From: Jesse Cohn <jessecohn-AT-verizon.net> Subject: Re: [postanarchism] Holmes: ""Hieroglyphs of the Future: Jacques Ranci?re and the Aesthetics of Equality" Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:06:19 -0600 Thanks for posting this fascinating article. I had heard of Jacques Rancière and _La Mésentente_ before from Alain Thevenet, the French psychologist who frequently writes for the journal _Réfractions_, but (partly due to the language barrier) I hadn't really grasped what was so interesting about this stuff from an anarchist perspective. I'll really have to look more closely at it. --Jesse. > From: Jason Michael Adams <ringfingers-AT-yahoo.com> > Date: 2004/10/30 Sat PM 04:02:19 CDT > To: postanarchism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > Subject: [postanarchism] Holmes: ""Hieroglyphs of the Future: Jacques Ranci?re and the Aesthetics of Equality" > > > "Hieroglyphs of the Future: Jacques Ranci?re and the > Aesthetics of Equality" > > by Brian Holmes > > http://info.interactivist.net/article.pl?sid=04/02/22/1629221&mode=nested&tid=9 > > "We're not surplus, we're a plus." The slogan appeared > at the demonstrations of the French jobless movement > in the mid-nineties, in journals, on banners, on > tracts printed by the political art group Ne pas > plier. It knitted the critical force and the > subjective claims of the movement into a single > phrase. To be "surplus" (laid off, redundant) was to > be reduced to silence in a society that effectively > subtracted the jobless from the public accounts, that > made them into a kind of residue -? invisible, > inconceivable except as a statistic under a negative > sign. Excluded, in short: cut out of a system based on > the status of the salaried employee. Until they > finally came together to turn the tables, reverse the > signs, and claim a new name on a stage they had > created, by occupying unemployment offices in a > nation-wide protest during the winter of 1997-98. The > people with nothing erupted onto the public scene. > "We're a plus," they said, intruding through the TV > cameras into the country's living rooms. Which also > meant, "We'll drink champagne on Christmas eve." > > One way to grasp the aesthetic language of the French > social movements in the nineties -? and of the > transnational movements now emerging -? is to read > Jacques Ranci?re's work on equality. > In La M?sentente (The Disagreement, 1995), he > confronted the philosophy of government with the > scandal of the political.(1) Government fulfills an > ideal of order when it administers, manages, and tries > to totally account for a population; but its reality > is the police. The police keeps everyone in their > place, imposes the calculations of value, apportions > out the shares in society. The political is an > opposite process, and it's rare. It happens when > outcasts stand up to say that the calculations are > wrong, when they refuse the names and the places > they've been given ("we're not surplus"), to claim > both a share in society and another name, which will > signify their particular addition to universal > equality ("we're a plus"). Because the equality of one > speaking being with any other ?- the fundamental > presupposition of democracy ?- does not exist in the > abstract. It only becomes universal each time it's > proven, in a new language and on a newly visible > stage. Equality is the groundless claim of a minority > to have the rights of any other group, to be the > demos, the people. But it's a claim whose naked truth > does not suffice, it has to be put to the test, > publicly verified. Which is why the political always > takes the form of a demonstration: a logical proof, > against all prevailing logic, and the mobile presence > of a crowd, against the fixed frames of an > institution. > > Ranci?re's description was in synch with its time. It > anticipated the general strike of French state workers > in December 1995, massively supported by the public, > and it accompanied the later revolts of the homeless, > the jobless, the paperless -? the "mouvement des sans" > -? who rose up to demand a new division and sharing of > the social whole, beyond the accounting systems of the > industrial state. But it also offered a key that could > reopen the airlocks between the aesthetic and the > political. > > In an essay written just after La M?sentente, Ranci?re > explained that the political always involves a > disidentification with some aspect of the existing > community -? for example, with the police state that > expels the jobless or the paperless. At the same time, > it requires an impossible identification with "the > cause of the other."(2) This impossible identification > suggests a new, subjective figure of political > commitment. Its paradigm in France is the > identification of an entire generation on the left > with the Algerian demonstrators thrown brutally into > the Seine by the police in 1961. To identify with the > murdered Algerians was not to speak for them -? an > absurd idea, while their fellows were completing a > revolution in Algeria -? but to live on in their > place, in opposition to a national institution that > excluded certain citizens (those of the former > colonies) and included others (those of the > metropole). That impossible identification would > return in the transnational, transhistorical assertion > of the students in May '68, "We are all German Jews." > And then again in the specific legal and political > context of the late nineties, with the public act, > often performed in theaters, of parrainage or > "god-parenting," which meant taking a quasi-familial, > quasi- legal responsibility for an undocumented > individual. > > This theatrical fiction, like the poetics of the '68 > slogan, points to the specifically artistic aspect of > political engagement, sketched out in a few pages of > La M?sentente. Ranci?re begins by opposing Habermas's > view that the surprise of aesthetic experience, the > opening to the world effected by metaphor, must be > distinguished from the norms of communicative action. > He claims instead that the uncertain reality of art, > the shift or transport of meaning that defines > metaphor, is an inherent part of every political > dispute, where the argument itself bears first of all > on the legitimacy or even the reality of one of the > fundamental elements that configure the disagreement > (its place, its object, its subjects). The > place-changing action of metaphor ?