Upload
ngomien
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Gesture,Haltung,Ethos:ThePoliticsofRehearsal
SwenSteinhäuser
SubmittedinaccordancewiththerequirementsforthedegreeofDoctorofPhilosophy
TheUniversityofLeeds,SchoolofFineArt,HistoryofArtandCulturalStudies
May2016
3
Thecandidateconfirmsthattheworksubmittedishisownandthatappropriatecredithasbeengivenwherereferencehasbeenmadetotheworkofothers.Thiscopyhasbeensuppliedontheunderstandingthatitiscopyrightmaterialandthatnoquotationfromthethesismaybepublishedwithoutproperacknowledgement.©2016TheUniversityofLeedsandSwenSteinhäuser
5
Abstract
DrawingontheworkofWalterBenjamin,JacquesDerridaandSamuel
Weber,thethesisdiscernsatheoreticaldescriptionanddemonstrative
performanceoftheatricaliterabilityasthestructuralcrisisofmeaning
andmasteryinmediatedself-relation.Inthiscontext,theconceptofa
politicsofrehearsalimposesitselfasamodalityofacting,which
demonstrativelyaffirms,exposesandaggravatesaconstitutivebreachin
self-presencequamediation.Thethesislinksthismodalityofrehearsal
toaconcernwiththepoliticaleffectivenessofbearingcertaineffectsof
virtuality,possibilityandpotentiality.Asarepetitionthatmaintainsa
simultaneousreferencetothefutureandthepast,therehearsalis
furtherassociatedwithanattitudeofex-appropriationthatfollowsthe
taskofinheritanceasaperpetualre-workofmourning.Inactively
resistingalllimitedtendenciestowardsclosureandnon-sharinginthe
transmissionofculturalhistory,thepoliticsofrehearsalbecomesthe
modelattitudeofanamateur’sparticipatorydesire.Withbriefrecourse
toBernardStieglerthethesisdevelopsthefigureofan“amateur”who
perpetuallyseeksforrenewedpossibilitiesofatransformingand
transformativeparticipationinthesocio-individualde-constructionofa
precariousethosfromwithinanaffirmedpositionoflimitedsecurity.It
findsamateursatworkandplayinthecontextofBenjamin’swritingson
BertoltBrecht,FranzKafkaandtheGermanBaroqueTrauerspiel,aswell
astheperformancepracticesofYvonneRainer,GoatIslandandEvery
househasadoor.Intheirovertexposureofabody’sinextricablerelation
tothearchive,theseexperimentaltheatreanddancepractitionersare
foundtoemployamethodandstyleofappropriativerestrained,which
seekstodemonstrativelyre-launchaculturalinheritancebyaggravating
itsfutureresponse-ability.Thethesisanalysestheircompositional
strategiesofinterruption,citationandvirtualisationasanamateur’s
appealtotheparticipatorycomingofthenegativeinfinityofjusticeas
infiniteperfectibility.
7
ListofContents
IntroductionGesture,Vorstellung,Schwelle:RehearsingtheFuturetoCome. __11ChapterOneEngagingtheSelf-DeconstructionofSovereignty:Crisis,Finitude,Immanence,SwellingandAllegoryintheGermanBaroqueTrauerspiel. __57ChapterTwoTest-PerformancesintheTimeofReproducibility. __101ChapterThreeClumsyCreatures:WalterBenjaminintheBestiaryofEdwinaAshton. __147 ChapterFourOfSecretSignals,AbsentMastersandtheTremblingoftheContours:WalterBenjamin,YvonneRainerandtheRepeatabilityofGesture. __163ChapterFiveAVirtuosityofTrembling:TheBodyandtheArchiveinGoatIslandandEveryhousehasadoor. __189ConclusionAnAmateur’sCourage:CunningandHighSpiritsfortheTaskofInheritancethatRemains. __287Bibliography__299
9
ListofIllustrationsFig.1.SevenSiteslaunchparty,August2011.EdwinaAshton. __147Fig.2.WalterBenjamin,1937.PhotographedbyGisèleFreund. __147Fig.3.WalterBenjaminattheBibliotèqueNationale,Paris1937.PhotographedbyGisèleFreund. __155Fig.4.WarmHandofHistory(filmStill)2008,EdwinaAshton. __155Fig.5.MyBeautifulPot(filmstill),2008,EdwinaAshton. __161Fig.6.WalterBenjamin,1937.PhotographedbyGisèleFreund. __161
11
IntroductionGesture,Vorstellung,Schwelle:RehearsingtheFutureToCome
Thespaceofthetheatre,ofthestage,ofthetheatricalscene,is
definednotjustbyitsphysicalperimeterbutratherbythefarless
definable,heterogeneousotherstowhichitappeals,andwhich
throughtheirresponsivenessretroactivelymakeplacesinto
theatricalstages.[…]ItisthereforeaSchwelle,notinthesenseof
atransitionorintervalsituatedbetweentwofixedpointsor
places,butasazoneofindefiniteexpansionandinflationreaching
outtoothersonwhoseresponseitdepends.Thiszoneis
theatricalinbeinginternallysplit,dividedintospectacleand
spectators,stageandaudience,inseparableandyetdistinct.Such
anaudiencemarkstheintrusionoftheoutsideontheostensibly
self-containedinterioroftheplace,“swelling”it,asitwere,
inflatingit,makingitlargerthanlife,andyetalsodislocatingitin
principlebyrenderingitdependentonaperimeterthatis
essentiallydisplaceable,involvingnotjustotherplacesbutalso
othertimes.Foratheatreisalwaysalsoaplaceofmemoryandof
anticipation,wherewhathasbeenisrehearsedandrepeatedas
whatistocome.1
Schwelle
InLimitedInc–JacquesDerrida’selaborateresponsetoJohnR.
Searle’sconfrontational“Reply”tohisownreadingofthespeechact
theoryofJ.L.Austinin‘Signature,Event,Context’–Derridaexpressesat
morethanonepointanuncertaintyoverthespatio-temporallocatability
1SamuelWeber,Benjamin’s–abilities.(CambridgeMassachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress2008),235-6.
12
ofa“confrontation”,asheputsitalwaysininvertedcommas,ofwhichit
isdifficulttoascertainifitwillorwillhavebeenabletotakeplace.‘WhatI
likeaboutthis“confrontation”isthatIdon’tknowifitisquitetaking
place,’hesays,‘ifiteverwillbeable,orwillhavebeenable,quite,totake
place;orifitdoes,betweenwhomorwhat’.2ForDerrida,whattroubles
theplaceandthetaking-placeofthe“confrontation”isitsirreducibility
totwoidentifiableinterlocutorsoradversaries.Playingonthe
consequencesofageneralimpossibilitytoassurethelinkofanutterance
toitssource–thestructurallynecessarydriftinthefunctionofevery
markcutfromitsguaranteedarrivalatadestinedaddressaswellas
fromitscontextualaffiliationtoasourceof“origin”–Derridarepeatedly
referstotheauthor(s)oftheReplyasSarl,theFrenchabbreviationfora
“SocietywithLimitedResponsibility”.ReplacingthepropernameSearle
withtheacronymSarl,Derridaseriouslypokesfunatacertain,perhaps
over-seriouslegalandnarcissisticconcernwiththecopyrightofatext.
Hedoessothroughoutbyimpeccablyexplicatingaswellasplayfully
demonstrating–beginningwiththetitleofhisessay–thenecessary
limitsofallsuchcommonphantasmsoffiliation,ownershipandthe
possibilityofanarcissisticre-appropriationofmarksthatmustbeable
tostandthetestoftimeinordertobelegibleinthefirsttime.3For
Derrida,itispreciselytheimplicationsthatfollowfromthenecessary
temporalmovementofthemark’ssurvivalthatlinksthepossibilityofits
repetitiontoalterity.Iterability,Derrida’stermforthisgeneralstructure,
isnothingbut‘theirreduciblepossibilityofindefiniterepetitionas
2JacquesDerrida,LimitedInc.(Illinois:NorthwesternUniversityPress1990),37.3Elsewhere,Derridadescribesthecommonillusionofthepossibilityofnarcissisticreappropriationasfollows:‘Theinfiniteparadoxesofwhatissocalmlycallednarcissismareoutlinedhere:supposethatX,somethingorsomeone(atrace,awork,aninstitution,achild)bearsyourname,thatistosayyourtitle.Thenaïverenderingorcommonillusion[fantasmecourant]isthatyouhavegivenyournametoX,thusallthatreturnstoX,inadirectorindirectway,inastraightoranobliqueline,returnstoyou,asaprofitforyournarcissism’[DerridainPleshetteDeArmitt,TheRighttoNarcissism.ACaseforanImpossibleSelfLove.(NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress2014),93].
13
alteration,asareproductionthatconstituteswhatitrepeatsdifférance,
bothalteredandalterable’.4Theimmediacywithwhichthemarkbreaks
withanygivencontextofproductionbytheforceofthesheerpossibility
ofitsgraft,citationorcounter-signature,hauntsitfromthebeginning.
Thesignature–paradoxicallysingularyetiterablemark–asmuchas
everytextsigned,datedandsealed–echoesandcallsforththeother
timein(steadof)thefirst,‘thetimeandplaceoftheothertimealreadyat
work,alteringfromthestartthestartitself,thefirsttime,theatonce’.5
ThelimitedauthorialresponsibilityofwhichDerridathereforespeaks
springsfromaninevitablenetworkbetweenthe“same”marksin
differentcontextsthatalwaysliesinexcessofthelimitedcontrolofan
author’sconsciousintentions,orindeedanyother,moreorless
institutionaleffortsatcontainingitsstructuralover-determination.Put
differently,theplayofthetext,whichisalwaysalsoa(virtual)playofthe
inter-text–betweenothertimesandplaces,pastandtocome–cannever
befullycontainedbythecopyrightedsealofanauthor’sworkorany
historicalarchivalordisciplinaryschema.Instead,thenetworkofthe
inter-textsubjectsittoamultiplicationof“authorship”assomany
(possible)intrusionsoftheoutside.InthecontextofDerrida’sreadingof
the‘Reply’,thelatterstretchesandswells,fromtakingintoaccountthe
twopeopletowhomSearleacknowledgesacertaindebt,asDerridaputs
it,totheinfiniteexpanseof‘theentire,moreorlessanonymoustradition
ofacode,aheritage,areservoirofarguments[…]’towhichboth
interlocutorsofthe“confrontation”findthemselvesindebted.6
Thatthelinkofanutterancetoasourceoforiginanddestined
addresscanneverbefullysecuredisperhapsnowherebetterexposed
thaninthetheatre,wheretheproductionofspeechastheseeming
productionoflifeitselfisalwaysalreadysouffled,asDerridaputsitinan
essayonArtaud,thatis,‘spiritedaway’,bothpromptedandstolen,
notwithstandingthemostradicaleffortstopreventorovercomethis
4Derrida,LimitedInc,120.5ibid,62.6ibid,36.
14
structuralstateofaffairs.7ThespeechacttheoryofJ.L.Austin,theinitial
topicofthe“confrontation”,whichconceivesofanidealscenarioofa
fullysaturatedcontextthatwouldguaranteethesuccessofa
performativespeechactwithoutremainder,thusseesitselfrepeatedly
forcedtoexcludeanotherwiseacknowledgedpossibilityofatheatrical
parasiteabletoundermineeventhemostseriousintentionsby
relegatingittothestatusofthenon-serious.Oncehowevertaken
accountofasastructurallynecessarypossibilityandriskfortheminimal
functioningofthemark,thepossibilityoftheatricaldoublingalways
alreadythreatenstounhingethesecuritiesoftheproperfromwithinand
theuncertainspaceoftheatrebecomesubiquitous.Theriskofthe
theatricalparasitenolongermerelysurroundsaplaceofcontextual
containment‘likeakindofditchorexternalplaceofperdition’,but
intrudesuponit,liketheoutsideontheostensiblyself-contained,and
causesittoswellfromwithin.8Theatricalitymarksthisintrusionofthe
outsideontheinsidethatthesplitspaceofthetheatreembodies,making
ofeverymarkastageorratherSchwelle[rise,swelling,threshold],as
SamuelWebercallsitwithrecoursetothewritingsofWalterBenjamin
andalwaysinproximitytoarecastingofthetraditionalconceptionofa
medium,‘notinthesenseofatransitionorintervalsituatedbetweentwo7In‘LaParoleSoufflée’DerridagivesthefollowingcursoryaccountofaproposedunderstandingofthesemanticfieldofsouffléinthecontextofhisanalysisofArtaud’sTheatreofCruelty.‘Spirited[soufflé]:letusunderstandstolenbyapossiblecommentatorwhowouldacknowledgespeechinordertoplaceitinanorder,anorderofessentialtruthorofarealstructure,psychologicalorother.Thefirstcommentator,here,isthereaderorthelistener,thereceiverwhichthe“public”mustnolongerbeinthetheaterofcruelty.[…]Spirited[Soufflé]:atthesametimeletusunderstandinspiredbyanothervoicethatitselfreadsatextolderthanthetextofmybodyorthanthetheaterofmygestures.Inspirationisthedrama,withseveralcharacters,oftheft,thestructureoftheclassicaltheaterinwhichtheinvisibilityoftheprompter[souffleur]ensurestheindispensabledifféranceandintermittencebetweenatextalreadywrittenbyanotherhandandaninterpreteralreadydispossessedofthatwhichhereceives.Artauddesiredtheconflagrationofthestageuponwhichtheprompter[souffleur]spiritedaway[soufflé],wantedtoplunderthestructureoftheft’.[JacquesDerrida‘Laparolesouffleé’inWritingandDifference,212-245.(London:Routledge2001),220-1].8Derrida,‘Signature,Event,Context’,LimitedInc,17.
15
fixedpointsorplaces,butasazoneofindefiniteexpansionandinflation
reachingouttoothersonwhoseresponseitdepends’.9
SpectresofBertoltBrecht
Throughoutthefollowingreflectionsonthecitabilityofgesture,
thesignatureofBertoltBrechtconstitutesakindofprivilegedblind-spot,
themostovertlymissinglinkinanychainoffiliationofaninheriteddebt.
Althoughtheconceptofthegestureasitishereputtoworkbeginsits
lifeasamoreorlessdirectgraftfromthewritingsandtheatrical
experimentsofBrechtintheworkofWalterBenjamin–beforeitsecho
recedesfurtherinSamuelWeber’sreadingofBenjamin’sreadingof
Brecht–agenealogicalaccountofthischainoffiliationisneverpursued
directly.Instead,thefigureofBrechtfunctions,notasarepressedsource
oforigin,butasafaintorsilentcallofanalwaysalreadydistortedecho
thatkeepsonreturningitotherwise.Markingadisplacementwithinthe
referencetowhathasprecededit,theechoreturnsthespectresofBrecht
inwhatisalwaysamoreorlesstheatricalscenario,namely:staged,cited,
orated,appropriated,interpreted,embodiedin,throughandbythe
writingsofotherswhoareinturntherebysouffled.Inthisscenario,
Brecht’s“ownvoice”–aphraseinwhichonemusthearboththelimited
effectsofhisintentionsaswellasthesingularambiguityofhissignature
–willhavealwaysalreadybeencountersigned.Withoutthustaking
recoursetoBrecht“himself”,thatis,toamoredirectencounterwithhis
signature,Ineverthelesswanttobrieflyspeculateontheselective
movementofinheritancethatinformshisspectralreturningasitishere
readandrestagedpredominantlyintheencounterwithWalter
Benjamin.Beforeturningtothelattercontextmoredirectlyandbyway
ofitsanticipation,Iwilltakerecoursetotwoothercontextsthatintheir
ownstyleandscopeseektocontributetoandreflectupontheafterlifeof
BertoltBrecht.9Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,235.
16
TheLehrstückattheCrossroadsofEnlightenmentandUncertainty:
TowardsaTheatreofCo-productionandResponse-ability
Firstup,inarecent,smallpublicationontheatreandethicsthatis
broadinscopeandgeneralintone,NicholasRidoutoffersabriefyet
insightfulglossonwhatheseestobethedominantconflicting
dimensionsofBrecht’swork.ForRidout,Brechtisstandingata
crossroads,splitbetweenanemphaticcommitmenttoMarxismanda
theatricalpracticeputintheserviceofarationaldemystificationof
illusionismontheonehand,andalaboriousefforttopractically
experimentinopen-endedconditionswithalesslinear,lessteleologic
andlessuniversalizingpotentialofsocio-politicaltransformationonthe
other.Whereastheformercouldbesaidto‘place[…]histhoughtand
workfirmlyonthesideofprogress’andenlightenment,asRidoutgoes
ontosay,thelatterembodies‘adeliberatecourtingofuncertainty’.10
‘Eveninwhatarefrequentlyviewedashismostdoctrinaire,scientific-
socialisthardlinerworks,theLehrstücke(‘TeachingPlays’),’Ridout
asserts
[t]hisuncertaintyturnsouttobeatthecoreofhispractice.
Brecht’sisatoneandthesametimeatheatreofenlightenment
modernity,ideologicallycommittedtoprogressandtothe
realisationofuniversalgoals,andatheatrethatradically
challengestheverystructureofenlightenmentthought,through
aninterestinprocessandopenness[…].11
InRidout’sproposedreadingoftheLehrstücke,whatatfirstsightoften
lookslikeaparabledesignedtoteachthevirtueofacertaincauseof
actiononthelevelofcontent,quicklyfindsitselftroubledbytheformof
10NicholasRidout,Theatre&Ethics.(Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan2009),45.11ibid,45-6.
17
itsstaging.Whatmatters,ethicallyandpolitically,forBrechtandhis
inheritors,asRidoutproclaims,‘iswhatisdonewiththeatreitselfrather
thanwhatthetheatreisabout’.12Thequestionthatimposesitselfon
theatricalpracticewithandinthewakeofBrecht‘ishowyoumakeit,
andwhatrelationshipsyouestablishinthemakingofit(between
producers,consumers,actors,spectators,participants),[…]notwhat
messageorideologyyouaretryingtocommunicate’.13Theradical
mannerinwhichBrechtbeginstoexperimentwiththedestabilisationof
establishedrelationsofproductionandconsumptionindicateshowthe
Lehrstücke‘weremorecomplexandlessdidacticthantheyseem’.
AsReinerSteinweghasargued[…],theseplayswereactually
intendedasthebasisforaprocessofongoingrehearsal,inwhich
allpossibledecisionsandtheirconsequencescouldbeexplored.
Thetextisnotafinishedtextbutanopenfieldforaprocessof
improvisation,rewritinganddiscussion.This,ratherthanpublic
performance,ishowBrechtandhiscollaboratorssoughttocreate
atheatreforitsproducersratherthanforanaudienceof
consumers.Thepracticeoftheatrebecomesacollectivelabourof
politicalandethicalexploration.14
Yetaspartofhisradicalexperimentswiththeapparatusoftheatreunder
thebannerofits‘refunctioning’,Brechtnotmerelysoughttointerrupt
thepossibilityofconsumptionbyexcludingatraditionalaudiencefrom
theeventoftheatre,butbytransformingordinaryspectatorsintoco-
producers[Mitwirkende].That,atleast,isoneoftheargumentsof
Benjamin’sfamousrechannelingofBrechtinhis1934lecture‘The
AuthorasProducer’.Ridouttooseemstosuggestasmuchwhenhe
considersmorerecentconcernsofperformanceandperformancestudies
toputintoplay,identifyandchampiona‘re-activationofthespectator’
12ibid,49.13ibid.14ibid,48.
18
that‘[…]follows[…]atraditionwhichcanreadilybetracedbackthrough
Brecht’.15ForRidout,onesuchexamplecanbefoundinHans-Thies
Lehmann’sarticulationofatheatrical‘politicsofperception’asan
‘aestheticofresponsibility(orresponse-ability)’.16ThefactthatLehmann
identifiesthelatterinthecontextoftheatre’sproposedabilityto
interveneina‘world’sufferingfrom‘thepoliticallymalignconsequences
of[its]saturation[…]bymediainformation’herefurthermorerecallsthe
verycontextinwhichBenjaminisoftenfoundtotakerecoursetoBrecht
ortheatremoregenerally.17ForLehman,inanycase,asRidoutrelates,
theatre’sabilitytointerveneinthiscontextmustnotbesoughtatthe
levelofadirectpoliticaleffectbutcanbemoreadequatelyidentifiedas
anintervention‘atthelevelof‘perception’’,thatis,initsabilityto
‘[activate]acapacitytorespond(response-ability)’.18Indoingsoitcan
offeranalternativeexperienceofperceptionthanthatmediatedby
media,asLehmannputsit,whichheassociateswithalackof‘connection
betweenthereceivingandsendingofsigns;[…]ofarelationbetween
addressandanswer’.Theatre’spotentialontheotherhandliesprecisely
inchallengingthisostensibledisconnectionbyharnessingitscapacityto
‘movethemutualimplicationofactorsandspectatorsinthetheatrical
productionofimagesintothecentre[…]’,problematizingtherebythe
‘deceptivelycomfortingdualityofhereandthere,insideandoutside’.19
‘Wheretheinformationflowsoftheglobalmediatypicallyprecludeany
response(otherthanbymeansofbanalandpre-programmed
interactivity),’Ridoutsumsup,
theatremakesthepossibilityofresponsecentraltothewayit
functionsbyplacingactorsandspectatorsinthesamespaceas
eachotherandpermittingbothtounderstandthattheproduction
15ibid,59.16Lehmaninibid,57,(originalemphasis).17ibid,57.18ibid.19ibid.
19
ofimagesinthetheatreissomethinginwhichtheyare
collaborating.20
InthecontextofBenjamin’swritingsonBrecht,achampioningof
thelatter’sexperimentswiththeco-implicationofactorsandspectators
intheatricalproductionaresimilarlyemployedincloseproximitytoa
criticalevaluationofamodernmediaapparatus.Here,ageneralconcern
withthemeansofproductionovertheproduced,withthematteringof
thehowoverthewhat,splitsintotwodistinct,albeitprofoundly
interrelatedaspects:ontheonehand,anactiveinterventioninthe
institutional,socio-economicaspectsoftherelationsofcultural
production,andontheother,aphilosophicalcritiqueandpractical
experimentwiththeformalaspectsofrepresentationindifferent
media.21Asthepreviousformulationimplies,inbothinstancesitis
20ibid,57-8,(myemphasis)21Derrida,inabriefcommentaryonBenjamin’spolitico-aestheticattitudeofrefusingtomerelysupplyanapparatuswitharevolutionarycontentbuttobeginbyanalyzingandtransformingit,givesthefollowingsketchofthetwoaspectsoftheapparatusasIhereseektodescribeit:‘Theapparatusinquestioninvolvesnotonlytechnicalorpoliticalpowers,proceduresofeditorialormediaappropriations,thestructureofapublicspace(andthusofthesupposedaddresseesoneisaddressingorwhomoneshouldbeaddressing);italsoinvolvesalogic,arhetoric,anexperienceoflanguage,andallthesedimentationthispresupposes.[…]’[Derrida,‘TheDeconstructionActuality’inNegotiations.InterventionsandInterviews,1971-2001.ed.&transbyElizabethRottenberg,85-116.(Standford:StanfordUniversityPress2002),113].
TheanalysisandtransformationoftheapparatusthatBenjamincallsforanddemonstrates–thatis,makeshimselfamodelofbybearing‘theestablishedcodesofarticulationtowhichoneisnecessarilysubmitted,butwhicharealsosusceptibletochange’–amountstoanefforttoexposeandputintoplaythepossibilityoftheirde-sedimentationanddeconstruction.EchoingDerrida’sconcernswithidentifyingapoliticalgesturethatisirreducibletothelevelofcontent,SamuelWeberdistinguishessuch‘bearing’–atermthatmusthererecalltheterminologyofgestureingeneralandBenjamin’sanalysisofBrecht’srehearsableHaltunginparticular–asacertainlevelof‘beingpolitical’fromthatofpropositionalstatementsandelatesittothepoliticaleffectivenessof‘acertainthinkingofvirtuality,possibility,potentiality[…]–acertainvirtualizationofconceptualizationitself[and]of“meaning”’[Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,355].Apolitical
20
partiallyamatterofmatter,thatis,ofexposingtheopacityofthebodies
ofsignifiers,institutionsandtechnologiesofinscriptionofallkinds.In
his1934lecture‘TheAuthorasProducer’,heldbeforetheParis-based
InstitutefortheStudyofFascism,bothoftheseaspectsappearunderthe
headingofBrecht’sconceptof‘refunctioning’[Umfunktionierung],which
hasasitsaim‘thetransformationoftheformsandinstrumentsof
production’.22Whetherthroughtheaffranchisingofthemeansof
productionortheproductiverecastingofitsforms,Brecht’sconceptof
Umfunktionierung,asBenjaminrelates,‘raisesthefar-reachingdemand
onintellectualstonolongermerelysupplytheapparatusofproduction,
buttotransformitasfaraspossibleinaccordancewiththeinterestsof
socialism’.23Thoseinterests,accordingtoBenjamin’stext,mightbe
summedupbywhathedesignateswiththeconceptofparticipation,
collaborationorco-production[mitwirken].Forthetransformationofthe
apparatusofproduction,Benjaminstates,aimstoprovideother
producerswithanimprovedapparatus,thatis,onethatdirects
consumerstowardsproductionandisabletoturnreadersorspectators
intoparticipants[Mitwirkende]’.24Theauthorasproduceristhusnever
merelyworkingonhisproducts,butalwaysandatthesametimeonthe
meansofproduction.Hedoessobyaccompanyinghisdispositionwitha
demonstrationoftheattitude,postureorpose[Haltung]bywhichoneis
tofollowit.Itisthemodelcharacteroftheproductionasdemonstration
ratherthantheexperienceoftheworkassuchthathereinstructsbut
alsoenticesotherstoproduceandreproduceinturn,allthewhile
providingthemwithanimprovedapparatustodoso.
effectiveness,Weberadds,thatdoesseekto‘dispensewithmoreconventionalformsof“political”analysisandinterpretation,muchlesswith“politicalaction,”butthatcallsforthenecessityofthelatterto‘affectandpossiblytransformthegridswithinwhichsuchactionsandinterpretationsmustbesituated’[ibid,355].22WalterBenjamin,‘DerAutoralsProduzent’inGesammelteSchriftenBandII,683-701.editedbyRolfTiedermannundHermannSchweppenhäuser(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag1977),691.23ibid,691.Throughout,translationsofWalterBenjaminaremineunlessotherwiseindicated.24ibid,699.
21
Whatisatstake,hereaselsewhereinBenjamin’sinheritanceof
Brecht,isthebecomingopaqueofthemediumandtheproductionof
whatSamuelWebercallsinthecontextofhisreadingofBenjamin’s
writingsontheatre‘theproductionofthetheatricalprocessinits
distinctivemediality–Vorstellungasrepresentingbeforeratherthan
simplyasrepresentation–[….]’,‘theprocessofrepresenting(Vorstellung)
ratherthanthealternationofconcreterepresentations’.25Inthecontext
ofBenjamin’swritingsonBrecht’sEpicTheatre,towhichwewillsoon
turninmoredetail,thesestakesareraisedbothincontestationtoan
Aristoteliantraditionofdramathatsoughttorenderthemediumof
theatricalspectaclediaphanousanddrawthespectatorintoandalong
withtheprogressiveflowofnarratedevents,aswellasincreasinglytoa
modernmediaapparatusthatsimilarlyanddangerously,butnever
necessarily,precludesthecapacitytorespondtoitsrelentlessflowof
‘information’.Whetherthinkingofthetheatreorthenewmedia,for
Benjamin,thepossibilityofparticipationasresponse-abilityistobe
foundintheaftermathoftheinterruptionofareproducedflow.The
interruptionoftheconcatenatedstructureofsyntheticprogression
exposesthecomingbetweenofaspatialintervalthatbeginstoswell
underthevirtualintrusionoftheoutside,expandingandinflatingany
givencontextbyreachingouttoothersonwhoseresponseitdepends.
Bell-headedPinsofDistanciation:ReadingtheNoiseofMeans
“Without”Ends
Thesecondcontextemployedhereforthetaskoftracingpossible
trajectoriesofBrecht’sspectralreturningisRolandBarthes’essay
‘BrechtandDiscourse:AContributiontotheStudyofDiscursivity’.From
theoutsetBarthes’essayperhapsprovidesuswithanalibiforthevery
enterprisepursuedhere,namely,ofevokingBrechtintheabsenceofhis
signaturebeyondanysimple,violentbutnecessaryconsiderationsof25Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,115.
22
economy.For,accordingtoBarthes,Brecht‘neverallow[ed]himselfthe
facilityofsigningtheoriginofhisdiscourse[…]’inany“first”placeand
time;neitherinhisownname,norinthenameofthe‘institution’or
‘discipline’ofMarxismtowhichhewasotherwisecommitted.26For
BrechtianMarxism,asBarthesrelates,eschewsrecoursetoanyMarxist
catechism.ForBarthes,BrechtisapermanentinventorinMarxism,who
‘re-inventsquotations,accedestotheinter-text:“Hethoughtinother
heads;andinhisown,othersbesideshimselfthought.Thisistrue
thinking.”’27Moreorlesstruetohisownreflectionsontheinter-text
elsewhere,Barthesdoesnotherereferencethequotationthathe
neverthelessputsininvertedcommas.28Yetinanothercontexthe
attributestheverysamewordstoBrechthimself:‘Iwouldbesohappy,’
heclaimsinaninterviewwithClaudeJannoudfromJuly27th1974,‘if
thesewordsofBrechtcouldbeappliedtome:“Hethoughtintheheadsof
others;andinhisown,othersthanhewerethinking.Thatistrue
thought”’.29Inthissomewhattheatricalmisensceneofaproliferationof
headsthinkinginsideofotherheads,anoriginalsourceofthought
becomesdifficultifnotimpossibletolocate.WhatshieldedBrechtfrom
thedangerofanapologeticdiscourse,Barthesfittinglyrelates,was
doubtlessthetheatricalform,‘[…]sinceinthetheatre,asinanytext,the
originofthespeech-actcannotbelocated:impossiblethe[…]collusionof
subjectandsignified[…],orthe–hoaxing–collusionofsignandreferent
[…];’30Theatretherewithcomestofigure,notunlikeinJ.L.Austin’s
analysisofspeechacts–albeitnolongerrelegatedtothestatusofa
parasitismthatitwouldbepossibletowardofforovercomeonceandfor
all–asaparadigmaticspaceorcontextinwhichitisdifficult,ifnot
26RolandBarthes,‘BrechtandDiscourse:AContributiontotheStudyofDiscursivity’inBrecht,TheRustleofLanguage,212-222.(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress1992),213.27ibid,213.28SeeRolandBarthes,‘FromWorktoText’inImageMusicText,155-164.(London:FontanaPress1977),160.29RolandBarthes,TheGrainoftheVoice.Interviews1962-1980,trans.byLindaCoverdale.(NewYork:HillandWang1992),195.30Barthes,‘BrechtandDiscourse’,212-213.
23
impossible,toassurethelinkofanutterancetoitssource.Thetheatre
turnsoutaparadigmaticplacefortheexposureofthisstructuralstateof
affairs.Inturn,wherethelatterisexposedoutsidetheinstitutionof
theatre,theatricalityensues.Forifthepossibilityoftheatricaldoubling
thattroublestheeffectsof(self-)presencecannolongerberelegatedto
thestatusofanaccident,thetheatrebeginstopervadeeventhemost
“serious”contextsofarticulation.Bartheshimselfisquicktoabstracta
moregeneralisedtheatricalityfromthetheatricalformassuch,noting
thateveninhispoliticalessays,‘Brechtneverallowshimselfthefacility
ofsigningtheoriginofhisdiscourse’.31
31ibid,213.Asimilarabstractionwasalreadyunderwayintheearlier,ellipticalreferencetothe‘text’,which–likethetheatre–rendersthecollusionofsubjectandsignified,signandreferentimpossible.Here,itisperhapsworthconductingabriefdetourviaBarthes’moreelaboratereflectionsontheconceptofthe‘text’inhisfamousessay‘FromWorktoText’asitfurtherechoeswiththeabsenceofanidentifiablesourceoforiginofarticulationandlinksittothenecessityofreplacingareceptiveattitudeofconsumptionwiththatofproductionaswehaveseenitattributedtoBrecht’stheatricalexperimentsabove.‘Theintertextualinwhicheverytextisheld[…],’Bartheswarnsthereaderthere,‘isnottobeconfusedwithsomeoriginofthetext:totrytofindthe‘sources’,the‘influences’ofawork,istofallinwiththemythoffiliation;’Instead,thecitations,references,echoes,culturallanguagesfromwhichthetextisneverthelessentirelywoven,‘areanonymous,untraceable,andyetalreadyread:theyarequotationswithoutinvertedcommas’[Barthes,‘FromWorktoText’,160].WhetherornotwewanttosubscribefullytoBarthesprofessedwarningagainsttrying‘tofindthe“sources”[and]“influences”ofawork,’Derrida’smoresubtleanalysisglossedaboveshouldhavemadeitclearthatanysuchendeavourcannotpossiblyreducethe‘text’onceandforalltoasingleoriginandthatthetheatricalparasiteofadecontextualizedrepetitionisaconstitutivepossibilityofitslimitedfunctionas‘work’inthe“first”place.InBarthes’oppositionalschema,the‘work’isneverthelesswhattraditionally,inconjunctionwiththerelativelyrecentinstitutionoflegalcopyright,hassoughttoproducetheeffectofastrictfiliation,demandingrespectforanauthor’sintentions,aswellasaimingtoassertthelegalityoftherelationofauthortoworkastheconditionofcopyrightlaw.TheText,ontheotherhand,asBarthesputsit,‘readswithouttheinscriptionoftheFather’[ibid,160-1].Althoughtheauthormay‘comeback’intheText,inhistext,[…]he[…]doessoasa‘guest’[ibid,161].Intheencounterwithanorphanedtext,alwaysalreadydriftingawayfromthecontrolofitsauthor-Father,therespectpaidorhospitalityofferedtotheauthor’spossiblereturnmustthusatallpointsbenegotiated.Inotherwords,theTextnecessarily
24
FollowingBarthesonBrecht,thethreatoftheatreandtheatricalitytothe
functionofconstativeandperformativeutterancesiscriticallyputto
workinamovementofdistanciationofmarksfromtheelaboratelayers
ofcodesonwhichtheircontextualreceptiondepends.Inhisearlyessay
on‘WhatisEpicTheatre’,Benjaminsimilarlydescribessuchamovement
ofdistanciationincontestationtotheillusorypracticeofanaturalistic
stagethatmustrepressitsownawarenessofbeingtheatretodevote
itselfundistractedlytoitsgoalofrepresentingthereal[dasWirkliche].32
demandsalabourofreceptionthatcannotbereducedtothepassivityofamereconsumption.Barthesdriveshomethispointbyasserting‘thattheTextrequiresthatonetrytoabolish(oratleasttodiminish)thedistancebetweenwritingandreading[…]byjoiningtheminasinglesignifyingpractice’[ibid,162].ThelatterformulationresonateswithDerrida’sconceptionofaparadoxicalstructureofthecounter-signaturethatcomesbeforethesignatureandthus,wemightsayinadifferentregister,a‘reception’that‘produces’the‘work’outofthe‘text’,withouthoweverfullycontainingthelatter’splay.ThattheroleandtheforceoftheDerridiancounter-signaturealsoseekstoaccountforthehistoricalcodesofaninstitutedspaceofreceptionherechimeswiththeforceofthe‘text’aswhatJohnMowitt,inareadingofBarthes’essayamongstmanyothers,callsan‘anti-disciplinaryobject’.[JohnMowitt,TEXT.TheGenealogyofanAntidisciplinaryObject.(DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress1992)].Inexposingthenecessityofmoreorlessinstitutedcounter-signaturesfortheproductionofworks,theTextisatthesametimewhatwillalwaysremaininexcessofthework,callingforitsfuturereworkingquaresponse-ability.Remaininginexcessofitsdisciplinarycapture,theTextworksorplays‘afformatively’–amodalityofperformancethatisdemonstrativelyexposedtothecomingoftimebeyondanylimitedeffectsofpresence–beforeaswellaswithineveryworkandthuslendsitselftothecritiqueanddeconstructionofthefundamentalhistoricityofanygivendisciplinaryschemaandisabletoundermineallexistinglegalandlinguisticinstitutions.Inanycase,abolishingthedistancebetweenreadingandwritinghereseekstocontrastapracticeofreading(well)inthesenseofconsumptionwithapracticeof‘playingwiththetext’thatitselfalreadyplays.‘‘Playing’’,Bartheselaborates,‘mustbeunderstoodhereinallitspolysemy:thetextitselfplays(likeadoor,likeamachinewith‘play’)andthereaderplaystwiceover,playingtheTextasoneplaysagame,lookingforapracticewhichre-producesit,but,inorderthatthatpracticenotbereducedtoapassive,innermimesis(theTextispreciselythatwhichresistssuchareduction),alsoplayingtheTextinthemusicalsenseoftheterm’[Barthes,‘FromWorktoText’,162-myemphasis].32WalterBenjamin,‘WasistdasepischeTheater(1)’,VersucheÜberBrecht,7-21.(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag1966),10.
