deranty's ranciére key concepts pg 25 to 37

7/31/2019 deranty's rancire key concepts pg 25 to 37

1/13

TWO

Portland State niversity I Homehttp:j Iwww.pdx.edul

l iThe ignorant schoolmaster" :know ledge and authorityYvesCitton

ew endeavou ould appear more self-contradictory (and elf-defeating) than an attempt to explain the argument developed byJacque Ran iere in h is 19 7book T he Ig no ra nt S ch oolm aster ( ubritledF ive L esso ns in In tellectu al Eman cip atio n English tran lation 1991).The main rrion repeated in this remarkabl ubtle prai e of equalityis that the most perve form of oppr ion and subjection is located inthe very act of e plaining. 0 of us tend to take for granted that givingexplanation - and hat is teaching but giving explanations"? - is anoble act of genero ity and emancipation through which the explainerraise the e plainee to a higher level of kno ledge and understanding.I have pent a good amount of time reading analyzing di cu ing andteaching The I gnoran t Schoolmaste r 0 er the last decades; I am eagerto help more people di over and enjo its power and i beauty. I hearpeople sa that Ranciere i not an easy philosopher to understandand that hi theo of emancipation inot an easy argument to grasp'therefore I am about to explain the main notions assumptions andcon equences of thi book as ell as i charms and its stakes. Butince the main Ie on of the book ithat explanation runs contrary toemancipation I - along with my fello contributors to a volume dedi-cated to explaining" Ranciere' ey concep - eem bound to betraythe author and hi ideas b the e nature of our explanatory ge cure.The paradox go further. he anti-explanatory me age advocated

by The I gnoran t Schoo lmas te r is carried out through the explanation ofomeone else theories: Ranciere has recovered the writings of a certainJoseph Jacotot ( ho fir t disco ered that e planation run contrary toemancipation) and he explains what Jacotot wrote in his theoretical

25w.pdx.edul
http://iwww.pdx.edul/http://iwww.pdx.edul/


2/13

ork . A do r 100 ho e er ill re eal that rather than "explain-ing" jacotot theory Ran iere rewrites it. hi hapter may thereforenot be 0 If-contradictory (nor If-defeating) in it attempt to rewriteRan ier r writing of jacotot,

Joseph Jacotot's reversal of the explanatory modelWhile pr enting Ranciere a a philo opher is not inappropriate (forhe i a great inventor of concep ) it tend neverthele to downplaytwo essential feature of his intervention in the philo ophical field:their frail and their lirerarin . In thi r ard none of hi book imore tentati e than The Ignorant Schoolmaster: it i experimental (itresembl a thought-e prim nr) pro i ional (it sketche a theory tillawaiting it full de elopmenr) concepruall fragile and argumenta-tively problematic (it thri on a parado ). While Ranciere has rittena great deal about literature during hi later career rarely ha he beenas literary as in thi early book hi h tak the form of a narrative (thenarrative of an intellectual ad enture ) as much as that of a philo ophi-cal argum nt. Let u fi t u e i plot, centred on its protagoni t,Jo eph jacoror,

Once upon a rime there as a teacher ( ho had previously b en aoldier an admini trator and a depu ) ho wa exiled from Franceafter the Restoration of onarch in 1 15 and who became a lecturerin French literature at the Univer i of Lou ain in the etherland.aced with tuden ho did not peak rench and unable to peakFI mi h him If,jacorot came up ith a practical fix: he handed hituden a bilingual er ion of Fenelon masterpiece Telemaque (oneof the most idel read and admired didactic novels of the eighteenthcentury) and told them to learn rench b figuring out this te t in itoriginal language ith the h lp of the Flemi h tran larion. Thi practical

lX was the tart of a philo ophical e periment leading to an intellectualrevolution: to jacotot urpri the ruden oon managed - so e aretold at lea - to master enough of Fenelon language to write y(in French) about the book achie ing a ery decent level of writtenexpre ion. On the foundation pro ided b the fact that hi tudentshad managed to learn rench .rhout any form of explanation Jaco ..tot tarred building a radical reformation of all pedagogical methodunder the title of ni er al Tea bing (Ens eignemen t un iv er se /) laterrenamed the panecastic em.