- one thing or > person for another ?- is what allows the creation or > extension of a community of speaking subjects; and > this potential extension of a community is needed for > any argument about equality. This is why the modern > forms of political group-formation, or > subjectivization, are historically linked to the > emergence of an autonomous aesthetic dimension split > from any practical manipulation of usable objects: an > unpredictable, infinitely extensible realm defining "a > world of virtual community -? a demand for community > ?- superimposed upon the world of orders and parts > that lends everything its use."(3) > > Metaphors are the hieroglyphs of an unknown language, > the demand for an unheard-of community. When the group > Ne pas plier, in collaboration with the jobless > association l'APEIS (l'Association pour l'emploi, > l'information et la solidarit?), raised Marc Pataut's > anonymous portraits above the crowd in 1994 ?- > singular faces above a sea of demonstrating humanity > -? the question was not whether these meter-high > photographs, carried on a wooden picket, really > represented identifiable jobless people. The question > was whether a social issue could be extended beyond > individual cases, to call for a general > reconfiguration of society; whether each anonymous > face was potentially the face of the unemployed peuple > reclaiming its right to speak; and whether the > gesticulating debates on Republic Square could compare > to the ones in the National Assembly. A visual > uncertainty, a metaphoric possibility of "one-for- > another," intertwined with a political argument > bearing on proper or improper names, on the proper or > improper division and sharing of resources, of roles, > of sensuous reality. In lieu of an answer, the > question itself gestured toward a possible future that > could only be opened up, among the existing divisions > of the world, by an argumentative logic knit together > with an artistic metaphor. > > A Change of Regime > > Ranci?re's thinking of the political was formulated in > the early 1990s, during the long French slide into > recession and racism, when the status of salaried > labor was falling into tatters along with > welfare-state guarantees, when immigrants were being > outlawed in the name of union jobs and the unemployed > were being proclaimed the impossible political > subject. Yet the threat of the flexible, > transnational, networked regime -? the so-called > "economic horror" ?- sparked original forms of protest > and debate. A breach was reopened, marked in political > economy by the work of Andr? Gorz, Mis?re du pr?sent, > richesses du possible (Poverty of the Present, Wealth > of the Possible), which turned the questions of > flexible work and unemployment back on an entire > system, to explore the reasons for maintaining a > politics of scarcity in a society of automated > production. > > That breach seems to have closed today. La M?sentente > had already shown how certain forms of political > consensus act to freeze social identities, eliminating > the disruptive claims of equality. There is the > welfare-state conception of society as an interplay of > "partners" (unions, businesses, public services); the > neoliberal idea that society does not exist, only > desiring, enterprising individuals; the multicultural > vision of separate, Balkanized communities, each bound > by their own beliefs. All exclude the political > conflict formerly brought by the subject called > "proletariat" ?- the most recent name of the antique > demos or the revolutionary peuple. After integrating > much of the National Front's racism, the French > socialist party has now found an original mix of the > first two forms of consensus: they intensify the > neoliberal program of flexible transnational labor > relations, in hopes of returning to the salaried > employment on which the postwar social contract of the > nation-state was based! As though the challenges > raised by the "mouvement des sans" never even existed. > > > But what is happening now, far beyond France, is that > similar movements are expanding, proliferating, in an > attempt to meet their adversaries on another stage: > the stage set by the transnational corporations. This > proliferation involves an identification with the > cause of an impossibly distant other, Mayan peasant, > Brazilian autoworker, Nigerian tribesman, Indian > farmer? What are the metaphors that can speak on a > world stage? To explore the role of art in these > movements, I think we had better start with something > much closer to home: the language machine that knits > the transnational system together, and the kind of > labor that is done with it. > > The Internet has widely (and rightly) been seen on the > left as providing the infrastructure for what is > called "digital capitalism."