25
Epictheatre’scontinual,livingandproductiveawarenessofitselfas
theatre,ontheotherhand,Benjaminsuggests,enablesittotreatthe
elementsoftherealforthepurposeofatest-assembly.Ifitstaskmustlie
indepictingconditions[Zustände]ratherthanindevelopingactions,
theseconditionsstandattheendandnotatthebeginningofsuchatest
[Versuch].‘Theyarenotmadeaccessible[nahegebracht,lit.broughtnear]
tothespectator,’Benjaminconcludes,‘butaredistancedfromhim.He
recognizesthemasthetrueconditions[diewirklichenZustände],not,as
inthetheatreofnaturalism,withself-satisfactionbutwith
astonishment’.33BarthesfurtherdescribesBrecht’scriticalpracticeof
distanciationasonethatseekstoloosenanddissolvethestickinessof
thelogosphereandsimilarlylinksittotheaffectandeffectofacertain
shock.‘Brecht’sworkseekstoelaborateashock-practice[…]which
opensacrisis:whichlacerates,whichcracklesthesmoothsurface,which
fissuresthecrustoflanguages,’hesays,bydistancingrepresentation
through‘areadingwhichdetachesthesignfromitseffect’.34By
detachingthesignfromitseffect,wemightadd,suchareadingpractice
seesitselfconfrontedwiththeSchriftbild[writing-image]ofthebodyofa
signifierseveredfromitspresenteffectsofsignification.Suspendedasa
meanspoisedinrelationtothepossibilityofothereffectsofpresenceto
come,theSchriftbild,toevokeaformulationofWeber,beginstodance
underareaders’gaze.Brecht’sexpositionoftheopacityofthemeansof
mediation,thesignifyingbodyinitsnon-instrumentalpurityasameans
withoutaonceandforalldeterminableend,perhapsisabletofacilitate
suchadance.35WhetherinthecontextofBrecht’sdiscourseortheatrical
33ibid.34Barthes,‘BrechtandDiscourse’,213.35Althoughtheformulation–meanswithout(determinable)end–is,tobesure,neitherBenjamin’snorBarthes’onBrecht,ithereneverthelessrecallsanothercontextofBenjamin’swritingsthatseemscloselyrelatedtotheeffortsatexposingthemeansofrepresentationasbothattributeittoBrecht,whetherinthetheatricalformofhisdiscourseortheVorstellungofhistheatricalspectacles.ThatcontextisBenjamin’searlyessayonlanguage,whereheevokesanotionof‘purelanguage’thatisnotaninstrumentservingtheendofcommunication,butconsistsintheabilityoflanguagetoimmediatelycommunicateitsown
26
experiments,themeansofrepresentationsdonottransparentlygiveto
viewarepresentedcontentthatcouldbecognizedandconsumedonce
andforall.Instead,theencounteredmustberead,asBarthesnotes,
twiceover:areadingneverofthethingitselfbutofafirstreadingthatin
itsturnmustberead.AsimilardemandisexpressedinWeber’saccount
ofthe‘shocks’and‘surprises’bywhichEpicTheatreparalysesa
spectator’sreadinesstoidentifywiththeactionby‘depriv[ing]empathy
ofitsessentialprerequisite:awelldefined,self-containedplaceinto
whichitcanfeelandprojectitself[…].Therepresentative,mimetic
activityofepictheatrethussplitsandturnsbackonitself,’Weberrelates,
‘retracinginthisdouble-takeanintervalandagapbetweenthefunction
ofrepresentingandthatwhichisbeingrepresented’.36Indoingso,
Brecht’stheatreanddiscoursecouldbesaidtofacilitatewhatWeber
callselsewhere‘anencounterwithlanguageasamediumofexcess’.37
Brechtstagessuchanencounter,asBartheselegantlyrelatesit,by
leavingthebell-headedpinsofaJapanesedressmakerinhisremakingof
thelogosphere,‘thesignsfurbishedwiththeirtinyjingle:thus,whenwe
hearacertainlanguage,weneverforgetwhereitcomesfrom,howitwas
communicability,or,asWebertranslatesit–stressingtheimpliedmovementofaseparationfromitself–itsimpartibilityorpossibilityofpartingwith(“teilen=topart,“mit-“=with).Yetthequasi-transcendentalmovementofadeparturethat‘stays“with”,asWeberpointsout,‘thatfromwhichitsimultaneouslydeparts’herebeginsto‘establishesarelationtoitselfasother’[Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,197].Undertheconstitutiveimmediacyofits“-ability”tostaywiththatfromwhichitparts,the“purity”oflanguageasmediummightthusherealsobedescribedasaSchwelle[swelling],that‘zoneofindefiniteexpansionandinflationreachingouttoothersonwhoseresponseitdepends’[ibid,235].Asamediumitwouldbea‘meanswithoutend’onlyinsofar,Weberrelates‘astheword“without”definesarelationnotofsimpleexclusionornegation,butofparticipation“with”the“out”-sideofanirreducibleandyetconstitutiveexteriority’[ibid,197-myemphasis].36ibid,106.Thepassagecontinuesasfollows:‘Thelattercanneverbefullyabsorbedinto,orobscuredby,theformer,neverallowedtobecomefullyidenticalwithit.Andthismustbeseennotasadefectoftheater,butasitsresourceanditsreserve’[ibid,106].37SamuelWeber,‘TheFeelof“Today”’,TranscriptfortalkgivenatTheLondonGraduateSchoolSummerAcademyintheCriticalHumanitieson26thofJune,2013.
27
made:theshockisareproduction:notanimitation,butaproductionthat
hasbeendisconnected,displaced:whichmakesnoise’.38Thenoiseofthe
ringingbell-pinhereforegroundsthemedialityoflanguage–languageas
medium–anditdoesso,asBarthessuggests,byinterruptingthe
successive,concatenated,‘pseudo-logicofthediscourse–links,
transitions,thepatinaofelocution,inshortthecontinuityofspeech’and
itseffect‘ofakindofforce,[…]anillusionofassurance’.39Pushing
Barthes’discoursebeyondthecontextofhisessay,orelse,lettingitswell
byacertainintrusionoftheoutside,onemightconsideritscritiqueof
theillusoryeffectsofanassurancecausedbythe‘continuityofspeech’in
lightofDerrida’sdeconstructiveanalysisofthelonghistoryofa
disavowalofspatialityinthephantasmofauto-affectionassociatedwith
thetransparencyofthevoice.Fortheillusoryexperienceoftheself-
effacementofthesignifyingbodyinauto-affection,which‘necessarily
hastheformoftimeanddoesnotborrowfromoutsideofitself,’evokes
similarassurancesbasedonanidealsuccessivetemporalflow.40Thus,
Derridaisabletodesignatethephantasmandeffectofpuretemporality
–theeffacementofthesignifierinthespeakingvoice–as‘thecondition
oftheveryideaoftruth’.41AlthoughBarthes’reflectionsonerror’s
mendaciousproductionofanillusionoftruthseemstowanttoholdonto
anoppositionallogicthatisirreconcilablewithDerrida’smore
paradoxicaleffortatexposingthenecessarilyillusorystructureofthe
limitedeffectsoftruthitself,hisdescriptionoftheprocessofthetruth’s
“unveiling”isperhapsneverthelessfittinginthiscontextifapplied
beyondtheoppositionoffictionandnon-fiction,truthandlie.‘“To
unveil”’,Barthessays,‘isnotsomuchtodrawbacktheveilastocutitto
pieces’.42ForBarthes,theimageoftheveilisthusnotprimarily
associatedwithanactofconcealment,butwiththesmooth,thesustained,
38Barthes,‘BrechtandDiscourse’,214(originalemphasis).39ibid,216(myemphasis).40JacquesDerrida,OfGrammatology,trans.byGayatriChakravortySpivak.(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress1998),20.41ibid.42Barthes,‘BrechtandDiscourse’,216.
28
thesuccessive.Toattackthelatter,Barthesnotes,‘istoseparatethe
fabric,totearapartthefoldsoftheveil’.43Ifwhatisrevealedbysuch
perforations,istheerroroftheidealoftruthitself,Barthes’rhetoric
couldbesaidtofindanechoinDerrida’swidespreadconsiderationsof
thebreach,crack,rupture,fissure,split,holeandopeninginallthatis
ostensiblyself-contained.Inanycase,‘[t]hecritiqueofthecontinuum
(hereappliedtodiscourse),’Barthesrelates,‘isaconstantonein
Brecht’.44‘Brecht’stheatre,’hegoesontoexplain,
isaseries(notaconsequence)ofcut-upfragmentsdeprivedof
whatinmusiciscalledtheZeigarnikeffect(whenthefinal
resolutionofamusicalsequenceretroactivelygivesitits
meaning).Discontinuityofdiscoursekeepsthefinalmeaningfrom
“taking”:criticalproductiondoesnotwait–itwillbe
instantaneousandrepeated:thisistheverydefinitionofepic
theatreaccordingtoBrecht.45
TheAusfall[failure]ofaZeigarnikEffectandtheEinfall[intrusion]
oftheBeyond
InBarthes’account,thediscontinuityofdiscoursepreventsafinal
meaningfrom“taking”,thatis,tobesure,fromtakingplace,onceandfor
all,butalsofrombeing‘takenin’,orelse,frombeingconsumed,
appropriated,remembered-digested[erinnert]orreadwell,understood
orgrasped[begriffen]onceandforall.Onecannotsimply,passivelytake
itin[ein-nehmen]bymerelyperceivingit[wahr-nehmen]asa
(represented)realityortruth[Wahrheit],anobjectiveidentityora
transcendentalmeaningthatisatalltimespresentandtowhicha
43ibid.44ibid,217.45Ibid.
29
cognitivesubjecthasmerelytoarrivetherewhereithasalwaysbeen.46
Norisitpossible,asBenjaminpointsoutwithregardstothe
disturbancesofdiscontinuityinEpicTheatre,toevokeareader’s
readinessofempatheticidentification.Brechtdisturbsthepossibilityof
identification,understandingorconsumption,aswehaveseen,by
employingadouble-take–theretracingofanintervalandagapbetween
thefunctionofrepresentingandthatwhichisbeingrepresented–
demandingthateverysignbereadtwiceover,‘giv[ing]ustoread[…],by
akindofdisengagement,’asBarthesputsit,‘thereader’sgaze,not
directlytheobjectofhisreading;forthisobjectreachesusonlybythe
actofintellection(analienatedact)ofafirstreaderwhoisalreadyonthe
stage’.47AlthoughBrecht,asBenjaminrelates,oftenconsidered
accompanyingtheoccurrencesonthestagewiththepresenceofa
detachedthirdpartyasasoberobserveror“thinker”,thefirstreaderof
histheatreisalwaysalreadythebodyoftheactordistancinghimself
fromhisrole,speechandactionbyhis‘play-acting’[Theaterspielen].48
ThusdespiteBenjamin’sowndidacticexampleofanonstageintrusionof
astrangeruponthefamiliarbourgeoisfamilysceneasthecauseforthe
effectofalienationandtheconcomitantexposition,doubling,splitting
andtroublingofthegazeofthespectator,itdoesnotnecessarilydepend
onsuchadevice.Instead,itisthe‘Vorstellung[representing-before]of
Theaterspielen[lit.playingtheatre]’itself,inotherwords,theexposition
ofthelanguageoftheatreinitsdistinctivemediality,whichgivesreading
toberead.49‘[T]heactor’,Benjaminstates,‘mustreserveforhimselfthe
possibilitytoskilfullyfalloutoftherole’and‘insistatagivenmomentto
play[himself]thethinker(abouthispart)’.50Whatfacilitatesthisfall,is
the(self-)interruptionofan(intentional)act.
46Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,298-9.47Barthes,‘BrechtandDiscourse’,219.48WalterBenjamin,‘WasistdasepischeTheater(2)’inVersucheüberBrecht,22-30.(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag1966),24.49ibid,29&Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,115.50ibid,29(myemphasis).
30
ForBenjamin,itispreciselysuchaninterruptionofanagentinhis
ostensibleautonomousagencythatproducesthegestureasthedefining
aspectofBrecht’stheatre,thecomingbetweenofanimmediatemediacy
ofaposeandattitude[Haltung]asaspatialformofretention.‘[…]Epic
theatreisbydefinitiongestural.Forthemoreweinterruptanagent,the
moregesturesweobtain’.51Hereaselsewhere,Benjamin’sconceptof
‘interruption’,asSamuelWeberhaspointedout,findsitsfiliallinkinthe
Hölderliniannotionof“caesura”.Benjamindefinesthelatterelsewhere
asacounter-rhythmicalinterruptionthatbecomesnoticeableinthe
fallingsilentoftheherointragedy,thecontestationintherhythmofa
hymnandfinallyandmostaccuratelyastheinvasion[einfallen]of
somethingbeyondthewriterintothewriting.52Inthetheatre,suchan
invasionorintrusion[Hereinfallen]ofabeyondastheresultofan
interruptionofcontinuityfindsitselftemporarilyembodiedbyan
audienceaskedtoparticipateintheproductionofsingularly
discontinuousfragmentsintheircontextualrelationality.Ifthe
interruptionofactingagentsproducesEpicTheatre’sgestures,itiswhat
BenjaminwithBrechtcallsthe‘citabilityofgesture’thatimmediately
exposestheirstructuralnon-identityandappealtotherelationalmatrix
ofresponse-ability.Asthesingularityofthiscontextualrelation,
however,paradoxicallydependsonthepossibilityofthegesture’s
alteredrepetitioninothercontextstocome,the-abilityofaresponse
nevermerelylieswithanyonepresentaudience.Instead,theintrusionof
thebeyondontheostensiblyself-contained,oftheoutsideontheinside,
constitutesanimmediate(virtual)intrusionofthefutureonanygiven
presentthatfinds“itself”exposedinitsstructuralnon-identitytothe
possibilityofanopen-endedtransformation.Thetheatricalscenebegins
toswellandstretchundertheappeal[Einspruch]tothecomingofother
respondents,thevirtualpossibilityofitsgraftina‘spaceofalterity’.
Although‘[i]nthetheatre’,asWeberrelates,‘suchaspaceofalterityis51ibid,27.52WalterBenjamin,‘GoethesWahverwandtschaften’inGesammelteSchriftenBandI,125-201.(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag1977),182(myemphasis).
31
alwaysprovisionallyembodiedinand,evenmore,exposedasan
“audience”–singularnounforanirreduciblyheteroclitestand-in,[t]he
“audience”[merely]standsin,fortheothers,thosewhowereandthose
whowillbe–andperhapsevenmoreforthosewhowillnevercometo
be’.53
Gesture,Interruption,Citability:WalterBenjamin’sWritingson
EpicTheatreandtheVirtualityofMedia
IfthesignatureofBrechthereencountersusexclusivelythrough
itsmoreorlessdistortedechointhecounter-signatureofothers–from
RidouttoBarthestoBenjamin–theencounterwithBenjamin’swritings
onBrechtwillinturnalreadybeinextricablycaughtupwiththeirown
echointhewritingsofoneoftheirmostadmirablecontemporary
readers:SamuelWeber.FollowingwhatwemightcallwithBenjamin
himselftheafterlifeorliving-onofan‘original’textisperhapsnot
altogetherunjustifiedinacontext–namely,thecitabilityofgesture–
whichpursuesalogicofrepeatabilitythataccountsforthepossibilityof
thegesture’srepetitioninacomingspaceofalterityfrom“its”beginning.
Whatismore,asWeberpointsout,the‘historyofBenjamin’sattemptto
posethequestion“WhatisEpicTheatre?”isitselfmarkedbythevery
traitsthatconstitutehisresponsetoit:gesture,interruption,and
citability.Thetwoessayswiththesametitlewritteneightyearsapart,as
wellasthecitationsandreworkingsofpartsoftheoriginaltextforother
occasionsintheinterveningperiod,alreadymakeforahistoryofcitation
andrecitation,re-inscriptionandtransformationthatcanbereadasa
demonstrationofthatofwhichBenjaminiswriting.Ademonstrationthat
followBenjamin’sownappealin‘TheAuthorasProducer’–oneofthe
mostfamousoccasionsfor‘WhatisEpicTheatre?’sintermediate
reworking–namely,thattheproducermustnotworkmerelyonhis
productbutsimultaneouslyonthemeansandmodesofproduction.For53Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,341,
32
Benjamin,theworkonratherthanforagivenapparatus,beginsto
exposethelatter’smediacybydivorcingitfromtheinstrumentalgripof
adeterminingrelationtoanend.Contestingatraditionthatseeksto
conceiveofanostensibletransparencyofmedia,Benjaminboth
describesanddemonstratesthestakesofthelatter’sfundamental
opaquenessandspatiality.Here,themediumiswhat‘comesbetween,’as
Weberdescribesit,‘everythingthatwouldbepresenttoitself,’
interruptingandbringingtoastandstill‘whatwecommonlythinkofas
the“flow”of“life”’.54Suchaconceptionofthestill-standingopacityof
themediuminterruptingtheflowoflifeperhapsfindsitsdistortedecho
inJacquesDerrida’sdescriptionofthespacingoftimeandlife’s
precariousstructureof‘survival’.ThefactthatDerridahimselfsought
notmerelytodescribebutalsotodemonstratetheeffectsofspacingin
hisownwritingsfurthermorewarrantsthefollowingoftheirlooselink
withBenjamin’sworkasitisherepursued.55Followingthislink,the
doublemovementofDerrida’slogicofspacingbeginstoresonatewitha
similardynamicinscribedinBenjamin’sconceptofthe‘citabilityof
gesture’.Forifthemovementof‘timebecomingspace’seemstofindits
correlateinthesuspendedstandstilloflife’sinterruptedflow,the
immediatecounter-rhythmof‘spacebecomingtime’astheresultofa
structuraliterabilitythat‘disrupts‘theclassicaloppositionsof[…]the
factualandthepossible(orthevirtual),necessityandpossibility,’as
Derridaputsit,beginstoresonatewith‘what,forBenjamin,’asWeber
states,‘fromhisveryearliestwritingstohislast,canbedesignatedasthe
virtualityofmedia,mediaasvirtuality,’ofwhichthecitablegestureisa
crucialarticulation.56ForBenjamin,asWeberexplains,‘[t]hemediumis
54Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,113.55ibid,113.56ibid&Derrida,LimitedInc,48.IntermsthatstronglyechoBenjamin’sdiscussionofthecitabilityofgesture,in‘Signature,Event,Context’,Derridasaysofthewrittensignthatit‘carrieswithitaforcethatbreakswithitscontext,thatis,withthecollectivityofpresencesorganisingthemomentofitsinscription’[JaquesDerrida,‘Signature,Event,Context’inLimitedInc,1-23.(Illinois:NorthwesternUniversityPress1990),9].‘Thisbreakingforce,’hecontinues,‘isnotanaccidentalpredicatebutthevery
33
neversimplyactual,neversimplyrealorpresent,muchless“the
message”thatitseemstoconvey.Rather,itconsistsinthesuspensionof
allmessagingandinthevirtualitythatensues’.‘[…]Thisiswhythe
medium’,WebercontinueswithaformulationthatrecallsDerrida’s
uncertaintieswithregardstohis“confrontation”withJohnR.Searlwith
whichthesereflectionsbegan,‘inthissense,isneveranelementinwhich
thingswouldtakeplace,wouldtaketheirplace’.57Yetiftheflowoflife,
whetherinBenjamin’sorDerrida’sconstativeaccounts,isnecessarily
interruptedbythecomingbetweenofmedia,thelatternevertheless
seeminglylendthemselvestobeputtoworkintheillusoryreproduction
ofthisostensibleflow,whetherintheformofoldmedia–qua‘continuity
ofspeech’,theconcatenatedstructureofdiscourse,theincessantflowof
informationofthepressapparatus,aswellas,aswewillsoonsee,the
dramatictraditionofrepresentationalarrangementsofactionsintoa
plot–orindeedthemoresophisticatedreproductiontechnologiesofthe
newmedia:film,phonographyandtheirmostpotentapplicationinthe
(re)productionofanostensibleflowofradioandtele-vision.Inlightof
structureofthewrittentext’.Itconcernsbotha“real”context–acertain“present”oftheinscriptionthatmustabandonthemarktoitsessentialdrift–aswellasanyinternalsemioticcontextthatlimitsthedeterminationofthemark.As‘awrittensyntagmacanalwaysbedetachedfromthechaininwhichitisinserted[…]withoutcausingittoloseallpossibilityoffunctioning,’Derridasays,‘[o]necanperhapsfurthercometorecogniseotherpossibilitiesinitbyinscribingitorgraftingitontootherchains’[ibid,myemphasis].Whatismore,Derridadescribestheforcewithwhichthemarkrupturesany“originary”contextintermsthatheremustrecallthetypographicdiscretenessofthegesture’sofEpictheatre,thatis,theclearlyframedpose[Haltung]withadiscerniblebeginningandendthattheactormustbeabletoblockoutlikeatypesetterthewords[Benjamin,VersucheÜberBrecht,27].ForDerrida,inanycase,contextualruptureis‘tiedtothespacingthatconstitutesthewrittensign:spacingwhichseparatesitfromotherelementsoftheinternalcontextualchain(thealwaysopenpossibilityofitsdisengagementandgraft)butalsofromallformsofpresentreference(whetherpastorfutureinthemodifiedformofthepresentthatispastortocome),objectiveorsubjective’[Derrida,‘Signature,Event,Context’,9-10].Initsstructuralabilitytoseparatefromitscontext,themarknecessarilydepartsfromitself,thatis,thepossibilityofitsdriftunderminesfromthestartanyclaimstoitsself-identity.57Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,113.
34
thepowerfuleffectsofpresenceintrinsictothereproducedflowsof
differentformsofmediation,itisthusneverenoughtoexposea
medium’sopacityonameredescriptivelevel,butequallynecessaryto
practicallyinterveneonthelevelofitsoperation,inotherwords,to
perforatethesmoothnessofitsflowandexposethephantasmofits
ostensibletransparency.Inthisvain,Benjamin’swritingsonEpic
TheatrearelargelyconcernedwithBrecht’sinsightintothepolitical
necessityofinterruptingtheconstructedflowofanactionandits
narrativerepresentationinordertoexposethecomingbetweenofa
scenicmediuminitsnon-transparentspatiality.However,before
elaboratingonEpicTheatre’scomplexrelationtothedramatictradition
fromwhichitseekstosetitselfapart–evokingtherewiththepossible
analysisofdifferenttraditionsofinterpretingtheatreitselfasmedium–I
wanttobrieflyreflectonBenjamin’sinsistenttransferoftheverysame
termsofthedebatetothecontextofthenewmediaofhistime,most
notably,here,inthecontextofadiscussionofthenecessityof
interruptingthemedialflow,bylookingathisworkforandonthe
radio.58
58Benjamin’sengagementwithfilmanditstechniqueofmontage,ontheotherhand,isindeednotsomuchconcernedwiththepossibilityofemployingthelatterintheproductionofcontinuitybut,tothecontrary,focusonitseffectsofdiscontinuityandtheclashingofheterogeneities.Indeed,Benjamin’sreflectionsonEpicTheatre’sstop-startingdiscontinuousseriesofclearlydefinedspatio-temporalfragments,likensitsmovementtothatoftheimagesofafilmstrip.Inpartsthismayhavetodowiththerudimentarydevelopmentofthetechnologicalapparatusavailableatthetime,aswellasaparticularfocusonaspecificpotentialuseoffilmoveranother.Yetitmayalsolargelyhavebeenappliedwithrespecttoexamplesoffilmthatwerenotyetfullyabletoharnesstheuniqueeffectsofpresencethatcomefromcombiningthereproducedcontinuitiesofimageandsoundintheserviceofaconstructedphantasmoftheflowoflife.Aflowasithasperhapsbecomeprevalentintoday’scommercialnarrativecinema,andasithasbeenappliedmostpotentlyintoday’s“live”televisualbroadcasting.
35
ARacketAboutKasperl:ExposingtheNoiseofMediacy
Benjamin’sreflectionsonthe“newmedia”themselvesoftentake
placeincloseproximitytohisanalysisofEpicTheatreandaregenerally
keentoestablishaseriesoftrans-mediallinksthatidentifythereturn
andtransformationofthe“same”conflictualdynamicsatworkacross
medialformsofdifferentperiodsoftechnologicaldevelopment.Inthis
context,Brecht’stheatreoftenturnsoutasavenerabletest-siteforthe
notablyinter-medialpracticeofexposingageneralisedmediacyofthe
medial.Inanycase,theinter-medialaspectsofBenjamin’sreadingof
EpicTheatredefyprogressivenarrativesofadecisivebreakbetween
traditionanditstransformation,asWeberinsists,butidentifythebreak
asalwaysalreadyatworkwithinthattraditionitself.59ThatBenjamin’s
reflectionsonEpicTheatre’seffortsofinterruptingtheflowoflifewould
oftentakeplaceincloseproximitytoaconsiderationofradio,may
furthermorebespeakacertainawarenessthattheeffectsofpresencein
thereproductionsofanostensibleflowoflifeareperhapsnowheremore
palpablyfeltthaninthetechnologicalreproductionofthevoice.60
Theoreticallyandpracticallyreflectingonthepossibilitiesforwhathe
calls,forinstance,‘themutualcontrolof[theatreandradio’s]educational
program,’theradioistobecomeaprivilegedsiteforBenjamin’sown
effortstofollowthemodelcharacterofBrecht’sHaltungbyplayfully
‘refunctioning’itsmeansofproductionthroughhisownworkin
broadcasting.61Criticalofthenoblestandardsofeducationofradiointhe
WeimarRepublic,asKatjaRotherelates,Benjamin’sradioplay‘Radau
umKasperl’[AracketaboutKasperl],forinstance,constitutesan59Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,95-96.60Onthislatterpoint,fromadeconstructivepointofview,seeMichaelNaas,MiracleandMachine:JacquesDerridaandtheTwoSourcesofReligion,Science,andtheMedia.(Fordham:FordhamUniversityPress2011),139-151.61Benjamin‘TheaterandRadio’inWalterBenjamin,TheworkofArtintheAgeofItsTechnologicalReproducibilityandOtherWritingsonMedia.ed.byMichaelW.Jennings,BrigidDoherty&ThomasY.Levin,trans.byEdmundJephcott,RodneyLivingstone&HowardEiland,393-396.(CambridgeMassacusetts:HarvardUniversityPress2008),393.
36
‘exercise[Übung]intheuseofthenewmedium’thatdisplaysa
subversivetastefornoisypurposelessnessandundermines‘theself-
imageofradioturnedwithinstructionalintenttowardsawillingmassof
learners’.62Kasperl,theplay’scentralcharacter,whoannexestheradio
stationtodeliveraverbalslaptohisoldfriendSeppel,asRotheputsit:
‘isinterference,interruption,“Zäsur”[caesura]’.Intheverysenseofthe
intrusion[Hereinfallen,lit.‘falling-into’]’bywhichBenjamindesignates
thisterm,Kasperlcounter-rhythmicallyinterruptstheradioprogram.
Likethenoiseofthebell-headedpinsthatBarthesidentifiedas
disruptingtheconcatenatedassurancesofdiscourseinBrecht,here,
interference,noiseandstaticexposetheradio‘asamediumthatfrees
itselffromthegripofthesymbolic’.63Instead,itisexposedasnon-
instrumentalmeans,nolongermerelyandseeminglycommunicating
[mitteilen]aneducationalcontent,butimparting[mitteilen]itself
preciselyasatechnologyofimparting[TechnikderMitteilung].64Indoing
soitcomesbetween,notonlytheostensibleself-presenceofspeechof
thosespeakingontheradio,buttheillusoryassuranceoftheir
transparentmediation.Themediumofradio–aswemighthereputitin
aregisterthatrecallsDerrida’seffortstodisplacetheconceptionof
anothermedium,namely,‘thecurrentlyacceptedconceptofwriting’–is
thus‘nolongercomprehensibleintermsof[a]communicationinthe
limitedsenseofatransmissionofmeaning,[…andcan]nolongerbe
reducedtoameremeans,howeverpotent,extendingenormously,ifnot
infinitely,thedomainoforalorgesturalcommunication’.65
Havingalreadysoughttointerruptradio’sconcatenatedflowof
(educational)informationbytheintrusionofanoisypurposelessness,
Benjamin’splayfurthertroublesitsillusoryassuranceofthelinkofan
utterancetoitssourcewithafinaltwistofitsnarrative.Tohisownand62KatjaRothe,‘Nicht-Machen.Lassen!ZuWalterBenjamin’spädagogischemTheater’inÖkonomienderZurückhaltung:KulturellesHandelnzwischenAskeseundRestriktioned.byBarbaraGronau,AliceLagaay331-349.(Bielefeld:transcriptVerlag2010),333.63ibid,334.64ibid,336.65Derrida,LimitedInc,3.
37
thelistenerssurprise,attheendoftheplay,Kasperlawakesinhisbedto
findthatinhisabsenceradioemployeeshadinstalledamicrophone,
undetected,inhishouseandrecordedhistellingoftalestohiswife,now
pressedontoforeverrepeatablerecords.Theplayendswitha
demonstrationofthisveryfeatbyrepeatingapassagepreviouslyheard
undertheassumptionofits“liveness”.Here,thedramaturgicaldeviceof
arepetition,notunlikethatemployedinBrecht’stheatre,exposesthe
spectacleofKasperl’sracketandinterferenceasaneffectoftransferand
retention,orwhatRothecalls‘thelive-effectofradio’.
TheradiophonicKasperl-theatrerevealsitselfinitsmediacy
[Mittelbarkeit],initsmedialconditionsandabysses.Forinthe
enditbecomesunclearwhatitis,afterall,thatonehears.
Somethingappearsonthestageofthelocalradiostationthatis
notthere,thatiselsewhere,ofwhichnooneknows,ifitisnowor
past,immediateexperienceofthelive[Live-Erlebnis]orstored
recordings.Insteadofontologicalsecurity,whatappears[tritt
auf]intheradioistherecordingasrecording.Theradio-play
presentsitself[stelltsich[…]vor]asradio-play.66
AfformativeExappropriation
Exposingaprocessofrepresenting-before(vor-stellen)that
eschewstheassuredalternationofconcreterepresentationstakingplace
intheelementofatransparentmedium,thedouble-takeoftheVor-
stellungoftheradio-playasradio-playdemandsofitslistenersto‘read’
twiceover,compellingherorhimtotakeupanattitude,notonlytothe
reproducedcontent,buttotheexcessofaself-impartingmediacy.
Followingapedagogicalconceptthataims,inoppositiontoWeimar
radio’salignmentwithclassicaleducationalcontents,asRothesuggests,
‘atpracticing[Einüben]a“newattitude”’,itpurportstheperformative
66Rothe,339.
38
appropriationofanewmediuminthemedium’.67Indoingso,itfollowsa
didacticprogramthatBenjamindiscernedinthetheatricalexperiments
ofBrechtandhimselfdevelopedinhisessayonaproletarianchildren’s
theatre.Yetthe‘performativeappropriation’ofamediumthatcanno
longerbeconstruedasameanstoanendmustnecessarilybe
accompaniedbyasimultaneousattitude[Haltung]ofwhatwemight
designateasan‘afformative’‘exappropriation’.Whereasthelatterterm,
borrowedfromDerrida,describes‘thenecessaryfailureinthe
movementofappropriationtointeriorizethatwhichremainsoutside,
overthere,alwaysoutofreach,’68theformercomesclosetotheorderof
anattitudeanddescribesacertainperformativitybeforeorbeyondthe
performative,the‘pre-positional,pre-performative–and,inthissense,
afformative[mediality]’oftechnologiesofimpartingthatWerner
HamacheridentifiesandlocateswithrecoursetoBenjamin’stheoryof
languageandviolence‘aspriortoandininstrumentality’.‘[N]ever
primarilyorexclusivelythemeanstoprojectedendsortheimpositionof
suchends[…],’Hamacherrelateswithaformulationthatringswitha
politicsofbell-headedpinsofdistanciation,‘impartingisameanswhich
hasnoneedofpositingsandwhichmayundermineanyestablished
linguistic,politicalorlegalinstitutionatanytime’.69Benjamindevelops
histheoryofanirreduciblemedialityquaimpart-abilityinhisearlyessay
‘OnlanguageassuchandthelanguageofMan’from1916.Itishere,as
SamuelWeberrelates,inhiseffortstoelaborateanoninstrumental
conceptionoflanguageratherthaninhislaterstudiesofradio,filmand
photographythathisconcernwiththe“media”originates.70Theearly
studyonlanguage,asWebersuggests,‘leadsBenjamintoinsistonthe
irreducibleimmediacyofthemedial,’asithasherebeenpursuedinthe
contextofEpicTheatreandthecitabilityofgesture.67ibid,340.68DeArmitt,132.69WernerHamacher,‘AfformativeStrike:Benjamin’s‘CritiqueofViolence’inDestruction&Experience,ed.byAndrewBenjaminandPeterOsborne,108-136.(Manchester:ClinamenPress2000),115(myemphasis).70Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,118.
39
The“medial”is“immediate”inthesenseofnotbeing
instrumental.Themediamustaboveallbedistinguishedfromthe
means.Thisdoesnot,however,makeitanendinitself,unless
“end”isunderstoodnotasgoal,butasinterruption.71
InterruptingtheOstensiblyTransparentFlowofMediation:EpicTheatre,DeconstructionandtheAristotelianHeritage
Itispreciselyunderthebannerofsuchaninterruptionthat
BenjaminellipticallydifferentiatesBrecht’stheatrefromAristotle’s
conceptionofdramaandlinksittothepracticeofexposingthenon-
instrumentalimmediacyofthemedialaspectsoftheatricalspectacle.
Brecht’snon-Aristoteliandramaturgydoesnothoweversimplycontest
itsAristotelianheritage,butrepeatsitotherwise–followingastrategyof
‘transformationalcitation’,asWeberrelates,thatperformsoneofthe
centralthemesoftheessaysthemselves.Itdoessobyseveringthe
interruptionofthe“reversal”[parapeteia]fromitsendincatharsis,‘the
dischargeofaffectsthroughempathywiththemovingfateofthehero’.72
Suchanendsimply‘felloffandaway’[fielfort,fielweg],Benjaminsays
withanexpressionthatlinkstheEinfallofthecaesura–both
interruption(oftheflow)andintrusionoftheoutsideontheostensibly
self-contained–withaconstitutiveAusfall[failure]ofeschatology,the
absence,sotospeak,ofaZeigarnikeffectofaplotthatfailstounfold
itselfas‘asequenceofeventswithbeginning,middle,andend,addingup
toanintegrated,meaningfulwhole’.73Thegesture,asthedefinitivetrait
ofEpicTheatre,iswhatisconstitutedbyandasthisveryinterruption.
Whatitinterrupts,Weberrelates,isthat‘whicheversinceAristotlehas
beenconsideredtoformtheprimaryobjectoftheatreasadramatic
genre:namely,action.Ormoreprecisely:plot’.74‘Itispreciselysuchan
71ibid.72Benjamin,‘WasistdasepischeTheater(2)’,25.73ibid,21.74Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,98.
40
actionanditsnarrativerepresentationthatBrecht’sEpicTheatre,asa
theatreofgesture,interrupts.75WhatisalreadyimplicitinBenjamin’s
textbecomesmoreelaboratelyexplicatedinWeber’sre-readingof
ArtistotleandBenjamininlightofthelatter’swritingsonBrecht.In
Weber’saccount,Aristotle’spurportedconvergenceof“reversal”
[peripeteia]and“recognition”[anagnōrisis]seekstoimbuetragedywith
ameaningfulunitythatmayelevateitfromtheotherwisecontingent
mediumoftheatricalspectacle.Aristotletherewithwantstoconstruethe
mediumoftheatricalspectacleasameremeanstoanend,ascenic
mediumthat‘allowsmimesis[…]totakeplace,butonlytotheextentthat
itfadesintopuretransparency.[…]’.76Notonlyisthisconceptionof
theatreconcomitantwithAristotle’sdefinitionofmediaingeneral,but
also,asWeberpointsout,‘will[it]becomethetraditionalconceptionof
“media”assuch’,77namely,asatransparent‘spatialintervalbetweentwo
points,generallyanemitterandreceiver,orcorrelatively,a
manifestationanditsreception[…]bridg[ing]thedistancebetweenthe
two,betweenoriginandend,departureandarrival,andthereby
allow[ing]anindirectcontact,atransmissionorcommunication,totake
place’.78Derrida,aswehavealreadyseen,questionstheplaceandthe
takingplaceofacommunicationthusconstruedandseekstodisplacea
‘currentlyacceptedconceptofwriting’thatheidentifiesinpreciselythe
termsoftheAristotelianmedium,namely,asa‘communicationinthe
limitedsenseofatransmissionofmeaning,[…]ameremeans,however
potent,extendingenormously,ifnotinfinitely,thedomainoforalor
gesturalcommunication’.79InDerrida’sanalysis,themediumis
construedthiswaybyandrenderedmoreorlessacceptablefora
phonocentrictraditionthatseekstoadopttheseemingpriorityofthe
voiceinitsillusoryorphantasmaticexperienceofapuretemporalityas
theidealofsignificationingeneral,inotherwords,oftheexperienceof
75ibid,99.76Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,101.77ibid,100.78ibid,101.79Derrida,‘Signature,Event,Context’,3.