uch a reformation had a premise: eve human being must necessar-ily be capable of learning b himself (through trial and error gue es and

26


3/13

If-correction) inee thi iho all of u learned our mother tongue.And ince thi i ho e learned our fir t language why could wenot learn a cond language in the me a? Be ond language whycouldn t e learn piano or painting in th arne fa hion? Or matherna -

or cherni try or economi ?It al 0 had a far-reaching implication: the teacher main function i

not to rran mit conten (to gi e hi kno ledge to the ignorant pupilbut to dri e the studen will. Indeed the figur of the teacher wanot to b di p n d ith along th i path of r formation: jacotot wasin trume tal in the pr that led thi group of tudent to learn alanguage the did not originall kno . Ho e er th part he pi y d inthe pro e not the one picall defined b the Old Te tament ofp dagogical rheo hich jacotot and Rancier imply r fer to a thOld t r (or rather in th r nch original as th Old Lady": laieillei. In jacotot practice, the teacher role limited to influenc-ing the will and did not includ an actual rran f r of knowledge. ip dagogical act a not an plication (of th rul of Fr nch gram-mar) but a ri of commands: ead thi 0 k! Pa attention to th eword! If the d e brought to mankind b th apo tie J acotorwa that eve hild of man i intelligent enough to learn anythingwithout the help of an e plicator th r formed Go pel of Univer aleaching not meant to put a11tea he out of a job: it tended onlyto r a them ommand r in read of E plain

hi implication ho er, had a urpri ing but important corol-lary. ince a teacher did not need to ( able to) explain the content ofthe cour the teacher did not ne d to know nor understand what hewa teaching. After ha ing taught rench ( hich he kn ), Jacototd cid d to teach piano or cherni t (in hich he had no competencewha 0 ver). And it orked - or 0 e are told. p rfectly ignorantchoolmaster can tach a di ipline that h h not rna tered him Ifince hi role in the educational prace inot to provide any peeificcont nt, ur mainl to mo ilize the learner ill. Hence the di rurbingr v r al 0 a1ue ugg t d bv Ranci r ride. Far from naming anddenoun ing the di gra e of an imp tor 'h e Ignorant chao/masteroon ring a promi : ther may b a bl d day of ntellectualman ipation h n ignor nt" p ople ill r ogniz d a perf ctlyqualified hoolm e . a day hen children of human being will haverealized that th ar int llig nt enough to learn b them lv ithoutthe need for an (up rior) e plicator onl ith the commanding help(and encouragement) of their ignorant brothers.

A second and e en more disturbing corolla followed: if the actof xplicarion a in no a nece ry to en ure prop r learning it did

27


4/13

ne rth les fulfil a very important function in the process of sociali-zation b teaching the students that they were ignorant, incapable ofcaping ignorance by their own means. For here is jacorot's (and Ran-

ciere ) mo t ubver ive as ertion: the true (if uncon ciou ) function ofall the generou altruistic, philanthropic, enlightened and enlighteningpro ider of explications is to instil a sense of inequality deep into themind and ouls of all the children of the Republic. he e children allhad the original experience of learning (their mother tongue, as well asmo t life le on ) by them elves. They all spontaneously acted uponthat premi e of an equality of intelligence (according to which all ofus are able to figure out, by trial and error what we need to know inorder to master the code that surround and structure us). In light ofthi original experience, the School (the educational sy tern, the Oldaster L a Yieille, with its pedagogical practices and its armies of weU-

meaning Teachers In trucror Master and Profe or) appears as atremendou machine devoted to neutralizing that spontaneous powerto learn by oneself. The true (if untold) content of the teacher's explica-tion has nothing to do with French grammar, fingering technique onthe piano or molecular interactions in chemistry: it is a monotonouchoru repeating class after class: "You do not know how to learn ,You need me i.e. my (superior) explications, in order properly to learnhat you are learn ing". gain t the practical evidence of the equality of

all intelligence as demonstrated by the mastery of our mother tonguethe e structure of the (modern) School, with its emphasis on the actof explaining works a the most powerful machine of indoctrinationgeared towards convincing u of the incapacity (you cannot learn byour elf) and in quality ( orne are knowledgeable, others are ignorant)of our intelligence.

