istinct from oral communication. It is a spec ific distribution of the sensible that replaces the representative regime's ideal of l iving speech with a paradoxical form of expression that undermines the legit imate order of d iscourse. In one respect, writ ing i s the silent speech of democratic literarity whose 'orphan letter' freely ci rcu iares

�1I1d speaks to a n yone a n d nTrYO Il C prcC lsc lv beCl u sC' it h :1 s flO l i \' i n )2

logos to d i recr it . A t t h e sa lll l' t i lll c , ho\\',' \ t'!, wri t i n g l c n d '; i tse l f tn t h e :l t tc l l lpt t o e .stabl i sh ; t n 'cmhod ied d i sco l l rse' a s t h e' i !l CHl l .H ion ni t h e t ru th o f a cOll l tll u n i ty, \Xlr i t l n )2 i s consequen th' c :l l I g h t i n :1 c()rH i n ll �1 1

con fl ict between democr a t i c litera rity :lTld t il e d es i re r ( l es t ahl i s h : 1 , n i l'

w ri t i n g of the word m :ldc Ae.s h. eM 1 15-%: I E Y1-It 2 : N H 'i ()- C1O : Pi\ 'i2- ()O : P a ;\ 2()')-'i : PM 1 /1 , 7 1-2, R I - I OO.

Wrong (Le Tort) A wrong i s a speci fi c form of equality that establ i s hes the 'on k

u n iversa l ' of politics as a polem ical point of ,tmgt-Ie by reh t i ll t­

the m a n i festa t i o n of political subjects to the police order. U n l i ke

j u r i d ical l i t igat ion , a wro n g d ocs nor, t h er efore, occu r hetween deter ,

m i ned p :lrt ies a n d c a n not he resolved by ju r id ica l proced u res. ;\ \\TOtl f'­

c a n o n l y he t re:Hed by modes or po l i t ica l su bj ectivization t h a t recon ­

figure the field of experience. D 3-6, 1 3 , 2 1 -42 , 6 1 -.) , 7ii-RO, Uii--() : PI S .

Appendix II

Bibliography of Primary (md Secondary Sources-iO

Books La Le(on d'Althusser, Paris: Editions Gal l i mard , 1 974 , A n E ngl i sh

translation of the original crit ical essay, 'Pour memoi re : s u r h thcor ie de l ' ideologie ( 1969)', appeared as 'On the theory of ideology (the pol it ics of Althusser)', a long with a t rans lation of thc 'Afterword ' from February 1 973, i n Radical Philosophy 7 (Spr i ng 1974 ) : 2-1 5 . 'On the theory of ideology' was repri nted in two works: Rrldiml Philosophy Reader. Eds Roy Edgley and R ic hard Osborne, London : Verso, 1985 . 1 0 1-36 ; Ideology. Ed. Tcrry Eagleton . London : Longman Group UK Ltd , 1994. 1 4 1-61 .

La Nuit des p rolhaircs: Archives du rClJe oUlJricr. Pa r i s : Lihra i rie Artheme Fayard, 1 98 1 . The Nights of Labor: The Wor/:zen ' Drcrm! in Nineteenth-Century Frrlnce. John D rury, trans. Introduct ion by Donald Reid. Ph i ladelphia: Temple University Press, 1 989. The introductory chapter to The Nights of Labor was prcviously pri n ted with a ' Preface' by Jonathan Ree as ' P roletarian n i gh ts', Noel Pa rker. t rans. Radiml Philosophy 31 (Summer 1 982) : 10-1 3 .

Le Philosophe et se" prlulJres. Paris: Librair ie Arth c-rne Faya rd, 1 981 . The Philosopher fmd His Poor. J o h n Drury, Cori n ne Ostcr, a nd Andrew Parker, trans, Introduction bv And rew Parker. Dur h a m , NC: D u ke Un iversity P ress, 2004. Thc fi rst chapter o f th is work has been published as 'The order of the city', J o h n D r u ry, Cor i n ne Oster, Andrew Parker, trans. Critical Inquiry 30 :2 (\Xii mer 20(4 ) : 267-9 1 .

Le Maitre ignorant: Cinq Let;ons sur I 'emartcipation intellcctllcl/e, Pa r i s : Libra irie A rtheme Fayard, 1 987. The Ignorant Schoo/master: Fille Lessons in Intellectual Emflilcipation. Krist in Ross, t rans , [ n r roduetion by Kristin Ross. Stanford: Stan ford Un ivers i ty P ress, 1 99 1 .