41
theeffacementofasignifierabletogiveaccesstotheproductivesource
ofsignificationitself.Thedeconstructionofphonocentrismcanthusbe
recastasacritiqueoftheseemingtransparencyofthemediumofthe
voiceinitsostensibleproximitytotheflowofaself-archivinglife:‘pure
auto-affectionthatnecessarilyhastheformoftimeandwhichdoesnot
borrowfromoutsideitself[…]’.80Ifthisphantasmofthepurityof
temporalself-relation,asNaassummarizesDerrida’sargument,‘is
radicallycontradictedby‘time’itself,[and]repetition,space,exteriority,
andtheotherarealsoessentialtotheconstitutionoftime[…],’thenthe
phantasmaticexperienceoflife’sostensibleflowwillhavealways
alreadybeenmediated.81ForDerrida,asNaasrelateswithrecourseto
thelatter,‘thechoiceisnotbetweenmediaandpresence’[…],because
‘thepresentationofpresenceitselfsupposesamediaticstructure’.82
Deconstructioninsistsontheopacityofallformsofmediation,which,
modelledontheidealconceptionofapuretemporality,moreorless
convincingly“pretend”toeffacethecomingbetweenofatechnological
apparatusandstructureofreproductioninordertopresenta
simulacrumof“realpresence”.83FollowingSamuelWeber’saccount,the
80Derrida,OfGrammatology,20.81Naas,MiracleandMachine,146.82ibid,150.83MichaelNaas,inreflectingonDerrida’sexpressedfascinationwithtelevision,tracesaspectrumofcontinuityfromthevoicetoTVastwoexamplesofmediawithauniquepowertoseeminglyeffacethemeansandmodesoftheirproduction,ormoreprecisely,oftheirreproduction.Theuniquepoweroftelevision,forDerrida,accordingtoNaas,liesinitsabilitytopresentthesimulacrumoflivepresencebylinkingtheimagetothevoiceandthevoicetoaliveevent.Indoingso,asDerridaputsit,televisionalwaysinvolvesaprotestagainsttelevisionandpurportstoshowthethingitself,“live,”directly,effacingthetechnologicalapparatusandthestructureofreproductionthatmadeitpossible[ibid,140].Here,thetechnologicaladvancementofwritingtechnologiesextendsthephantasmofthevoiceasanauto-affectivemediumquasound-recordingand,linkedtotheimage,pretendstogiveaccesstotheproductivesourceofsignificationitself.Thelanguageofaputativetransparency,self-effacementandpresumedauto-affectionappliedtotheuniquepoweroftelevision,asNaasnotes,arepreciselythoseusedbyDerridatodevelopacritiqueofphonocentrismattheveryoriginofdeconstruction.Forthevoice,inDerrida’searliestanalysis,hasalwaysalreadypresenteditself
42
traditionofsuchasimulatedeffacementcanatleastbetracedbackto
Aristotle’seffortstosubsumethescenicmediumoftheatre–opsis–to
synopsis,‘theactoftakinginthespectacle“withasingleview”,orelse‘as
ameansofperception,ofvision,andofunderstanding’.84
DialecticataStand-Still:ReadingAgainsttheFlowandGrainof
Meaning
IfAristoteliandramalegitimisesthescenicmediumoftheatre
onlyassynopsisandlocatestheessenceofthe‘theatron’inthesynthesis
ofperceptionthatitpermits,thegesturalformofEpicTheatre,as
Benjaminrelatesit,interruptstheconsequentsequenceofdramatic
eventsandfixesthemintoasuspendedseriesofframe-likeenclosuresor
Haltungen[stilledposesand/orattitudes].Theensuingtensionbetween
stillnessandtemporalfluxcreatesarhythmofdiscontinuitythatmoves
forwardinjoltsandjerks,asBenjaminputsit,‘comparabletotheimages
ofafilmstrip’.‘ThebasicformofEpicTheatre,’Benjaminsays,‘isthatof
theshockwithwhichthesinglecontrastingsituationsoftheplayclash
withoneanother’.85Thefactthatthestilledgesturefragmentisthus
neverthelesscaughtupwithina“livingflux,”Benjamincalls‘oneofthe
dialecticalfoundingfeaturesofthegesture’.86Benjamin’s“dialectic,”
however,asWeberremindsus,‘hereaselsewhere,isverydifferentfrom
themorefamiliarHegeliancategory,whichalwayshasthesynthesisof
conceptualcomprehensionasitsinformingandultimategoal’.87Instead,
thefixationthegestureestablishesthroughitsinterruptionofan
‘inawaythatseemstoeffaceitssignifyingbody,thatis,its’dead,mechanicalbody,givingaccesstothethingitself’[ibid,145].Inhearingoneselfspeakthesignifierwouldbecomeperfectlydiaphanousduetotheabsoluteproximitytothesignified,inatemporalprocessofsignificationpurifiedofallexteriorityorspatiality.84Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,99&101.85Benjamin,‘WasistdasepischeTheater(2)’,29.86ibid,32.87Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,100.
43
intentional,goaldirectedmovementremainssuspendedand‘singularly
extended’quacitability.For,asWebercontinues‘insofarasitiscitable,
thegestureinterruptsitself,andindeedonly“is”initspossibilityof
becomingother,ofbeingtransportedelsewhere’.88Notonlydoesit
interrupttheconstructedflowofnarrative,suspendtherushto
judgementandderangethedesireforidentification,butalsodoesit
initiate,asWeberformulatesit,adifferentsortofmovement,markedby
avirtualpossibilitynotdependentonitsactualrealisation.Distancingor
separatingitselffromitself,thecitablegestureexposesthebreachthat
structuresitspresentandimmediatelybeginstogesturetowardsits
possibletransformationintimeandspace.Apossibilitythatcomes
between“it-self”,interruptsthegesture’simmediatemanifestation,and
constitutesitassomething,asWebersays,thatcannotsimplybeseenor
understood.89Inotherwords,itcannotbecapturedorseized
(-ceptum),renderedpossessibleasanobjectofcognitioninaccordance
withamodelofperceptionasa‘movingthrough(per-)somethingto
arriveatwhatliesbehindit’.90Instead,followingademandforanotably
differentactivity,itmustberead.Althoughforonewhoisreading,
Webersays,cognitionsarealsoindispensible,‘theydonotprovide
anythingtoholdonto’.91Inthecontextofhisreflectionsonhisown
experienceofreadingBenjamin,Weberlikensthesituationofareaderto
‘someonewhostaresatthingsuntiltheybegintodance.Butinsteadof
disclosingtheiressencethroughtheirdance,theyseemto“implode,”
collapsingintoanendlessinteriorspaceandbecoming“secretsigns”
(Geheimzeichen)’.92Thelatterterm,borrowedfromBenjamin,isalso
employedbythelatterinatheatricalcontexttowhichIwillturninmore
detaillateron,namely,theessayona‘ProgramforaProletarian
Children’sTheatre’.There,Benjaminlinksthesecrecyofthesignaltothe
comingofthefuturewithaformulationthatitselfperhapsbeginsto
88ibid,103.89ibid,113.90ibid,298.91ibid,298-9.92ibid,299.
44
danceuponbeingread.Whenthinkingaboutthechild’sgeniusof
variation,Benjaminwritesofa‘secretsignal[geheimesSignal]oftheto-
come[desKommenden]thatspeaksfromthegestureofthechild’.93With
referencetothebriefpassagefrom‘ShortShadows’undertheheadingof
theGeheimzeichen,Weberfurtherlinkstheactivityofreadingtowhatwe
mightcallacounter-rhythmtotheprogressiveflowofcognitions.‘Not
theprogressfromcognitiontocognitionisdecisive,’hequotesBenjamin,
‘butratherthecrackandleap–theSprung–ineachoneindividually’.94
Tonegotiatethecrackandtaketheleapistoread.Toreadthenis
nottogowiththeflow,asonespeaks–orbelievesthatonespeaks–
butrathergroping,stumbling,interruptingoneself,likeanolder
personwhosesighthasweakenedbendsoveratext,followingits
movementwithherfingers,alwaysstoppinganew,butonlyin
ordertocontinue.Suchreadinggoesagainstthegrainofmeaning,
sothatthetextdoesnotdisappearintoitbutremainsasfigure:as
writing-image(Schriftbild).95
ThegesturesofEpicTheatre,whichstandstillandsuspendedinthe
interruptedflowofthesequenceofeventsdonotgivepassagetoa
perceptivemovementthroughthemthatwouldarriveatwhatlies
behind,forinstanceattheendofaplot’sresolution,butinsteadare
imbuedwiththespatio-temporalstatusofaremainingasfigureorimage
thatsurvives,quacitability,thesingularspaceofitsstaging.Inorderto
rendergesturescitable,Benjaminsayspreciselywithreferencetoa
certainSchriftbild,theactorofEpicTheatremustbeabletoblockouthis
gestures[Gebärden]likeatypesetterhiswords.96Onewaytoaccomplish
this,headds,isfortheactortocitehisowngestures.Brechthimselfhas
93WalterBenjamin,‘ProgrammeinesproletarischenKindertheaters’,GesammelteSchriftenBandII,763-767.(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag1977),769.94BenjamincitedinWeber,Benjamin’s–abilities,299.95ibid,(myemphasis).96Benjamin,‘WasistdasepischeTheater(2)’,27.
45
describedthelatterdevicetotheroleoffootnotesinatext,whichinthe
theatreareprovidedforarelaxedspectatoralongsidethehabitof
turningbackinordertocheckapoint.97TherelaxedaudienceofEpic
Theatre,nolongertenselyfollowingtheflowof(represented)events,isa
readingone.Intervalsbetweendiscontinuousfragmentsoftheremains
ofaplot,forceanaudiencetotakeupaposition[Stellungnahme]with
regardstotheinterruptedsceneanditsmodeofrepresentation.Caught
upinthemovementoftheimmediatemediacyoftheclearlyframed
spatio-temporalityofthegestureastheatricalmedium,ofthevirtuality
thatensuesfromitsappealtoresponse-abilitybeyondanygiven
response,theplaceofthispositionorstance[Stellungnahme]though
turnsoutanythingbutsecure.Foriftheaudience,likethegestureitself,
merelystands-in,asWeberasserts,thepositing[setzen]oftheir
responseimmediatelyfindsitselfdeposited[entsetzt].Theirsisan
encounterwiththetheatricalmediumasexcessandSchwelle.‘The
citabilityofgesture,’Webersays,‘interruptsitsimmediatemanifestation
andconstitutesitasinterruption,whichistosay,assomethingthat
cannotsimplybeseen,butthatcangiverisetoNachdenken,toafter-
thoughts,’forwhichreading,Webersuggests,isanotherword.98
Suchthoughts,Weberstates,‘considerthe“after,”theaftermath,
thecitabilityofthegestureasdisjunctiveanddiscontinuous.
Throughthisdisjunction,theessenceofthegestureresidesinits
tendencytoalwayscometoolate,andyetatthesametimenever
toarrivefully;itbelongstothefuture,neversimplytothepresent
ortothepast.Themodeofbeingthatcharacterizesthis
disjunctivetheatreofthefuture,therefore,isnotthatof
“necessity”orof“probability,”asAristotleinsisted,butratherthat
of“possibility”bothaspotentialityandasalterity:thepossibility
ofbecomingotherthanwhatiscurrentlypresentorpresented.
97CarrieLambert-Beatty,BeingWatched-YvonneRainerandthe1960s.(Cambridge:TheMitPress2008),63.98Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,105.
46
Butthisfutureisnotwhatoneexpects,whichonehopesto
foresee,tocalculateoreventobringabout.Itisunforeseeable,
unpredictable,unfathomable.Writingoftheindispensable
freedomofsuchtheatretoalter“historicalprocesses”intheir
staging,Benjaminobservesthatthe“accentsmustbeplacednot
uponthosemomentousdecisionsthatarelocatedatthevanishing
pointsofexpectation[FluchtlinienderErwartung],butonthe
incommensurable,thesingular.‘Itcanhappenthisway,butitcan
alsocomeaboutinanentirelydifferentmanner’–thisisthebasic
attitudeofanyonewritingepictheatre’.Paradoxically,perhaps,
whatepictheatredoesinbringingacertainhistorytoastandstill,
[…]istokeepopenthepossibilityofwhatisyettocome,whichin
German,asinFrench,isthenameassignedthefuture:Zu-kunft,a-
venir.99
TheUncertainPlaceofTheatreandtheTheatricalityoftheEthos
InWeber’swritingsonBenjamin’s-abilitiesand‘theatricalityas
medium’moregenerally,whichinmanyrespectshereformthestarting
pointforandarecloselyinterwovenwithmyownproject,thetheatre
takesonanambiguousstatusforitscloserelationtotheconceptof
theatricality,which,asWeberalerts,‘isnotthesameastheatre,although
alsonotseparablefromit’.Thepurportedinseparabilityoftheatricality
fromtheatreallowsWebertobringcertainexperiencesofworkinginthe
theatretoanostensiblyverydifferentcontext,namely,ananalysisof
texts,‘inwhichthereaderiscalledupontoplayanactivepart’.100Forthe
latter,Webersuggests,‘[…]atransformativeinvolvementofthereaderis
requiredinorderforthetext“itself”tofunction,justasan“audience”is
requiredforarepresentationtobe“theatrical”’.101Toconsiderthe
workingsofatextastheatrical,Weberproposes,countersanacademic
99ibid,105.100Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,ix.101ibid.
47
tendency‘tobeguidedbyanotionofalong-lasting,ifnoteternaltruth’,
withthe‘farmoreephemeral,morelocalized,andmoresingular’goalof
atheatricalproduction.Asthelattercanneverthelessbesubjectto
powerfuleffortsatcontainingsuchsituatedsingularities,whatstandsat
thecentreofWeber’sconcernis‘thetensionbetweentheefforttoreduce
thetheatricalmediumtoameansofmeaningfulrepresentationby
enclosingitsspacewithinanostensiblyself-containednarrative,andthe
resistanceofthismediumtosuchreduction’.102Weber,aswesaw,here
hasinmindthedominantaspectofanAristotelianconceptionofdrama
anditscontinualholdovercontemporarycommercialmediafrom
theatreandfilmtotelevisionandNewsproduction.Inthefinalchapterof
thethesis,Iwillfurtherlinkthislongtraditionofseekingtoforeclosethe
situatedappealtothesocio-individualco-productionoftheaccustomed
placeoftheethostoBernardStiegler’saccountofthe‘symbolicmisery’
ofourtimes,portrayedasamassofisolatedconsumersbarredfrom
participationintheproductionofculturalhistorybymonopolistmemory
industries.Thetheatricalpracticesunderconsiderationhere,aswellas
themediumoftheatremoregenerally,becomeaparadigmaticif
uncertainplaceforthedemonstratedresistancetothe
instrumentalisationofmediaandthepassivityofconsumption.For
Weber,whatallowsthemediumoftheatretoresistitsreductiontoa
meansinthefirstplace,however,ispreciselywhatassociatesitwith
languageormediaingeneral,namely,thepriorityofthesignifying
functionoverthatofrepresentation.Language’sabilityofsignifying,
whichitshareswiththeatre,Webernotes,
farfromreducingthematerialityandcorporealityoftheatre,[…]
markstheirirreducibility.[…T]heprocessofsignifyingalways
leavessomethingoutandsomethingover:anexcessthatisalsoa
deficit,orasDerridahasformulatedit,a“remainder”–unereste.
102ibid,x.
48
Itistheirreducibilityofthisremainderthat,ultimately,renders
languagetheatrical,andtheatricalitysignificant.103
IfWeber’sproject,apartfromafascinationwithanexperienceof
‘reading[texts]inthestrongsense,’findsanothersourceofinfluencein
‘theexperienceofworkingasadramaturginGermanproductionsof
theatreandoperaduringthe1980sand1990s,’thetrajectoryofhis
thoughtisneverthelessonethatharnessessparselyaccountedfor
experiencesoftheatricalpracticefortheclosereadingofphilosophical
anddramatictextsinordertodrawfromthemageneralisedconceptof
‘theatricalityasmedium’inthecontextofphilosophyandliterary
studies.104Yettherearealsosomeindicationsofthepossibilityfora
reversemovementofapplication,thatis,aharnessingofcertain
experiencesofreadingandworkingwithtextsthataretheatricaltoan
analysisoftheatricalperformancesthataretextual.Whereasmyown
trajectoryhasinitiallyalsobeenonethatbroughtpracticalexperiences
ofworkinginthetheatretothereadingofphilosophicaltexts,105itisthe
aspectofthislattermovementthatwillatleastimplicitlyguidemy
analysisoftheatricalpracticesunderconsiderationinthelaterstagesof
thethesis.Intheseanalyses–abriefengagementwithYvonneRainer’s
1960sexperimentsindanceandamoreprolongedreadingofthe
contemporarytheatricalpracticeoftheAmericanperformance103ibid.104ibid.105Inbrief:From1999to2002IattendedDartingtonCollegeArtstostudy(Devised)Theatreinapractice-orientedenvironmentrootedinatheatricaltraditionindebtedtotheexperimentsoftheNeo-Avant-Garde.Between2002and2009,beforeembarkingonapart-timeMAinCulturalStudiesandfinallythisPhDproject,Iworkedextensivelyasatheatrepractitioner,dramaturgandpart-timelecturerincontemporaryperformancestudies.Thus,albeitdevelopingaconceptualforcethatdoesnotdependontheseexperiences,therecurrenttermsofmyanalysis–i.e.gesture,Haltung,rehearsal–neverthelessresonatewith,carryandthusfacilitatethesurvivalofsituatedexperiences.Indoingso,followingastructurethattiessingularitytorepetition,theyallowforthepassagebetweendifferentyetinseparablecontextsandbecomethesiteofasecretencounter,abletogathertogetherandallowforasharingacrosstheabyssofabsolutelyheterogeneoussingularexperiences.
49
companiesGoatIslandandEveryhousehasadoor–thetextualityof
theatreliesattheheartofitsverytheatricalityandmustnolongerbe
opposed,asalongstandingtraditionwithinTheatreandPerformance
Studiesperhapshasit,toitsephemeral,localized,singular,corporeal
qualities.
Inhailingtheephemeralasthehallmarkofcontemporary
theatricalpracticeinstrongoppositiontotheperceivedpermanenceand
authorityof“writing,”“recording”andthe“archive,”thedisciplineof
PerformanceStudieshasoftenbeenseentolieinpursuitofwrestingthe
studyofperformanceawayfromthetraditionsofanalysisofthe
(dramatic)text.Suchanendeavourmightindeedbejustifiedifthelatter
isexclusivelyconceivedasguidedbyanotionofthelong-lasting,ifnot
eternaltruthofrepresentation.Yetifthelimitedfunctioningofthe
mediumoflanguageisconditionedonitsunconditionalopeningtothe
comingoftime,theexperienceoffinitudeandsingularitycannolonger
betheexclusive(paradoxicallyelusive)“object”ofPerformanceStudies.
Whatismore,thesimpleoppositionoftheexperienceoftheostensible
permanenceofwritingwiththeephemeralsingularityofperformance
tendstooverlookthelatter’sstructuraldependenceontheabilityof
performancetoremainotherwiseinthelongaftermathofitsresponse-
quaiter-ability.Inthedynamicscenarioofsuchanecessarily
transformativesurvivaltheexperienceofsingularitycanonlyeverbe
whatresistsyetneverthelessparadoxicallydependson“its”
repeatability.Assuch,thestructureaswellastheforceoftheatrical
experiencefindsitselfinextricablylinkedtothetextualdynamicofits
possibilitiesofremaining.Inemphasisingtheiterableaspectsof
theatricalpractice,thethesisimplicitlyfollowsandfurthercontributesto
whatCarlLavery,inarecentarticleforPerformanceResearch,has
identifiedasashiftwithinPerformanceStudiesfromalong-standing
infatuationwiththedisappearinglivenessoftheeventofperformanceto
aconcernwithitsuntimeliness,its“present”hauntedbybothitspast
andfuture.Whatismore,byfocusingonBenjamin’sconceptionofthe
citabilityofgestureandthetheatreasSchwellung,itcloselyfollows
50
Lavery’scallforanemphasisonthehauntingofthefuturethathe
identifieswithrecoursetoDerridaasanactofteleiopoesis–atelephone
callormessagetransmittedtodistantothers.Lavery’ssummaryofthe
possibleplaceforathoughtofteleiopoesisincontemporarytheatre
studies,albeitirreducibletomyprojectatlarge,mayneverthelesshelpto
indicateitspositionwithregardstolongstandingandon-goingdebates
ofthediscipline:
Therecentinterestinarchivesandre-enactmentsbytheatreand
performancescholarsandpractitionersinthepastdecadeorso
hasforeclosedpreviousdebates(perhapsevenobsessions)about
theauthenticstatusof‘live’versus‘recorded’performance.As
AmeliaJones,AdrianHeathfield,DianaTaylor,andRebecca
Schneiderhavearguedsoplausibly,performancenevercomesto
anend;itspresentisalwayshauntedbybothitspastandfuture.
However,inthisdominantattempttothinkofperformanceas
ruin,toposititasa‘dialecticalimage’or'specter'thatrefusesto
exitthescene,theonushasbeenlargelyplacedonthefirst
haunting–thehauntingfromhistory.Whattendstobeforgotten
inthisalternativeapproachtotheatrehistoriographyistheother
sideofthisanachronisticcoin:namely,theextenttowhich
performanceisengagedinanactofteleiopoesis,atelephonecall
ormessagetransmittedtodistantothers–ghostsfromthefuture.
AsDerridaexplainsinhisThePoliticsofFriendship,teleiopoesis
doesnotconsumethepresentinthenameofanHegeliantelos,
theresultofwhichisalreadypredetermined;ratheritburnsitself
upforthesakeofafuturewhosemeaningcanneitherbe
predictednorforetold,andwhichmightoffernew,unexpected
waysofbeing.106
106CarlLavery&LeeHassall,‘AFutureforHashima’inPerformanceResearch:AJournalofthePerformingArts,112-125(2015).20:3,112-113.
51
Iftheemphasisofanalysismightindeedshift,asLaveryproposesit,from
aconcernwiththehauntingofthepasttothatofthehauntingofthe
future,thisshouldnotdetractfromthestructuralinextricabilityofthe
two.Thethesisemphasisessuchinextricabilitywithrecoursetoa
conceptionoftheatreasrehearsal,adynamicprocessthatmaintainsa
simultaneousreferencetothepastandtothefuture.IndoingsoIfurther
seektoemploytheconceptofrehearsal,aswellasofthetheatreas
rehearsal,asamodelHaltungfortheparticipatorytaskofinheritance.As
aninstanceofpublicrehearsal,thetheatre,farfromclosingthelatter’s
dynamicofre-workingthepastasthecallforitsfuturetransformation,
furtheropensthiscalltothecomingoftheother’scountersignature.
Yetiftheatricality–theexposingofa(re-)inscribedpresenttothe
unmasterablecomingoftimeandtheother’sresponse–resultsfroma
generalcomingbetweenofmediaofinscriptionthatdividesandexposes
theostensibleself-presenceofindividualandcollectiveidentities,to
rehearsebyreworkingthesocio-individualfundoftemporalinscriptions
ofaninheritancemightbesaidtomerelyfollowthenecessarily
precariousprogramofwhatDerridahasdescribedasthegeneral
structureoflifeassurvival.Asurvival,aswemightsay,thatis
precariouslytheatricalfortheuncertaintiespertainingtotheexactplace
ofitstaking-place.Derrida’sdescriptiveandperformativeaccountofsuch
necessarilytheatricalexposuretotheotherforalllimitedself-relation
quainscription,alwaysentailsadeconstructionofsovereigntyandself-
mastery,thatis,of‘theself’sorthesubject’sabilitytoreturntoand
assertitselfinitsfreedom’[…],‘automobilicandautotelic,[…]ofitself,by
itself,giv[ing]itselfitsownlawwithitsownselfinview’.107Inlightof
107MichaelNaas,‘“OneNation…Indivisible”:JacquesDerridaontheAutoimmunityofDemocracyandtheSovereigntyofGod’inResearchinPhenomenology36,15-44(2006),20.TheperformativeorbetterafformativeaspectofDerrida’swritingstyle,whichcanoftenbeseentobeovertlyinvolvedwithitselfasstyle,committedto‘performativegestures’thatengagelanguageneversimplyasatransparentmeanstoanend,butratheraswhatwemightcallwithBenjaminthesetting–Schauplatz-forthestagingofthought,takesaccountofandplayswiththestructuraltheatricalityoflanguage.Hyperawareoftheunmasterable
52
suchageneralisedaccountoftheatricalityasthestructureofalllimited
socio-individualself-relation,theanalysisofapoliticsofrehearsal,
althoughattimesrootedtocertainpracticesandexperiencesoftheatre
asaprivilegedrealmofitsdemonstration,doesnotexclusivelydepend
onthem.Putdifferently,inordertodevelopthethoughtofapoliticsof
rehearsalitwillhavenotbeennecessarytogotothetheatreinthe
narrowsense.Andindeed,thethesisdoesnotalwaysgothere.Instead,it
seesthetheatreubiquitouslyemergeastheuncertainplaceofa
precariousorganisationofanethosinthethrallsofautoimmune
processesofself-deconstruction.Thus,beforeandbeyondthetheatrical
practicesunderconsiderationhere,theirreducibilityoftheparticipatory
callofnon-presentremaindersthatrendersinscriptioningeneral
theatrical–arche-writingasarche-stage–makesofthepoliticsof
rehearsalageneralisedpracticeofthesocio-individualco-productionof
anessentiallyprecariousethos.Bytheexpositionofitsstructuralcrisis
thatcannotberelegatedtothestatusofanaccident,the‘accustomed
place’or‘habitat’oftheethos,themoreorlessinstitutedorganisationof
(everyday)life,turnsintothedividedspaceoftheatre.Itisalongthese
linesthatIreadBenjamin’sfascinatedengagementwiththeGerman
baroqueandthewritingsofFranzKafkaasparadigmaticscenesforthe
threatandchanceofacrisisofexperience[Erfahrung]inthewakeofthe
comingundoneoftraditionalorganisationsoflifeduringthe
technological,spatial,industrialandphilosophicalupheavalsof
modernity.TheHaltungofapoliticsofrehearsalthatrespondstoanafterlifeofthemarksofatextinhisauthorialandauthoritativeabsence,Derrida’sstyleheedstoanattitude–herecloselylinkedtoaconceptiontheHaltungofapoliticsofrehearsal–thatSamuelWeberdescribesas‘themoreorlessdeliberateattemptofthinkingtolookoveritsshoulder,[…]toholditselfopentoitsheterogeneity,tosensitizeitselftothefactthatitdependsuponanalteritythatisneitheritspropertynorsimplyitsnegation’[SamuelWeber,MassMediauras:Form,Technics,Media.(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress1996),171].ForWeber,Derrida’sstyle‘impliesastructureoflanguageandaprocessofarticulationthatincludesapractical,performativemomentwhich[…]’,asheputsit,‘iswhereonehastostart–andprobablyend–ifoneistorespondtothetraceoftheother,tothatdimensionofalteritytowhichthinkingissoprofoundlyindebted’[ibid,171].
53
exposedstructuralcrisisofmeaning,self-masteryandinstitution
withoutseekingtoovercomeit,amountstothedemonstrated
affirmationoftheconstitutivelimitofsovereigntyasthecallforthe
perpetualreworkingofaninheritance.Itaffirmsandaggravatesthe
becomingopaqueofsedimented,habitualordersofsocio-individualself-
relationtorevealtheirfundamentalhistoricityaswellastobearthe
virtualintrusionoftheirfuturepossibilities.
TheAmateur
The‘accustomedplace’and‘habitat’oftheethos,thehouseand
homeandthebeingathomewithone-selfofamoreorlessfamiliarplace
ofdwellinginextricablyrelatestheexperienceofafamiliarspacetotime.
Relativespatialsecuritydependsonthetemporalpossibilitiesof
remaining,repetitionandreturn,oftheconstructionof‘customs’and
‘habits’thatrelyonthelimitedcontinuityofidentityquainscription.In
otherwords,theplaceoftheethosisnevergivenassuch,butemerges
throughandremainsdeconstructiblewiththemovementofspacing,the
becomingspaceoftimeandthebecomingtimeofspace.‘Withoutsuch
inscription,’asMartinHägglundnotes,‘therewouldbenothingtoretain
orprotend,nomediationbetweenpastandfuture,andconsequentlyno
perceptionorself-awarenessatall’.108Theethosthusspringsfroma
hetero-affectivescenebywhich‘thesubject[oraculture]canconstitute
itselfonlythroughinscription,[…]isdependentonthatwhichisexterior
toitself[…][:]arche-writingas“theopeningtoexteriorityingeneral”
sinceitstemsfromtheimpossibilityofanythingeverbeinginitself’.109If
arche-writingthusinscribesthemovementofidentityformationina
sceneofnecessaryexposure,theplaceofsuchamoreorlessprecarious
taking-placeisthatofanarche-stage,‘[t]hisbeingoutsideitselfoftime’
108MartinHägglund,RadicalAtheism.DerridaandtheTimeofLife.(StanfordCalifornia:StanfordUniversityPress2008),71.109ibid.
54
quaspacing.110Toinhabitthesceneofsuchaspatialisedexposure,upon
whichalllimitedidentityformationdepends,entailstheatricality,or
whatWebercallsa‘theatricaliterability’,thatis,amodalityofacting,for
which
[…]the“act”ofan‘actuality’[…]mustberepeatableinordertobe
enacted’.The“en-”of“enactment”isthusinseparablefromthe
implicit“ex-”ofaniterabilitythatcanneverbeself-contained.
“Theatricality”resultswhentheimpossibilityofself-containment
isexposedbyiterabilityasa‘scene’thatisinevitablya“stage,”but
which,assuch,isdeterminedbywhatwecalla“theatre”.111
Ifeveryhouse(ofbeing)hasadoor,thelatter’sopeningand
exposuretotheoutside(ontheinside)makesofitatheatricalstageor
podium.Onthispodium,IhearBenjaminsay,onemustmakeoneselfa
homeawayfromhome.Inotherwords,onemustcunninglymakedo
withlittleintheabsenceofthesecuritiesoftheproper.Whatemerges
towardstheendofthethesisisthattheexemplaryfigurebestequipped
forsuchfragilehome-makingendeavourswillhavebeentheamateur.
Thefigureoftheamateurperpetuallyseeksforrenewedpossibilitiesofa
transformingandtransformativeparticipationinthesocio-individual
constructionofaprecariousethosfromwithinanaffirmedpositionof
limitedsecurity.Albeitnotappearingbynameuntilverylateon,there
areothersthathereprefigurehisorhereventual“arrival”onthescene.
InChapter1,whichreadsBenjamin’saccountofthehistoricalsituation
oftheGermanbaroqueasanaggravatedexperienceofstructural
processesofself-deconstruction,itistheplotteroftheGermanbaroque
MourningPlaywhoturnsoutbestequippedtocontinuetoparticipatein
theconstructionoftheethosinthewakeofanepochalcrisisof
eschatologyandsovereignty.InChapter2,itisthefilmactorthatseeks
tosavehis“humanity”infrontofanapparatusbyhistest-performances
110ibid,72.111Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,341.
55
in‘thetimeofreproducibility,’whoisabletofindalimitedreachofplay
[Spielraum]byworking-withratherthanfortheapparatus.InChapter3,
Kafka’sassistantsandtheclumsycreaturesinthebestiaryofEdwina
Ashton–includingWalterBenjamin–canbefoundvulnerablyexposed
butneverthelessatworkinhigh-spiritedandcunningpursuitstofind
pathwayseverywhere.Chapter4bringstogetherthetheatrical
experimentsofBertoltBrecht,YvonneRainerandothersatJudsonDance
withBenjamin’saccountofthegeniusofvariationofthechildin
proletarianchildren’stheatre,fromwho’stesting,exappropriative
gesturesspeaks‘thesecretsignaloftheto-come’.112InChapter5,Echo’s
ruseofspeakingofandforherselfunderthetightconstraintofhavingto
followtheotherisalsothemodalityoftherestrainedappropriative
methodandstyleofthe‘non-performers’ofGoatIslandandEveryhouse
hasadoor,demonstrativelyrelaunchinganinheritance.Acrossthese
diversecontextsoftheatricalexposureinthewakeofepochalor
demonstrativeaggravationsofauto-immuneprocessesofsovereignty’s
self-deconstruction,theamateur’shighspiritedandcunning
participationbecomesamodelofresistancetothestultifying
transmissionofasealedinheritance.Revoltingagainsthisorher
reductiontoapassiveconsumer,theamateur’sreworkingofan
inheritancebyagestureofexappropriationthatcallsforthecoming
participationintheperpetualreconstructionoftheethoshere
constitutesthemodelHaltungofapoliticsofrehearsal.
112WalterBenjamin,‘ProgrammeinesproletarischenKindertheaters’,769.
57
CHAPTERONE
EngagingtheSelf-DeconstructionofSovereignty:
Crisis,Finitude,Immanence,SwellingandAllegoryinthe
GermanBaroqueTrauerspiel
Preamble:ThePoliticsofVirtualityintheContextofOntotheology
Topursuethethoughtofapoliticsofrehearsalistopursuethe
thoughtofwhatSamuelWebercallsthepoliticaleffectivenessof‘a
certainthinkingofvirtuality,possibility,potentiality[…]–acertain
virtualizationofconceptualizationitself[and]of“meaning”’.113
ThroughouthisreadingofWalterBenjamin’swritingsonBrecht,Weber
identifiesanddescribesthemodalityofsuchpoliticalbearingswith
referencetothegesturesofEpicTheatreasthemodalityofbeingofa
‘disjunctivetheatreofthefuture’.Nolongeradrama‘of“necessity”orof
“probability,”asAristotleinsisted,butratherthatof“possibility”bothas
potentialityandasalterity:thepossibilityofbecomingotherthanwhatis
currentlypresentorpresented’.114Interruptingtheexpressive
intentionalityofanaction,theteleologyofanarrative,orthecausal
necessityorprobabilityofasequenceofevents,thegesture’sarrestof
timeandofhistoryunderminestheauto-telosofintentionalitytokeep
openthepossibilityofwhatisyettocome.Thepossibilityofthegesture’s
citation–itscitability–intrudesuponitsevent,whichbeginstoswell
underthevirtualisationofitsnon-identity,thatis,itsstructural
dehiscenceasaninscribedpossibilityofalterity.Thediscretegestureof
EpicTheatre,afixedelementwithaclearbeginningandending,begins
toresembleawrittensyntagma,ofwhichDerridaistosayintermsthat113SamuelWeber,TheatricalityasMedium.(NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress2004),35.114SamuelWeber,Benjamin’s–abilities,105.
58
stronglyechoBenjamin’s,thatit‘canalwaysbedetachedfromthechain
inwhichitsisinserted[…]withoutcausingittoloseallpossibilityof
functioning’.‘Onecanperhapsfurthercometoseeotherpossibilitiesin
it,’Derridasaysofthesyntagma,‘byinscribingitorgraftingitontoother
chains’.115Yetthisrecognitionofotherpossibilitiesdoesnotdependona
horizonoftheirdeferredrealisation.Onthecontrary,itcanbe
recognized,Derridaasserts,‘eveninamarkthatinfactseemstohave
occurredonlyonce.[…S]eems,becausethisonetimeisinitselfdividedor
multipliedinadvancebyitsstructureofrepeatability’.116Weber,anavid
readerofBenjamin’spersistentandubiquitousconceptionofthe
virtualityofmediathatensuesfromthesuspenseofallmessaging–what
Derridamightdesignateasthe‘articulatorybreak,’‘theinterruptionof
addressasaddress’–alertstoandsketchesitsresonancewiththe
Derridianconceptionofiterabilitythusconstruedwithrecoursetothe
verycontextthatfirstbroughtthistermtothefore.Thatprivileged
contextisthetwoessaysthatretrospectivelymakeupDerrida’s
uncertain“confrontation”withthespeechacttheoristJ.R.Searle,
Signature,Event,ContextandLimitedInc.Yetthefactthatiterability,as
Webernotes,wouldremainoneofonlyafewterminologicalconstants
throughoutDerrida’ssubsequentwritings,togetherwiththeevidenceof
Benjamin’sproliferateuseofthesuffix-abilityforagreatvarietyofhis
mostimportantconcepts,seemsindicativeofastructuralresonance
betweenthesetwothinkersthatbyfarexceedsthespecificityoftheseor
anyothergivencontexts.Inwhatfollows,Ibrieflywanttogoinpursuit
ofthisexcess,bycursorilyindicatinghow,forbothBenjaminand
Derrida,aninterestinwhatWebercallsthepoliticaleffectivenessofa
certainthinkingofvirtuality,possibilityandpotentialityseems
inextricablylinkedtoasharedengagementwiththeinheritanceand
perhaps,aswemighthereputit,Umfunktionierung[refunctioningor
reworking]ofanAbrahamicreligioustradition.MichaelNaas,for
instance,speaksofthelaterDerrida’s‘constantemphasis[…]onthe
115JacquesDerrida,LimitedInc,9.116ibid,48.