jacotot rever al of the explanatory model thus leads to a drasticand highly di comforting indictment of the progressive educator' b tintents: far from promoting equality by raising the (formerly) ignorantpupil to the higher status of an enabled knower, the act of transmit-ting knowledge through explication tend to generate and perpetu-ate a rructure of inequality between the explainer and the explainee.Far from being reduced by the act of explanation, thi structure ofine ualiry i (re-lenf r ed each time the educat r rea ert hi up ri-oriry b per orming a a kno ledge-provider. Far from contributingto th pupil emancipation the explanatory model is to be e n a adramati our e of tultifi arion" (abrutissement).jacotot's argument,do Ifollowed by Ranciere rewriting preci ely define rultifi ati ninherent to any relation in which "one intelligence i ub rdinated to

another while on the contrary the po ibiliry of emancipation re t2


5/13

on maintaining a cl ar differ nc b twe n th quality of int llig neeand the p ible ubordination of the will. In jacotot niver al ea h-in th act of an int llig nc ob y [ ] only it I f whit th will ob yan ther ill (IS 1 ).

F rom a pe dago gical e xpe rim e nt to its po litica l im plicationsnd f tnut h II

h rd thp li ri n rant chn i r m t fund m nt I n b tin t pfiniri n f p liri th v rifi tiu li fit l1 i n . h p liri I i

t d n t le ast rh r J vels.th y I d u r u ti n rh li ri f . 10

Republic ( n t nt p un h b 1 1 in n ir poliri I r fl ti n)rh ho know" (rh ologian philo oph r economi t and all ofth ir f II w- p rt ) h v Iim d th ri h t b inv t d with p liti-Iuthority in the nam of th ir uperi r kn wl dg. he divi ion of

lab ur d lin t d by r t a illu trating th n f ju ti in thrna r pic c of th icy d rnand d that ach individual r main inth pi and fun non rtribut d t him by an ptimal di tribution fp ializ d kill : rh wh ar b t uir d f r making br ad h uld(and remain) bakers tho be r at fighting hould b (and remain)

oldie and tho b t at under tanding how the world goes houldad i the king (or become kings them elves) (Republic 433a-444a). Iteem common ense to admit that we would be be t governed if "tho eho know" r put in th po ition of being tho who decide - ju t

as it em common ensical to recognize that the expli ator performs agenerou act of equalization when he rai e his listener to a higher levelof understanding by transmitting hi knowledge. Yet it i again t thismi leadingly elf-evident equation between authority and knowledgethat Ranciere con tructed the core of his political reflection.

In howing that the explainer tends to stultify the explainee due torh trucrural inequality of the explanatory model, jacotot helps use that the expert tends to kill the democratic process because of theery po ition from which he pretends to enlighten it. 0matter how11intended or knowledgeable he may be in his disciplinary field, the

expert repre ents a potential threat to democratic politics in so far ahi ery enunciation divides the citizenry in two: those who have theknowledge (and who are entitled to command), and tho e wh la k theknowledge (and must therefore obey). Through ut most of his books

tur

29


6/13

D :~ L_-:- -~_", __ .I)' denounced not of course "those who havePo:rtla d State University I Home "http}lwMv.pdx.edu,l who let their expert knowledge ecome a toolfor ilencing the claim and re i tance expressed by "the ignorant on '.In mmetrica1 contradiction to Plato' philosophy, Ranciere repea ,book after book that the endle Iy subver ive nature of demo racy con-i r in accepting that the ignorant ones" should be entitled to rule theCity. Hi do e reading of jacorot revealed that "the ignorant person" ine er defined as uch by a mere lack of knowledge, but by an oppre -i e tructure that tran form a perfectly able intellectual agent into apo erie recipient (supposed pas ively to absorb forms of knowledgeprodu ed for him but never by him) - an oppressive trucrure that isperver e enough to rna querade it very production of the ignorante on" as a remedy again t ignorance! "What rulrifie the common

people' not the lack of instruction, but the belief in the inferiority oftheir intelligence (1 9). The f i t political le son to be drawn f omjacotor thu con ist in spotting the stultifying side-effects that neverfail to accompany any di cour e of expert i e, in so far as it is in thenature of explication and expertise to produce the very inequality ofkno ledge and power it pretends to correct.