H m U O G R A P H Y O F P R I M A RY A N D S EC O N D A RY S O U R C E S 95

Gmrts Voyages all pays du pco/I/c. Pa r is : L � i t ions d l l -"eu i ! , 1 () ()0 . Slw!I VO)'fwes to 1/'1' l.and o(t/'c Pcoplc. j :l mes n. Swe mon, rra n :- . Sran ford : - � . . Sta n fo rd U n i vers i tv Press, 2 ()03 .

A IIX Borris ,iii p(Jlitifjl�c. Par is : I:: d i t ions O s i r i s , 1 99 2 . O n thc S/J07'I'S r.{ Politics. Liz H eron , t ra ns . Lon do n : Verso, 1 995 .

rcs A10ts dc l 'histoi7'c: Euai dc pohiiJllC d1l savoir. Pa r is : Ed i t iom elu S eu i ! , 1 992 [suhsequenr ed i r ions : rcs /\101171' dc ( ';'IStOI,.('1 . TIlt /Vf/l IJ(" o( flistor),: On tj,c /)octirs or f(1I0 !{J/er(r:.I', H aSS:l n rv1 e lcfw, [ 1';1 ns . r:nrcword hy H ayden \V h i tc , M i n nC :l!,o l i s :l nd l .ondon: U n i \ c L, i n o f i'v1 i n nesot:l P ress, 1 9()4 .

ra M/s('1!tl'J1tl': Po/itiqlll' 1'1 phi/o (()pl'IC, Pa ris : t d i t i o n s C a l i kc, 1 ( ) ' l "i . Disrlgra1l1cnt: PO/ltics allfl fJ;'IIOJop/�v. Jil l i c Rose, t r a i l s . 1\1 i n I l t ' ,l pf l l i , a n d London : U n i versity of M i n nesota Press, 1 99').

Mril/arrne: l.a Politique de If! sirh1e. Pa r i s : H achetre Livre, 1 ')96. Arret W I' histoire (wi th Jea n-Lo u i s Comol l i) . Par i s : E d it ions du Centre

Pomp idou , 1 997. . AuX' Bords dll po/itiqlll'. Pa ris : La Fabrique E d i tions , 1 99 8 , T h is

rev i sed a n d expa nded cd it ion of t h e work that h ad or ig i n a l l y heen publ i shed in 1 992 i n cludcs a n u mbcr of add i t iona l essa)'s , ,nnw or wh ieh a rc aV:l i hhle i 11 Engl i s h : ' Pol i t i es , i dent i fi eat iol1 , a nd s l Ih jcc t iv i z:l t ion' a n d ' D isel lss io

'n'. O([o/Ja 0 1 (Su m mer 1 () ()2) : S 8 - ()Ij ,

78-82: rpt , i n Thr !r:Iel1li�)' in Ql!tstion. Ed. Joh n Raleh m a n . New Yo rk a nd London : Rout l edge, 1()9'). ()1-72; ' T h e CHISC of t h e other'. D avid M acey, t rans , Przrrd/flx 4 : 2 (Apri l 1(9 8 ) : 2 S -.33 : 'Ten t heses o n pol i t i cs'. D :lVide Panagia , trans. Thcory flJ1ri /:'lJl'7!1 5 : 3 (200 1 ) . < h ttp://musc. jhu .ed u /jOlI rna I s l thcory_and _cvc n t/rnc/ a rch ive . h t m l #5 .3>

r a ('J,air ril'S r!lots: Po/ilirf /lts (/(' ( 'laili/re. P;n i s : C. d it io l l S C a l i lee , 1 () <) R .

The Fltsh ol'Xlorris: 7/1(' Po Iii ir's ol'l'(/ril ing. Ch:l rlotrc M a nde l l , (Ll I 1S , S Ll ll fnrd : S r;l Tl f; lrll U n ivcrsi t \, Press. 2()04 .

Lr l)rlro/c nl llettf': FSSfli s u r In'" crJlltradicliom ric Iii /itt//'rl 1 1 1 7 '(', P,l l ' i , : Haehc tte Lirrerattlres, 1 99 8 ,

Le PrlrtrlFJ' d1l semi/;/e: Esthhiq !if' i't jJo/itiqlle. Pa r i s : La Ll b r i q l l e Ed it i ons, 2000 . Thc Politics of A l'sthetics: The Distril mtlO rt of t/;f' Scnsi/;/e. C a br ic l R o ck h i l l , t r a ll S . J n tr o d u e t i o n hv C :l h n c l R o c k h i l l . A fte r wo rd by S l avoj Z i ;;, e k . L o nd o n : Co n t i ll l l l; 1Tl Book s , 2 0 0 4 .