59
ontotheologicaloriginsofsomanyofourseeminglynontheologicaland
evensecularconcepts’.117Similarly,SigridWeigeldescribeswhatshe
identifiesasoneofBenjamin’slifelongattitudesasa‘commitmentto
questionsthathaveescapedtheologyafteritlostitsprivilegedclaimto
interpretation’.118Tofurtherrenderasharedinterestinthestructural
thoughtofapoliticsofvirtualityinthecontextofgrapplingwiththe
continuousaftereffectofatheologicalorganizationoftemporal
experienceandits“secularization,”119Iwillbeginbyoutlininginminutia
howDerrida’s‘radicalatheism’120or‘radicalsecularity’121developsin
closerelationtothedeconstructionoftheontotheologicaloriginofthe
conceptofsovereignty.122Here,itwillbeamatterofindicatinghow
Derrida’scritiqueofthetheo-logicofsovereignty–whetheroftheself,
thenation-state,orGod–thatinessenceisthoughttobeindivisible,
unsharable,andunlimited,developsincloserelationtoaconceptionof
lifeasautoimmunesurvival.Thisunconditionalopeningtothecomingof
timeandnecessaryriskofcorruptability(astheonlychancefor
perfectibility)prohibitstherelegationofthefailureofsovereigntytothe
117MichaelNaas,MiracleandMachine,58.118SigridWeigel,DieKreatur,dasHeilige,dieBilder.(Berlin:Fischer2008),12.119ForBenjamin,secularizationpreciselydescribestheshatteringofsuchtemporalorganization–i.e.ofanotionofhistoryderivedfromtheChristianpromiseofindividualredemption–thatinvolves,aswewillseeinmoredetaillateron,‘theconversionoforiginallytemporaldataintospatialinauthenticityandsimultaneity’[WalterBenjamin,UrsprungdesdeutschenTrauerspiels.FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag1978,56].120SeeHägglund.121SeeMichaelNaas,DerridaFromNowOn.(NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress,2008).122‘RadicalAtheism–DerridaandtheTimeofLife’isthetitleofabookbyMartinHägglund.MichaelNaasputsforwardthenotionofa‘radicalsecularity’inhisessay‘Derrida’sLacïté’.WhereasIwillhaverecoursetoHägglund’sreadingofDerridathroughout,Naas’sreflections,althoughcrossingbutalsoperhapsexceedingthethemesdevelopedhereisneverbroacheddirectly.‘[Derrida’s]deconstructionoftheAbrahamicfiliationwascarriedout,’Naasargues,‘[…]inthenameofwhatIwillhazardtocallanoriginaryor,better,aradicalsecularitythatinscribesfaith(thoughnotreligion)attheveryoriginofthesociopoliticalandthus,Derridaargues,attheveryoriginofallsovereignty’[MichaelNaas,DerridaFromNowOn.(Fordham:FordhamUniversityPress2008),63].
60
statusofamereaccidentaswellasametaphysicalconceptionof‘history
andknowledge[…]asdetoursforthepurposeofthereappropriationof
presence’.123Finally,IseektoindicatehowDerrida’sultratranscendental
descriptionoftheautoimmunityoffinitudethatdeconstructsa
theologicaltraditionfromwithinmayfindinBenjamin’saccountofthe
epochalcrisisofChristianeschatologyduringtheGermanbaroquea
paradigmaticcontextofitsexperience.Farfromseekingtoreducethe
ultra-orquasi-transcendentalstatusofDerrida’sargumenttothatofan
empiricalhistoricalcondition,Iseektosuggesthowcertainhistorical
conditionsmightfavouritsempiricalexposure.124Here,theepochal
situationoftheGermanbaroque,asBenjaminandWeberdescribeit,
123JacquesDerrida,OfGrammatology,trans.byGayatriChakravortySpivak.(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1998),10.124HägglundemploystheterminologyoftheultratranscendentaltomarkDerrida’sinsistenceonthelimitlessgeneralityofdifferanceandthestructureofthetracethatappliestoallfieldsoftheliving.Tothinktheultratranscendentalconditionofspacing,Hägglundnotes,‘isthustothinkaconstitutivefinitudethatisabsolutelywithoutexception.Fromwithinitsveryconstitutionlifeisthreatenedbydeath,memoryisthreatenedbyforgetting,identityisthreatenedbyalterity,andsoon’[Hägglund,19,myemphasis].Indescribingtheultratranscendentalstatusoftheconditionofspacinganditsrelationtotheempirical,Hägglundpreciselyseekstosetitapartfromitsonto-theologicalreductiontoaFall,ametaphysicalmovethatrespondstothefactsofcorruptionbypositingalostoriginalplenitudeasarecoverabletelosinsteadofaccountingforitsnecessarystructuralpossibility:‘Iftimemustbespatiallyinscribed,thentheexperienceoftimeisessentiallydependentonwhichmaterialsupportsandtechnologiesareavailabletoinscribetime.ThatiswhyDerridamaintainsthatinscriptionsdonotbefallanalreadyconstitutedspacebutproducethespatialityofspace.Derridacanthusthinktheexperienceofspaceandtimeasconstitutedbyhistoricalandtechnologicalconditions,withoutreducingspacingtoaneffectofacertainhistoricalortechnologicalepoch.Ifspacingweremerelyaneffectofhistoricalconditions,itwouldsuperveneonsomethingthatprecedesitandthusadheretothemetaphysicalnotionofspacingasaFall.Spacingisratheranultratranscendentalconditionbecausetherehasneverbeenandwillneverbeaself-presencethatgroundsthepassagebetweenpastandfuture.Thatiswhyanymomentalwaysmustberecordedinordertobe.Theultratranscendentalmovementofspacingthusaccountsforwhythereisneitherabeginningnoranendtohistoricityandtechnicity.Theinscriptionsthattracetimearesusceptibletoallsortsoftransformations,anderasures,butthegeneralconditionofspacingcannotbeeliminated’[ibid,27,myemphasis].
61
comestofigureaspecifichistoricalcontextthatseemsparticularly
receptiveorproneto‘theeffectsofdeconstruction.’Furthermore,ifthe
contextoftheGermanbaroque,asIwanttosuggest,is‘mostvulnerable
tocertainautoimmuneorself-deconstructiveprocesses,’theTrauerspiel
perhapsconstitutesamodelforanattitudeof‘theirthoughtful
engagement’.125Putdifferently,onthelevelofexperience,thesituation
oftheGermanbaroqueasBenjaminconceivesit,becomesaparadigmatic
sceneofanincreasingdifficultytodisavowaconstitutivefinitude,
vulnerabilityandexpositiontotheunpredictablecomingoftime.The
responseoftheGermanbaroqueTrauerspiel[MourningPlay]tothis
epochalcrisisofeschatology–thatWeberwilldesignateasanallegorical
theatricalization–isonethatnolongerseekstoovercomethiscrisis
onceandforall.Assuch,itnolongerfallswithinatheologicalconception
ofhistoryasadetourforthepurposeofthereappropriationofpresence,
orelse,withinanarrativeoftheFallandaconceptionandexperienceof
timeasthemoreorlessregulatedpathtowardssalvation.Instead,it
mightbesaidtoresembleanattitude[Haltung]thatnolongerdisavows
theconditionalnatureofsovereigntyinlightofaconstitutivefinitude
andthestructuralstatusofthecrisisofmeaning,butbeginstoaffirmthe
essentialplayofastructuralundecidability.Benjamin’sowninterestin
125Naas,FromNowOn,109.Tobesure,thecontextfromwhichIhaveheregraftedcertainformulationsofMichaelNaas,whichareputforwardsinrelationtomorecurrenthistorico-politicalsettings,hasverylittletodowithours.Thus,whenNaasspeaksabouta‘thoughtfulengagement’ofthethemesofdeconstructionasopposedtocertainself-deconstructiveprocesses,heislikelytobespeakingaboutanengagement,albeitperhapsirreducibleyetneverthelesscloselyrelatedtothereceptionofandresponsetoDerrida’swork.Inourcontext,a‘thoughtfulengagement’withtheself-deconstructiveprocessofanepochmight,inthefirstinstance,comedowntoitsmereaffirmation.Thus,ofanavowalofthelimitsofsovereigntythatconstituteanalternativetoaparanoidreflexthatwantstoreclaimandreassertthephantasmofanindivisibleandomnitemporalsovereigntyinthewakeofitshistoricalcrisis.Asaresponsetotheexperienceofacrisisofsovereignaction,itengagesthiscrisisthroughthedisjunctivegestureofa‘calculationwiththeincalculable’.[seeJacquesDerrida,‘ForceofLaw:TheMysticalFoundationofAuthority’inCardozoLawReview11(1989-1990),trans.byMaryQuaintance,947].
62
theGermanbaroqueisofcourseanythingbutmerelyhistorico-
empirical.Togetherwithhiswritingsonmodernityandtheapplication
ofageneraltheoryofallegory,asHowardCaygillhaspointedout,it
formspartof‘abroader“theological”critiqueofhumanism,’andthus
preciselyofatheologicalinheritancethatcontinuestoinforman
ostensiblysecularizedconceptoffreedomasself-masteryandcollective
historicalprogress.126YetforallofBenjamin’seffortstosharply
demarcatehishistoricistoperation‘fromwhatmightgenerallybe
consideredtobeempiricalhistory,’asSamuelWeberinsists,‘thelastis
bynomeansunimportanttothewayinwhich[he]approachesthe
relationshipbetweenallegoryandtheater,towhichhisinterpretationof
modernitywillremainindebted’.127ThatthecontextinwhichBenjamin,
asIwanttoargue,accountsofthisempiricalhistoryasaprivilegedscene
fortheexposureofthestructuralparadigmofthevirtualityofmedia,is
theonenotableexceptiontohisotherwisewidespreademploymentof
thevirtualizingsuffixof–ability,seemsatfirstperhapscounter-intuitive.
Yet,asWeberpointsout,‘[a]lthoughBenjamindoesnotemploysucha
formulationinthattext[TheOriginofGermanTragicDrama],onesuch
shinesinitsabsence:thenotionof“Deutbarkeit,”theabilitytosignify
and/ortobeinterpreted.“Deutbarkeit,”’asWeberputsitwitha
formulationthatreturnsustothestructuralthoughtof(apoliticsof)
virtuality,‘isthesilentbutvirtualmediumofallegory’.128
126HowardCaygill,‘WalterBenjamin’sConceptofCulturalHistory’TheCambridgeCompaniontoWalterBenjamined.byDavidFerris,73-96.(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress2006),49.127Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,162.128Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,331.AsBenjamin’sthesisispreciselyatpainswithdismissingacommonlyheldviewoftheTrauerspielasabadcoverversionoftragedybydiscerningitsself-consciousdifferentiationfromthelatter,theEnglishtranslationofTrauerspielwith‘tragicdrama’seemsunfortunateatbest.AmoreliteralandmorepotenttranslationofTrauerspielwouldbeMourningPlay.InwhatfollowsIwillkeepreferencestotheTrauerspielintheGermanoriginal.
63
LearningHowtoLive/Die:Derrida’sRadicalAtheismandthe
AporiasofSurvival
OnemustnotstrayfarfromthecentralargumentsofSignature,
Event,ContextandLimitedInctofindtheconceptionofiterabilityasthe
necessarilyinscribedvirtualpossibilityofalterityofawrittensyntagma
ormarkingeneralatleastimplicitlylinkedtotherefutationofareligious
desireforabsoluteimmunity.InthecontextofSignature,Event,Context
thelatterseeminglyinformswhatistherecalledacertainphilosophical
traditionthataccountsforthefailureofcommunicationonlyatadistant
outsidefromthepresupposedsimplicityofanoriginalessencethat
alwaysremainsrecoverableasarcheortelos.Incontrast,Derridaseeks
torevisethestatusofthisfailureofcommunicationandcommunionby
seekingtoaccountforthepossibilityofcorruptionastheverycondition
foritslimitedsuccess.Forthenecessarymovementofidealizationthat
guaranteesthefunctioningofthemarkbeyondthedeathofitsauthoror
addresseeisatthesametimewhatmustcompromisethestrictideality
ofthemarkandthetotalarrivalofacommunicatedcontent.Only
throughthestructuralopeningontoanunmasterablealterityqua
iterabilitydolimitedeffectsofpresenceormeaningbecomepossiblein
thefirstplace.Intheessay,Derridabrieflyalertsustothefactthatthis
generalstructuremustnotbelimitedtoanynarrowlydefinedfieldof
communication,butisinfactthelawof“experience”ingeneral:
Thisstructuralpossibilityofbeingweanedfromthereferentor
fromthesignified(hencefromcommunicationandfromits
context)seemstometomakeeverymark,includingthosewhich
areoral,agraphemeingeneral;whichistosay[…]the
nonpresentremainder[restance]ofadifferentialmarkcutoff
fromitsputative“production”ororigin.AndIshallevenextend
thislawtoall“experience”ingeneralifitisconcededthatthereis
64
noexperienceconsistingofpurepresencebutonlyofchainsof
differentialmarks.129
ThelatterformulationhintsatDerrida’sconceptionoflifeassurvival
thatspringsfromthenecessarymovementofthetracingoftime.
Hägglundeloquentlysummarizesthisdoublemovementofspacingas
follows:
Giventhatthenowcanappearonlybydisappearing–thatit
passesawayassoonasitcomestobe–itmustbeinscribedasa
traceinordertobeatall.Thisisthebecoming-spaceoftime.The
traceisnecessarilyspatial,sincespatialityischaracterisedbythe
abilitytoremaininspiteoftemporalsuccession.Spatialityisthus
theconditionforsynthesis,sinceitenablesthetracingofrelations
betweenpastandfuture.Spatiality,however,canneverbein
itself;itcanneverbepuresimultaneity.Simultaneityis
unthinkablewithoutatemporalisationthatrelatesonespatial
juncturetoanother.Thisbecoming-timeofspaceisnecessarynot
onlyforthetracetoberelatedtoothertraces,butalsoforittobe
atraceinthefirstplace.Atracecanonlybereadafterits
inscriptionandisthusmarkedbyarelationtothefuturethat
temporalizesspace.ThisiscrucialforDerrida’sdeconstructionof
thelogicofidentity.Ifthespatialisationoftimemakesthe
synthesispossible,thetemporalisationofspacemakesit
impossibleforthesynthesistobegroundedinanindivisible
presence.Thesynthesisisalwaysatraceofthepastthatisleftfor
thefuture.Thus,itcanneverbeinitselfbutisessentiallyexposed
tothatwhichmayeraseit.130
AgainstaconceptionofspacingasFall,Derridathusgoesontospellout
inLimitedIncthenecessitytoincludeinanyphilosophicaldescription–
129Derrida,LimitedInc,10.130Hägglund,18.
65
‘i.e.inwhatisdescribed,butalsointhepracticaldiscourse,inthewriting
thatdescribes’–‘notmerelythefactualrealityofcorruptionandof
alteration,butcorruptability[…]anddissociability,traitstiedto
iterability’.131Withreferencetowhatwemightheredesignateasthe
performativeaspectofapracticaldiscourseoract,Derridatherewith
proposesacertainmodalityofdoing,anattitudeandstyle,anethico-
politicalbearingoftheeffectsofvirtualisationintheproductionof
meaningasthenecessarilyinscribedpossibilityofiter-asalteration.In
theabsenceofaneschatologyofmeaning-to-say,thatis,‘thetelos,which
orientsandorganizesthemovementandthepossibilityofafulfilment,
realisation,andactualisationinaplenitudethatwouldbepresenttoand
identicalwithitself,’withoutforegoingalldesirefortemporalremaining
andhoweverlimitedeffectsofpresence,onemustbearaparadoxically
essentiallimittoone’sintentionalityandtheaporiasofresponsibility
thatspringfromit.132Tobearsuchaconstitutiveexposuretofinitudein
theabsenceoftheconsolingnarrativesofadeferredpossibilityof
redemptionistodemonstrateanecessaryrefutationofthereligious
valueoftheunscathed,thepureandtheuntouched,thesacredandthe
holy,thesafeandsound:absoluteimmunityasthesupremely
131Derrida,LimitedInc,78.132Inbrief,Iamherethinkingoftheaporiaattheheartoftheexperienceofhospitality,justiceanddemocracy,whicharealwaysalsoexperiencesoftheimpossibleandtheundecidableimpassebetweenanunconditionalhospitalitytothecomingoftime(andthustoajusticeanddemocracythatmustremaintocome)andthelawswhichcometolimitandconditionitinitsinscriptionasalaw.Inasfaraspureunconditionalhospitalityexemptsfromallresponsibilityitcannotamounttoapoliticalconcept.Derridathereforedoesnotdenythenecessityof‘defensivemeasures,’asHägglundputsit,thattry‘toreckonwithunpredictableandpotentiallyviolentevents.’Home-makingendeavoursthatmusthoweverremaindeconstructableasthey‘mayalwaysturnouttobeinadequateandarefundamentallyexposedtotheundecidablecomingoftime,whichcanchallengeoroverturnwhathasbeenprescribed’[Hägglund,40].Derridafittinglydescribestheimprobableyetnecessaryexperienceofanimpossiblejustice[butthesamecanbesaidforhospitalityanddemocracy]asamomentinwhichthedecisionbetweenjustandunjustisneverinsuredbyaruleandthusrequiresacalculationwiththeincalculable[Derrida,‘ForceofLaw’,947].
66
desirable’.133Inotherwords,itisthedescriptionanddemonstrationof
thefactthat‘[f]initudeis[…]notanegativelimitationthatpreventsus
fromhavingaccesstothefullnessofbeing,’but‘[o]nthecontrary,[…]is
anunconditionalconditionthatmakesthefullnessofbeingunthinkable
assuch’.134Theexperienceofanessentialexposuretofinitude
constitutesachallengetosovereigntythatisboththreateningandfullof
hope.‘[A]utoimmunity,’theessentialcorruptionoftheostensibly
unscathed,
isnotanabsoluteillorevil.Itenablesanexposuretotheother,to
whatandtowhocomes–whichmeansthatitmustremain
incalculable.Withoutautoimmunity,withabsoluteimmunity,
nothingwouldeverhappenorarrive;wewouldnolongerwait,
await,orexpect,nolongerexpectoneanother,orexpectany
event.135
‘Derrida’scrucialmove,’Hägglundsummarizes,
istomobilizetheunconditionalexposuretowhathappens–to
whateverorwhoevercomes–inordertodeconstructtheconcept
ofsovereignty.Iftherewereasovereigninstance,nothingcould
everhappentoitsinceitwouldbecompletelygiveninitself.The
conceptofsovereigntyisthuspredicatedontheexclusionoftime.
AsDerridaputsitinRogues,“sovereigntyneithergivesnorgives
itselftime;itdoesnottaketime”.Whiletheindivisiblepresenceof
sovereigntytraditionallyhasbeenhailedasabsolutelife,Derrida
underscoresthatitisinseparablefromabsolutedeath.Without
theexpositiontotime,nothingcouldeverhappenandnothing
couldemerge.OrasDerridawritesinOfGrammatology:“pure
presenceitself,ifsuchathingwerepossible,wouldbeonly133Hägglund,8.134ibid,30135JacquesDerrida,Rogues:TwoEssaysonReason.(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress2005),152.
67
anothernamefordeath”.Absolutesovereigntyisthusnota
desirableconsummationthatisunattainablebecauseofour
humanlimitations.Absolutesovereigntyisunattainable,
unthinkable,andundesirablebecauseitwouldextinguishevery
traceoflife.136
Iterability,astheessentialopeningofeveryeffectofpresenceor
meaningtothepossibilityofitscorruption,isthusanothernameforthis
structural,autoimmunechallengetosovereignty.Asthechance/threatof
temporalsurvival–thebecomingspaceoftimeandthebecomingtimeof
space–itconditionstheexperienceoftimeonanunmasterablealterity.
Asaparadoxicallyrepeatablesingularmarkofaparticularplaceand
time,theiterable‘signature’isabletoremaininspiteoftemporal
successionontheconditionofthepossibilityoftheother’s‘counter-
signature’.Anyostensiblyindivisiblepresenceofasovereigninstance
findsitselfcompromisedfromitsinceptionbyitsnecessaryexposure
quarepeatabilitytothecomingoftime.‘InsayingthisIwishtobe
recognized,’Derridasaysinaninterviewtoperhapsexpressadesirefor
alimitedeffectofsovereignty,onlytoadd:‘butwhatIhavesaidis
somethingthatIcannotreappropriate’.137‘WhenIsaythis,’Derridagoes
ontosay,‘IknowIamspeakingofmydeath[…]whereIwillnolongerbe
abletoreappropriatethefuture.Onlyamortalcanspeakofthefuturein
thissense,agodcouldneverdoso’.138Giventhatthelimitof
reappropriationisalsotheconditionforanythingtoarriveinthefuture
andthusfortheaffirmationoflifeasanecessarilycompromisedsurvival,
Derrida’sradicalatheismspellsout,asHägglundinsists,notonlythat
Goddoesnotexistbutalso‘thattheimmortalityofGod,’aswellas,
concomitantly,theindivisiblepresenceofsovereignty,‘isnotdesirablein
thefirstplace’.139Thecrisisofmeaningandmeaning-to-say,toreturnto
136Hägglund,20-30.137JacquesDerrida&MaurizioFerraris,ATastefortheSecret.trans.byGiacomoDonis.(Cambridge:PolityPress2001),23.138ibid.139Hägglund,8.
68
thecontextandrhetoricofSignature,Event,Context,‘isnotanaccident,a
factualandempiricalanomalyofspokenlanguage,itisalsoitspositive
possibilityandits“internal”structure,intheformofacertainoutside’.140
Withthisconceptionofastructuralfailureofcommunicationasa
necessarilyinscribedpossibilityofdissociation–andthusof
dissociabilityastheconditionofalllimitedassociation–weareperhaps
notfarfromacertainexperienceofisolationandTrauer[sadness,
melancholy,mourning]asBenjamindetectsitinthewakeofan
institutionalcrisisoftheGermanbaroque.Thecrisisofeschatologythat
followstheReformation’srejectionof“goodworks,”deprivesthe
institutionsoftheChurchandthestateofthe‘powertoendowcollective
lifewithameaningthatcouldcomprehendandsurpassindividual
mortality’.141Theallegoricalmodeofperceptionandsignificationthat
Benjaminidentifiesasamodelresponsetothisdifficulttemporal
experience,mustthereforeanswer‘totheproblematicsituationofan
isolatedselfanditsdifficultrelationtothecommunity’.142Withthisin
mind,itseemsnoteworthytoseeDerrida,whenpromptedinan
interview,toreadilyassociatehisconceptionoftheconstitutively
precariousformofallassociationwithwhathetherecalls‘acommunity
thatdoesnotconstituteitselfonthebasisofacontemporaneityof
presencesbutratherthroughtheopeningproducedby[…]
allegoresis’.143Derridagoesontodefinethelatteras‘theinterpretation
ofatextnotgiven,notclosedinonitself,aninterpretationthatitself
transformsthetext’.144Toparticipateinsuchongoingtransformationsof
140Derrida,‘Signature,Event,Context’,11.141Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,171.142ibid,168.143Derrida&Ferraris,24.144ibid.‘Wewouldhave,then,’Derridagoesontosay,‘acommunityofwritingandreading–acommunitythatwouldbeboundbyatestamenttothelawthatisneithergiveninadvancenorunderstoodinadvance.[…T]heforceofthefuturethathastobeatworkinithastobeaforceofdisruptionnolessthanaforceofintegration,aforceofdissensionnolessthanaforceofconsensus.Whycallitacommunity?[….]IfIhavealwayshesitatedtousethisword,itisbecausetoooftentheword‘community’resoundswiththe‘common’[commun],theas-one[comme-un]’[ibid,24-
69
atextandlawnotgiveninitselfistochallengethedominantbutfarfrom
sovereigneffortsofitspolitico-institutionalclosure,aswellaslearning
howtodie,thatis,howtoaccepttheradicalfinitudeofeveryartofliving.
Learninghowtofinallylive,Derridasaysinalastinterviewsaturated
withtheimminenceofhisowndeath,‘oughttomeanlearninghowtodie
–toacknowledge,toaccept,anabsolutemortality–withoutpositive
outcome,orresurrection,orredemption,foroneselforforanyone
else’.145Andyet,heclarifiesandproblematizes,albeitbelievinginthis
truthheisunabletoresignhimselftoit.‘Ihaveneverlearnedtoacceptit,
toacceptdeath,thatis,’hesays.146Derridatherewithdescribesthe
experienceofanaporia,orelse,thestructureofexperienceasaporia–
betweentheacceptanceandinacceptanceoftheradicalimmanenceof
mortallife–andlinksthenecessarygestureofitsbearingtothe
structureofaparadoxicalsurvival.Ontheonehand,resignedtothe
absenceofallguaranteestothe(positive)outcomesofanyofouracts,
helplesslyandprecariouslyexposedtothecomingoftime.Ontheother,
noabsoluteacceptance,ifnotanoutrightrevolt,againstthemerepassive
consignmenttotheinfinitefinitudeofthiscomingwithoutsome
temporaryreprieve,thatis,aminimalifnecessarilyweakholdoverthe
passageoftimeintheradicalabsenceofredemptivehorizons.Sucha5].InhisreadingofBenjamin’sinsistentanalysisofthedifferencebetweenTrauerspielandTragedy,Weberindicatesitsrelationtotwodifferentconceptionsof“community.”Albeitunableheretoreconstitutethelargercontextofthisanalysis,thefollowingquotationshouldneverthelessbeabletoindicatethegeneraldirectionofthiscomparisonanditsrelevanceinourcontext,namely,howboththeTrauer[mourning]andSpiel[play]ofTrauerspielareinextricablyrelatedtoanexperienceofthedisintegrationandreproblematizationofthestatusofcommunityduringtheGermanbaroque:‘Whatthebaroquemournsisnotjustthedeathoftragedy,butalsothesignificanceofdeathfortragedy.ThebaroquemournsthelossofanotionofdeaththatentailedthepromiseofaNewOrder,thatofself-identicalsubjectivity:theOneGod,theuniversalityofMan,determiningitselfasaPeople,andgatheringitselfintothetotalityofcommunity’[Weber,Benjamin’sabilities,157].145Brault,Pascale-Anne&Naas,Michaeltrans.LearningtoLiveFinally.AninterviewwithJeanBirnbaum.(Hoboken,NJ:MelvilleHousePublishing2010).146ibid.
70
doublegesture,memoryandforgetting,defensivemeasureand
vulnerableexposure,calculationwiththeincalculable,followsthelogic
ofatracethatis‘notjusttheinscriptionofmemoryandlegacybutthe
markofabandonorloss,awayofmarkingnotjustone’spresencebut
one’sabsenceanddeath’.147Itisaway,asDerridaputsit,oflivingone’s
deathinwritingateachmomentofone’slife:
ThetraceIleavesignifiestomeatoncemydeath,eithertocome
oralreadycomeuponme,andthehopethatthistracesurvives
me.Thisisnotastrivingforimmortality;it’ssomething
structural.Ileaveapieceofpaperbehind,Igoaway,Idie:itis
impossibletoescapethisstructure,itistheunchangingformof
mylife.EachtimeIletsomethinggo,eachtimesometraceleaves
me,“proceeds”fromme,unabletobereappropriated,Ilivemy
deathinwriting.148
Derrida’sformulationshereclearlyseemtostressthe
ultratranscendentalstatusofhisdescriptionofaninescapablestructure
oflifeassurvival.Yetatthesametime,theyengage,reinscribeand
perhapsrefunctionthereligiousconceptofahopeforsalvationby
evoking,aswemighthereputit,aweakhopeforanon-sovereignsurvival.
Benjamin’sportrayaloftheGermanbaroqueasanepochinthe
gripsofanxietyandmelancholyinfaceofacrisisofeschatology,
describesaproblematicexperienceoftimethatmightbesaidtocallfor
therefunctioningofaninheritedconceptofhope.Bymakingthelatter
dependenton“faithalone”inthewakeoftheReformation,deprivingitof
allinstitutionalguaranteesofaccesstograce,theoverridingfeelingof
theepochwasmarkedbyahopelessdespairbeforethecomingoftime.
TheTrauerspiel,astheparadigmaticlocusforareworkingofhope,was
notatheatrethatmadesadbutonethatwasperformedbeforethose
whoare.Themodalityofitsallegoricaltheatricalizationsthatseekto
147ibid.148ibid,32-33(myemphasis).
71
reanimatewhatisotherwiseexperiencedasan‘emptyworld,’couldthus
besaidtobeareveryhopealthoughremainingitselfwithouthope.‘Not
hopeless,indespair,butforeigntotheteleology,thehopefulnessandthe
salutofsalvation’.149
TheBaroqueTrauerspielasaResponsetoaReligiousCrisisof
Eschatology
Inhisessay,StormingtheWork,SamuelWeberreadsBenjamin’s
UrsprungdesDeutschenTrauerspiels[OriginoftheGermanMourning
Play]byseekingtostresstheTrauerspiel’stheatricalemploymentof
allegoryasaresponsetoaspecifichistoricalsituationthatheidentifies
asacrisisinChristianeschatologyinthewakeoftheReformation.
FollowingBenjamin,Weberdesignatestheepochalsituationofthe
baroqueas‘aparadoxicalhistoricalconfiguration,characterizedonthe
onehand,bythehegemonyofChristianityinEuropeand,ontheother,
bythethreatenedimplosionofthishegemonicforcethroughthe
challengeoftheReformation[…]’.150‘Forallthattheincreasing
worldlinessoftheCounter-Reformationprevailedinbothconfessions,’
Benjaminsaysofthebaroque,‘religiousconcernsdidnotlosetheir
importance:itwasjustthatthiscenturydeniedthemareligioussolution,
demandingasecularsolutioninstead’.151Whatdistinguishesthe
149Derrida,Rogues,13.150Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,160.151Benjamin,Ursprung,60andBenjamin,TheOriginofGermanTragicDrama.trans.JohnOsborne.(London:Verso2009),79.TranslationsofWalterBenjamin’sUrsprungdesdeutschenTrauerspielstaketheirstartingpointfromJohnOsborne’stranslation,yetaremoreorlessmodifiedbymyselfthroughout.ReferencesaremadebothtotheGermanandEnglisheditions.IfonlytheGermaneditionisreferenced,translationsweremadewithoutconsultationofOsborne.Additionally,citationsofBenjaminareattimesalsomadewithrecoursetohowtheyappearinthewritingsofSamuelWeberasindicated.InthosecasestheyareWeber’stranslationsoftheoriginalGerman.
72
specificallyGermanexperienceofthisreligiouscrisisofepochal
proportion,Weberrelates,wastheabsenceofamodernunifiedstate
apparatusthatwouldhavebeenabletorespondtothesedemands.The
particularityofthatsituationpavedthewayforanotherworldly
institutiontoofferupsucharesponseinitsstead.Thatinstitutionwas
thetheatre.Thecapacityoftheatre‘toofferapossiblewayoutofthe
dilemmasresultingfromafailingreligiousandcosmicorder,’Weber
says,‘willguideBenjamininhisapproachtotheGermanTrauerspieland
tomodernityingeneral.152
Whattheworldlyinstitutionandmediumoftheatrewascalled
upontorespondwasanincreasingfeelingofanxietyinducedprecisely
bytheproblematicexperienceofacertainfailureofaninstituted
mediation,namely,betweentheprofaneworldandthesacredrealm,
betweenfinitelifeandtranscendentmeaning,betweenafallencreation
andtheprospectofsalvation.WhereasthetraditionalChristian
eschatologicalnarrativehadsoughttoassuagesuchanxieties,thelatter’s
waningsignificanceexposesthembrutally.Whatismore,whereasthe
institutionoftheCatholicChurchhadbeenputintheserviceof
regulatingandguaranteeingtherelationofworldlymeanstosacred
ends,theReformation’sradicalantinomianismseveredwhatwas
perceivedasanimmanent,fallenworldfromallsociallyorganisedaccess
tograce.‘IftheGermanbaroquehadtobecharacterizedthroughasingle
trait,’Webernotes,
thismightbetheone:forittheFallhasbecomeapermanent
decline.ThereisnoBeyondanylonger.Thereforealleschatology,
atleastintheChristian,redemptivesense,isexcluded.And
thereforeitsoriginarymilieuwasthe“strictimmanence”
resultingfromtheReformation.153
152Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,166(myemphasis).153Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,304.
73
TheTrauerspiel’ssolutiontotheprevalentproblematicoftheGerman
baroquewastofindawayoutwithin–andthusneverfullyoronceand
forall–thatis,awayoutofamelancholic,alienating,despairingand
stultifyingexperienceoftheimmanenceofmerelifewithoutrecourseto
apositedinstanceofabsolutesalvationandtherehabilitationofa
conceptofhistoryasamoreorlessorganisedpathtowardsit.‘Whereas
theMiddleAgesportrayedthevulnerabilityofworldeventsandthe
transcendenceofallcreaturesasstationsonthewaytosalvation,’
Benjaminstates,‘theGermanmourningplayburiesitselfentirelyinthe
disconsolatecharacterofworldlyexistence…’.154Indoingsoitresponds
toanensuingcrisisofinstitutionsintheaftermathofMartinLuther’s
rejectionof“goodworks”infavourof“faithalone”,whichdeprivesthe
ostensiblesovereigntyofhumanactionanditsproducts(‘works’)oftheir
conventionallyregulatedmeaningsoreffects.Inthewakeofageneral
crisisof‘works’,theTrauerspielfindsitsresourcesforitsresponseinthe
irreduciblyfragmentary,situatedanddisjunctivecharacterofitsstaging,
exposingitselfasatheatricalmediumthatisdonewiththestatusofa
work.Inthisway,itbeginstomirrorthefateofhumanactionandits
productsmoregenerally,which,vulnerablyexposedtoanunmasterable
comingoftime,areincreasinglyrenderedambiguous,ifnotopaque.The
mediumoftheatretakesonaparadigmaticfunctionfordealingwiththe
crisisofworkspreciselybyemphasisingitsirreducibilitytothelatter’s
statusofameaningfulself-identitynotdependentonanythingoutside
itself.Incontrasttotheworkthusconceived,thesignificanceofthe
Trauerspiel’sostentatiousrepresentationbeforeamutableand
inconsistentaudienceincreasinglybeginsbutneverendstodependon
thelatter’sparticipation.‘[…T]rauerspiel,’Benjaminsays,‘mustbe
understoodfromthestandpointoftheviewer.Thelatterexperiences,
howonthestage,aninteriorspaceoffeelingdevoidofanyconnectionto
thecosmos,situationsareplacedbeforehim’.155Theatrical
allegorization,asWeberidentifiesthehallmarkofthistheatre,describes
154Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,171.155Benjamin,Ursprung,101.
74
themovementofsuchaninfiniteconditionalityoftheeffectsofpresence
ontheirsituatedreception.Putinthedeconstructiveregisterthat
implicitlyinformsourreadinghere,onemightsaythattheTrauerspiel
therewithbeginstoaffirmtheautoimmuneopeningtoanunconditional
comingoftimeastheconditionofitssituatedsignificance.Allegorical
Deutbarkeit,theexcessiveandunmasterablepossibilitytosignifyandbe
interpreted,offerswhatisexperiencedasanimmanent,meaninglessand
‘empty’worldtheprospectofitsquasi-transcendence,thatis,notthe
institutionalguaranteeofadeferredaccesstotheimmunityofan
afterlifeincommunion,buttheprecariouschance/threatofashared
survival.156Asaresponseto‘theproblematicsituationofanisolatedself
anditsdifficultrelationtothecommunity,’allegoresisherebeginsto
facilitatethesecretlysharedproductionofanaccustomedplacethat
mustremainprecariouslyexposedtoitspossible“corruption”.Byits
essentialdehiscence,thestagingofsuchan‘allegoricaltheatre–theatre
asallegory,andallegoryastheatre’–albeit‘delimitedandconstituted
essentiallybythosewhowitnessitasaudienceandasspectators,as
156Thewordsharing,whichwillalsoplayasignificantpartinlatersectionsofthethesis,ishereatleastimplicitlyemployedwithreferencetotheFrenchpartage.Derridasaysofhisuseofthelatterverb:‘Wemakeuse[…]ofthewordpartaking,aselsewhereimparting,torendertheambiguitiesoftheFrenchpartage,awordwhichnamesdifference,thelineofdemarcation,thepartingofthewaters,scission,caesuraaswellasparticipation,thatwhichisdividedbecauseitissharedorheldincommon,impartedandpartakenof’[JacquesDerrida,‘ShibbolethforPaulCelan’inDerrida,SovereigntiesinQuestion.ThePoeticsofPaulCelaned.byThomasDutoit,1-64.(Fordham:FordhamUniversityPress2005),34].TheresourcesofthewordpartagethusfurtherbegintoresonatewiththeGermanverbmitteilen[imparting,tocommunicate]asitplaysasignificantroleinthewritingsofWalterBenjamin.ForBenjamin,aswesaw,thevirtualityofmediaaremarkedbyabecomingopaqueofmeansnolongertransparenttotheirends,inotherwords,byimpartability[Mitteilbarkeit]asthepossibilityofcommunicationseveredfromacommunicatedmessage[Mitteilung].Astheverbteilen[sharing]playsasignificantpartinbothmitteilen[imparting],Mitteilung[message]andMitteilbarkeit[impartibility],Benjamin’sconceptionofthevirtualityofmedia,whichthelattertermseekstodescribe,mustbereadincloseproximitytoathinkingofassociationasconditionedondissociability,thepossibilityofsharingconditionedontheimpossibilityofthecommonandas-one[comme-un]ofcommunity.