(4) But what the leftist > commentators forget -? one wonders why? -? is that the > simplest net application of them all, email, has > offered an extraordinary chance to what Ranci?re calls > "the literary animal." As large parts of the former > working classes gained education, refused industrial > discipline, and split away from their former position > in the social hierarchy, they became "immaterial > laborers" facing the new predicament of flexibilized > conditions(5) ?- but they also found themselves in > possession of a new writing tool. And as they taught > themselves to use it and invented more applications > every day, what did they claim, against all prevailing > logic? That here, everyone is equal. The virtual > realities of the 1990s saw the return of a utopia > whose emergence Ranci?re has chronicled in his > accounts of the self-education of the artisan classes > in the early nineteenth century: "Thus one can dream > of a society of emancipated individuals that would be > a society of artists. Such a society would repudiate > the divide between those who know and those who do not > know, between those who possess or who do not possess > the property of intelligence. It would recognize only > active minds: humans who act, who speak of their > actions and thereby transform all their works into > ways of signaling the humanity within themselves and > everyone."(6) > > That dream was bound to run up against what Ranci?re > has called "the society of disdain." In the late > twentieth century it took the usual form of the > expropriation of a popular language, and its > replacement by manipulated simulacra. Yet even as the > dominance of the Internet by the commercial and > financial spheres became clear, even as the figure of > the shareholder emerged as the only one with a right > to participate politically in the new economy, > political activism took a new twist, and disruptions > began appearing in the fabric of corporate and > governmental speech. > > Since 1993, the anonymously run ?TMark group has been > launching parodies into the ideological mix: > consultancy and funding for consumer-product sabotage, > following the actions of the infamous Barbie > Liberation Organization; direct email campaigns > promoting subversion, like the Call-in Sick Day to > celebrate the non-holiday (in Anglo-Saxon lands) of > May 1st; pseudo-official sites like gwbush.com, > voteauction.com, or gatt.org.(7) Masquerading beneath > a corporate- bureaucratic veneer ?- lackluster logos, > deadpan graphics, pompous speech -? the ?TMark > websites start off believable, waver in midflight, > then tailspin into scandalous denunciation by an > excess of liberal truth. Another movement, Kein Mensch > ist Illegal, more recently took up the same kind of > strategy with its Deportation-Class campaign: > websites, a poster contest, information kits, > super-activist mileage programs? all opportunities for > Lufthansa's stockholders to find out just how much it > could cost them to go on deporting illegal immigrants > for the police. Then, in a parody of the "Oneworld" > airline alliance, the Deportation-Alliance emerged, > with collaboration from ?TMark and many others. > Meanwhile, a group of slow-thinking Austrian lawyers > stumbled on the gatt.org site and wanted Mike Moore of > the WTO to come pep up their meeting in Salzburg. > "Mike Moore" declined, but sent two substitutes -? > later revealed to be the "Yes Men" -? who stood before > the unwitting lawyers to explain a vast but rather > shocking program for the extension of free trade? The > whole incident was documented on video ("tactical > embarrassment," as the activist Jordi Claramonte likes > to say). > > Through mimicry and imagination, groups like ?TMark > create a short-circuit between the anonymous, abstract > equality of immaterial labor and the subjective > exceptionalism of art. "The mimic gives the 'private' > principle of work a public stage. He constitutes a > common stage with what ought to determine the > confinement of each to his place," writes Ranci?re in > Le partage du sensible. But this "common stage" is a > scene, not of stifling unity, but of dissensus: the > mimic transmits "blocks of speech circulating without > a legitimate father," literary and political > statements that "grab hold of bodies and divert them > from their destination," that "contribute to the > formation of collective speakers who throw into > question the distribution of roles, of territories, of > languages ?- in short, political subjects who upset an > established sharing and division of the sensible."(8) > > ?TMark or Deportation-Class are ways for immaterial > laborers to claim a voice, a non-economic share, > against the stock-market rules of a shareholder's > society. They are also vectors of a new kind of > transnational collaboration or reciprocity. They offer > a way to rejoin the direct action movements, Art and > Revolution, Attac, and hundreds of other organizations > ?- the newest way into a much older configuration of > the aesthetic and the political, which is also called > democracy. > > Because the duplicity of art/work hardly began with > Internet. It reaches back to what Ranci?re calls the > aesthetic regime of the arts, which emerged, not > coincidentally, at the end of the Ancien Regime. > Aesthetics is the name of an indistinction, where fact > is inseparable from fiction, where the lowest can > become the highest and vice-versa. The aesthetic > regime of the arts ruins the historically prior regime > of representation, with its hierarchies, decorum, and > strict separation of genres, but also its Aristotelian > distinction between chaotic, accidental history, and > well-constructed, plausible fiction. Working initially > through mimetic or testimonial techniques ?