B I B LIOGRAPHY OF P R I MARY A N D S EC O N DARY S O U R C E S

La FabLe cinematographique. Paris: E d itions du Seui l , 200 1 . Film Fah/es. Emil iano Battista, trans. Oxford : Berg Publ ishers , f()rthcom ing .

L1nconscient esthhique. Paris: Editions G a l i l ee , 200 1 . Le Destin des images. Paris: La Fabr ique Ed i t io ns , 2003. Les

, Scenes du peuple: Les Rez;oLtes /ogiques, 1975/1985. Pa r is : Horl iell

Editions, 2003.

Edited Works La Parole oUlJriere, 1830-1851 (with A la in Faure) . Par i s : Union

generale d' editions, 1976. Le Philosophe pUbben/Gabriel Gauny. Paris: Maspero/La Decouverte :

Saint-Denis : Presses Un iversita i res de Vincen nes, 1 983. La Politique des poetes: Pourquoi des poetes en temp., de dltresse? Par is :

Albin M ichel, 1992.

Select Articles and Interviews l1 'Le concept de critique et la critique de l 'economie po l it ique'. Lirf' /e

Capital. Eds. Louis A lthusser et aI . , Paris: Franyois Maspero, 1 965 . 8 1- 199. The concludi ng sections of th is article (pages 1 7 1 -99) were translated as 'The concept of "crit ique" and the "critique of p o l i t i c a l economy" (from the 1844 Manuscripts to Capital)'. Ben Brewster, trans. Economy and Society 5 :3 (August 1 976) : 352-76. According to the notes to this translation, 'the first th ree sections were published in the magazi ne Theoretical Practice, numbers one , two and six'. A translation of the ent i re article is to be fou nd i n Ideology, Method and Marx: Efsays from Economy and Socicty. Ed. A l i Ratta n s i . New York and London: Routledge, 1 989. 74- 1 80.

'Mode d 'emploi pour u ne reedit ion de L ire Ie Capital '. If'S Temps Modernes 328 (November 1 973) : 788-807. Ranciere adapted th is article for an Engl ish version Linder the title 'How to use Lirc Ie Capital'. Tanya Asad, trans. Economy and Society 5 :3 (August 1 976) : 377-84; rpt. i n Ideology, Method and Mflrx. Ed. A l i Rattansi . New York and London: Routledge, 1 989. 1 8 1 -9.

'Le gai savoir'. Bcrtolt Brecht, C"ahicrs dc l 'Herne no. 35/ 1 . Pa r is : Ed it ions de L'Herne, 1 979. 2 1 9-37.

'Th� myt!1 of �he artisan: critical reRections on a category of soci a l h istory . DaVid H. Lake, trans . In tcrnruioI'lai Labor flJ1d U?or/,ing ('1m:,

l H ll U O C RA PHY OF P R I M A RY A � n S Ef: O N D A R Y S O U RC F �

History 24 ( F a l l 1 983) : 1 - 1 6 : rpc i n \(,/nri< in France: Reprcse71flltiof7.',

Mealling, Organization , lind Practice. Eds. Steven Laurence Kapl a n a n d Cynth ia J. Koepp. Ithaca: Corne l l Un i v. Press, 19R6. 3 1 7-.)/1.

' La representat ion de I 'ollvrier ou Ia classe i m possi hl e'. LI' Retrait rlu politique: tra1!aux du Centre de rccllcrchn phi/osophiq!{I's W I" Ie politique. Paris: f� d it ions G :l l i le l' , 1 983. R9- 1 1 1 .

'Rcponse a A l a i n Bad iou: I 'c'tre et I ' evenement. ' (ilhil'rs till Collegl' il1ternatiol1a/ de 1lhi/osophic 8 (Octoher 1 <) 8 <) ) : 2 1 1 - 2 " .

' D i scoveri n g n e w worl d s : pol i t ics of travel ;lI1d m c r apl lO r's o f S P:1Cl" . TrrllJ('!/crs ' I;/Ies: NrnT{/tilJes of' ! lome rind Di!jl/l/ccl1I('// /. Ed:; . ( ; ('o)'f:"

Rohertson et :1 1 . New Yor k a nd London : Rout led ge, 1 ')9/i 2'j· ��'. 'Go i n g to the expo: the worker, h i s w i fe a n d machi nes' and 'Good

t i mes or plea s u re at the barricades'. Joh n J\1oore, tra n s . Voices oft/If' People: The Social Life of 'Lr, Socirdr- ' at till' l:'nd of'th!' Second Empire. Ed s . Ad r i a n R i fk i n and Roger Thomas. Lond o n : Rourledgc 1'{ Kega n Pau l , 1 988 . 23-44 : 45-94.