75
onlookers,’asWeberputsitwithafelicitousformulationinthecontextof
ouranalysisofapoliticsofrehearsal,‘neverdefinitelytakesplace’.157
ReanimatinganEmptyWorld
TheplaywrightsoftheTrauerspiel,Benjaminstresses,were
Lutherans.DeeplyaffectedbyMartinLuther’sproposedrejectionof
“goodworks”asaninstitutedmeansofredemption,theyfound
themselvesstruckbyanoverridingsenseofanxietyandmelancholyin
faceofanunmasterableexposuretothecontingentcomingoftime.The
Lutheranmottoof‘faithalone’couldnotpreventlifefrombecomingstale
andstultified.Whatemerges,Benjaminnotes,isan‘emptyworld’.Its
inhabitantsexperiencetheirexistenceasplacedwithinanexpanseof
ruinsfilledwithsomanyincomplete,inauthenticactions.Life,Benjamin
says,revoltedagainstsuchastateofaffairs[DagegenschlugdasLeben
aus].158
Therigorousmoralityofits[Lutheranism]teachinginrespectof
civicconductstoodinsharpcontrasttoitsrenunciationof‘good
works’.Bydenyingthelatteranyspecialmiraculousspiritual
effect,makingthesouldependentongracethroughfaith,and
makingthesecular-politicalsphereatestinggroundforalife
whichwasonlyindirectlyreligious,beingintendedforthe
demonstrationofcivicvirtues,itdid,itistrue,instilintothe
peopleastrictsenseofobediencetoduty,butinitsgreatmenit
producedmelancholy.EveninLutherhimself,thelasttwo
decadesofwhoselifearefilledwithanincreasingheavinessof
157 Weber, Theatricality as Medium, 173, (my emphasis). 158Benjamin,Ursprung,20.
76
soul,therearesignsofacounterstrokeagainstthestormingofthe
work.159
Thesharpreaction,tingedwithmelancholy,ofacounterstrokeagainst
thestormingofthework,isthatofisolatedindividualssevered,aswe
mightputit,ateachmomentoftheirlives,fromasocialorganizationwith
the‘powertoendowcollectivelifewithameaningthatcould
comprehendandsurpassindividualmortality’.160ForBenjamin
construesthesituationofthebaroqueasonethat‘exaltsthesituationof
theindividual,whilesubjectingthatindividualtoanuncertaindestiny,
alonebeforeGod,unabletoinfluencethefuturebyaction,dependent
uponafaithwhosestatusremainsfundamentallyopaque’.161Whereas
beforetheReformation,asWebernotes,‘thelegitimacyoftheCatholic
Church[…]offeredaguaranteeofanorderlytransparentrelationshipof
immanencetotranscendencethroughthesacramentsandritesthatit
organizesanddefinesas“goodworks,”’therejectionofthetransparency
of‘works’infavourofanopaquemeansof“faithalone,”precariously
exposesisolatedindividualstotheunpredictableeffectsoftheiracts.In
thewakeofacrisisof‘works,’asituationemerges,asWeberputsit,
whichis‘quiteliterallyunworkable’.162Mourningthelossoftransparent
meansofsalvationaswellasanxiouslyexperiencingamoregeneral
opacityofmeans,theunworkablesituationoftheGermanbaroquefinds
itselfinscribedwithinalargerproblematicofmediationandofmedia,
whichcannolongerbeperceivedastransparentmeanstoanend.This
situationisunworkableinasfarasthework–anactivityoritsproduct,
asWeberdefinesit,‘thatislocalized,determinedspatiallyand
temporally,andinvestedwithacertainnarrativemeaningastheresult
ofanintentionofwhichitistheeffect’–aswesaw,isnolongerimbued
withtheinstitutedguaranteesofitsmiraculouseffects,orelse,withthe
phantasmofitssovereignty.‘[E]ffectiveactionasdefinedbythe159ibid,119.160Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,171.161ibid,169(myemphasis).162ibid,171(myemphasis).
77
productionofmeaningfulworksbecomesproblematic,’Webersayswith
regardstotheReformation’sstormingofthework.163Thecounterstroke
againstthisstormingofthework,therefore,isadesperateattemptto
dealwithorelseovercome–thedifferencewillremaindecisivehere–
increasingfeelingsofanxiety,insecurity,vulnerability,isolationand
alienationinviewofthehelplessexperienceofindividualactionsas
opaquemeansseveredfromtheirinstitutionallyregulatedends.Inthe
absenceoffunctioningconventionalordersofsocialorganisation,
isolatedindividuals,deprivedoftheostensibleguaranteesofthepositive
outcomestotheiracts,findthemselvesvulnerablyexposedtothecoming
oftime.TheTrauerspiel’sresponsetothis‘unworkable’situationofan
evacuationofmeaningfromhumanactionanditsproductsintherealm
ofpolitics,historyandart,Iwanttosuggest,isthatofanallegoricalor
theatrical“attitude”[Haltung],informedasmuchbyamoreorless
desperateattempttostemtheforwardthrustoftimebyarrestingitin
thecongealedsimultaneityofspace,aswellasbyaconcomitantand
contradictoryaffirmationofanunmasterableopeningtowardstemporal
finitude.
TheTrauerspiel’scompositionaltendencytowardstemporal
arrestandspatialjuxtapositionreflectsandrespondstoahistorico-
theologicaldilemmathatpromptedthereligiousmanofthebaroque,as
Benjaminputsit,to‘holdontotheworld’.164Allimmediatepathstothe
beyond[Jenseits]denied,thefragmentedandstackeduprepresentations
oftheTrauerspielrejecttheprogressivemovementofaplotinfavourof
whatBenjamincallsanimmanentswelling[eineAnschwellungvoninnen
163ibid.164Benjamin,Ursprung,48-9(myemphasis).TheTrauerspiel’seffortstoarresttheflowoftimefindsasymptominitscommonfixationofthedramaticplottothenightandespeciallymidnight.Forinthemidnighthour,accordingtopopularmyth,timestandsstill.Fatefulmanifestationsseekoutthisparticularspace-time[Zeitraum],Benjaminsays,and‘standwithinthemidnighthourasthehatchoftime’.Withinitsframedopeningappearsagainandagainthesameimageofaghost.[ibid,115]
78
her].165Intheabsenceofallconcreteformsofhope,history,whichhas
previouslybeenconceivedasthemovementtowardssalvation
[Heilsgeschichte],turnsintoitsopposite,thatis,Unheilsgeschichte,the
unstoppablemovementtowardsacatastrophictelos.Theonlyhope
availabletothesituationoftheGermanbaroque,asWeberputsit,‘isto
attempttostemthisforwardtide,slowifnotabolishtheirresistiblepull
towardacatastrophicterminus.166Historywandersontoitsstageand
pilesup[Häufung]ontheshowplace[Schauplatz].Benjamindescribes
thisprocessasconcomitantwiththemovementofsecularizationitself,
whichhedescribesasthe‘conversionoforiginallytemporaldatainto
spatialinauthenticityandsimultaneity’.167Yetwhenhistorywanders
ontothestage[Schauplatz],asWeberrelates,itisexposed[zurschau
gestellt]and(re-)staged,notastransparentrepresentationsof
unquestionablerealitiesbutasallegories,theirfragmented,cluttered
assemblageopentore-arrangementbyothers.168Forinstance,bythose
whowitnessitassituatedaudience.Here,Deutbarkeitasthesilent
165Benjamin,Walter.‘DasPassagenWerk.AufzeichnungenundMaterialien’,GesammelteSchriftenBandV,79-654.(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag),410.166Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,173.167Benjamin,Ursprung,56.Temporalprocesses,Benjaminrelates,arecapturedandanalysedwithinspatialimages.TheSchauplatz,ofwhichthecourtistheTrauerspiel’spreferredsetting,becomesthekeytohistoricalcomprehension.Yettheoverridingsenseofsuchaprocessofspatialisation,thatis,ofthesimultaneousandlayeredexpositionofpreviouslytemporaldata,isanythingbutcomprehension,butoneofentanglementandconfusion[Verwirrung].Here,amoralorethicalconfusionofhowtoactintheabsenceofcalculabilitydoublesupasthepragmaticconfusionofthespectacle[ibid,75-6].Thelatterfindsitsspatialequivalentsinthealchemicallaboratoriesofmagiciansandphysicists,children’splayrooms,poltercabinsandpantries[ibid,165].TheTrauerspiel’sactsdonotsomuchfolloweachoutoftheother,butarestackedliketerraces.‘Thedramaticstructureisdisplayedinbroadplainsofsimultaneoussurvey[…]’[ibid,170].Wewillfindnotdissimilarcompositionalstrategiesbothofacluttered,non-linearassemblageofhistoricaldata,aswellasthediscreteseparationofpartsthatcallfortheirfuturere-assemblagebyanaudienceinthecontemporarytheatrepracticesofGoatIslandandEveryhousehasadoorinthefinalchapterofthisthesis.168Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,172.
79
mediumofallegory,virtualizesthespatialarrestthatofferedaninitial
wayoutoftimebyafranticflightintoanunredeemed“nature”and
preventsitfromdefinitely‘takingplace’.Thedoublemovementofarrest
andvirtualisationintheallegoricaltheatricalizationsofTrauerspielhere
beginstorecallwhatBenjamin,inalatercontext–bothwithregardsto
hisownlifeaswellaswithregardstothecontextoftheanalysis–aswe
saw,wastodesignateasthe‘citabilityofgesture.’169Moregenerally,it
mightthusalsobesaidtofollow,affirmandexposewhatDerridahas
describedasaquasi-transcendentalstructureofexperienceasspacing,
thatis,thesimultaneousbecomingspaceoftimeandbecomingtimeof
space.Spacingsecureslimitedeffectsofsharedsignificanceonthe
conditionofitsessentialcorrupt-anddissociability.Inthewakeofa
crisisofeschatology,theTrauerspielrehearses,sotospeak,aquite
differentrelationofimmanencetotranscendence.Fortheauthorsand
audiencesofTrauerspielitisnolongeramatterofmakingtheirsituation
‘workable’onceandforallbyseekingtorecuperatethetransparencyof
mediaandthesovereigntyof‘works,’butrather,aswemighthereputit,
ofrenderingthemperpetually‘re-workable’throughtheradically
169AdistortedsimilitudemightbesaidtorunthroughoutBenjamin’sdescriptionsofTrauerspielandEpicTheatre,mostnotably,inlightofasharedcontestationoftheAristotelianconceptionofdramaastragedy,withregardstotheircompositionalemploymentofstrategiesofinterruption,stillinganddiscontinuity.Forinstance,whendescribinganotuncommonfeatureofTrauerspiel–thatis,forthe“dialogue”withinaspecificimage-assemblagetoconstituteitsexplanation[Erklärung],signature,title,ormaxim,whichdeclarestheimage-scenetobeallegoricalasifspokenbytheimageitself–Benjaminrevertstoacomparisonwiththelight-effectofbaroquepaintingsthatmuchmorevividlyseemstoconjurethepalpablearrestoftimethroughtheflashofphotography,aswellas,byextension,thediscontinuousprogressionofaspatio-temporalmontage[Benjamin,Ursprung,173].‘Brightlyitflashesupwithinthedarknessofallegoricalentwinement,’Benjaminsaysofthe“dialogue”asmotto,arrestingandframingthesceneasanallegoricalimagethatmustberead[ibid,175].Theactionmovesintotheseframesasintoalwaysrenewedcompositionalarrangements,withthejerky,intermittentrhythmofaconstantpausing[Einhalten],turningandrenewedcongealment[ibid,175].Itsdisplayedsituationschangesuddenlyinaflash,Benjaminsays,liketheaspectofthetypeareawhenturningthepagesofabook[ibid,162-3].
80
performativeaffirmationofanessentialopacityofmeansandthe
virtualityofmedia.TheLutheranmottoof‘faithalone,’Benjaminsays,
couldnotpreventlifefrombecomingstaleandstultified.Whatemerges
wasan‘emptyworld’.Life,asBenjaminputsit,revoltedagainstsucha
stateofaffairs[DagegenschlugdasLebenaus].170Theviolenceofthis
blow,however,standsinstarkcontrasttothetyrannicphantasmsof
omnitemporalityasanotherresponsetothecrisisofsovereignty.Instead
ofseekingtoinstituteaneworderofhegemonicconvention,itfindsitself
preciselypredicatedon‘anirreducibleviolationofwhateverconvention
hasconsecratedasnatural,organicandself-contained’.171Farfroma
recuperationoftransparencythen,asWeberrelates,‘theveryopacityof
the“emptiedworld”becomestheconditionofitsmaskedresurrection.’
TheTrauerstagedbythistheatreisnotjustmelancholic,nordoes
itsimplymourn,asthefollowingbriefbutincisivepassagemakes
clear:“SadnessandMourningisthesensibility[Gesinnung]in
whichfeelingreanimatestheemptiedworldbymaskingit
[maskenhaftneubelebt],inordertodrawanenigmaticsatisfaction
fromitsappearance…ThetheoryofTrauer…canaccordingly,be
unrolledonlythroughthedescriptionoftheworldthatarises
[sichauftut]inresponsetothemelancholicgaze.”Theworldthat
emergesinresponsetothemelancholicglanceis“reanimated”
throughthe“masks”itnowwears:sincenothinginthisworldcan
bedeemedtobetransparentanylonger,theveryopacityofthe
“emptiedworld”becomestheconditionofitsmasked
resurrection.Butthatresurrectionremainsamask,tiedtothe
theatre.Whatotherwisewillbeknownas“secularization”
becomes,inBenjamin’saccount,somethingmorelikeallegorical
theatricalization.Suchallegoricaltheatricalizationcannotsimply
170ibid,120.171Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,179.
81
overcometimeandmortality,butitcantemporarilyarrest,
interrupt,orsuspendtheirprogress.172
TowardsanAttitudeofAllegoricalTheatricalization
Tobesure,Benjamin,inhisstudyoftheTrauerspiel,doesnot
reverttotheformulationofan‘allegoricalattitude[Haltung]’asIwould
hereliketoputitforward.YettheTrauerspiel’spersistantendeavorto
arrestthetemporalfluxasthefirststeptowardsthepossibilityof
investinganimmanent,unredeemedsituatednesswithoutan
institutionallyregulatedaccesstotranscendencewithameaningful
content[Gehalt]byitstheatricalreanimation,perhapswarrantsthe
employmentofatermthatinourcontextseekstolinkaperformative
bearingofvirtualisationintheproductionofmeaningtotheparadoxical
arrestofastancethatneverquite,neverdefinitelytakes(its)place.The
precariouserectnessofsuchastancefurtherseemstolieinpursuitof
whatwemightheredesignateaquasi-transcendentalambition,thatis,
theaffirmationof‘adisappointedtranscendentalambition,’the
constitutivefailureofadesiretomakelast–forresurrectionand
salvation–a‘fallingfromaheightreached,’asGeoffreyBennington
describesthismovementwithreferencetowhatDerridarepeatedly
referstoasafallingerection:l’erectiontombe.173Theconstitutivefailure
ofsuchquasi-transcendentalambitionsisboundtofollowtheprecarious
protocolsofanattitude[Haltung]ofrehearsal,thedisjunctivetheatreof
thefuturethatre-inscribesrepeatabletracesforanunpredictabletimeto
come.Suchanambitionmustbegin(andend)withagesturethatseeks
toholdonto[festhalten]theworld–arresting[anhalten]theephemeral
fluxoftime,andimbuingwhatisotherwiseperceivedtobean‘empty’
172ibid,190-1.173GeoffreyBennington.Derridabase.(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress1993),268.
82
worldwithacontent[GehaltorInhalt]that,giventhevirtualizingeffects
of“its”otherpossibilites,neverfullycomestorest.174Itistheallegorical
andtheatricalstanceofsuchaprecariouslycontained(situated)
discontainment,theradicallyperformativeproductionofGehalt
[content]quaHalt[arrest]thatherefurtherwarrantstherecoursetothe
terminologyofHaltung,thatis,anattitudeorbearingthatdoublesupas
arrest,holdanddiscreteposemarkedbythepossibilityofitsgraftqua
iter-asalterability.TheallegoricaltheatricalizationsofTrauerspiel,aswe
willsoonseeinmoredetail,arethelimited,thatis,paradoxicallyopen
gesturesofcontainmentintheabsenceofahegemonyofconventionin
thewakeofacrisisofinstitutions.Inotherwords,anepochalcrisisof
institutionsandthecollectiveorganizationofconventionalschemas
exposesaquasi-transcendentalstructureofspacingthatlinks
repeatbilityastheconditionofallsituatedsignificancetothevirtual
possibilitiesofitsdifference.Intheabsenceoftransparentmeansof
salvation,lifeduringtheGermanbaroque,aswesawBenjaminand
Weberdescribeit,isunabletoendowitselfwithameaningthatcould
comprehendandsurpassindividualmortality.Inlightofthisdilemma,
memory,Webernotes,‘takesonanewfunction,thatofconsolingaworld
inwhichactionisnolongertheunquestionablepathwaytograce’.175Yet
thekindofrememberingthatispracticed,headds,does‘notseekto
recoveraself-containedmeaningorresurrectthedead.Rather,such
memoryknowsitselftobeinseparablefromforgettingratherthanits
simpleopposite;itdoesnotstrivetoneutralizeorsurmounttimeina
transcendenceoftheself’.176Inotherwords,itrehearsesadifferent
relationofimmanenceandtranscendencebyadheringto,affirmingand
perhaps,moreorlessthoughtfullyaswellasmoreorlessresponsibly,
174‘TherootofthewordsInhaltandGehaltis,ofcourse,’Weberremindsusinadifferentcontext,‘theverbhalten,“tohold,”butalso“tostop,tohalt,toarrest.”Theactionthatconstitutes“content”isaholdingaction,anactofcontainment.[…]Forsomethingtobeheld,thepassageoftimemustbeinterruptedandsuspended.OnlybyarrestingthepassageoftimecanaGehaltbeconstituted’.[Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,240].175ibid,194.176ibid.
83
engagingcertainautoimmuneorself-deconstructiveprocessesinherent
toanultra-orquasi-transcendentalconditionofspacing.177
ASecretConventionofAllegory
TheimportanceofallegoryduringtheGermanbaroque,asamode
ofsignificationandperceptionengagedintheabsenceof,butalso
perhapsagainstacertaininstitutionalhegemonyofconventionalorders
ofinterpretation,mightbesaidtolayinitsabilityofacertainscheming
intheabsenceofdominantschemata.Asaresponsetoacrisisof
institutions,worksandmeaning,itneveramountstoagestureofre-
institutingcollectiveschemataforanostensibleunityofcommunication,
butdisplayssensitivityfortheprecariousandproblematicstatusofall
suchcomingtogether.If‘Benjaminpresentshiselaborationof[the
functionof]allegory[inTrauerspiel]asanalternativetothepredominant
theoryofthesymbolasunityofimageandmeaning[…],’asWeberstates,
itispreciselytoproblematizetheostensiblesystemicclosureorabsolute
containmentofsuchunity.178Allegory,forBenjamin,asWeberrelates,
involvesprecisely
nota“conventionalexpression,”butan“expressionof
convention,”whichistosay,anexpressionoftheproblematic
177Hägglundfittinglydescribesthelatterasageneralisedwritingwiththefunction‘tomediatebetweenpastandfuturethroughinscriptionsthatarecharacterizedbythebecoming-spaceoftimeaswellasbythebecoming-timeofspace.Ontheonehand,thewrittenisalwaysalreadyaninscriptionofmemory,atraceofthepastthatspatializestime.Ontheotherhand,thewrittencanonlybereadafteritsinscriptionandisthusmarkedbyarelationtothefuturethattemporalizesspace.Thereasonforwritinginthefirstplaceistopreservewhathappensasamemoryforthefuture,whichconstitutesboththepossibilityofrepetitionanditsinevitablecounterpart:thethreatofextinction,offorgetting[Hägglund,72].178Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,237.
84
statusofallsuchcomingtogether,ofallconvenus,however
indispensablesuchconvergenceistoalllanguageandculture.As
aresult,allegoryintheGermanbaroque,andperhapsingeneral,
isfundamentallytheatrical:itinvolvesrepresentationswhose
referentisnecessarilyproblematic,open,heterogeneous.And
theatricalityentailsfirstandforemostrepresentationforthe
other.179
Intheabsenceofhegemonicconventions,theopenstatusofallegorical
representationsoffersanotherwaytoparticipateinthecollective
productionofwhatwemightdesignateasaprecariousquasi-
transcendentalsignificance.Allegory’setymologicalderivationfromthe
Greek,asSiegridWeigelrelates,isunanimouslyconstruedas‘other
speech’:allosother,agoreueintospeak(publicly).‘Somearemore
preciseintheirdefinitionsoftherelationshipbetween“other”and
“speech,’’Weigelgoesontostate,‘translatingallegoryas“speakingother
thanpublicly”:allaehotherthan,agoreueintospeakintheagoraor
publicassembly;allegory,then,as“tospeakotherthancomprehensibly
toall”.180YetinBenjamin’suseofthisterm,the‘speakingother’of
allegoryis,inthefinalinstance,irreducibletoanyidiosyncraticuseofa
hyper-conventionallanguageofsecrecy.181Benjamindefiessuchpopular
179ibid.180SiegridWeigel,BodyandImageSpace.(London&NewYork:Routledge1996),94.181Benjamin,whendiscerningabriefgenealogyofallegory,tracesadevelopmentfromastrictconventionalsecrecytotheexpressionofanessentialsecrecyofconvention.TracingahistoricalperiodofagrowinginterestinallegoricalinterpretationsofhieroglyphicsandageneralfascinationwiththesecretivewritingofRenaissancepicture-puzzles[Rätselschriften],Benjamindiscernsaturnfromthepreciseuseofhistoricalandcultickeysforallegoricalinterpretationtothatofamoregeneralemploymentofaconfusingclutterofnature-philosophical,moralandmysticcommonplaces.Anemerging,enigmaticpassionatreplacingphoneticsignswithimage-signsoftenresultedintheformationofwholenewiconologicallexica,Benjaminrelates,itssecretivesignifiersfillingmedals,columns,gatesofhonourandmanifoldRenaissanceartefacts[Benjamin,Ursprung,147].Yetwhereasinitiallythesemysteriouspicture-puzzles[Rätselschriften]wereusedinordertohidetheir
85
conceptionsofallegoryasapurelyconventionalrelationshipbetweena
signifyingimageanditsmeaning.Whereasthelatterwouldseektoreign
intheothernessofthisspeech,the‘other’inBenjamin’sversionof
‘speakingother’preciselyreferstotheuncontainable,excessiveplayof
meaningsthatareconstituted,asWeigelnotes,‘outoftheheterogeneity
oflogosandmaterial,ofsignifierandsignified[…]’.182ForBenjamin,
allegorythusconstrued,constitutesanimmersionintothe‘dialectical
roar,’asheemphaticallyputsit,withinthe‘abyssbetweenimage-being
andmeaning’.183Itssecrecyisthusneverthatofaparticularkeyof
translation,thecodeofaparticularknowledgegrantingaccesstoa
hiddenconceptualmeaningoffigurativelanguage,butpreciselythe
latter’sexcess.184Ifallegoricaltheatricalizationasaresponsetoacrisis
meaningsfromthirdparties–theircorrectdeciphermentdependingonalimitedaccesstoamoreorlesssecretknowledge–followingtheperiodoftheirpopularisationinawiderangeofcontexts(fromtheology,naturalscienceandethics,toheraldic,celebrativepoetryandthelanguageoflove),itsstockofimagery,Benjaminsays,becameincreasinglyunlimited.‘Witheveryideathemomentofexpressioncoincideswithaveritableeruptionofimages,whichgivesrisetothesedimentationofachaoticmassofmetaphors’[ibid,151andBenjamin,TheOrigin,173].Allegoristsweredriventouseevermoreobscurepropertiesofarepresentedobjectorimageforitssignifiedcontent,whichmultipliedthepossibilitiesofsignificationalongsidemoretraditional,inheritedsignifyingfunctions.Asaresult,oneandthesamesignifierwasincreasinglyabletorepresentoppositionaltermsandcouldbeputtousetodenotemoreorlessanything.Itisthisdevelopment,Benjaminsays,whichleadstowardstheantinomiesofallegory,namely,that‘[e]veryperson,everything,everyrelationshipcansignifyanarbitraryother’[Benjamin,Ursprung,152].182Weigel,BodyandImage,96.183Benjamin,Ursprung,144.184Iemploythewordsecret,asintheformulationof‘anessentialsecrecyofconvention’withloosereferencetoDerrida’suseofthisterm,whichsimilarlydistinguishesitfromthemeresecrecyofconvention.Theunveilingofthesecret,Derridasays,‘confirm[s]thatthereissomethingsecretthere,withdrawn,foreverbeyondthereachofhermeneuticexhaustion.Anon-hermeneuticsecret,itremains[…]heterogeneoustoallinterpretativetotalization,eradicatingthehermeneuticprinciple’[Derrida,Shibboleth,28].‘[T]hissecretthatwespeakofbutareunabletosay,isthesharingofwhatisnotshared:weknowincommonthatwehavenothingincommon’[Derrida&Ferraris,58].‘Inconsensus,inpossibletransparency,thesecretisneverbroached/breached[entame].
86
ineschatology,asIherewanttosuggest,furthermoreamountstoa
criticalengagementwithcertainauto-immuneprocessesoftheself-
deconstructionofsovereignty,itisabletodosobyfurther
problematizingandputtingintoquestionthepoliticalorganisationof
accesstosuchknowledgewithinahistoryofpower-knowledgesystems.
Itsgestureisthatofanexpositionofthefundamentalhistoricityofall
effortsatcontainingthepossibilitiesofallegoricalplay,includingitsown.
Inexposingtheabsenceofunequivocalanduniversallyvalidschemasof
interpretation,thesecrecyofa‘speakingotherthancomprehensivelyto
all’becomesthatofaninscribedpossibilityofothereffectsofpresencein
anygivencontextoftheirlimitedcontainment.Orelse,ofacertain
virtualisationofconceptualization.Theallegoricalsignifierlivesin
excessofanygivenschemaofreference[Verweisung]toameaningful
content.Withtheaffirmationoftheantinomiesofallegory,thatis,the
abilityof‘[e]veryperson,everything,everyrelationship[to]signifyan
arbitraryother,’anygivenreference[Verweisung]doublesupasan
orphaning[Verwaisen].185Inotherwords,theimmediatenon-present
IfIamtosharesomething,tocommunicate,objectify,thematize,theconditionisthattherebesomethingnon-thematizable,non-objectifiable,non-sharable.Andthis‘something’isanabsolutesecret,itistheab-solutumitselfintheetymologicalsenseoftheterm,i.e.,thatwhichiscutofffromanybond,detached,andwhichcannotitselfbind;itistheconditionofanybondbutitcannotbinditselftoanything–thisistheabsolute,andifthereissomethingabsoluteitissecret’[ibid,57].185TheGermanwordVerweisung[reference],whichBenjaminusestodescribethereferencingcharacteroftheallegorical‘detail’(image,person,thing,relationship,inshort,signifier)phoneticallyresemblesthatofVerwaisung,thatis,‘orphaning.’WernerHamachermakesasimilaruseofthecoupleVerweisung/Verwaisunginadifferentbut,implicitlyfornowandincreasinglyexplicitlylateron,inextricablyrelatedcontext.ThatcontextisBenjamin’sconceptionthemessianic.HamacherreadsandrespondstoasmallsectionofBenjamin’sThesisOntheConceptofHistorythatspeaksof‘the‘index’ofa‘messianicpower’,which‘wehavebeenendowedwithlikeeverygenerationthatprecededus.’Ifthisindex‘markseveryhistoricalpossibility,’Hamachercomments,‘thenmessianicreferentialityisthestructureofthepossibleandofthehistoricaltimeinwhichitliveson.Benjaminattributesweaknesstothisstructuralmessianicitynotinordertonoteanaccidentaldefect,which,underidealcircumstances,couldberemedied,butinordertoemphasize
87
remainingofthesignifierallowsfortherecognitionofotherpossibilities
ofitssignification.Allegoricaltheatricalizationtherebyfollowsa
movementofgathering[Sammlung]anddispersion[Zerstreuung],as
Benjaminputsit,bywhich‘thingsaregatheredfortheirmeaning;
disinterestintheirbeingcausesthemoncemoretodisperse’.186Suchis
thepowerful,ifambivalententertainmentthatoffersitselftothe
melancholicwritersandaudiencesoftheTrauerspiel:banalobjectsrise
ostentatiouslyoutofthedepthofallegoryonlytobeleftaloneoncemore
totheirbleakeverydayness.187Thedemonstratedexposureofthevirtual
possibilitiesofsignificationappealstothemelancholicreadersof
Trauerspielasitrendersaproblematicrelationofimmanenceand
transcendenceasinfinitelyre-workable.Theopeningofallegorytoother
possibilitiesofsignificationcallsforaninfiniteparticipationinthe
constructionofitssignificance.Assuch,theallegoricaltheatricalizations
oftheGermanbaroqueTrauerspieloffertheparadoxicalchanceofa
quasi-transcendentalexperienceofrepeatablesingularities.Itdoessoby
theaporeticperformanceofasimultaneousgestureofacceptanceand
non-acceptanceoffinitudeandmortalityintheabsenceofameaning
astructuralelementofthismessianicity,throughwhichit,inturn,isreferredtoitspossiblefailure.Thepossibilityofhappinessisonlyindicatedwiththecorrespondingpossibilityofitsfailure.Themessianicindexiscrossedaprioribyitsreferencetoapossiblefailureandthusapossibleimpossibility.Thereis,inshort,noreferring(Verweisung)toa‘messianicpower’thatshouldnotatthesametimeindicate,asPaulCelanusedtheword,itsorphaning(Verwaisung);noindexthatwouldnothavetoreachthebordersofitsindexicalityandbecomeanex-index;nomessianicitythatdoesnotemergefromitsnon-messianicity.Theweaknessofthe‘messianicpower’liesinitsstructuralfinitude.[…]’[WernerHamacher,‘‘Now’:WalterBenjaminonHistoricalTime’inWalterBenjaminandHistory.ed.AndrewBenjamin,38-68.(NewYork:Continuum,2005),45,myemphasis.]Albeitunabletodevelopithere,itwouldseemfittinginthiscontexttoatleastindicateapossiblelinkbetweentheweaknessofamessianicpowerandthesecrecyoftherendez-vous[geheimeVerabredung]betweenpastgenerationsandthepresentone,ofwhichBenjaminspeaksinthesamethesisfromhisThesisOntheConceptofHistory[WalterBenjamin,Illuminationen.(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag2002),251-2].186Benjamin,Ursprung,166.187ibid,102.
88
thatwouldbeabletofullytranscendsuchlimitations.‘Becauseallegory
isthetraditionalmeansofinvestingamanifestationwithasignification
thatitcannotpossiblyhaveintermsofapureimmanent,self-contained
structure,’Webersays,‘[i]t[…]bringsthesignifyingpotential
traditionallyassociatedwithageneralizedtranscendencetobearupon
theclaimsofalocalizableandindividualizablesecularimmanence’.188
[W]hatyouseeintheTrauerspielisallyouaregoingtoget:alland
nothing.Whatisperformedonthestageisallthereis:ithasno
furtherintrinsic,symbolicsignificance,exceptperhapsthatof
confirmingthelackofsymbolicsignificance,thelackofa
transitionleadingfromthesecularisedstageoftheCounter-
Reformationtoaworldbeyond.Butatthesametimewhatyou
seeisnotwhatyouget,sincethesignificanceofwhatyousee
dependsuponthingsnotseenandnotshown.Thislackofa
symbolicimmanenceopensthetheatricalsitetoapotentially
endless,ifbynomeanssimplyarbitrary,seriesofpossible
allegoricalinterpretations,whichinturncallsintoquestionthe
stageitself.189
‘Whereasthespectatoroftragedywassolicitedandlegitimatedbythe
drama,’Benjaminsays,‘theTrauerspielmustbeunderstoodfromthe
standpointoftheviewer’.190
ThatStrangeDetailofAllegoricalVerweisung/Verwaisung
Intheabsenceofhegemonicschemataoftranslation,thescheme
ofallegorymustbegintoaccountofitsstructuralopeningtoother
188ibid,174.189Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,176.190ibid.
89
possibilities.Theantinomiesofallegoryimplythateveryreference
[Verweisung]doublesupasanorphaning[Verwaisung].Ifitisthrough
theirabilitytopointelsewhere[Verweisung]that‘thepropertiesof
meaning’ofallegoricalsignifiers‘acquireapowerthatmakesthem
appearincommensurablewithprofanethingsandraisesthemtoa
higherlevel,’asBenjaminputsit,sucha‘power’mustremainstructurally
weak.191Fortheimmediatepossibilityofamark’sorphaningfromany
givencontextintentatfixingthosepropertiesofmeanings,exposesthe
essentialimpossibilityofthelatter’scontainment.Thestructural
weaknessofapowertopointelsewhere–Verweisung/Verwaisung–
marksashiftinstatusforthe(allegorical)detail.Inhisdiscussionofthe
antinomiesofallegory,Benjaminsuggeststhatthepossibilityof‘[e]very
person,[…],thing,[…]relationship[to]signifyanarbitraryother[…]
announcestotheprofaneworldanannihilatingyetjustverdict.Forthat
worldisdesignatedasoneinwhichdetailsarenotsoimportant’.192Yet,
asWeberpointsout,Benjamin’sanalysisofthestatusofthedetailin
baroqueallegoryisnotanaccountofitssimpledevalorizationbutofa
transformationofitsfunction,orelse,ofitsre-functioning.193Whatis
devalorized,Webersuggest,isthestatusofthedetailassignifying
property‘withrespecttoacriterionofvaluemodelledonanidealof
identityasessentiallyself-containedorself-present.Inthisperspective,’
Weberadds,‘thevalueofadetailderivesfromitsorganicrelationtothat
fromwhichithasinsomewaydetacheditselfbutofwhichitstill
remainsanintegralpart’.194Thetransformedvalueoftheallegorical
detailontheotherhand,liesinanewandunpredictablesignificance–its
weakpowertopointelsewhere–thatfindsitselfpreciselypredicatedon
thedestructionofallostensiblyorganicrelationsbetweenpartand
whole.‘Theresult,’Webernotes,‘isaproliferationofdetailswithouta
unifyingorinformingpointofview’.195Subsequently,thedetailbecomes
191Benjamin.Ursprung,152&Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,177.192ibid&ibid.193Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,241.194ibid,242.195ibid,247.