The cond political implication of Ranciere' reading of jacotorcan e encap ulated in a term that ha become trendy (in ranee) onlye era! ear after the publication of The Ignorant choolmaster, a termthat Ranciere has never really appropriated for himself but that never-thele nthe ize a fundamental dimension of his thinking: empow-erment. hi le the tultifying explicator pretends generously to giveomething that ilacking in "the ignorant person' (knowledge, under-tanding) the empowering emancipator mainly purports to reveal apo er (to under tand) that is already present in the agent - even thoughit rna not be acce ible to him without the mediation of the emanci-pator. The prohl m in education, i not to transmit knowledge: "theproblem i to reveal an intelligence to itself" (IS 28). jacoror s pupilhad it "thin them elves to learn (Fenelon's French) by themselves: thehoolreacher only provided an opportunity (a context a iruation, a

framing rructur ) through which their power to learn found the chaneto be a tualized.In rhi radical ncepti n emp werrnent c n i n t in a rran -rni ion of pow r (which would imply and would in fact produce anin quality of tatu between the giver and the re eiver) but in therealization-a tualizati n of a power wh e ource i located within theagent him elf. All human children have the power to learn their mothert ngue (and any rher language) with ut the a itance fan explicat r.The intervention of uch an explicator far fr m helping them to Jearn

o


7/13

teaches" them that the are incapable of learning by them el e (itstultifies" them' it constitut them as ignorant ). The emancipator srole therefore doe not con i in pro iding the agent with anythingthey lack (knowledge understanding intelligence power) but implyin helping them remo e the ob ad that epa rate them from theiro n power. Emancipation as alread a concerns the will (ratherthan knowledge or intelligence). I main m ge fi perfectly with themotto of empowerment oliti : you already ha e the power; all youneed ithe ill to use it for our 0 n (common) good.

logans modelled on the you can. pattern can be both eman-cipatory and oppr i e. Th ir empo ering nature i often counter-balanc d b an ideology of free will and unconditioned choice, hichtends to blame the victim fate on their la k of ill power" ratherthan on the situation that conditioned their choices. Few situations canbe escaped b the mere will to just do it! ni er al teaching i not thekey to succe granted to the enterprising ho explore the prodigiouspower of the will. othing could b more oppo ed to the thought ofemancipation than that ad e . ing logan (I 56). Politics a Rancie redefin it con ist in producing or in exploiting the practical condition(context i arion rucrural frame or ) that '11 olicit the agentwill to u e th po er at his di osal. en Ranciere pr nt politics asa process of ubjectification he undermines in ad ance any appeal to awill that would be unconditioned that' free to ju t do" ornerhingif only the agent made the right choice". His hi torical re earch inth nin te nth-century archiv of th labour movement a well a injacotor' pedagogical enterprise de cribe and anal se socio-hi toricalconditions that have allo ed for a process of emancipatory subjecrifica-tion to take place (i.e. for a certain pe of ill to be produced withina certain pe of collecti e strucrur ).

Hence the third main political Ie on to be drawn from The Ignorant'cboolmaster: because it con . ts mainly in proc es of ubjecrifica-tion democratic politi r 01 around the practical verification ofth pr upposition of th equality of intelligence. ince thi principle ilocated at the ve core of Jacques Ranciere philo ophy its complearticulation n to be pelled out irh orne care and pari nee in atleast five different step.1. he basic assertion i a principle of equality of all peakingbeings (IS 39): e eryone i of equal intelligence (1 101). Ifone can define "man as a 'II r ed by an intelligence" (IS 5 )one should immediately add tha although there may be inequal-ity in the manifestations of intelligence ... there is no hierarchy of

31


8/13

intellectual capacity" ( IS 27). A ll of R anc ie re 's w ritings am ou ntto a p e rs is ten t and deep en ing reflection on equality in general,p olitical equality in p articu lar w ith the p rincip le of equality ofin te lligence a its foundation - a foundation d raw n from his studyof jacotor s in te lle ctu al a dv en tu re .