'A fter what? '. Ch rist i na Davis, t ra n s . V;tho Comes Af'tr'l" the SlIu/f'I'! ;' Eds. E d u a rdo Cad av;! , Peter Con nor, and Jea n-Llic Nancv. Nc\\' Y'Nk a n d Londo n : Routledge, 1 9 () 1 . 24(,-52 .

'Overlcg i t i m a t ion' . K risten Ross, t rans . Socilll 7;·xt ) l / .n ( 1 ' j C) 2,"

252-7. ' Pmr-democracy, pol i t ics a n d ph i l osophy: a n i nt er view with hcques

R a n ciere'. Kate Nash, trans . A ngl'/ai<i 1 : :) ( 1 994) : 1 7 1 -8 .

' Les mots de I ' h i s to ire el u c inema'. I n terview with A nt o i n e d e lhecqu c. ('ahim dll einr;ma 4% ( F )95 ) : 48-54 .

'The a rch aeotl1odern t u rn'. l'Vrdtcr Bl'njamin alld th(' [)('ri'lrmrl, 1If' liisto7. Ed . M ichael P. S te i n herg. I r I ] ;lCl and London : Cornel l Un ivers i tv P ress, 1 9%. 2.4--40 .

'Scm et figu res de I ' h i s toi re'. hl(C Il / '/,istoin·. C :1 Ll logue de ) 'C'xpos l t i o l l

du Cent re Ceorges Pompiclol l . Paris : F h m rn ;ninn, 1 9CJ(1 . 20 -·7.

' D emocracy 11l C':lns equa I i t)': hcqucs Ra ncii:re i I l tc l'\· i ewcd h:' ill/ss/ltT" . David M acey, t ra ns . RrlrliCtd 1)hi!o5(}pJ�1' 82 ( J\, 1a rch l/\ pr i l 1 ') 9 7 ) : 29-5(1 .

' E x i ste-t- i l u ne esthc t ique c1elcl lz ien ne? '. (,'i/les [)('/('7{ze: {111(, Vii' philos­ophique. Ed . Eric ;\ 1 1 in. 1 x P1css is- Robi nson : 1 nsr i t t It Syn r h cL1 ho, 1 998 . ')25--36. ' I s there a De\cl lZ i ;l t1 ;ll's r h " t l c s ? '. R ;" l m i h D jnrd iev l c , tLl n s . Qlli Ptlr/f', H:2 (20()/f) .

98 B IBLIOGRAPHY OF P R I M A RY A N D S ECONDARY SOURCES

'L' hi s toricite du cinema'. De L 'Histoire au cinema. Eds. Antoine de Baecque and Christ ian Delage. B ruxelles : Ed it ions Compkxe, 1998. 45-60.

'Dissent ing words - a conversation with Jacques Ranciere'. Interview with Davide Panagia. Davide Panagia, trans. Diacritics: A Review or Contemporary Criticism 30 :2 (2000) : 1 1 3-26.

'

' I nterview with Jacques Ranciere: c inematographic i mage, democracy, and the "splendor of the i ns ignificant'' '. I nterview with Sola nge Guenoun . A lyson Waters, trans. Sites: The journal o/20th-Centurv Contemporary French Studies 4 (2000) : 249-58 .

'

'Jacques Ranciere : h istory and the a rt system'. Inte rview with Yan Ciret. Art Press 258 (June 2000) : 1 8-23 .

'Jacques Ranciere : l iterature, pol i t ics, aesthetics: approaches to democratic disagreement'. I nterview with Solange Guenoun and James H . Kavanagh. Roxanne Lapidus, trans. SuhStrlnce: A Rez1iew o/Theory and Literary Criticism 29 (2000) : 3-24.

'What aesthetics can mean'. From an Aesthetic Point o/View: Philosophy, Art and the Senses. Ed. Peter Osborne. London : The Serpent's Ta i l , 2000 . 1 3-33.

'Le 1 1 septembre et apres: une rupture de I 'ordre symbol ique ? '. Lignes 8 (May, 2002) : 35-46.

'The aesthetic revolution and its outcomes'. New Left Rellil'w 14 (March/Apr i l 2002) : 1 33-5 1 .