90
distinctlytheatrical:‘Thereare“properties”[ofmeaning]butwithout
assuredownersorsites:inshort,props–stage-properties,Requisiten’.196
‘[T]hedetailisnolongeritself“in”anythingatall:ratheritliesexposed,
like“dust,”signifying“enigmatically”onthetheatricalstage’.197Allegory,
Weberrelates,isaschemeinadualsense.WhatBenjamincallsthe
Midas-touchofallegorytransformswhateveritgraspsintosomething196ibid.197ibid,248.BenjamindevoteslargesectionsofhisreadingofTrauerspieltoitsrepresentationsofthebodyasaparticularlypertinentcontextoftheallegoricalemancipationofpartsfromtheirostensiblyorganicrelationtoawholethatfindsitselfpredicatedon‘anirreducibleviolationofwhateverconventionhasconsecratedasnatural,organicandself-contained’[ibid,179].Inhisaccount,Benjaminincisivelyportraysatendencyforthebodyand“its”partstotakeonaprop-likequality.DescriptionsofthecharactersoftheTrauerspiel,Benjaminpointsout,oftenevokeanimpressionofpuppettheatre.Thephysicalappearanceofkingsandprinces–drapedinregalia,bearinggoldenpapercrowns,lookingdimandsad,performingeccentricallystiltedgestures,‘heavywithcrowns,’seemrigidandobject-likeaspuppetsandthekingsofadeckofcards[Kartenkönige][Benjamin,Ursprung,103-106].Whatismore,thebodyoftenuncannilyfragmentsintoacollectionofprops,likethatof‘theburnedheadofthesteadfastprincessofGeorgia’[ibid,105-6].TheMidas-touchofallegoryperformsviolenceagainsttheconceptionofthebodyasorganicwholethroughitsgorydismemberment.Itstrivestowardstheemblematicfragmentationofthelifeofthehumanbody,Benjaminnotes,allottingitspartstotheantinomiesofallegory,inordertoreadanenigmaticmeaningfromitsshards.Afragmentedandunfreephysisrevealsitself,likeWinckelmann’sDescriptionoftheTorsoofHerculesattheBelvedereinRome,notsymbolicallyinthefleetinglightofredemption,butpiecemeal[ibid,154&Benjamin,TheOrigin,176].Thestrictestrealisationofsuchallegoricalallotmentofthebody,Benjaminstates,isconsummatedonlywiththecorpse[Benjamin,Ursprung,193].ThecharactersoftheTrauerspieldie,Benjaminsays,nottobecomeimmortal,buttoturnintocorpses.‘Life,fromtheperspectiveofdeath,istheproductionofthecorpse’[ibid,194].InBenjamin’saccount,thecorpsebecomestheTrauerspiel’ssupremeemblematicprop.Intheso-called‘mealofthedead,’threeglassesofbloodareservedalongsidethreebeheadedheads.ThestagingofsuchmealswasconductedaccordingtoanItaliantrick,inwhichtheheadofanactorappearedthroughaholeofthetablewhosecoverreachedallthewaytotheground,accomplishingtheeffectofthebody’ssoullessexposition.Theuncannyaspectofthebody’saugmentationfindsanotherexampleintheTrauerspiel’sstrangepracticeofdoublingtheappearanceofcharacterswithghostlyversionsofthemselves.Ghostsofthelivingthatevidence,asBenjamininsists,anobsessiveallegoricalmultiplicationofwhatpreviouslywasfelttobeuniquelyself-enclosed[ibid,172].
91
significantbywrestinganisolatedphenomenonfromitscontext.
Weakeningthephenomenon’sresistancetoallegoricalinterpretationby
isolatingit‘initssingularity,’asWeberputsit,itisableto‘transformthe
singularphenomenonintoa(general)signification’.198Thedouble
schemeofallegoryherefunctionsasthepivotpointbetweenthesingular
andthegeneral,facilitatingtheirrotationwhilstexposingtheir
paradoxicalinterrelation.Here,singularity,astheconditionandexcessof
allsituatedallegoricalappropriation,describesthebecomingopaqueof
thebodyofasignifierseveredfromanygivencontextualdeterminations
ofitssignificance.ItistheopaqueSchriftbildofwhatWernerHamacher,
inadifferentbutneverthelessrelatedcontextdesignatesasthecaesura,
the“cloudyplace”[wolkigeStelle]orincomprehensiblegestureinthe
representation[Darstellung]ofhistoricalexperience,whichopensthe
lattertoitsfuturealterity.199Insteadofmediating[vermitteln]betweena
particularfigureandageneralmeaning,Hamacherstates,theopaque
signifierparasiticallydrawsattentiontoitselfanddefersthearrivalof
meaningintherepresentation.200Withreferencetothestatusofthe
singularityofanamewithinthesystemoflanguage,Hamachernotes
howthelatterdoesnotbelongtothoseaspectsofitthatimpart
somethingbuttothosemarksthatsecureimpartabilityitself.201
However,likethesingularphenomenonofallegoricalappropriation,for
Hamacher,thenamealwaysremainstranslatableintoageneralconcept.
Assuch,itmustinturnsubjectitselftotheunlimitedcombinatoricsthat
constitutestheexperienceoflanguage.Itspropertyandtransparencyis
198Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,337.199WernerHamacher‘DieGesteimNamen’,EntferntesVerstehen,280-324.(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag1998),293.ThecontextinwhichHamacherdevelopsthesereflectionsisthatoftheliteraryworkofFranzKafka.IamunableheretodeveloptheresonancebetweenHamacher’sorindeedBenjamin’sreadingofKafkaandtheGermanbaroqueTrauerspiel.Toindicatethedirectionofsuchacomparison,however,onemightsuggestthatbothrespondtoacrisisoftraditionandinstitutionwithagesturethatseekstodeferthecominginordertomultiplyitspossibilities.200Hamacher,285.201ibid,299.
92
putintoquestionbytheswellofitspossibilities.Itistheimmanent
thresholdorSchwelle,thepivotpointofanoscillationbetweenthe
singularandthegeneral,opacityandtransparency,Schriftbildand
instrument.Aseverynameistranslatableintoaconcept,everyconcept
mustequallybetranslatableintoaname.Followingthisbriefdetourvia
Hamacher’sreflectionsontherelativeopacityofthename,itbecomes
possibletolinkthesuspendedprocessofisolatingthephenomenom
fromthecontextthatdeterminesitsuseormeaningtowhatBenjamin,in
yetanothercontext,describesasthegestureofrescuing[Rettung].What
isrescuedorsavedfromthereductionoflanguagetoaninstrumentbya
gesturethatsimilarlyseekstoisolatefragmentsfromanygiven
conventionalcontextistheimpartabilityoflanguage.Severedfromany
givencontextofitsdetermination,theisolatedfragmentbecomes
opaque,likethewordthat,thecloseralookonetakesat,asBenjamin
wassofondofquotingKarlKraus,thegreaterthedistancefromwhichit
looksback.202Benjamin,withreferencetothecitationalwritingpractice
ofKarlKrauss,non-fortuitouslydescribesthisgestureas‘callingaword
byitsname’.203Theisolatedname,likethesingularphenomenonof
allegoricalappropriation,findsitselfexposed,weakenedinitsresistance
tothecomingofanappropriativecode.Asthelimitofbothsingularity
andgenerality,itunderminesthepropertyofthenameortheclosureof
asystemandbeginstoswellunderitsimpartability[Mitteilbarkeit].In
therealmofallegory,whichisnotthatofalphabeticalwriting,the
strangedetailofallegoricalVerweisung/Verwaisungisnotthe‘word
calledbyitsname’butallkindsofthemostinconspicuousphenomena
[Dinge]deprivedoftheirnaturalandproductiveplaceandfunctioninthe
202WalterBenjamin,‘KarlKraus’,GesammelteSchriftenBandII,334-367.(FranfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag),361.203WalterBenjamininWalterBenjamin,TheworkofArtintheAgeofItsTechnologicalReproducibilityandOtherWritingsonMedia.ed.MichaelW.Jennings,BrigidDoherty&ThomasY.Levin,trans.EdmundJephcott,RodneyLivingstone&HowardEiland.(CambridgeMassachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress2008),384.IwillreturntothecontextofBenjamin’sconceptofRettunginmuchmoredetailatalaterstageofthethesis.
93
worldasacipherforamysterious[rätselhaften]wisdom.204Benjamin,by
turningtoDürer’sfamouspaintingMelencolia,readsanaspectofthe
latterasanillustrationofthethusorphanedstatusofphenomena,
isolatedintheir‘singularity’andweakenedintheirresistanceto
allegoricalappropriation.Thesearethedepictionofobjectsthathave
ceizedtobemereinstruments:‘theappliancesandtoolsofworkinglife
[that]lieunusedonthefloorasobjectsofcontemplation’.205Carpentry
toolslackinginuse-value–aplane,asaw,aplankofwood,somenails–
areexposedintheir‘singularity’inexcessoftheirinstrumentality.Cast
byamelancholicgaze,theyofferthemselvestotheinfinite
transformationsoftheirDeutbarkeitasthesilentbutvirtualmediumof
allegory.
ThePlotterandtheSovereign
Thatthedetailisnolongeritself“in”anythingatallbutlies
exposedasproponthetheatricalstageofcourseimpliesthatitcanalso
nolongerbesimplythemerepartofaplot.Assuch,thegestureofits
“isolation”isonethatseekstowrestitfromthecontinuityoftimerather
thanthesynchronyofspaceandisconcomitanttotheTrauerspiel’s
effortstobringtemporalprogressiontoahaltbystackingpreviously
temporaldataintotheclutterofspatialassemblages.Theremnantsof
theTrauerspiel’splot,severedfromthetotalizinggoalofitsend,
Benjaminrelates,becomepartofthescenarioratherthanconstitutingits
informingframe.Ornamentallayersofbaroquestakkuconcealorbury
whatremainsofthetensionsordevelopmentofadramaticplot.
ContrarytoitsroleinClassicaldrama,theTrauerspiel’schorus,
furthermore,nolongerappearsasacommentatoronitsoverall
204Benjamin,Ursprung,121.205ibid.
94
unfoldingatdecisivemomentsbetweentheacts,butbehavestowards
plotandactasornamentalmarginsinRenaissanceprintdotowardsthe
type.Theunravellingoftheisolatedandstackeduppartsofwhat
remainsoftheplotinTrauerspielfindsitselfcloselylinkedtothefigure
oftheplotterorintriguer[derIntrigant]whofacilitatestheir
embroilment.206Intheabsenceofdramatictensionsthatderivefroman
uncertaintyovertheoutcomesofaplot,theplotterreplacesthe
significanceofthehero-protagonist.Hisschemingandplottingnolonger
seektoachieveanythingatall,leastofallleavingbehindagreatwork.207
Hemanipulateslinksandconnections,arrangesandcombinesforthe
pleasurealone.Fortheplotter,powerandviolence[Gewalt]nolonger
constituteinstrumentsfortheinstitutionofsovereignty,butare
schemingdeviceswithoutend,puttoworkintheperpetualre-working
oftheostensiblysovereignbutessentiallyprecariousordersof
institutionalcontainment.Respondingtoageneralcrisisofworks,for
theplotter,allthatremainsisthevirtuosityofthelabourofreworking.
Theplotter,wemightsay,followsthedistinctlytheatricalprotocolsof
therehearsalincontrasttoorinexcessoftheostensiblesecurityofthe
work.Hisfacilitationsandseductions,Benjaminnotes,aredevoidof
interestforpowerandcontrol.Asthepromoterof‘choreographic
embroilments,’heresiststhehistoricalflowtowardstheendsofhistory,
whetherofsalvationorapocalypse.‘[T]heplotter–derIntrigant[,]’
Weberstates,
isrelatedtotheplot(dieIntrige)notjustlexically,but
semanticallyandetymologically,asBenjamin’sargumentmakes
clear.Iftheterm“intrigue”derivesfromtheLatinintrigare,
“confuse,confound,”suchconfusionisinseparablefroma
tendencyofthebaroquetowhichBenjaminattachesconsiderable
importance:its“projectionoftemporalprocessintospace,”andin
particularintothatparticularspaceknownasthe“court”.The
206ibid,76.207Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,178.
95
intrigueristhe“exponentof[this]showplace,”theexemplary
courtier,inthathehasnoproperplace,no“home”outsideofit.
Inside,however,hisfunctionistoin-trigue,toconfuse,andthe
conditionofsuchconfusionispreciselytheparticular
spatialisationandlocalisationofprocessesthatareusually
consideredtobetemporalorhistoricalincharacter.As,for
instance,politicalprocesses:“Thecourseofpoliticalevents
[geschehen]isfrozenandfixedbytheplot[dieIntrigue],which
strikestheseconds[schlägtdenSekundentakt]”.Theplotbeats
time,asitwere,byem-plottingit,confiningandcon-fusingit
withinthenarrowandlocalspaceofthecourt.208
Throughhisincessantrearrangementandre-combinationofdiscrete
fragmentsseveredfromthetotalizingschemasofawhole–forinstance,
thoseoftheplot,theworkandthebody209–theplotter,albeitperhaps
irresponsiblyso,affirmsandperpetuatestheself-deconstructionofthe
sovereigntyofinstitutions,worksandactionunderwayintheGerman
baroque.Hebeginstodealwiththecrisisofsovereigntyfromwithinthe
experienceofaradicalimmanencetowhichtheworldofthebaroque
seesitselfcondemned.Assuch,theplotterformsacounterparttothe
figureofthesovereigninTrauerspiel.Markedbyadeepanxietyoverthe
unpredictablecomingoftimeandtheineffectivenessofhisacts,the
sovereign’spredominantresponsetohispredicamentconsistsofa
paranoidreflexthatwantstoovercomethecrisisofsovereigntybythe
tyrannyofphantasmofomnitemporality.Iftheepoch’stheatricalfigures
stand,asBenjaminputsit,withintheglaringlightoftheirchanging
decisions,nowheredoesthisbecomemoreapparentthaninthefigureof
thesovereign.Like‘tornflutteringflags’heissubjectedtothearbitrary
208Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,141-2.209Benjaminspeaksoftheplotterasaprecursortotheballetmaster,who,asWebernotes,beginstostandforaneardictatorialefforttotrainandtorturehispupils,‘tomakethemlearnandmastertheirbodies,notasorganicunities,butasarticulationsofjointsandofmembradisjecta,readytobeplacedinspaceratherthandeployedasawhole’[ibid,179].
96
anddespoticnatureofthestormofhisaffects.210Swayingphysical
impulsesdeterminehisdecisionmakingprocess.Whereasthe
expressionofageneralconflictofwillandsensation,Benjaminnotes,is
tobefoundinboththedramaticandplasticfiguresofthetime–fittingly
describedbyRiegelas‘thediscordbetweenheadandbodyposition–
withthetheatricalfigureofthesovereign,aswellasitsworldlyreferent,
thecrisisofdecisiontakesonthehigheststakes.Inthepoliticalrealmof
thebaroque,thesovereignembodiestheunworkabilityofan
increasinglyproblematicdefinitionofeffectiveactionbytheproduction
ofmeaningfulworks.‘[T]heriseoftheauthorityofthesecularstatewith
respecttothepoweroftheCuria,’Weberobserves,
endowsprinceswithapowerthattendstotheabsolute.Butsuch
absolutepowerrevealsitslimitations,sinceitisnolongerableto
claimatranscendentjustification,andhencethepowertoendow
collectivelifewithameaningthatcouldcomprehendandsurpass
individualmortality.Thesovereignisthusprimusinterpares,but
stillsubjecttotheguiltandcorruptionheldtopervadean
essentiallyunredeemedandguiltycreation,consistingofmortal,
perishable,andlargelyunsalvageableindividuals.211
Previouslyconceivedofastheearthlyheadofcreation,partakingina
sacredorder,reformativeforcesexposetheheadofstateascreature
[Kreatur].Hisexaltedpositionallthemoreconflictedbythepowerless
non-mastery[Ohnmacht]overtheoutcomesofhisacts.Severedlikethe
restofcreationfromaccesstograce,thesovereignbeginstowield
absolutepowerwiththegesturesofaclumsycreature.When
representingthethusconflictedfiguresofauthority,Benjaminrelates,
theTrauerspielofferedtwomajorresponsestothecrisisoftheir
sovereignty:thecreaturelydimensionofacorporealmartyrdomandthe
despoticeffortsofatyrannyofdecisiveness.Thelatter,asthe
210Benjamin,Ursprung,53.211Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,171.
97
dictatorshipoverwaveringaffectsandcontingenthistoricalevents,the
restorationoforderthroughapermanentstateofexceptionandthe
implementationof“natural”lawthatconstitutesitsutopia,givessome
senseofthepoliticalstakesofpossibleresponsestothebaroquecrisisof
eschatology.212
Inthebaroquethetyrantandthemartyrarebutthetwofacesof
themonarch.Theyarethenecessarilyextremeincarnationsofthe
princelyessence.Asfarasthetyrantisconcerned,thisisclear212Benjamin,Ursprung,55.Thethemeofaconstitutivecrisisofsovereignty–hereexposedbyanepochalcrisisofinstitutions–canalsobefoundinBenjamin’spreviousreflectionsonthefinitudeofsovereigntyinhis‘CritiqueofViolence.’FollowingMathiasFritsch’sreadingofthelatter,Benjamincanbeseentodevelopaconceptionoftheessentialfinitudeofpower,thatis,thenecessaryself-alienationofalllaw-positingviolence/power[Gewalt]fromwhichsprings‘therecognitionofamessianicforceassociatedwiththepowerlessnessofpower[…]’asitwillbecomeanincreasinglydominantthemeforthesereflectionsonapoliticsofrehearsal[ibid,105].Theessentialfinitudeofalllaw-positingpower,asFritschrelates,‘signifiesthenecessaryopennessofpoliticalandlegalpowertoitsowntransformation’[ibid,104].ThetyrannyoftheTrauerspiel’ssovereign,therefore,merelyconsistsofaparticularlydesperategestureofageneraldisavowaloffinitudepertainingtotheexerciseofpowerassuch.ForwhatBenjamin’sreflectionsonviolence[Gewalt]seektorevealisthatthedisavowaloftheinherentweaknessofinstitutionsisnecessarilyatworkintheimplementationoflegalorderasthepositingandpreservationoflawthatseekstoachievestabilityandpermanence.ForBenjamin,itisimportantto‘understandthisnecessityofpowertoinstituteitself,andtosubsequentlymonopolizeviolenceintheinterestofitsownself-preservation,’insofarasthelatterinsightisalsowhatprovidesafoundationforacritiqueofviolence.Benjamin’sownversionofthiscritiquesubsequentlybroaches‘thepossibilityofpuremeansandpureviolencefreeofthisnecessity’[ibid,111].InthecontextofGermanbaroqueTrauerspiel,theplotterperhapsconstitutesanactiveproponentofsuchapassivelyexposedgestureof“pure”violencewithoutdeterminableend.Suchagesturewouldbea‘meanswithoutend’onlyinsofar,’asWeberputsitinadifferentbutrelatedcontext,‘astheword“without”definesarelationnotofsimpleexclusionornegation,butofparticipation“with”the“out”-sideofanirreducibleandyetconstitutiveexteriority’[Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,197,myemphasis].Notonlydoesitputintoquestionallpreservingviolenceofexistinginstitutions,butalsodoesitinterruptitsownactofpositingoraddress.Indepartingfromandestablishingarelationtoitselfasother,the“purity”ofthisgestureconstitutesatheatricalSchwelle,thatis,a‘zoneofindefiniteexpansionandinflationreachingouttoothersonwhoseresponseitdepends’[ibid,235].
98
enough.Thetheoryofsovereignty,whichtakesasitsexamplethe
specialcaseinwhichdictatorialpowersareunfolded,positively
demandsthecompletionoftheimageofthesovereignas
tyrant.213
IntheTrauerspiel,thecompletionoftheimageofthesovereignastyrant
asasymptomofthebaroqueexperienceofacrisisineschatologyis
contrastedbythefigureoftheplotter.Inthecharacteroftheplotteror
intriguer,itwasabletodepictanantipodetothesovereign’styrannyand
anexampleofadifferentattitudetowardscrisis,whichasacrisisof
decision–krisis–isalwaysacrisisofsovereignty.Bothsovereignand
plotterareeagertowardoffanencroachingmeaninglessnessoftheir
immanentactsseveredfromtheorganizedtelosoftheirtranscendent
ends.Wherethetyrantviolentlyseekstoovercomecrisisbyre-
institutingasecure,permanentorder,theplotterfindstheresourcesfor
hisresponse–aparticipationinthesocialre-constructionofmeaning
thatisabletoovercomeatrophyandstultification–withinthegeneral
undecidabilityofcrisisitself.Inaffirmingtheweakforceofafinite
power–thenecessaryopennessofpoliticalandlegalpower,butalsoof
meaningmoregenerally,toitsowntransformation–theplotter’smodel
attitude,liketheplaywrightsandaudiencesofTrauerspiel,expressavery
differentresponsetothesentimentofTrauer[mourning]thanthatof
paranoia,theviolentreinstitutionofoldornewordersofconventionand
thetyrannicsuppressionofcontingency.Theplotter’sattitude,likethat
oftheplaywrightsandaudiencesofTrauerspiel,ismarkedbythe
affirmationofaconstitutiveprecariousnessofaperpetuallyreworked
ethos.Theirswasaresponsetoanempiricalcrisisofsovereigntythat
beginstoaccountforthestructuralprocessesofitsself-deconstruction.
Theirplayful,experimental,theatricalandradicallyperformative
gesturesofreanimatingwhatwasotherwiseexperiencedasanempty,
meaninglessandephemeralworldwasmarkedbyaHaltungthat
interrupts,notonlythehistoricalflow,butitsownintentional,goal213Benjamin,Ursprung,51.&Benjamin,TheOrigin,69.
99
directedmovement.Indoingso,itbeginstoswellunderthepossibilities
ofbecomingother.Assuchitbecomesamodelforapoliticsofrehearsal
thatengagesthepoliticaleffectivenessof‘acertainthinkingofvirtuality,
possibility,potentiality[…]–acertainvirtualizationofconceptualization
itself[and]of“meaning”’.214
214Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,355.
101
CHAPTERTWO
Test-PerformancesintheTimeofReproducibilty215
TowardsaNewConceptofInheritance
Oneofthemanifoldpossibletrajectoriestodiscernandfollowin
WalterBenjamin’sfamousessayon‘TheWorkofArtintheAgeofIts
TechnologicalReproducibility’isthemovementofemancipationofthe
workofartfromitsparasiticsubserviencetoritualanditsconsequent
relianceonadifferentpractice.216ThisotherpracticeBenjamin
designatesatdifferentpointsoftheessayaseitherpoliticsorplay,
implicitlybringingintoproximitytwotermsofseeminglydisparate
realmsunderthebannerofarevolutionofthesocialfunctionofart.
Benjamin’selaborateanalysisoftechnicalreproducibilityofworksofart
takesplaceinthewidercontextofaconcernwithacrisisoftraditionand
inheritanceasthemovementofitstransmission.Immediatelyparting
withthepresentcontextofitsproduction,thereproducibleworkofart–
primaryexampleforBenjaminthroughouttheessayisfilm–asSamuel
Weberputsit,‘‘takesplace”inmanyplacesatonce,inmultiplehere-and-
nows,and[…]thereforecannotbesaidtohaveany“original”
occurrence’.217Asthetimeofitsproductionisalwaysalreadybreached
bythetimeof(its)reproducibility,ithasinscribedinitthepossibilityof
thecomingofaninfinitealterityatitsvery“origin.”Whatpreviously
imbuedtheartworkwith‘thequintessenceofallthatistransmissiblein
215InacommentaryonBenjamin’sessay,SamuelWebersuggeststotranslateitstitleas‘TheWorkofArtintheTimeofitsTechnicalReproducibility.’‘Despiteitsobviousawkwardness,’Webersays,‘Iusetheword‘Time’here,ratherthanthemoreidiomatic‘Age’,totranslate‘Zeit’[…],becausewhatisinvolved[…]ispreciselyaquestionoftimeandofanalterationinitsrelationtospace’[Weber,MassMediauras,82].216Benjamin,TheWorkofArt,106.217Weber,MassMediauras,90.
102
itfromitsoriginon,rangingfromitsphysicaldurationtothehistorical
testimonyrelatingtoit,’herefindsitselfunderminedandwithit‘the
authorityoftheobject,theweightitderivesfromtradition’.218This
process–thewitheringoftheauraoftheworkofart–whichBenjamin
repeatedlycircumscribesindifferentlynuancedconstellations,is
symptomatic,asheputsit,‘itssignificanceextend[ing]farbeyondthe
realmofart’.219Thenewtypeof(art)object,thereproduciblework(of
art),nolongerfindsitselfembeddedinaparticularcontextualspaceand
cannotbesubmittedto‘theideaofatraditionwhichhaspassedthe
objectdownasthesame,identicalthingtothepresentday’.220Instead,
technologicalreproducibilityjoltsthereproducibleobjectfromthe
sphereoftraditionbysubstitutingwhatBenjamincallsa‘massexistence’
[massenweisesVorkommen]forauniqueexistence.221Whateverelse
Benjaminseekstosignaltowardswiththisexpression,itclearlywantsto
designateafundamentalshiftintheconceptionofthespatiotemporal
relationsbetweenproductionandreception.Ashiftthatisindicated
throughoutBenjamin’sessay,asWebernotes,as‘thesameGermanverb
–aufnehmen–isusedtodesignatecinematicproductionaswellas
reception,’indicatingtherewith‘thatbothendsoftheprocessmayshare
someverybasicfeatures’.222Theshiftinspatio-temporalidentification
notonlyaffectstheobjectofartproduced–i.e.film–butalsothose
capturedintheprocessofitsproduction,orelse,thosesubmittedtothe
Aufnahme[recording]ofanapparatus.Inascenarioofself-alienation
thatforBenjaminraisesthestakesofafavouritethemeoftheRomantics,218Benjamin,TheWorkofArt,106.219ibid,104.220Benjamin,TheWorkofArt,91.221ibid,103.Alessidiomaticrenderingof‘massenweisesVorkommen’heremightbe‘pluralityofcopies,’butIwanttostressthepluralityofrecipientsratherthanthatoftheobjectreceived.Furthermore,asbothchanceandthreat,theambiguousconceptofthemassperhapsplaysanimportantroleinBenjamin’stheoryofmodernity,whichmournsthewaningoftraditioninthewakeofacollapseofintimate,small,ruralandreligiouscommunitieswhilstdrawinghopefromthe“inhuman”characterofanonymous,industrialandsecularmetropolisesthatfindsanexpressioninthephenomenonofthemass.222Weber,MassMediauras,91.
103
one’s(mirror-)imagenotonly‘hasbecomedetachablefromtheperson
mirrored,’buthasbecometransportable,asheputsit,‘[t]oasiteinfront
ofthemasses’.223TheAufnahme[recording,reception]oftransportable
imagesrendersorganicwholeszerstückelt[cutintopieces]andzerstreut
[dispersed].Benjaminlinksthecutting‘operation’ofthecameratothat
ofasurgeonby‘theviolenceinvolvedintheirrespective‘penetration’’of
organicwholes.Theparcellingoutofpiecesinviewoftheirdispersion
andfuturegatheringheremustrecalltheallegoricalmodeof
significationoftheGermanbaroquemourningplay.Forthemourning
play’sallegoricalschema,aswesawBenjaminrelate,isoneof
‘dispersion’[Zerstreung]and‘gathering’[Sammlung]:‘[t]hingsare
broughttogetheraccordingtotheirmeaning;indifferencetotheirbeing-
there(Dasein)dispersesthemonceagain’.224Zerstückeltisfurthermore
notonlyasubject’sself-representation,butalsothe‘representationof
hisenvironmentbymeansofthisapparatus’.225Benjaminlinksthe
piecemealnatureofthelatter’simages,togetherwithitspossibilitiesof
closinginorslowingdownthatfarexceedhumancapacitiesof
perception,totheassuranceof‘avastandunsuspectedfieldofaction
[Spielraum]’.226‘Ourbarsandcitystreets,ourofficesandfurnished
rooms,ourrailroadstationsandourfactories,’hesays,
seemedtocloserelentlesslyaroundus.Thencamefilmand
explodedthisprison-worldwiththedynamiteofthesplitsecond,
sothatnowwecansetoffcalmlyonjourneysofadventureamong
itsfar-flungdebris.227
Here,anexpandedfieldofaction[Spielraum]islinkedtotheaftermathof
destruction,thatis,tothefar-flungremainsofpreviousordersof
perception.Benjaminmoregenerallydescribessuchdestructive-
223ibid,103.224Benjamin,Ursprung,166.225Benjamin,TheWorkofArt,117.226ibid.227ibid.
104
productiveforcesbythe‘shattering’and‘liquidation’ofembedding
traditions,aprocessconnectedwiththefreeingofnon-originaryand
non-identical‘objects’and‘subjects’fromthetightholdofanyone
contextofdeterminationquatimeofreproducibility.Itisthedestructive
forcesunleashedbythewitheringoftheauraoftheworkofartthatfor
Benjaminmakeupsomeofthemostpositiveformsofitsrevolutionized
socialfunctionfoundedonthepracticeofpoliticsandplay.228Whatis
destroyed,isnotnecessarilyormerelythereifiedproductsofa
particularinstitutionalisedculturalheritage,buttheorganized
movementoftheirpassingon.Inotherwords,whatisputintocrisisis
notonlythecontentandauthorityofthetransmitted,buttheverymode
andauthorityoftheformoftransmission.The‘upheavalinthedomainof
228Benjamin’sthinkingandwriting,hereas,albeitwithshiftingemphasis,elsewhere,ismarkedbywhatSamuelWeberhasidentifiedas‘adouble(or“cracked”)tone.’ForWeber,thecrackedstyleofBenjamin’swritingsfollowsfromhisefforttoelaborateanon-instrumentalconceptionoflanguagethatleadshimtoinsistontheirreducibleimmediacyofthemedial.Theoriginatingcrackorfractureofallidentity–whetherofsubjects,objects,thingsormeanings–markedthroughoutBenjamin’swritingsbyacertainvirtualizationofconceptualizationbythesuffix–ability,‘comestoacquirehistorical,political,andculturalsignificance,’whenappliedinthehistoricalcontextofawaningtradition.Benjamin’sessayontheworkofartinthetimeofreproducibilitycanclearlybeseentograpplewiththepoliticalstakesofthe–abilitybystressingthetoneofengagementandhopeoverthatofmelancholyandmourning.Weber’sglossonBenjamin’sdoubletone,aswillbecomeincreasinglyclear,thusresonatesdeeplywithourpresentconcerns:‘[Benjamin’sthinkingandwriting]aremarkedbyadouble(or“cracked”)tone.Ontheonehand,thatofmelancholy,sadness,andmourning(Trauerisaleitmotiffromfirsttolast);ontheotherhand,andinseparablefromthefirstbecauseitsconsequence,thatofenergeticengagement,militancy,andhope,becausetheverysamefracturethatisfeltaslossalsoopensupthe(linguistic)possibilityofthislossitselfbeinglost,impartingandthusalteringitselfandtherebykeepingthewayopenforthecomingofsomethingradicallydifferent.ThisishowtheostensibletranscendentalismofBenjamin’s-abilitiescomestoacquirehistorical,political,andculturalsignificance.Everythingthatcontributestodislodgingthatwhichis–byforcingitintoamodeofself-imparting,self-departing,bywrenchingitfreefromitsestablishedsites–isbothpainful,creatingasenseofloss(thatofthe“aura,”forinstance,provokedbythespreadoftechniquesof“reproducibility”)andatthesametimethebearerofmessianichope’[Weber,Benjamin’s-abilities,119].
105
objectshandeddownfromthepast’concernstheseobjectsasmuchas
thegestureoftheirhandingdown,theverymodalityofhowthepastis
leftforthefuture.Aproductive-destructive,ifnotself-deconstructive
forceunleasheswiththeshatteringoftradition,whichthereby
reconfigures,aswemighthereputitinordertofacilitatetheafterlifeof
Benjamin’sowntext,thestatusofsignature,eventandcontext.Ifthe
uniqueworkofartfounditselfmoreorlesssafelyembeddedin,ifnot
tightlyguardedbyatraditionthatsoughtto(re-)instituteitselffor
eternity,thereproducibleworkofart,nolongeruniqueandsecurely
embeddedinacounter-signingcontextthattendstowardstheclosureof
determination,mustgiveitselfoverfromits“origin”totheeffectsof
spaceandtime–oroncemoreputinaregisterthatisnotBenjamin’s:the
becomingspacingoftimeandthebecomingtimeofspace–eschewingthe
relativepermanenceofcontextualdeterminations(withallthepower
structuresthatcomeintoplayinsuchrigidcontextualandinstitutional
embedding),tosurrenderbeforethepluralityofits‘massexistence.’229
Perhapsnottheleastimportantfeatureofthisnon-uniquepluralityofa
‘massexistence’iswhatBenjamincallstheartwork’ssubsequent
‘capabilityforimprovement’.230Here,byastructuralmovementof
reproducibilitythatinvolvesdifferenceasmuchasrepetition,the
artworkexposesitselfasinfinitelyreworkable.
229Isay‘moreorlessembedded’andspeakofa‘tendencytowardsclosure,’toindicatethatitisnothereamatterofidentifyinganabsolutebreak,butanepochalshiftintendency.Followingtheultratranscendentallogicofastructuralcrackofidentityregardlessofitstechno-historicalconditionsofinscription,theunique,embeddedworkofartwillhavealwaysalreadybeenmoreorlesssubjecttodynamicprocessesofahowevercurbedtimereproducibility.Atthesametime,thereproducibleworkofartisstillvulnerabletore-appropriationsbygoverningpowersintheserviceofenhancingtraditionandaura.Infact,Benjamin’shopeofarevolutionofthesocialfunctionofartfindsitselfmenacedatvariousinstancesthroughouttheessaybythefearofcapitalistandfascistappropriationsofthenewmedia.Thechanceofamassparticipationisthreatenedfromwithinbythethreatofahegemonicrepresentationofthemassandviceversa.230Benjamin,TheWorkofArt,109.
106
Improvability
AlthoughBenjaministhinkingaboutthe‘capacityfor
improvement’inthecontextofthestaggeredprocessoffilmproduction
–fromtheinitial‘taking’ofimagestothe‘finalcut’ofitsassemblage–it
isneverthelesstemptingtomomentarilystopfollowingthetrajectoryof
hisessay’scontenttoinsteadreflectuponitsownformalcomposition
andhistoryofassemblage.Forthelatterquicklybeginstomirrorthe
veryprincipleofacapacityfor(editorial)improvementthatititself
ascribestofilmastheprototypeofthereproducibleworkofartand
antithesisofamonolithicobjectofinheritance.Comparingthe
reproducibleworkofart’s‘capacityforimprovement’totheeternal
valuesofGreeksculpture,Benjaminwrites:
Thefinishedfilmistheexactantithesisofaworkcreatedata
singlestroke.Itisassembledfromtheverylargenumberof
imagesandimagesequencesthatofferanarrayofchoicestothe
editor;theseimages,moreover,canbeimprovedinanydesired
wayintheprocessleadingfromtheinitialtaketothefinalcut.
Benjamin’srepeatedre-assemblageofhisownessayoverthreedifferent
versionsperhapsrehearsesasimilarstructuralpossibilityofthe
movementofalterationinrepetitionthatherepertainstoafundamental
lackofprimaryoriginalityoffilmqua‘timeofreproducibility’.Given
Benjamin’santi-instrumentalconceptionoflanguageasan‘immediate
impartibility’[unmittelbareMitteilbarkeit]thatvirtuallytakesleaveof
itselfinanygivencontextofdetermination,‘partswithwhatitwasto
becomesomethingelse,tobetransposed,transmitted,ortranslatedinto
somethingelse’–substitutingtherewith,aswemighthereputitinlight
oftheresonanceofacertainsharing-with[mit-teilen],a‘massexistence’
forauniqueexistenceinitsorigin–histext,orindeedanytext,must
reckonwiththepossibilityofitstransformationatanothertimeand
107
place,whetherbyBenjamin’sowneffortsorbyitsfuturereception
[Aufnahme]throughthemanifoldinheritorstocomeofitsalready
multipliedversionsortakes.231Whatisthusdecisiveinthe
231Weber,Benjamin’s-abilities,42.Benjamindevelopshisconceptofimpart-abilityinhisearlyessay‘OnLanguageasSuchandontheLanguageofMan’.Theessayseekstodevelopatheoryoflanguagethatavoidsconstruingthelatterasaninstrumentormeans[Mittel]toanend,aswellasthatofanendinitself.Intheseefforts,asSamuelWeberrelates,Benjamincomestoformulateforthefirsttimeacertainvirtualizationintheformulationofakeyconceptbythesuffix–ability[-barkeit],astylisticparticularity‘thatwilldistinguishhiswritingsfrombeginningtoend’andwhich,aswehaveseen,alsoplaysacentralpartinhisreflectionsontheartwork’sreproduce-ability[Reproduzier-barkeit]:‘TheseareBenjamin’s–barkeiten,Weberrelates,‘his“-abilities,”’whichdefinehismajorconceptsintermsofwhatDerridahascalledstructuralpossibilityratherthaninviewoftheiractualrealization’[ibid,39].GiventhatforBenjaminlanguagecannotbesubordinatedtoanexternalmeasure,whatimpartsitselfinlanguageandneverthroughitdoessoimmediatelyorwithoutmediation[unmittelbar][ibid,40].The‘linguisticityoflanguage,’asWeberalsocallsit,isthusdescribedbyaterm–Mitteilung–thatcontrarytotheresonancesofitsgeneraltranslationascommunicationmoreliterallysuggests“partingwith,”“sharing”,or“toimpart”[mitteilen].Theimmediacyoflanguage’simpart-abilityherefurtherresonateswiththeartworks’massexistenceinthe(first)timeofitsreproducibility.InthecontextofhisreflectionsonBenjamin’stheoryoflanguage,Weberdescribesthelogicofunmediatedimpartabilityasfollows:‘Theimpart-abilitythatconstituteslanguageasmediumisun-mediated,im-mediate:notameanstoanend,noramiddlebetweenpolesorperiphery,butalsonotsimplytheoppositeofameans,whichistosay,anendinitself.Rather,languagestillretainsonedecisiveaspectofthemeans,whichisthatitisnotself-contained,complete,perfect,orperfectible.Itissimplythere,butassomethingthatsplitsofffromitself,takesleaveofitself,partswithwhatitwastobecomesomethingelse,tobetransposed,transmitted,ortranslatedintosomethingelse.[…]Whatis“immediate”isthatwhichisdefinedbythepotentialityoftakingleaveofitself,ofitsplaceandposition,ofalteringitself.[…]Inshort,asmedium,languagepartswithitselfandcanthusbesaidtoconstituteamediumofvirtuality,avirtualmediumthatcannotbemeasuredbythepossibilityofself-fulfilmentbutbyitsconstitutivealterability’[ibid,42].