- realist > literature or painting, photography or cinema -? the > new regime determines the paradoxical beauty of the > anonymous subject, of whoever or whatever: "The > ordinary becomes beautiful as a trace of the true? > when it is torn away from the obvious and made into a > mythological or phantasmagorical hieroglyph." (9) > > Before and beyond any "modernist" or "postmodernist" > program, the aesthetic regime "makes art into an > autonomous form of life, thus simultaneously positing > both the autonomy of art and its identification with a > moment in a process of life's self-formation."(10) The > understanding of activist art begins right here, with > the notion of life's self-formation. > > Fictionable Futures > > The originality of Ranci?re's work on the aesthetic > regime is to clearly show how art can be historically > effective, directly political. Art achieves this by > means of fictions: arrangements of signs that inhere > to reality, yet at the same time make it legible to > the person moving through it -? as though history were > an unfinished film, a documentary fiction, of which we > are both cameramen and actors. > > That would be one way to describe an event like the > "Carnival against Capital," staged by the ten thousand > actors of Reclaim the Streets in the City of London on > June 18th, 1999. Wearing masks of four different > colors, the crowd wove converging paths through the > City, displaying signs, creating images, knitting its > mobile music and language into urban reality ?- > weaving another world in order to tangle with the one > managed by finance capital (and to tangle directly > with the police). June 18th taught us to read a new > story at the center of finance capitalism. But no > privileged viewpoint could wrap up the film, gather > the whole of this "artwork" into a totality and reduce > its contradictions -? because the idea had already > crisscrossed not just Britain but the earth, spreading > and dividing like the wildfire of equality. By tracts, > images, Internet, and word of mouth, by collaboration > and spontaneous reinvention, the "disorganization" of > Reclaim the Streets and the Peoples' Global Action > network had mapped out a new kind of world, in which > collectives in over 70 different countries could > protest against the same abstract processes of > neoliberal capitalism, under vastly different local > conditions but on the same day. Did the "film" of > Seattle, Prague and so on begin right here, with this > "artistic" event? But where was "here"? And what did > the "event" really consist of? > > If anarchic, artistic demonstrations like June 18th > are political, it is because they involve a > disagreement, a direct confrontation with the existing > divisions or shares of sensuous reality. They make > visible the "invisible government" of the > international financial institutions (i.e. the new > world police). But if they are aesthetic, it is > because they bring a blur of indistinction to the > proper subjects, objects, and places of the debate. > They create another stage for politics: like the > protesters in London opening a fire hydrant to > symbolically return a long-buried river to the surface > of the street, to reclaim that stream from the layered > abstractions of capital. Or like the social forces in > Porto Alegre displacing the wintry Davos economic > forum to the summer weather of the South, turning the > agenda and the very seasons of capitalist > globalization upside down. > > It is certain that such confrontations must become > more precise, more reasoned, more explicit, if the new > claim to equality is to have any effect on the > existing divisions of the world. The aesthetic "plus" > of the demonstrations must find a way to return to > each local environment, to the specific frameworks > that govern the homeless, the paperless, the > unemployed. This is the risky gambit that the far left > is now making, on a world scale. But to be explicit is > not to speak the opponent's language (neoclassical > economics) ?- which would always be to play an unequal > hand in a losing game. Instead, it is to engage in an > unstable mimicry that seeks to prove its claim to > equality on a public stage, while inventing new signs, > new pathways through the world, new political > subjectivities. > > Notes > > 1. La M?sentente, (Paris: Galil?e, 1995). (Throughout > this text I will quote and summarize ideas by Jacques > Ranci?re; but the contemporary examples of political > and aesthetic practice, and the conclusions drawn from > them, are my responsibility alone -? BH.) > > 2. "La cause de l'autre," in: Aux bords du politique > (Paris: La Fabrique ?ditions, 1998). > > 3. La M?sentente, p. 88. > > 4. Cf. Dan Schiller, Digital Capitalism, (Cambridge: > MIT Press, 1999). > > 5. On the refusal of industrial discipline and the > emergence of immaterial labor, see the arguments and > references in Michael Hardt and Toni Negri, Empire, > (Harvard University Press, 2000), chapters 3.3 and > 3.4. > > 6. Le ma?tre ignorant (Paris: Fayard, 1987), pp. > 120-121. > > 7. The first two sites were forced to change names and > can now be found at rtmark.com, along with the other > ?TMark projects. > > 8. Le partage du sensible: esth?tique et politique, > (Paris: La Fabrique ?ditions, 2000), pp. 68, 63-64. > > 9. Ibid., p. 52. > > 10. Ibid., p. 37. > > ====> "The authority of laws rests only on the credit that is granted to them. One believes in it; that is their only foundation" > > - Jacques Derrida http://www.humanities.uci.edu/remembering_jd > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail >
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005