2. he equality of in te lligence , howeve r, can never be observed assu ch . "W e can nev er say : all in te lligence i equa l" (IS 46): phrenol-ogi neu rob iologi t schoolm aste r and other IQ -te t d e ignerswill alway find way to m easu re som eth ing re em bling in t II ctualcap acity and to rank the rnan ife tation o f in te llig nee accord-ing to th p articu lar scale th ey hap p en to p rom ote . Th i m ay bethe re on hy rno t progr iv e p olitical agenda hay t nd dto p resen t equality a a goal (generally a never-fu lly ach ievab legoal) for th e fu tu re , ra th r th an a a p rem is on wh ich to bu ild anegalitarian cie ty .

3. Thi p o tp on em e nt of equ ality in to a n ev er-fu lly -ach iev ab le fu tu rconstitu te th e m ain trap of p rogre ive p olitics R ancie re has con-tan tly d n un d th r ugh u t h i w ritin . ja t t' (an ti-)rn d If th e p licator off r th b iu p rin t fo all u ch p tp n 0quality . Th ir c mm n m tt i: cc p t to ubm it y u r ( 1 w )int llig nc to m y (h igh r) und r tand ing t day in ord r to bm qua l tom o row! B cau I t I a d u p n th e principl ofinequality of in t I lig nc th i fa l ly m ancip ating (bu t actuallyru lrify ing) a itud which ha p rm at d m t f rm of m d mpr e iv p liti d f a t it ta t d purp by Iy in n ( nd

p rp tu tin ) th v ry in u Jity it p r t nd t I i h .. in th u liry f in t J l i n c nn t b rv d u h in it.v n m nif ti n n r p tp n d I nly t tt in d inth u tu r it h t b n id r d li-p r m i t t n d t

2


9/13

5. ernocratic politi will therefore con it in the practical veri-fication of uch a pre uppo ition. Equality i not a given noris it claimed' it is practiced it i verified"; it will never exi texcept in i erificarion and at the price of being verified al aysand e e here (IS 37-8). Since the equality of intelligencecannot b observed in its gi en manifestations we are reducedto multipl ing the experimen in pired y that opinion" (IS 46).Ho e er the If-emancipating agen might say; "our problemin t pro ing that all intelligence iequal. Itis eeing what can bedone under that upp ition (ibid.). The pre uppo ition has noworth in it elf: i value i tricdy limited to its effect that i tothe practical e erimentation produced by j attempted erifi-cations. Contrary to the e plicator po rponing device, the erytructure of u h erification actuall implement the equalitythe aim to fo ter: for the only erified intelligence i the onethat speak to a fello -man capable of verifying the equali oftheir intelligence (IS 39).

jacotor' practical e p rimentation (and theoretical reflections) inthe field of pedagogy thus pro ided Ranciere with a neat and originaldefinition of democratic politics: to qualify as democratic politicalagency mu t set in motion or fuel a practical verification of the equal-ity of intelligence that i a prace of subjectification through hichall partici paring agen are mpo ered to find out for them elves howtheir conditions of li ing can e imp 0 ed. B contra t thi definitionrai u picion to ards the best-intentioned efforts through whichprogre ively minded intellectual (or partie ) "explain to the rna eswhat i in their b t mter t from a uperior po ition of experti e orcienrifici .A Kri tin R kilfull ho d in the introduction to her Engli h

tran larion of 'he Ignorant choolmaster (I ix-xii) the book u edjacotot indirect1 but harpl to criti ize ientist attitude that domi-nated a large pectrurn of the ren h intelligen ia from the remainingfollowers of Loui thu er and Pierre Bourdieu to the neo-po itivismof (exj-sociali COD erred to the la of free-market capitali m (onthe contras and parallel b tw en Ranciere and Bourdieu ee ord-mann 200 . Pelletier 2009a,b). Ranciere s intervention contributed tointroducing a dge ithin th left field of modern politic . From thearly Enlightener plotting the education of the masse to the Marx-it philo opher denouncing the illu ion of ideology in the nameof materialist science and all the a to the late twentieth-centuryociologi th orizing the n c ry ignorance" of the ocial agent,