Suchimmediateleave-takingofaplaceandposition,avirtualityrenderedbyaconstitutivealterabilityissimilarlyatworkinBenjamin’swritingsonthereproducibleworkofart.RelatingBenjamin’sreflectionsonlanguagetoadiscourseontheartwork,Weberstatesfittingly:‘AgainsttheclaimsoftheintegrativeartworkBenjamininsistsonthemedialimpartingasthehistoricalheritageofthework.Worksarenotself-enclosedorcomplete,butliveon,survivethemselvesassomething
108
transformativemovementof(self-)inheritanceisthatbeyondthelimited
contextofBenjamin’saboveremarksontheprocessoffilmproduction,
thestructurallogicofreproducibilitymustholdopenthepossibilityof
futurealterationinexcessofanyso-called“final”cutofaneditoror
author.Allreceptions[Aufnahmen]ofthelatterareboundtoreturnthe
relative“finality”ofassemblagetoagreaterstateofpotentiality,before
themselveschoosing,whetherknowinglyornot,uponitsmoreorless
differingre-assemblage;followingamovementofdispersionand
gatheringbywhichanygiven“finality”onlycomestobeinpassingaway.
TherichanddiverseafterlifeofBenjamin’sessay,whetherinprint,
(mis)translation,orindeed(mis)interpretation,perhapsatteststothe
multiplealteritiesinscribedinthestructureofits‘reproducibility’
beyondBenjamin’sownendeavoursatputtingtowork,ifnotintoplay,
butperhapsalsoseekingtomoreorless“finalize”andthuscurband
bringtoanenditscapacityforimprovement.Thattodayittakesupsucha
preeminentpositiononthesyllabusofFineArtandHumantiescourses
ofHigherEducationis,unlikewhatBenjaminsaysofGreeksculpture’s
pre-eminenceinArtHistory,nolongeraresultofitseternalvalues,but
tothecontrary,duetotheproductivelureofitsgeneralopen-endedness.
Thelatterinvites,forbetterorworse,thecontinualreconfigurationofitselse,forinstance,ascriticismorastranslations.Orastheatricalperformances.Insuchperformances,theyarenolongerthesameastheywere:theytakeleavetobecomesomethingelse’[ibid,47-8].FollowingBenjamin’sconceptionoflanguage,thelatter’simmediateimpartingcannotbeavoidedbutmerelydisavowed.Fromwhichfollowsthatitcannotbereducedtothestatusofastyle,asitisalwaysalreadytakingplaceonthelevelofthemarkoflanguageitself,regardlessandinspiteofanauthor’sintentions.Nevertheless,Benjamin’smethodandstyle,attunedtolanguage’simmediateimparting,couldbesaidtoseektoinclude‘inwhatisdescribed,butalsointhepracticaldiscourse,inthewritingthatdescribes’thestructuralpossibilityofatransformativesurvival[Derrida,LimitedInc,78].Forinstance,bythemovementofanactiveself-inheritanceorrecyclingofconceptsinavarietyofcontexts,whichbegintoswellunderthemultiplicationofactualcontextualdifferenceandareexposedintheirstructuralpossibilityofengenderinganinfiniteamountofothercontexts,Benjamindemonstratesthenon-instrumentallifeoflanguageevenwhenputtingittomoreorlesscommunicativeends.
109
partsinnewcontexts,includingthepresentone.Itfollowsthatwhat
Benjamincallsthereproducibleartwork’scapacityforimprovementcan
thusequallyandatthesametimebealwaysdescribedasthethreatofits
comingcorruption.Improvabilitymustnotbeconstruedasperfectibility
alongateleologictrajectoryofasublatingsynthesis,thatis,asa
mediationthat‘isalwaysonlya“moment”onthewaytobecomingwhat
it“virtually”willalwayshavebeen;afutureperfectingitselfasthe
presenceofthepast(perfect)’.232Bothitschance(ofimprovement)and
threat(ofcorruption)arebornofthesamestructuralopeningtothe
comingoftheother.For‘whenonespeaksof“theother,”’asMartin
Hägglundremindsus,‘onecanneverknowinadvancewhatorwhom
oneinvokes.Itisthusimpossibletodecidewhethertheencounterwith
theotherwillbringaboutachanceorathreat,recognitionorrejection,
continuedlifeorviolentdeath’.233Benjamin,speakinginthecontextof
hisdiscussionofthereproducibilityoffilm,isofcoursenotatall
unawareoftheambivalenceofpotentialofaworkofartseveredfrom‘a
traditionthathaspassedtheobjectdownasthesame,identicalthingto
thepresentday’.234Whenreflectingontherevolutionarychanceofthe
socialfunctionofart,heincreasinglybeginstoreckonaswellasdetectin
histimethemostworryingsignsoftheentanglementofthechancefora
non-ritualisticsocialfunctionofartfoundedonapracticeofpoliticsand
playwiththatofthethreatofitsauraticre-appropriationputinthe
serviceofmonopolistcapitalismandfascism.
Benjamin,inanycase,waswellawarethatthemarksoflanguage,
likethedispersed‘object’offilmanditszerstreutandzerstückelt
‘subjects’captured,hasalwaysalreadylivedacertain‘massexistence’in
placeofauthenticitybyvirtueofitsimmediateimpart-ability
[unmittelbarmitteilbar].Howeverattentivetotheepochaltechnological
shiftsunderwayin‘theageofreproducibility,’hisanalysisavoidsthe
232Weber,Benjamin’s-abilities,37.233Hägglund,p.91.ThelogicofapossiblecorruptionorcontaminationastheveryconditionofthelimitedfunctionofamarkisthoroughlydevelopedbyDerrida’s‘Signature,Event,Context’andLimitedInc.234Benjamin,TheWorkofArt,103.
110
logicofaradicalhistoricalbreakbybeinggroundedinwhatwemight
callaquasi-transcendentalstructure.Hisearlyinsistenceonthe
irreduciblemedialityoflanguagequaimpart-ability,asWebernotes,
‘indicatesthathisconcernwiththe“media”originatesnotinhislater
studiesofradio,film,andphotography,butratherinhiseffortto
elaborateanoninstrumentalconceptionoflanguage’.235Insofarasthe
immediacyofthemedialbelongstolanguageassuch,itisirreducibletoa
particularstyleortext,whetherBenjamin’soranyother.Yetdespitethe
structuralabilityoflanguage’simpart-abilitytoresisteventhemost
laboriouseffortsatreigninginwhatDerridacallsatext’sstructural
unconscious–forinstance,bytheauthorityofsignaturesand
institutionalcounter-signatures–thoseeffortsareneverthelessableto
exertlimitedembeddingeffects.Ontheotherendofthespectrumthere
arethosetextsand(art)worksthataremorereadilyexposedtothe
comingoftime,moredemonstrativelyriskingthepossibilityofa
transformativesurvivalandcallingtherewithfortheparticipationofthe
other,thatis,appealing‘tonegotiatethecrackandtaketheleap[…]bya
readingthatgoesagainstthegrainofmeaning‘sothatthetextdoesnot
disappearintoitbutremainsasfigure:aswriting-image(Schriftbild)’.236
Benjamin’sstyle,saturatedwithanexcessiveuseof
(self-)citationandmontage,canperhapsbereadalongtheselines,thatis,
asconcernedwithapracticalstagingofhistheoreticalconcerns.
PoliticsandPlay
Benjamin’selaborationsonthereproducibleartworks’‘capacity
forimprovement’takeplaceinthecontextofabriefcomparisonwith
Greekart,forwhichthelatter,asheputsit,wouldhavebeentheleast
235Weber,Benjamin’s-abilities,118.236ibid,299.
111
compellingqualityoftheartworkorinanycaseonedismissedas
marginal.Theantithesisoftheworkofartcapableofimprovementqua
modeofreproducibilitycanthusbefoundinGreeksculpture,createdat
asinglestrokeandliterallyallofapiece,passedonasamonolithicobject
ofinheritance.Duetoalimitedavailabilityofreproductiontechnologies,
Benjaminsuggests,theGreekswerecompelledtoproduceeternalvalues
intheirart,whichiswhythepinnacleoftheirartswastheformleast
capableofimprovement.‘Tothis,’Benjaminadds,‘theyowetheir
preeminentpositioninarthistory’.237Hisowntime,ontheotherhand,
strikesBenjaminaslyingattheoppositepolefromthatoftheGreeks.
Thereproducibleworkofart’scapabilityofimprovementisnecessarily
linkedtoaradicalrenunciationofeternalvalues.Intheageofthe
assembled[montierbar]artwork,thelatterpresentsitselfaswholly
provisional.
Asimilarpolaritybetweentheeternalandtheprovisionalinforms
anothercomparativesceneofBenjamin’sessay.Havingearlyon
proclaimedtheemancipationoftheworkofartfromitsparasitic
subserviencetoritualandtheconcomitantreconfigurationofthe
functionofartfrombeingfoundedonritualtobeingbasedonadifferent
practice,namely,politics,Benjaminreinscribesasimilarpolarityand
shiftinthefunctionoftheworkofartinslightlydifferentterms.He
beginsbydescribingashiftfromtheartwork’scultvaluetoitsexhibition
value,atransformationthateschewsthesacralisedremovalofobjects
frompublicviewinplaceswithonlyprivilegedaccessforthe
enormouslyincreasedvisibilityoftechnologicallyreproducedworksof
art.Whereastheformerfounditsuseintheserviceofmagicandritual,
thelattersignalstowardsahistoricalchangeinthefunctionofart.By
retracingthisshiftfromthepointofviewofatechnologicalfunctionof
theartobject,Benjaminthencontrastsaprehistoricuseofartinthe
serviceofmagicalpractice(firsttechnology)toamodernuseinthe
serviceofadistanciationfromnaturethroughplay(secondtechnology).
Here,onceagain,thepolarityofthetwofunctionsofartastechnologyis237Benjamin,TheWorkofArt,109.
112
onebetweenfundamentallydifferentattitudestowardstime,historyand
inheritance.Ontheonehand,ritualuseaimsatafirmholdoverthe
comingofthefuture,whereasontheother,playfulusedevelopsan
attitudeofprovisionalityandendlessexperiment:
Theresultsofthefirsttechnologyarevalidonceandforall(it
dealswithirreparablelapseorsacrificialdeath,whichholdsgood
foreternity).Theresultsofthesecondarewhollyprovisional(it
operatesbymeansofexperimentsandendlesslyvariedtest
procedures).Theoriginofthesecondtechnologyliesatthepoint
where,byanunconsciousruse,humanbeingsfirstbeganto
distancethemselvesfromnature.Itlies,inotherwords,inplay.238
Eschewingfirsttechnologiesaimata“masteryovernature,”second
technology,Benjaminrelates,aimsinsteadat‘aninterplaybetween
natureandhumanity’.239Here,inthecontextofthisinter-play,itis
perhapsnotsurprisingthatBenjaminrevertstoatheatricaltropewhen
onceagaindefining‘theprimarysocialfunctionofarttoday,’namely,‘to
rehearsethatinterplay’.240Inotherwords,thenewsocialfunctionofart
linksthepracticeofpoliticstotherepetitive,playfulexperimentsof
rehearsaland‘training’[Übung].WhatisatstakeforBenjamininsuch
trainingexercisesistheability‘todealwithavastapparatus[Apparatur]’
thatmightotherwiseenslaveone.241
TrainingtoDealWithTheApparatus:OnTest-Performances
‘Thefunctionoffilm,’Benjaminsaysemphatically,‘istotrain
humanbeingsintheapperceptionsandreactionsneededtodealwitha238ibid,107(myemphasis).239ibid.240ibid,107-8.241ibid,108.
113
vastapparatuswhoseroleintheirlivesisexpandingalmostdaily’.242But
whatisanapparatus?InGiorgioAgamben’stextofthattitle,hereflects
andexpandsuponMichelFoucault’sfamousconceptofthedispositif
[apparatus]bytracingabroadlyscopedgenealogyoftheterm,without
howevertouchingatanypointuponBenjamin’suseofthelatter.If,for
now,weassumeacorrelationbetweentheirrespectiveconceptionsof
theapparatus,itisperhapsstrikinghowbothBenjaminandAgamben
linkthelattertothemovementofitsexpansioninourlives,which,ifwe
believeAgamben,hasnotstoppedgrowingeversinceBenjaminbeganto
observeitin1936.Foratseveralpointsinhistext,Agamben,like
Benjaminbeforehimandnotperhapswithoutasimilarpathos,atteststo
the‘boundlessgrowthofapparatusesinourtime’.243Beforefollowing
Agamben’sbroadlystakedoutgenealogyoftheapparatusinmoredetail
andlinkingittoBenjamin’suseofthetermwherepossible,Iwantto
followthethemeoftheapparatusandtheparticulartrainingone’s
dealingswithitdemandswithinBenjamin’stextalone.‘Dealingwiththis
apparatus,’Benjamincontinuesandconcludestheabovereflectionson
‘secondtechnology,’‘alsoteachesthem[humanity]thattechnologywill
releasethemfromtheirenslavementtothepowersoftheapparatusonly
whenhumanity’swholeconstitutionhasadapteditselftothenew
productiveforceswhichthesecondtechnologyhassetfree’.244The
apparatusthushasacapacitytoenslave,butitcanalsobedealtwith.
Insteadoffindingoneselfenslavedbyit,thatis,putinitsservice,one
mustlearnhowtodeal,handleorworkwithitbysubmittingoneselfto
training[Übung].Here,learninghowtodealwithitquatraining[Übung]
anddealingwiththeapparatus,aswillbecomeincreasinglyapparent,
areperhapsthesamething.Whatisnecessaryforamovementof
emancipationfromapotentialenslavementistotransformtheworkfor
theapparatusintoaworkwithit.Whatismore,bythetransformed
Umgangwiththeapparatusacertainpotentialityoftechnologyis242ibid.243GiorgioAgamben,WhatisanApparatus?AndOtherEssays.(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress2009),15.244Benjamin,TheWorkofArt,108.
114
revealed–linkingtherewiththeapparatus,oratleastthetaskofdealing
withit,tothequestionoftechnology,aswellas,thereby,tothesocio-
technologicalfunctionofthereproducibleworkofart:nolongerputin
theserviceofmagic(1sttechnology)butinsteadconstitutingsomething
ofarehearsalspacefortheinter-playbetweennatureandhumanity(2nd
technology).Working-withinsteadofforanapparatusmustthusinvolve
acriticalquestioningofthegoalsorendstowhichtheapparatusseeksto
harnessone’sservice,aswellastheexperimentaltaskandattitudeof
puttingittoevernewones,howeverprovisionallyposited.Inother
words,workingwithbyworkingagainstgivenunivocalendsofan
apparatusinvolvesapracticeofpoliticsandplaythatseekstoexpandthe
‘scopeforplay’inone’sdealingwithapparatuses,ortheapparatus,
openingupanexpanded‘fieldofaction’thatBenjamincallsaSpielraum,
literally,a‘playroom’or‘roomforplay’.245Dealingwiththeapparatus
meanstrainingtodealwiththeapparatusandtrainingtodealwiththe
apparatustakesplacethrough‘testperformances’–forinstancethose
peculiarperformances,asBenjaminrelates,ofthefilmactorinfrontof
anapparatus.246
Benjaminbeginshisreflectionsonthetest-performancesofthe
filmactorbydistinguishinghisperformancefromtherealmofart.Iffilm
onlybecomesaworkofartbymeansofmontage,hereflects,thenits
individualcomponentsare‘reproduction(s)ofaprocesswhichneitheris
anartworkinitselfnorgivesrisetoonethroughphotography’.247The
peculiarperformanceofthefilmactorinfrontofanapparatus–here,
seeminglyboththemechanismofthecameraaswellas‘agroupof
specialists’readytointerrupttheperformance–findsitselfunableby
itselftoreachthestatusofawork(ofart),astatusthatcanonlybe
bestowedtoit,asitwere,belatedly,throughtheprocessofediting
(montage).Inthemeantime,theperformancefindsitselfprecariously
exposedinfaceofanuncertainfuture.Benjamin,tobesure,doesnot
245ibid,124.246ibid,111.247ibid,110.
115
explicitlycallitthat,yethiswritingclearlyimpliessuchaprecarious
qualityoffilmacting.Hedoessohowever,orsoitseemsmomentarily,
onlytolinkprecariousnesstothemovementofovercomingitandthe
actor’seventualtriumphthatliesinhisabilityof‘preservinghis
humanityinthefaceofanapparatus.’Perhapshereaselsewherewhen
Benjaminseekstopreserveorchampion‘humanity’infaceofan
apparatus–andmoreexplicitlyelsewhereofamodernmediaapparatus
–onemustnotreadtooreadilyanoppositionalthinkingbetweenthe
humanandthetechnologicalasnothingcouldbefurtherfrom
Benjamin’sthought,givenitsmoreexplicitcritiquesofhumanismand
thevariousengagementswithwhatwemightcallacertain
posthumanismavantlelettre,whosecherishedexponentsarethe
character’softhenovelsofPaulScheerbartandMickyMouse.248A
contextinwhichBenjaminatleastellipticallyelaboratesonthestatusof
the‘humanbeing’thatpreserveshimselfinthefaceofanapparatusisfor
instancethesmalltext‘TheatreandRadio-TheMutualControlOfTheir
EducationalProgram,’whichherewarrantsabriefdiscussion.
RespondingtoACrisisofSovereignty:TheatreandRadio
Duringaconsiderationofthecompetitiverelationoftheatreand
radio,aswellasthepotentialpositiveinfluenceononeanotherinthe
realmof‘theireducationalprogram,’Benjaminposesthequestionasto
whatthetheatremighthavetooffertocounterthetechnological
superiorityofradioanditshigherdegreeofexposure[Exponierung].His
answerisseeminglyandperhapsmisleadinglysimple,namely,theuseof
livingpeople.Benjaminisquicktocomplicatethisgeneralappealtothe
employmentoflivingpeoplebydiscerningtwosharplycontrastingways
ofdoingso–onereactionary,theotherprogressive–whichfurther
amounttotwodiverseresponsestothecrisisoftheatrethatdoublesup248Benjamin‘ErfahrungundArmut’inIlluminationen,295.
116
asthecrisisofthehumanbeing.Whereastheformertakesnonoticeof
thiscrisisandseekstoemploymanasautonomousandself-determining,
‘attheheightofhispowers,theLordofCreation,apersonality(evenifhe
isthemeanestwagelabourer),’thelatteremploysa‘reduced’and
‘debarred’humanbeing‘inourcrisis’.249Benjamintherebydrawsupa
scenariowhereontheonehand,aproud,self-confident,big-citytheatre,
oblivioustoitsownandtheworld’scrisisproducesitselfas“symbol,”
“totality,”andGesamtkunstwerk,holdingsway,asheputsit,overtoday’s
culturalsphereinthenameofthe‘human,’andontheother,Epic
Theatre,asanexampleof‘theprogressivestage’,placesatitscentre‘the
humanbeinginourcrisis’.250Itisthereforeamatterofcontrastingthe
disavowalorprospectiveovercomingofcrisiswithacertainmanneror
attitudeofworkingordealingwithitinmoreorlessprecarious
circumstances.Benjamin’sappealtothepreservationofhumanityinface
ofanapparatusisthusneversimplyanappealtomaintainorrecover
fromtheaccidentofanonto-theologicalsubjectthrownintocrisisby
socio-technologicalprocessesofalienation.Infact,asTheatreandRadio
seemstosuggest,topreservehumanitymustinvolvethemaintenanceof
itsverycrisis.Theshorttextneverhoweverspecifieshowoneisto
construemoreconcretelyitsgeneralisedreferencestoour,thetheatre’s
orindeedtheworld’scrisis,whetherpositively(inoppositiontoits
disavowal)ornegatively(inoppositiontoacertainexploitationor
aggravation)construed,which,althoughseeminglydesignatingaspecific
historical,technological,economicandpoliticalcontextofthepresent,
alsohasatextualtendencytowardstheabstractbyitsappealtothe
productiveforcesofageneralisedcrisis.
Abstractedfromasocio-historicalcontextornarrative,crisis,
fromtheGreekkrisis[decision]andkrinein[todecide],isnecessarilya
crisisofdecision,acertaindifficultyifnotimpossibilityofdecidingand
thereforemustbefall,beforeanythingelse,theideaofanautonomous249Benjamin,TheWorkofArt,394-395&WalterBenjamin,‘TheaterundRundfunk’,GesammelteSchriftenBandII,773-776.(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag1977),774-5.250Benjamin,TheWorkofArt,394-395.
117
subjectandtheinstitutionalorganisationofitsacts.AlthoughBenjamin’s
textneverexplicitlyelaboratesonthestatusofthis“accident,”onemight
speculateonthebasisoftheappealtoamodeofresponsethatdoesnot
seektorestore,thatthe“accident”neversimplybefellapreviously
autonomoussubjectfromadistantoutside.Byappealingtoamodeof
responsetocrisisthatsimultaneouslymaintainsit,Benjaminseemingly
hintsatastructuralcrisisofontologythatavowsandexperimentswith
man’sconstitutivelackofautonomyandmastery.Suchexperimentsof
dealingwith(here:Auseinandersetzung,literally:setting-apart)a
generalisedcrisisofsovereigntyareneverfarfromdealingwitha
technologicalapparatus.Humanityispreservedinitsdealingswithan
apparatusthatmightotherwise,butnotnecessarily,untenably
perpetuateandexploititscrisis,takingadvantageofitsprecarious
exposure.Forthehumanbeinginourcrisis,Benjaminseemstosuggest,
isprecisely‘thehumanbeingwhohasbeeneliminatedfromradioand
film–thehumanbeing(toputitalittleextremely)asthefifthwheelon
thecarriageoftechnology’.251Precariouspreservationisthusopposedto
full-blownelimination.Despitethisself-declaredextremityofrhetoric
withregardstothemodernmedia’spotentialeliminationofthehuman
being,thedividingline,aswehavealreadyseen,betweenaprogressive
andreactionaryresponsetothelatter’scrisisisneverhoweverone
betweentheatreandmodernmedia,norforthatmatter,betweenthe
humanandthetechnological.Theprogressivestagesetstheexamplefor
thetypeofAuseinandersetzung[dealingwith]with‘radioandcinema’
Benjaminhasinmind.SuchanAuseinandersetzungwithmodernmedia
apparatusesisneverhoweversimplythesceneofa‘debatewiththem,’
asarecenttranslationhasit,thatis,themereappealtotheatre’stopical,
thematicconcernwithmediaonthelevelofitscontent.252Rather,what
isatstakeforBenjaministhe‘engagement’or‘dealingwith,’which,asa
literalrenderingofauseinander-setzenassetting-apartordecomposition
furthermoresuggests,mustbeginandprobablyendatapointof
251ibid,(myemphasis).252ibid,395.
118
constitutiveinterrelationorinterweaving.Thedramaticlaboratoryof
EpicTheatredoessobywhatBenjaminenigmaticallydescribesasits
soberattitudetowardtechnology.Onesucha“sober”(starting)pointof
interrelation,Benjaminsuggests,isEpicTheatre’sreappropriationofthe
techniqueofmontage.Throughitsdiscoveryandconstructionofgesture
bymeansofinterruption,Benjaminstates,EpicTheatreretransformsthe
methodofmontagefromatechnologicaltoahumanprocess.ForEpic
Theatre,interruptionbeginstohave‘apedagogicfunctionandnolonger
hasthecharacterofamerestimulus.Itbringstheactiontoahalt,and
hencecompelsthelistenertotakeupanattitudetowardtheeventson
thestageandforcestheactortoadoptacriticalviewofhisrole’.253
SamuelWeberproposestolinkBenjamin’suseoftheconceptof
‘interruption’inthiscontexttotheHölderliniannotionof‘caesura’,alink
thatfurtherresonatesinBenjamin’sdescriptionof‘thedispositionof
EpicTheatreinadaptingthetechniquesofthenewmediaforitsown
endsas“sober”[…]awordthat,’asheputsit,‘morethananyother,
articulates“thetendencyof[Hölderlin’s]late”works’.254ForHölderlin,
Webercontinues,‘theeffectofthiscutorcaesurais,notjusttosuspend
therushtojudgment,the“alternationofrepresentations,”buttoallow
“representationitself[dieVorstellungselbst],”whichhealsocalls“the
pureword,”toemerge’.255‘Anditispreciselythis,’Weberstates,‘the
productionofthetheatricalprocessinitsdistinctivemediality–
Vorstellung[literally“placing-before”S.S.]asrepresentingbeforerather
thansimplyasrepresentation–thatBenjaminassociateswiththe
“interruption”practicedbyBrechtiantheatre’.256Theincessant
interruptionsofEpicTheatreexposeahumanbeingnolongerfullyin
controloverhisactions,devoidofself-presenceandmastery,exposed
beforetheuncontrollablecomingoftime.Throughitssuspension,
identitycomesupshort,Weberexplains,‘anditdoessothrough
253ibid.254Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,114.255ibid,114-5.256ibid,115.
119
“gesture”’.257Gestureinterruptsactionasamovementofmeaningand
fulfilment.Devoidofidentityandmastery,‘maninourcrisis’issubjected,
notunlikethefilmactorinfrontofanapparatus,tovarioustrials.Inthe
absenceofguaranteedendstohispermanentlyinterruptedactions,his
experimentsbegintoamounttotest-performances.EpicTheatre
subjectsareduced,debarredhumanbeingincrisistovarioustrials.
‘Whatemergesfromthisapproachisthateventsarealterablenotattheir
climacticpoints,notbyvirtueanddecision-making,butstrictlyintheir
habitualcourse,byreasonandpractice[Übung]’.258‘Tothedramatic
Gesamtkunstwerk,’Benjaminwrites,‘EpicTheatreopposesthedramatic
laboratory.Itreturnsinanewwaytothegreatandvenerableresourceof
theatre–exposingthepresent[dieExponierungdesAnwesenden]’.259The
relegatedhumanbeingsubmittedtotestsandexaminationsinsucha
laboratorydistinguisheshimselfstarklyfromthenotionof“man”atthe
heartofthereactionaryconceptionoftheatrefromwhichBenjamin
seekstodistinguishit.Hisconstitutivecrisisbarshimfromasimple
powerofintentionaldecision-making.‘WhatisexposedbyEpicTheatre,
andbytheatregenerally,’SamuelWebersuggests,‘istheclaimof
humanitytobepresenttoitself,intheguiseoftheautonomous
individual.[….]EpicTheatre[…]exposesthe“living”bystrippingitofits
heroicclaimstosovereignty,claimsthatconfoundthedivinewiththe
humanandthatfindtheirsecularanddissimulatedembodimentinthe
cultof“personality”’.260
ALeapandACrack:TheSwellofTest-Performance
Thefilmactor’sproposedpreservationofhishumanitymustbe
readinthelightofthesemorenuancedreflectionsonthestatusofthe257ibid.258Benjamin,TheWorkofArt,395.259BenjamincitedinWeber,TheatricalityasMedium,115.260Benjamin,TheWorkofArt,115-116.
120
latter.Itisfurthermoreunclearquitehowmuchofanactorspreserved
humanityonlyappearsassuchtoacinemaaudienceasthebelatedresult
oftheeditingprocess.Whetherasappearanceornot,theactor’spublicly
exhibitedtriumphantdealingswithanapparatusiscapableofrevenging,
asBenjaminputsit,allthosecity-dwellersthatcometowatchhimafter
havinghadtorelinquishtheirhumanitythroughouttheworkday,‘in
officesandfactories’[…]‘inthefaceoftheapparatus’.261Howevermuch
wewanttofollowBenjamin’sassertionsontheactor’srevengeonbehalf
ofafilmaudience,hisorherpreservationofhumanityinfaceofan
apparatusorindeedthegeneralfaithputinthefunctionoffilmto‘[train]
humanbeingsintheapperceptionsandreactionsneededtodealwitha
vastapparatus’,262whatshouldinterestusherewithregardstothe
questionoftheapparatusiswhatlinkstheactor’sperformanceinfront
261ibid,111.AlthoughBenjaminhereclearlyseekstoharnesstheemancipatoryifnotrevolutionaryvaluesofanactorstriumphanttestperformancebeforetheapparatus,itseemsimportanttonotehowambiguoushisownreflectionscanbeonthetopic.Inalaterfootnotethatdiscussestheeffectsofreproductiontechnologyonthepoliticalrealmalongsidesimilareffectsonthetheatricalinstitution,Benjaminseeminglyrelatesthetestperformancetoamoresinisterpracticeofselectionbeforeanapparatus:‘Radioandfilmarechangingnotonlythefunctionoftheprofessionalactorbut,equally,thefunctionofthosewho,likethepolitician,presentthemselvesbeforethemedia.Thedirectionofthischangeisthesameforthefilmactorandthepolitician,regardlessoftheirdifferenttasks.Ittendstowardtheexhibitionofcontrollable,transferableskillsundercertainsocialconditions,justassportsfirstcalledforsuchexhibitionundercertainnaturalconditions.Thisresultsinanewformofselection–selectionbeforeanapparatus–fromwhichthechampion,thestar,andthedictatoremergeasvictors’[ibid,128].ThiswouldthenperhapsconstitutetheannulmentofthepotentialBenjaminotherwiseseesintheincreased‘control’ofthose‘notpresenttotheexecutionoftheperformance’.For‘ofcourse’itshouldnotbeforgotten,Benjaminalertsus,‘thattherecanbenopoliticaladvantagederivedfromthiscontroluntilfilmhasliberateditselffromthefettersofcapitalistexploitation.Filmcapitalusestherevolutionaryopportunitiesimpliedbythiscontrolforcounterrevolutionarypurposes.Notonlydoesthecultofthemoviestarwhichitfosterspreservethatmagicofthepersonalitywhichhaslongbeennomorethantheputridmagicofitsowncommoditycharacter,butitscounterpart,thecultoftheaudience,reinforcesthecorruptionbywhichfascismisseekingtosupplanttheclassconsciousnessofthemasses’[ibid,113].262ibid,118.
121
ofcameras,lights,microphonesandabodyofexpertstothe
performancesofofficeandfactoryworkers,indicatingtherewiththe
stakesandthescopeofanexpandingapparatusandthenecessityof
learninghowtodealwithit.Whatlinkstheperformanceoffilmactors
andofficeworkersisacertainspatio-temporalprecariousnessinone’s
dealingwithanapparatus.Yetwhereasthelatterismerelyapowerless
workingfor,theformeralsoallowsforadifferentwayofdealingwiththe
apparatusbyworkingwithitorelse,byreworkingit.Apartfromits
uncertainstatusasaworkofart,theprecariousnessofafilmactors’
performancespringsfromhisconstantexpositiontothepossibilityof
interruption.Itistheinterventionoftherecordingbodyofexperts–
executiveproducer,director,cinematographer,soundrecordist,lighting
designer,andsoon–whichputstothetestanactorsaptitude.‘Thefilm
directoroccupiesexactlythesamepositionastheexaminerinan
aptitudetest,’Benjaminstates,beforefittinglyillustratingthekindof
pressurisedenvironmentinvolved:‘Toperformintheglareofarclamps
whilesimultaneouslymeetingthedemandsofthemicrophoneisatest
performanceofthehighestorder’.263Thefilmactorisputtothetest,but
hehimselfisalsotesting,forinstance,bymultiplyinghisgesturesasso
many‘versions’or‘takes’.264Amultiplicationthatisnotsimplyormerely
diachronicbutalsohappenssynchronicallythroughthevirtualswellof
otherpossibilitiesforanygiven‘take’.Test-performancesfind
themselvesseveredfromoronlystandinthemostprovisionalrelationto
theirend–whetherthatofmeaningoreffect–withincertaincontextual
constellations.ThisisadequatelyillustratedbyBenjamin’slater
reflectiononfilmproduction’stendencyto‘splittheactor’sperformance
intoaseriesofepisodescapableofbeingassembled’.265Here,thecontext
ofassemblageisnotalwaysalreadygivenwiththeperformanceofthe
interruptedsequence.Thelatterfindsitselfalwaysalreadyexposedto
thetimeofreproducibility,severedfromitspresentcontextand
263ibid,111.264ibid.265ibid,113.
122
suspendedbythemultipliedrelationstoitspossibleafterlife.Aleapfrom
awindowisfilmedasaleapfromascaffold,Benjaminrelates,andonly
muchlatercontextualisedinamontagewithfootageofafallatsome
outsidelocation.266Orelse,anactor’sstartledexpressionfollowinga
266Theactorsleapfromascaffold/window,divorcedfrombutalsoswellingunderthevirtualintrusionofthepossibilitiesofitsuncontrollableafterlifeor‘massexistence’–avirtualreception[Aufnahme]alreadystructurallyatworkinthetimeofitsrecording[Aufnahme],theotherAufnahmeinthefirst–beginstoresonatewithRebeccaSchneider’sreadingofanotablydifferentbutperhapsalsonotdissimilarleap,namely:YvesKlein,cladinathree-piecesuit,inOctober1960,leapingfromaprovincialtwo-storybuilding.Aleap,accordingtoSchneider’saccount,whichisneitherhappeningforthefirstnorthelasttimeand‘thatwillneverhavetakensingularplace,’assheputsit.Ontheonehand,itrepeatsapreviousleap–thatofJanuary12,1960,performedinfrontofthelonewitnessofBernadetteAllainandendingwithminorinjuries–andontheother,italreadyanticipates‘generationsofwitnessestoabodycaughtinthatact’[Schneider,30].ForthisOctober1960capturingoftheJanuary1960event,Schneiderrelates,‘[Klein]hadatarpaulinheldby12judokasfromajudoclubacrossthestreettocatchhim.Inthiswaythestagingwasprojectedbothtowardafuture(anaudiencetowitnessthephotographasevidence)andinreferencetoapast[…].Thisleapwas,thatis,notforapresentaudiencebutforaphotographthatwouldrecordaneventthathadtakenplaceatapriortimeforafutureaudiencethatwouldseetheleaponTheateroftheVoidDay,November27,1960,inthepagesofthetabloidDimanche.Forthere-enactmentofthereal,thephotographerHarryShunktooknotone,buttwophotos.OnewastakenwithanetsituatedbeneathKlein.Theotherwastakenafewmomentslaterfromthesameangle,butwiththestreetempty.Shunkmadeaseamlessmontageofthetwophotosresultinginthe“performance”ofanactthatwillneverhavetakensingularplace,andresultingaswellingenerationsofwitnessestoabodycaughtinthatact’[ibid,myemphasis].IfweconsiderthatSchneider’sessay’slargerconcernlieswith‘onceagain’debunkingart-historicaloriginmythsthroughareading,asshesays,for“illegitimate”historiesby‘listeningforasyncopationofintentionnot“properly”resolvableindirectlineage,and,moreradicallyperhaps,joiningthatsyncopationasacriticwithonereadingamongmany’–herreadingofthesplittemporalityofKlein’sleapisneverfarfromBenjamin’sownwiderconcernswiththeprovisionalgestureofanartistic“signature”inthetimeofitsreproducibilityandanewconceptionofthefunctionofartinitssocio-historicaltransmission.‘Canwelistenforothervoicesinseeming“solo”work,’Schneiderasks,‘likethemultipledirectionsofreferencefiguredinthewayKlein’sLeapisbothcitational(referencingbackwards)andinvocational(callingforward),readableaspartofanantiphonalconversationbeyondtheframeorwhitewashofthewalls;a
123
knockatthedoorwasinitiallyproducedby‘ashotfiredwithoutwarning
behindtheactor’sbackonsomeotheroccasionwhenhehappenstobein
thestudio’.267Theentireprocessoffilmproduction,Benjaminasserts,is
determinedbytherepeatedinterventionofabodyofexperts:‘many
shotsarefilmedinanumberoftakes.Asinglecryforhelp[…]canbe
recordedinseveralversions.Theeditorthenmakesaselectionfrom
these’.268Asimilardetachmentofanactionfromitsendinforms
Benjamin’sexampleofanothercontextoftestperformances.Here,inthe
contextofsport,testperformancesstandinapeculiarrelationtotheir
‘correspondingrealaction(s),’asBenjaminputsit.Thissceneofa
contextualdoublinginscribesthetest-performanceinageneral
movementofde-contextualisation:
Anactionperformedinthefilmstudiothereforediffersfromthe
correspondingrealactionthewaythecompetitivethrowingofa
discusinasportsarenawoulddifferfromthethrowingofthe
samediscusfromthesamespotinthesamedirectioninorderto
killsomeone.Thefirstisatestperformance,whilethesecondis
not.269
Benjamintherewithputsforwardthenotionofatest-performance,
whichremovesactionsfromwhatmemightdesignateinthelanguageof
speechacttheorythe‘happiness’oftheireffectsinagivencontext.No
responsetoacallandacallforaresponse(includingmine)beyondtheconfinesofsingularintentionorpolicedlegitimacies?’[ibid,32].Here,theleapbeginstofigurealsothecrackorfissurethattheGermanwordforleap–Sprung–signifiesatthesametime,asifthesignifierSprungisitselfalwaysalreadyfissured,breached,cracked,insecurelyplacedinmorethanoneplaceatthesametime.ThatBenjaminpaysparticularattentiontothedoublemeaningoftheSprungasbothleapandcrackpreciselyatthe“origin”[Ursprung]hereshouldfurtherencourageareadingofthe‘antiphonalconversation’betweenSchneider,KleinandBenjamin,theleaping(performance)artistandtheactorfallingofascaffoldinthetimeofreproducibility.267Benjamin,TheWorkofArt,113.268ibid,111.269ibid.