'La communaute esthetique'. Politique de ia parole: Sinr;ultlrite et communaute. Ed. Pierre Ouellet. Montreal: E dit ions Trait d'un ion , 2002. 145-66.

'Esthetique, i nesthetique, ant i-esthetique'. A lain Brldiou: Pauer /e multiple. Ed. Charles Ramond. Paris : L'Harmattan, 2002. 477-96. 'Aesthetics, i naesthetics, a nti-aesthetics'. Rav Brassier, trans . Think Again: A lain Badiou and the Future of Ph;!050pJ�y. Ed. Peter Hal lward . London : Con t inuum, 2004. 2 1 8-3 1 .

'Metamorphosis of the muses'. Sonic Process. Acta I' Editoria l , 2003. 17-30.

'Politics and aesthetics: an i nterview'. Interview with Peter Ha l lwa rd . Forbes Morlock, t rans. Angelaki 8 : 2 (August 2003) : 1 9 1 -2 1 1 .

'The th ink ing of d issensus: polit ics and aesthetics'. Fidelity to the Disagreement: jacques Rtlnciere and the Politiw! (co� ference

m Il U () (� R A PllY 01' P R I M A RY AND S FC O N DMty S O U R C ES

orga n i zed by the Post-St ructura l i sm a nd Rad ica I Pol it ics specia l i s t group) . London : Co ldsmiths Col lege, 1(,-17 Septemher, 2003.

< h ttp : //homepages .gold , aCI I k/ P' rpsg! r:1 nc iere .doc> 'God a rd , H i tch cock and the c i n e m atogra p h i c i mage', Fo r Fun (J'or/rrrrl.

Eds, M ichae l Temple, J a Illes \Xli I I i :1 ill S , ;1 n d !'vI i chae l \Xl i tr , l .ondon : Black Dog Pu hl ish i n g :l nd Pha idon Press, 20n4 ,

' W h o i s the suhjec t of the r ights of 1ll:1 n ) '. ,';oilth A t/t/Ilt1!' Qr/(r rtn-/r HJ.): 2-5 (Spr i ng/Su m mer 20(4 ) .

' hom Lyot:1 rd to Sch i l l er : two read i ngs o f K a nt a n d t h c l r pn i i t ica l s ign i ficance '. Ra(licd Pf,i/o(oj!/'y. for r h co m i nt;,

Further Read i n g Bad iou , A l a i n . 'Ranci ere et I a cOm t11U n :l u tc d e s cgal lx ' :l nd ' R a n C l i: rc n

l 'apo l i t ique' . AfJ)'rge ric mhaj!o/itifjl/{,. Par is : t d it ions el u Seu i l , n9R , 1 2 1 -38 .

Renton, Ted . ' D i scussio n : R:l I1c i i.' IT ( ) Il ideology'. Rrrr/iur/ I)/Ji/o ro/,h)' ()

( W i nter 1974) : 27-8 . Cra i h, I a n . ' R a n cii.Te a n d ;\ l t hl l Sser' . Rrrr/im/ Philosoph)! 1() (Spr i nF

1 ()7'5 ) : 28-9 . Dera nty, Jea n -Ph i l ippe . 'Jacques Ib nc iere's contr ihut ion to the eth ics

of recogni t ion'. !Jo/itical l /Jm)'v 31:1 ( Fehrll :1 rv 20 0,)) : 1 )h-')(, .

Du ring, E l ie. ' \Xlh a t pure ;l esr!; e t io c an't do'. ' Art Pr('l( 2()7 ( /\ p r i l 20( 1 ) : '5(,-8 .

Engel iher r, ]cl n-P:luL ' Sur Jacques Ibn cicrc', ljfl'mn' /(r'(('rrr,.f,/ /(cr/lcrche !ittrrrlirc ,)0 (bl l - \'V'i nrer 1 ()()8) : 2 .)-32 ,

C ihson. A nd rew. ' Ra n c ie re a nd the " l i m i t" of rea l i sm' , Rf'fIli'-lIT f/ll(/ its Dismn!ei!ls. Eds. Da nuta Fjel lestad a n d El i zabeth Kel l a . Karbkro n a , Swede n : B lel< i n ge r nst i tllte of Tech nology, 2()03. 5 ()-(N

C ibson , A nd rew. ' ''A nd t he w i n cl wh eez i ng th rough that organ once i ll

a wh i le": voice, na rrative, fi lm'. New ritel'm:v Histor), :)2 : :) ( S l I m mer

20(1 ) : 639-'57. H i rst, Pau l . 'Rancihc, ideologv, and capita l '. On Lml' (Inri Ueo!ogl"

London a nd Ihs i l lgstoke: The lvtJcmi l l a ll Press LTD. 1 ()7<), '7'5-9'5.