10/13

all political proj xplicid geared to ards th ideal of equality hadto be rea ed in the new light hed b the long-forgotten Universaleaching promoted in the 1 20 jacorot. And under rhi di crimi-nating light, man emancipato projects appear betrayed by large eg-ment of an:

intellectual hierarchy that has no orh r po r e cept the ration-alization of inequality. Progr iism i the modern form of thatpower purified of an mixture with the material form of tra-ditional authority: progre ives have no power other than thatignorance that incapacity of the people on hich their priesthoodi ased. Ho without opening up an ab under their own feetcan the sa to orking eople that the don t need them in orderto be free men in order to be educated in everything uitable toth if digni men? (IS 129)

From the contradictions of the explicator to theparadox of the spectatorIf Rancie e managed to op rate ch a theoretical tour de force inexhuming jacotor ob ure writings it' largel due to the literarydevice he crafted to compo The Ignorant Schoolmaster. Kri tinRo al 0note the reader of thi highly mpathetic narrative of Jaco-tot' life and legend can hard! di tingui h the momen when Rancierepeaks for himself from the page where he merel lend hi voice tohis protagonist (IS ii), Hi mo tdaring a ertion are often prudentlyhidden behind th outrag ou tarernent of the p dagogue; in returntongue-in-cheek iron towards the pro ocarive lunacy of the school-master s claim pushe the reader to imagine Ranciere him elf smilingat the disturbingl radical and deliciou 1 counter-intuitive positionhe is led to defend in his effort to gi e an advantageou account ofthe doctrine of ni ersal Teaching. Far from trying to assess the "truevalue" (and limi ) of jacotot the e fa from ai ing the numerousobjection that jump to mind in the face of hi declaration Ranciereadopt the po rure of a humble ad ocate 0 ing their logic as do elyas po ible defending them as hi own - e en (or rather e pecially) intheir mo t extreme and outrageou implication .

uch literary devi es pro id the narro door that a110 Ran iere toe cap what iniriall app ared to be a con tituti e contradiction of hisbook: the account he provide of jacotot' anti-explanatory sy tern isin no way an explication" of Jacotot ritings. E en though he often


11/13

Ja orot ithin rh inrelle ru 1d bate of th arly nineteenth[om onald aine de Biran rutt de

ti n f

rw

int iii n fth

n rh m I v I ( ftnt that fthm t Import nt pan ta1 1 to hi r I ti n t u it

ith ut thinkin bout i h h d m d them di 0 r thi thinthat he di 0 r d ith th m: that all nt n nd on qu ndyall the intelligence that produ e them, are of the arne nature.Under tanding ine er more than tran laring that i:gi ing thequivalent of a text but in no a it rea on. Th re i nothingbehind the itt n pag no fa! bottom that nece irat theork of an other intelligence that of the e pli ator: no languageof th m t r no languag of the language ho word and n-t n e are able to p the rea on of the ord and entence of

3


12/13

a text. The lemi h studen had furni hed the proof: to peakabout Telemaque th had at their di p ition only the ordsof Telemaque. Fenelon nt n alon ar n e ry to under-stand enelon' nren and to expr hat one ha understoodabout them. Learning and understanding are two way of expre -ing the arne act of translation. (IS 9)Such an act of translation - in its e mological en e of displace-ment" - has een pursued b Ranciere long after the publication ofThe Ignorant cboolmaster. or onl did he devote the two following

decade to deepening and harp ning hi reflection on the politics ofequality, but he recentl returned to the 1 on of intellectual eman-cipation ketched jacotot in order to redefine the relation betweenpoliti and the arts in his 2008 book, The Emancipated Spectator( ngli h tran lation 2009). In thi case the di placement consi ted inapplying to the pectator and to the aesthetic experience provided ina theatre a cinema, a museum or at home in front of a televi ion thearne pre uppo ition of the equali of intelligence applied by jacototto hi pupils in hi Lou ain I room. The r ult of this further act oftran lation 0 errurn twOprerni that are almo universally acceptedin the current r fl ction on contemporary art. In reference to DenisDid rot famous 1778 t xt entitled The Parado x of th e Comed ia n Ran-ciere wrote The Paradox of the Spectator in order to debunk a doubleindictment frequentl addr d to the traditional role of the audience.

irst as long as he si in the darkne arching the performancepr nted on the rage the sp ctator iconceiv d a a passive bingwhom countle scenographic devices throughout the twentieth cen-tury, have desp rarel tried to acri ate" (by blurring "the fourth wall"separating the stage from the audience b e posing or unsettling himby performing ob cene a uppo ed to rai his indignation his out-rage or any other form of (re)active participation). Secondly; all of themo t ignificant curren in modem art from Berthold Brecht andAnronin Artaud to the man reincarnation of agit-prop and "hap-penings have attempted to pull the pectator out of his position of awatcher ho would return to hi normal (and real") life after the briefpare nth i of an entertaining or thought-provoking how. in orderto pu h him to become a doer mo frequently a revolutionary agentgeared up to ta e 0 er the local inter Pala e.

On the two basic poin Ranciere go back to the le ons he drewfrom Jacotot in order to propo e two drastic rever al. e fir t inviteus to recognize in the pectaror the same active power of intelligencethat jacotot re ealed in his pupils: atching a ho is in itself a form of

36


13/13

(interpreti e) acti iry hich trigger count! operation of attentio ,election retention, anti ipation retrospection tran lation adaptationand 0on. He then ugges that a good number of modem artists (andart theori ) ha e indeed put them el e in the highly que tionablepo ition of the Explicator (i.e. of the Stultifier) by the very gesturethrough hich they pretended to pia the role of Emancipator. anyforms of evolutionary art - if not mo t of them - have treated theirp ctator ith the typ of conde cendence Jacotot denounced in theexplanatory tern of L a ' ieille. or only did the much-reviled apolo-

gi of ociali t Reali m (in i multipl a atar ) pretend to "explain"to the people hat it ought to understand in and in Society but thea ant garde i If cau of the e edge it introduced between theenlightened appreciator and the ignorant rna ended up portray-ing the ast majority of the pectato p ive and powerles foolsendle ly numbed by the 0 iety of the pectacle". uch attitudesr produc d the rulti ing e l i . ion be een tho who have Knowl dgeand Authority ( in the arts) and tho ho lack the power to understandand make proper (aesthetic) judgemen .Pr upp ing the equality of intelligence in this particular case, lead

us to presuppose an intelligence at or in each pectator: the typeslevels intensities qualities and therefore the value of the operationgen rated b an a thetic experience can obviou ly vary widely fromthe mo t con entional oap opera to the mo t tran gre ive theatrep rformance but a truly emancipator conception of the art mu t rec-ognize in each spectator of an gen e of show an active translator whocan - and more important] till ho do - find for herself a mean-ingful and If rearive appropriation of the material pre ented to her.

"Understanding i ne er more than nan laring, that i : giving theequivalent of a te : under tanding a ork of art unde tanding abook understanding The Ignorant Schoolmaster doe not con i t inxplaining it from a po ition of uperior kno ledge and authority butin tran laring it, in appropriating it within an activity of ( elf- a wellas ocial) tran formation that on tantl rewrites the book accordingto th er-changing demand of n iruarion . Itcould be said thatRan ier h con tandy re ritt n Ja otot tale and legend in hi laterpublications on politi and aestheti . It is up to our equally intellig nt(though e er bi ed) eading to con tantl rewrite hi books accordingto our current needs and de ire for emancipation.

Documents

deranty's ranciére key concepts pg 25 to 37