Lllwl lc. G i l les . 'Two rd<Hl nd at io J1 p rolects of demo cracv in COIHClll­

!'OLI rv f<rcllch ph i l osoph y : Cornel im Castor iad i s a ll d J1 CC] 1Il '''

R ;1I1 c icre '. Nancy Ren a u lt , t r:l I 1 S . [>/li/osop/ll' (17/(/ ,,,'ocii/! C'l'it/C1' 1I1 27: 4 (Jn l v, 20(1) : 7'5-10.'3.

100 BIBLI O G RA P H Y OF P R I M A RY A N D SECONDA RY S OU RC ES

Mehlman, Jeffrey. 'Teach ing reading: the case of Marx in France'. Diacritics: A Review o.f Contemporary Criticism 6 :4 (Winter 1 976) : 10-18 .

Panagia, Davide. 'Ceci nest pas un argument: an introduction to the ten theses'. Theory and Event 5 :3 (200 1 ) . < http: //muse. jhu.edu/jourt1:l is/ theory _and_event/toclarch ive. html #5.3>

Ross, Krist in . May '68 and Its Afterlives. C h icago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Ross, Krist in. 'Ranciere and the practice of equal ity'. SOcifli Text 29 (1991 ) : 57-7 1 .

Valentine, Jeremy. 'The hegemony o f hegemony'. History o/the Human Sciences 14 : 1 (February 2001 ) : 88-104.

Watts, Phi l ip . 'Le cinema entre mimesis et zone d 'ombre'. Critique 5 8 :665 (October, 2002): 830-7.

Zizek, Slavoj . 'Polit ical subj ectivization and its vicissitudes'. The Ticklish Subject. London: Verso, 1999. 17 1-244.

Special Issues on Ranciere Critique 53 :60 1-602 (June-July 1997) . Contents: Ph i l ippe Roger,

'Presentation'; Yves M ichaud, 'Les pauvres et leur phi losophe: l a philosoph ie de Jacques Ranciere'; Patr ick Cingolan i , ' Mode rn i te , democratie, heresie'; A rlette Farge, Th istoi re comme aV('nement'; P ierre Campion, 'MaJlarme it l a lum iere de ] a ra ison poetique' ; Jacques Ranciere, 'La parole muette: notes sur " la l ir reratu re'' '.

Theory and Event 6:4 (2003) Contents: Jean-Ph i l ippe Deranty, 'Rancierc and contemporary pol itical ontology'; Davide Panagia, 'Th inking with and against the "ten theses'''; M ichael Di l lon, '(De)void of pol i t ics ? : a response to Jacques Ranciere's "ten theses on politics'''; A:t m i r R.

Mufti, 'Reading Jacques Ranciere's "ten theses on pol itics": a fter September 1 1 th '; Kirstie M. McClure, 'Disconnections, connections, and questions: reflections ofjacques Ranciere's "ten theses on pol itics'''; Jacques Ranciere, 'Comments and responses'. <http://musc.jhu.edu/ journals/theory_and_event/toclarchive.html#6.4>

SubStance: A Review o/Theory and Literary Criticism 1 03 , 33: J (2004) . Contents : Eric Mechoulan, 'I ntroduction'; Jacques Rall cierc,

'The polit ics of l iterature'; Solange Gucnolln, 'Jacques R:tllciere's

Freud ian cause'; Gabriel Rockh i l l , 'The s i lent revol u t ion'; Jea n-

H lB U () ( ; R A PHY O F P R I M A RY ,\ N Il S ECON D A RY S O ll RC F S 1 0 1

Lou is DeNte, 'The d i fferences hetwccn R a ll c i c rc's ,Hrs(' lItnill' (pol i t i c a l d i s;l grecmcnt) a !lel Lyo ta rd 's [)if((rm({: ' [ ( 1m Con 1cy, t\ hbk of fi l m : R a llc ihe's A u tho lw M :t n ll '; M ichl' ic G a rneau, ' F i l m\' aesthet ic tu rn : a cont r ihut io ll {rom J acques R a llc i i.· I-c·; D;wid f,

B e l l , ' Wri t i ng , ITlOVe rnellt/sp:lCC, dem ncr:l cv: Oil J ; lCqucs R a nc i i:rc\ l i tera ry h i srory',