124
longersubjecttotheirconventional,contextuallyembeddedends,they
acquirethestatusofnon-presentremaindersorstand-insthatmust
incessantlybeputtothetestinnewordersofexperiment.270
RitualandPlay:ADynamicInheritanceMachine
Inhistext,‘InPlayland–ReflectionsonHistoryandPlay’,Giorgio
Agambenreflectsonwhathecalls‘arelationofbothcorrespondenceand
oppositionbetweenplayandritual,inthesensethatbothareengagedin
270Iborrowtheterminologyofanon-presentremainderfromDerrida’sessays‘Signature,Event,Context’andLimitedInc,whichatsomelengthdeveloptheconceptofiterablyinthecontextofananalysisofthespeechacttheoryofJ.L.Austin,acontexttowhichIwillturnbrieflylateron.InLimitedInc,Derridaretraceshisinitialdevelopmentofthethemeofagraphematicmark’sstructuralpossibilityofsurvivalintheabsenceofitsauthorandaddressee–severed,orseverable,therefore,fromalllimitedeffectsofpresenceinanygivencontext–preciselybycontrastingitinstarktermsfromR.Searl’sattributionofaqualityof‘permanence’tothewrittensyntagma’spossibilityofremainingthusconstrued.‘SarlmighthaveconsideredwhyitisthatSecspeaksof“restance”[remainder],andevenof“restancenon-présente”[non-presentremainder]ratherthanof“permanence.”[…I]nit,whatisdiscussed[…]concernsnotpermanence,butremainders,non-presentremains.How,then,cananon-presencebeassimilatedtopermanence,andespeciallytothesubstantialpresenceimpliedbythetemporalityofpermanence?[…]ThusIciteSarlcitingSec[Signature,Event,Context].Sarlwrites:“Hewrites,‘Thisstructuralpossibilityofbeingweanedfromthereferentorfromthesignified(hencefromcommunicationandfromitscontext)seemstometomakeeverymark,includingthosewhichareoral,agraphemeingeneral:whichistosay,aswehaveseen,thenonpresentremainder[restance]ofadifferentialmarkcutofffromitsputative“production”ororigin.’”[…]It[thisphrase][…]containsnumeroussignalsdesignedtopreventonefromconfusingtheremainsofagraphemeingeneralwiththepermanenceorsurvivalofa“writtenlanguage”inthestandardsense[…]’[Derrida,LimitedInc,51].Thedifferentialstructureofiterability,Derridarelates,escapes‘thelogicofpresenceorthe(simpleordialectical)oppositionofpresenceandabsence,uponwhichoppositiontheideaofpermanencedepends.Thisiswhythemarkqua“non-presentremainder”isnotthecontraryofthemarkaseffacement.Likethetraceitis,themarkisneitherpresentnorabsent.Thisiswhatisremarkableaboutit,evenifit’snotremarked[…]’[ibid,53].
125
arelationshipwiththecalendarandwithtime,butthisrelationshipisin
eachcaseaninverseone:ritualfixesandstructuresthecalendar;play,on
theotherhand[…]changesanddestroysit’.271Here,ritualandplay’s
differentrelationshiptotimerecallsBenjamin’ssimilaremploymentof
thesetermswhendescribingtheshiftinthesocialfunctionofart.The
latter’smovementofemancipationisonefromaparasiticsubservience
toritualtoaconsequentrelianceonadifferentpractice:politicsand/or
play.Whereasritualwasmarkedasprimarilyconcernedwithinstituting
therelativepermanenceofitseffects,playontheotherhandwasmarked
byanessentialprovisionalityandaconsequentcapacityfor
“improvement”.ThatAgambens’furtherelaborationsonthecloselinks
andcorrespondencesbetweenplayand‘thesacred’beginwithan
examplefromtherealmofsport,mayfurtherindicatethatwearenot
altogetherfarfromwhatBenjaminseekstodesignateasatest-
performance.‘Numerouswell-documentedresearchesshow,’Agamben
relates,‘thattheoriginsofmostgamesknowntouslieinancientsacred
ceremonies,indances,ritualcombatanddivinatorypractices.Soinball
gameswecandiscerntherelicsoftheritualrepresentationofamythin
whichthegodsfoughtforpossessionofthesun’.272Whatthis
genealogicalreadingofsportsperformancesalreadyshareswith
Benjamin’sexampleofthediscusthrowingtestperformanceistheshift
ofasetofmovementsoractionsfromonecontexttoanother,ofwhich
thelatterinbothcasesisplay.Inbothscenarios,playfurthermore
repeatsasetofactionsoutsidetheir‘traditional’context,whichhad
imbuedthemwithaparticularmeaningoreffect.Withreferencetoa
studybyBenveniste,Agambenfurtherelaboratestherelationshipof
ritualandplaybydefiningthelatterastherepetitionofritualacts
severedfromtheirconjunctionwith‘myth’,thatis,theirpreviouslygiven
senseandpurpose.Play,accordingtoAgamben,radicallytransforms
271GeorgioAgamben,‘InPlayland–ReflectionsonHistoryandPlay’inAgamben,InfancyandHistory.EssaysontheDestructionofExperience,65-89(London:Verso1993),77.272ibid.
126
ritual‘tothepointwhereitcanplausiblybedefinedas‘topsy-turvy
sacred’’.273
‘Thepotencyofthesacredact’,writesBenveniste,‘resides
preciselyintheconjunctionofthemyththatarticulateshistory
andtheritualthatreproducesit.Ifwemakeacomparison
betweenthisschemaandthatofplay,thedifferenceappears
fundamental:inplayonlytheritualsurvivesandallthatis
preservedistheformofthesacreddrama,inwhicheachelement
isre-enactedtimeandagain.Butwhathasbeenforgottenor
abolishedisthemyth,themeaningfullywordedfabulationthat
endowstheactswiththeirsenseandtheirpurpose.274
ItisstrikinghowmuchBenveniste’sformulationsherestructurally
mirrorthosewithwhichBenjaminseekstodescribethewritingsof
FranzKafka.Echoingorcallingforsomeoftheconcernsoftheessayon
technologicalreproducibility,Benjamin’swritingsonKafkasimilarly
touchonthequestion,ifnotthecrisis,oftraditionandanewconception
ofthemovementofinheritance.InalettertoGershomScholem,
BenjamindescribesKafka’sworkasdepictingatraditionthathasfallen
ill.Wisdom,understoodastheepicsideoftruthandthereforethegoods
oftradition[Traditionsgut],orelsetruth,asBenjaminalsocallsitwith
referencetotheJewishtradition,intheformoftheHagada–the“telling”
–hasgonemissing.ThegeniusofKafka,Benjaminexplains,layinhis
uniqueexperiment:togiveuptruthinordertoholdontothepossibility
ofthemovementof“its”‘passingon’.Hisparablesnolongersubmitto
thedoctrine,liketheHagadadoestotheHalacha,“thetelling”tothe
collectivebodyofJewishreligiouslaws.InKafka,onenolonger
encounterswisdomassuch,butonlytheremaindersofitsdecline
273ibid,78.274ibid.
127
[Zerfallsprodukte].275Nowhereperhapsisthedeclineoftraditionandthe
absenceofits‘doctrine’or‘teaching’[Lehre]morepalpablyfeltthanin
thecuriouslytheatricalgesturesofKafka’scharacters.Kafka,Benjamin
saysinanessayonthelatter,‘takesawaytheinheritedsupportsof
humangesture,inwhichhethenfindsanobjectofreflectionsthathave
noend’.276Neverendingreflectionsthatarefurthermoreactively
rehearsedinshiftingordersofexperiments.‘Kafka’swholeworkconsists
ofacodexofgestures,’Benjaminexclaims,‘thatarefarfromhavinga
certainsymbolicmeaningfortheauthor’.Thelatterareinfactpursuedin
everchangingcontextsandordersofexperiments’.277Inotherwords,
Kafka’sgestures,inexperimentalpursuitoftheirmeaningacross
changingcontextsofdetermination,constitutetest-performances.They
arethenon-presentremaindersofanailingtradition,orwhatBenjamin
callsthelatter’sZerfallsprodukte,theproductsofitsruin,whichareput
tothetestinprecariouscontextsofsignificance.Whetherasruinornon-
presentremainderofalivingtradition,thegestureofthetest-
performancebearsanopaquerelationtoitssignificanceandcomesto
stand-inforthenew.Finally,itisnotwithoutimportthatwhatisatstake
forBenjamininKafka’sparableswithoutdoctrineandthesubmissionof
non-presentremaindersofanailingtraditiontoaninfiniteseriesoftests
is‘thequestionoftheorganisationoflifeandworkinthehuman
community’.278Suchan‘organisationoflifeandwork’mustherestrike
usasfundamentallyrelatedtothequestionoftheapparatusandone’s
dealingswithit.
275WalterBenjamin,Briefe,ed.GershomScholemandTheodorW.Adorno(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,1977),736.276Benjamin,‘FranzKafka’,417.277ibid,(myemphasis).278ibid,417.Traditionisofcoursealwaysmoreorlessailing.Asitstransmissionisessentiallybreachedandopenfortransformation,itcannotbeabsolutelyimmunetocorruption.Nevertheless,Benjaminoftenturnstospecificcontexts–theliteraryworkofFranzKafka,theGermanbaroque,theageofreproducibility–inwhichitsessentialbreachisaggravated,orputdifferently,inwhichaquasi-transcendentalstructurecomestoacquirehistorical,political,andculturalsignificance.
128
Agamben,inhisreflectionsonritualandplay,similarlypursues
thelatter’seffectsbeyondthecorrespondenceswithritualtofindthe
generalmovementofitsde-contextualisationfurthermoreatworkwith
regardstowhathetermsthepractical-economicsphere.Echoinga
favouritethemeofBenjamin’s,heinvitesustoconsidertheworldoftoys,
which‘showsthatchildren,humanity’slittlescrap-dealers,willplaywith
whateverjunkcomestheirway,andthatplaytherebypreservesprofane
objectsandbehaviourthathaveceasedtoexist’.279Wehaveseenanot
dissimilarlogicoftheplayfulpreservationofwhatisotherwiseunder
threatfromelimination,namely,thehuman,tobeatworkinthe
laboratoryofEpicTheatre.There,whatispreserveddoesnotsurvive
unscathed.Instead,theveryideaandidealoftheunscatheditselfisput
intoquestion.Similarly,whatispreservedofprofaneobjectsand
behaviourthroughtoysandplay,Agambenadds,iscertainlynotamatter
oftheirculturalsignificanceorfunction.280Instead,
[w]hatthetoypreservesofitssacredoreconomicmodel,what
survivesofthisafteritsdismembermentorminiaturisation,is
nothingotherthanthehumantemporalitythatwascontained
279Agamben,‘InPlayland’,79. Inhisreflectionsonchildren’splay,Benjaminalsoemphasizessuchaninventivereceptionofthediscardedandoutmoded.‘Children[…]areirresistiblydrawnbythedetritusgeneratedbybuilding,gardening,housework,tailoring,orcarpentry.Inwasteproductstheyrecognizethefacethattheworldofthingsturnsdirectlyandsolelytothem.Inusingthesethings,theydonotsomuchimitatetheworksofadultsasbringtogether,intheartifactproducedinplay,materialsofwidelydifferingkindsinnew,disjunctiverelationships’[WalterBenjamin,Einbahnstrasse.BerlinerKindheitumNeunzehnhundert(FrankfurtamMain:Fischer2011),17].MiriamHansen,bycommentingontheabove,addsasynchronicaspecttosuchplay,whichsimilartoAgamben,emphasizesthetemporalaspectoftheoperation:‘Inotherwords,bycreatingtheirownworldofthingswithinthelargerone,childrensimultaneouslytransformmaterialobjects;theywrestthemfromtheirostensiblylinear,instrumentaldestinationandreconfigurethemaccordingtoadifferentlogic–notunrelatedtotheaestheticsofbricolage,collage,andmontage’[MiriamHansen,CinemaandExperience:SiegfriedKracauer,WalterBenjamin,andTheodorW.Adorno.(Berkley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress2012),150].280Agamben,‘InPlayland’,80.
129
therein:itspurehistoricalessence.Thetoyisamaterialisationof
thehistoricitycontainedinobjects,extractingitbymeansofa
particularmanipulation.Whilethevalueandmeaningofthe
antiqueobjectandthedocumentarefunctionsoftheirage–that
is,oftheirmakingpresentandrenderingtangiblearelatively
remotepast–thetoy,dismemberinganddistortingthepastor
miniaturisingthepresent–playingasmuchondiachronyason
synchrony–makespresentandrenderstangiblehuman
temporalityinitself,thepuredifferentialmarginbetweenthe
‘once’andthe‘nolonger’.281
Inotherwords,thetoywithregardstoobjectsaswellasplaywith
regardstobehaviours,herefunctionasnon-presentremaindersthat
exposethefinitudeoftheirpreviousorpresentcontextualorganisation.
Playingwiththe‘crumbs’and‘scraps’belongingtostructuralwholes,
Agambenrelates,thetoy‘transformsoldsignifiedsintosignifiers,and
viceversa.Butwhatit‘plays’with,’headds,‘arenotsimplythesecrumbs
andscraps,but–asthecaseofminiaturisationmakesclear–the
‘crumbness,’ifonecanputitthatway,whichiscontainedinatemporal
formwithintheobjectorthestructuralwholefromwhichitdeparts’.282
Inthisway,Agambensays,‘playisarelationshipwithobjectsandhuman
behaviourthatdrawsfromthemapurehistorical-temporalaspect’.283
WhatAgambenhereidiosyncraticallycallsthe‘crumbness’ofobjectsand
structuralwholesisthepossibilityoftheirruin,prefiguredinthe
monumentsofatraditionsubjecttotheinfinitefinitudeoftime.Toavow
suchpossibilitiesmightmean,followingathemeofDerrida’s,thatthe
loveoftraditionquainheritancemustaccountforthepossibilityofits
destruction,thatis,isalwaysalreadyaloveofitsruinandboundto‘an
experienceitselfprecariousinitsfragility’.‘Onecannotloveamonument,
aworkofarchitecture,aninstitutionassuch,’Derridasays,
281ibid.282ibid,81.283ibid.
130
exceptinanexperienceitselfprecariousinitsfragility:ithasnot
alwaysbeenthere,itwillnotalwaysbethere,itisfinite.Andfor
thisveryreasononelovesitasmortal,throughitsbirthandits
death,throughone’sbirthanddeath,throughtheghostorthe
silhouetteofitsruin,one’sownruin–whichitalreadyis,
therefore,oralreadyprefigures.284
Theprefigurementoftheruininthemonumentherecorrespondstothe
prefigurementofplayinthepracticeofritual.Forritualandplaymust
neverbefullyopposed,butfindthemselvesinextricablylinkedand
entangled,likemonumentandruin,likerepetitionanddifference,like
theauraticandreproducibleworkofart,asopposingpolesofadynamic
process.Aritualcanalwaysbeplayedandplaycanalwaysbemoreor
lessre-ritualized.Ritualandplaydescribetheoppositeendofaspectrum
ofattitudestowardsthepassageoftimeandthemovementof
inheritance:onemarkedbyatendencytoannultheintervalbetweentwo
momentsintimeanddissolvespatio-temporaldifferencesinabsolute
synchrony,theotherwithbreakingtheconnectionbetweenpastand
presentintheabsolutediachronyofpureevents.‘Ifritualisthereforea
machinefortransformingdiachronyintosynchrony,’asAgambenputsit,
‘play,conversely,isamachinefortransformingsynchronyinto
diachrony’.285Yettheirpolarityneverresolvesintoanoppositionthatis
absolute,andtheireffortsatestablishingorunderminingtemporal
continuity,asAgambenrelates,arenevercomplete.286Everygame
containsaritualaspectandeveryriteanaspectofplay.The
discontinuousdifferenceofthe“event”ofplaydependsonarepetitionof
atleastthenon-presentremainderofritual.Ritual,ontheotherhand,in
itseffortsatestablishingcontinuityquaidenticalrepetition,must,in
ordertoberepeatable,leaveitselfexposedasnon-presentremainderto
thepossibilitiesoftheplayofdifferences.Ritualandplay,asAgamben
284DerridacitedinHägglund,278.285Agamben,‘InPlayland’,83.286ibid.
131
suggests,mustthusnotberegardedas‘twodistinctmachinesbutasa
singlemachine,asinglebinarysystem,whichisarticulatedacrosstwo
categorieswhichcannotbeisolatedandacrosswhosecorrelationand
differencetheveryfunctioningofthesystemisbased’.287Readinthe
contextofthemovementoftransmissionofaninheritance,ofwhichthis
machineisperhapshereanothername,Agamben’sreflectionsonthe
inextricabilityofritualandplay,inotherwords,ofrepetitionandevent,
furtherimplythatacrisisoftraditionneversimplybefallsthelatterfrom
anoutside,asitwasalwaysalreadyprefiguredandatworkasvirtual
possibilityofruinintheveryeffortsofitsupkeep.288
WhatisanApparatus?
Testperformancesrehearseourdealingswithanapparatus.But
whatisanapparatus?Benjamin,aswesaw,employsthistermandthe
necessityofourdealingswithasopposedtoourenslavementtoit,in
relationtobothtechnology,aswellastowhatwemightheredesignate
thepractico-economicsphere,thelabourrelationsinfactoriesand
offices.Boththeserealms,technologyinthebroadestsenseandthe
socio-economicorganisationoflabourpower,areregulatingand
directinghumanbehaviourasameanstowardscertainendsandarethus
inscribedinrelationshipsofpowerthatBenjamin’snotionofatest-
performanceseekstocon-test.
287ibid,84.288Thisisnottosaythattherearenotepochalshiftstobetakenintoaccount,momentsofgreaterorlesserdegreesofstructuralinstability.InthislightonemightconsiderBenjamin’sworkasbothattentivetothecontextualspecificityofsuchmomentsofheightenedinstability–foremostamongstthemthe“crisis”oftheGermanbaroqueandmodernity–aswelltothestructuralgeneralityofpermanentkrisis[decision]inthesuspenseofundecidabilityatthemomentofeverydecision,asDerridamightputit,worthyofthename,nolongerfollowingthepredictableordersofwhathasbecomemoreorlesscalculableandpossibletocontrol.
132
Inhisreflectionsontheapparatus,GiorgioAgambentakeshis
startingpointfromtheEnglishtranslationofMichelFoucault’sfamous
useoftheFrenchtermdispositif.Foucault’semploymentoftheconcept
ofthedispositif[apparatus]isevenmorebroadlyconceivedthanthe
Benjaminianapparatus,designating‘athoroughlyheterogeneousset’
consisting,amongstotherthings,ofdiscourses,institutions,architectural
forms,lawsandadministrativemeasures.ForFoucault,theapparatus
constitutes‘thenetworkthatcanbeestablishedbetweenthese
elements’.289Itdescribes‘aformation[…]atagivenhistoricalmoment’
withastrategicfunctionandis‘thusalwaysinscribedintoaplayof
power’.WhatFoucaultherecallsthestrategicfunctionoftheapparatus
mustpreciselybeunderstoodasthelatter’seffortstomanipulatethis
playofpower,forinstancebya‘concreteinterventionintherelationsof
forces,eithersoastodeveloptheminaparticulardirection,ortoblock
them,tostabilizethem,andtoutilizethem’.290Alreadyweseehowtest-
performances,byrehearsingourdealingswithanapparatus,might
challengethelatter’shegemonic‘strategy’byseekingtounblocktheplay
ofpowerandredirecting,ifonlyprovisionally,therelationsofforcesinto
newdirections.Inhisgenealogicallydrivenreflections,Agambenfurther
linksFoucault’suseoftheconceptofthedispositiftoG.W.F.Hegel’s
employmentoftheconceptof‘positivity’.Here,onceagainitismatterof
acollective,socialorganisation‘imposedonindividuals’atacertain
historicalmoment,forinstance,‘thesetofbeliefs,rules,andrites’that
Hegeldesignatesas“positivereligion”.
If“positivity”isthenamethat[…]theyoungHegelgivestothe
historicalelement–loadedasitiswithrules,rites,and
institutionsthatareimposedontheindividualbyanexternal
power[…]thenFoucault,byborrowingthisterm(latertobecome
“apparatus”),takesapositionwithrespecttoadecisiveproblem
[…]:therelationbetweenindividualsaslivingbeingsandthe
289Agamben,WhatisanApparatus,2.290ibid,(myemphasis).
133
historicalelement.By“thehistoricalelement,”Imeanthesetof
institutions,ofprocessesofsubjectification,andofrulesinwhich
powerrelationsbecomeconcrete.[…]ForFoucault,whatisat
stakeis[…]theinvestigationofconcretemodesinwhichthe
positivities(ortheapparatuses)actwithintherelations,
mechanisms,and“plays”ofpower.291
Perhapsanotherwaytodesignatealargepartofthis“historicalelement”
asAgambenconstruesit,albeitnotcompletelycoveringitsscope,would
betocallthissetofimposedinstitutionalstructures,rulesandritesthe
inheritedorderofatradition.Benjamin’sattentiontohistoricalmoments
ofthelatter’sundoing,whichisalwaysanundoingofitsinstituted
conventions,whetherinhisreflectionsonapost-Reformationbaroque
orthestrangelyunhingedorganisationofFranzKafka’sworlds,similarly
tendstoproblematizewhatAgambencalls‘therelationbetween
individualsaslivingbeingsandthehistoricalelement’preciselyatthe
pointwherethelatter’sorganisationalholdoftheformerbecomesmore
orlessundone.292IfwefollowAgamben’sgeneralaccount,anoverriding
senseoftheapparatusimposesitselfthatconcernsthesubmissionof
partstowholesandmeanstoendsunderthelogicofahegemonic
‘strategy’.Thesubsumptivestructurethatorganisespartswithinwholes
isfurtherreflectedintheuseoftheconceptoftheapparatusitself,that
is,intherelationofitsparts–theelementsofaset–totheoverall
‘strategy’ofthe‘network’betweenthem.Agambenseeminglyreserves
thetermapparatusforboththisnetworkaswellastheelementsofthe
setthemselves.Whereas‘theapparatus’broadlyandgenerallydescribes
thesetofregulatinginstitutionalstructuresinahegemonicassemblage,
thepluralof‘apparatuses’mayalsodesignatesthemoreconcreteparts
oftheset.Boththerelationofpartstowholesandmeanstoendsis
furtherreflectedinatleasttwoofthecommondefinitionsofdispositif
fromaFrenchdictionarytowhichAgambenturns:
291ibid,5-6.292ibid,6.
134
b.Atechnologicalmeaning:“thewayinwhichthepartsofa
machineorofamechanismand,byextension,themechanism
itselfarearranged.”
c.Amilitaryuse:“Thesetofmeansarrangedinconformitywitha
plan”.293
Thethirddefinition,whichdefinesastrictlyjuridicalsense,linksthe
apparatustoacertainperformativityofthejudicialdecision,as‘thepart
ofajudgementthatcontainsthedecisionseparatefromtheopinion[…],
thesectionofasentencethatdecides,ortheenactingclauseofalaw’.294
Here,thelinkofaperformativespeechactintheformofadeciding
judgementtothequestionoftheapparatusisperhapsnotirrelevantin
lightofourdiscussionoftheplayoftest-performancesinthe‘timeof
reproducibility’,whichisalwaysalsoatimeofthecrisisoftraditionand
thereforeofundecidabilityanduncalculabilityinfaceofawaning
historicalhegemonicorganisation.
‘Tosomeextent,’Agambensuggests,‘thethreedefinitionsareall
presentinFoucault’suseofthetermapparatusas‘asetofpracticesand
mechanisms(bothlinguisticandnonlinguistic,juridical,technical,and
military)thataimtofaceanurgentneedandtoobtainaneffectthatis
moreorlessimmediate’.295Pursuingaloosegenealogicaltrajectory,
AgambenisfurthermoreabletolinktheFoucauldianapparatustothe
Greektermoikonomia,thatis,‘theadministrationoftheoikos(thehome)
and,moregenerally,management’.296Hedoessobylocatingtheuseof
thelatterinthewritingsofthe‘FathersoftheChurch’,whereitcameto
designate‘theadministrationandgovernmentofhumanhistory’
entrustedtoChristbyGod,inamovementthatseekstosavetheoneness
ofhisbeinginlightofitspartitioningthroughthetrinitybyseparating‘in293ibid,7.294ibid.295ibid,8.296ibid.
135
Himbeingandaction,ontologyandpraxis’.297‘Oikonomia[…]becamea
specializedterm,’Agambenrelates,‘signifyinginparticularthe
incarnationoftheSon,togetherwiththeeconomyofredemptionand
salvation’andsomerging‘withthenotionofProvidenceandbegin[ning]
toindicatetheredemptivegovernanceoftheworldandhuman
history’.298ThetranslationofthisfundamentalGreekterminthe
writingsoftheLatinFathers,Agambenrelates,isdispositio,theLatin
termfromwhichtheFrenchtermdispositif,orapparatus,derives.‘The
“dispositifs”ofwhichFoucaultspeaks,’Agambenisthusabletoclaim,
‘aresomehowlinkedtothistheologicallegacy’.299Whatisdecisivefor
Agamben’sclaimaboutthislinkoftheFoucauldianapparatustothe
theologicalafterlifeoftheGreektermoikonomiaisthelatter’s
implicationof‘thefracturethatdividesand,atthesametime,articulates
inGodbeingandpraxis’.300Forthe“apparatus”similarlydesignates,
accordingtoAgamben,that‘inwhich,andthroughwhich,onerealizesa
pureactivityofgovernancedevoidofanyfoundationinbeing’.‘Thisis
thereasonwhyapparatuses,’headds,‘mustalwaysimplyaprocessof
subjectification,thatistosay,theymustproducetheirsubject’.301The
latterisnevergivenassuch,butcomestobebycomingtopassaway
throughtheinter-playofhumanbeingswiththeoikonomiaofthe
apparatus,the‘setofpractices,bodiesofknowledge,measures,and
institutionsthataimtomanage,govern,control,andorient–inaway
thatpurportstobeuseful–thebehaviours,gestures,andthoughtsof
humanbeings’.302Inlightoftheseprocessesofsubjectificationbythe
administrationormanagementofapparatuses,Agamben,meanwhile
abandoningthecontextofFoucauldianphilology,isfinallyableto
propose,asheputsit,
297ibid,10.298ibid,10-11.299ibid,11.300ibid,11.301ibid.302ibid,12.
136
nothinglessthanageneralandmassivepartitioningofbeingsinto
twolargegroupsorclasses:ontheonehand,livingbeings(or
substances),andontheother,apparatusesinwhichlivingbeings
areincessantlycaptured.Ononeside,then,toreturntothe
terminologyofthetheologians,liestheontologyofcreatures,and
ontheotherside,theoikonomiaofapparatusesthatseekto
governandguidethemtowardthegood.303
Withthisbroadpartitioninginmind,Agambenisabletoexpandthe
alreadylargeclassofFoucauldianapparatusesby‘literallyanythingthat
hasinsomewaythecapacitytocapture,orient,determine,intercept,
model,control,orsecurethegestures,behaviours,opinions,or
discoursesoflivingbeings’–fromthepen,agriculture,philosophy,
cigarettesandcellularphonesto,asheputsit,‘languageitself,[…]
perhapsthemostancientofapparatuses[…]’.304
Intheirinteractionwithapparatuses–Agambencallsit‘arelentless
fight’,recallingtherebythecloseproximityofpoliticsandplayaswe
haveencountereditinBenjamin’saccountofarevolutionisedsocial
functionofartastherehearsalspacefordealingwithanapparatus–
livingbeingsor‘creatures’becomesubjects,withouttheirsubject-
positioneverfullyoverlappingwiththeirsubstance.Instead,asAgamben
suggestsinatheatricalregister,thesamesubstance‘canbetheplaceof
multipleprocessesof‘subjectification’,pushingtotheextreme,inlightof
theboundlessgrowthofapparatusesinourtime,‘themasqueradethat
hasalwaysaccompaniedeverypersonalidentity’.305
303ibid,13.304ibid,14.305ibid,15.
137
Test-PerformancesasFailedPerformatives
InJ.L.Austin’sHowtodothingswithwords,thesuccessor
happinessofaperformativespeechactdependsonitscontextual
embeddingthatoftentiesthespeakingofcertainwordstoasetoftightly
observedritualpracticesandcircumstancesofaspecifictimeandplace.
Although
[t]heutteringofthewordsis,indeed,usuallya,oreventhe,
leadingincidentintheperformanceoftheact[…],the
performanceofwhichisalsotheobjectoftheutterance,[…]itis
farfrombeingusually,evenifitisever,thesolethingnecessaryif
theactistobedeemedtohavebeenperformed.Speaking
generally,itisalwaysnecessarythatthecircumstancesinwhich
thewordsareutteredshouldbeinsomeway,orways,
appropriate,anditisverycommonlynecessarythateitherthe
speakerhimselforotherpersonsshouldalsoperformcertain
otheractions,whether‘physical’or‘mental’actionsorevenactsof
utteringfurtherwords.Thus,fornamingtheship,itisessential
thatIshouldbethepersonappointedtonameher,for(Christian)
marrying,itisessentialthatIshouldnotbealreadymarriedwith
awifeliving,saneandundivorced,andsoon:forabettohave
been,itisgenerallynecessaryfortheofferofthebettohavebeen
acceptedbyataker(whomusthavedonesomething,suchasto
say‘Done’),anditishardlyagiftifIsay‘Igiveityou’butnever
handitover.306
ItisperhapshardlysurprisingthatinAustin’saccountofsuch
conventionallyregulatedritualacts,thetheoryofthespeechactfinds
itselfconstantlyexposedtothethreatofitsfailurebythesubversionof
play–thenon-seriousasAustincallsit,parasiticonits‘normal’use–
306JohnAustin,HowtodoThingswithWords(CambridgeMassachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress1975),8-9.
138
thatmoreorlessrepeatstheritualactincircumstancesthatcanno
longerguaranteeitsconventionaleffects.Ahollowrepetitionofanon-
presentremainder,wemightsay,oftheformoftheritualactsevered
fromaforgottenorabolishedcircumstancethatendowedtheactwithits
senseandpurpose.Iftheparadigmaticcontextforthenon-seriousin
Austinisthetheatre,wemightalsodetectamoregeneraltheatricalityof
theeverydaywheneverthe‘masquerade’ofmultipleprocessesof
subjectificationinanexpandingapparatusbecomesexposedand
renderedmorefluidincircumstancesofthelatter’sdissolution.Forif
onenecessityofcircumstanceforthesuccessofthespeechactisthe
appropriatesubjectposition–Stellung–ofthoseperformingaswellas
attendingtheact,itisclearthatsuccessfulspeechactscanneverbe
performedby‘creatures’,asitwere,butalwaysdependontherelative
securityofaninstitutedsubjectposition.Itisthusnon-fortuitoustosee
Austin,whenconjuringupascenethatatfirstseemsreminiscentofthe
probingmisfiresofthegesturesofKafka’scharacters,quicklyrevertsto
hypotheticalexamplesofmonkeysandpenguinswhenfurtherdiscussing
theroleofmisplacedsubject-positionsattheheartofafailedritual
speechact.
Suppose,forexample,Iseeavesselonthedocks,walkupand
smashthebottlehungatthestern,proclaim‘Inamethisshipthe
Mr.Stalin’andforgoodmeasurekickawaythechocks:butthe
troubleis,Iwasnotthepersonchosentonameit(whetherornot
–anadditionalcomplication–Mr.Stalinwasthedestinedname;
[…]OnecouldsaythatI‘wentthroughaformof’namingthe
vesselbutthatmy‘action’was‘void’or‘withouteffect’,becauseI
wasnotaproperperson,hadnotthe‘capacity’,toperformit:but
onemightalsoandalternativelysaythat,wherethereisnoteven
apretenceofcapacityoracolourableclaimtoit,thenthereisno
acceptedconventionalprocedure;itisamockery,likeamarriage
withamonkey.Oragainonecouldsaythatpartoftheprocedure
isgettingoneselfappointed.Whenthesaintbaptizedthe
139
penguins,wasthisvoidbecausetheprocedureofbaptizingis
inappropriatetobeappliedtopenguins[…]?307
Austin’srhetoric,asalreadyindicated,hererecallstheworldofFranz
Kafka’swritings,inwhichmisfiredperformativesproliferateinlightof
thedissolution,asBenjaminputsit,ofthe‘organisationoflifeandwork
inthehumancommunity’.308Inwaysreminiscentofthescenarioofa
failedperformative,inKafka’sworldactionsoftentakeplacewithout
quitetakingplace.Inacontextualvoidthatiswithoutguaranteedeffects
orsignificancetheyprobeforthepossibilitiesofthelatterbywhich
actionquicklyturnsintoacting.‘ElsewhereK.himselfdoesabitof
acting,’Benjaminbeginstodescribeaparticularlytheatricalscenefrom
TheTrial:
Withoutbeingfullyconsciousofit,‘slowly…withhiseyesnot
lookingdownbutcautiouslyraisedupwardshetookoneofthe
papersfromthedesk,putitonthepalmofhishandandgradually
raisedituptothegentlemenwhilegettinguphimself.Hehad
nothingdefiniteinmind,butactedonlywiththefeelingthatthis
waswhathewouldhavedoneoncehehadcompletedthebig
petition,whichwastoexoneratehimcompletely’.309
SamuelWeberfittinglysummarisesthelinkbetweenorganisationand
theatricality,ifnottheatre,inBenjamin’swritingsonKafkaaswellas
thoseonGermanbaroqueMourningPlay[Trauerspiel]:
Intheabsenceofanestablishedandauthoritativesetofvalues–
whosehistoricalemergenceBenjaminhadretracedinhisstudyof
theGermanmourningplayasareactiontotheradical
antinomianismoftheReformation–“organisation”becomesan
endinitself.BenjaminvariesthefamousphraseofNapoleonin307Austin,23-4,(myemphasis).308Benjamin,‘FranzKafka’,GesammelteSchriftenII,420.309Benjamin,‘FranzKafka’,419.
140
hisconversationwithGoethetoread“organisationisdestiny,”
arguingthat“theorganisationoflifeandofworkinhuman
community”gainsimportanceinproportiontothelackof
transcendentjustification.Sincethisorganisationlackslegitimacy,
however,itremainsopaque,impenetrable,somethingtobe
surmisedandalludedto,theobjectofparablesratherthanthe
basisofdoctrine.InKafka’swritings,Benjaminargues,themodel
ofsuchanunavoidablebutopaqueorganisationofeverydaylifeis
notthetribunalorthecastlebuttheatre.310
Inotherwords,Kafka’stheatricalworldsdepictanapparatusinruins,in
whichpreviouslygoaldirectedactions,nolongerguidedbytranscendent
justifications,havebecomecontextuallydislodgedrepetitionsof
themselves,probinggesturesseveredfromtheirguaranteedends,‘void’
ofclarityofpurpose,orelsetest-performances,moreorlessprecariously
exposedinsearchoftheironlyeverprovisionaleffectsinnon-saturable
contexts.Furthermore,notonlydissolveactionsintoacting,butsubjects
intoactors,thatis,stand-insofpositions[Stellungen]thatcanneverbe
fullysecured.Kafka’scharactersarethereforeoftentobefoundmoreor
lessdesperatelyscrambling,whetherinamoreorlessdesperate
relentlessfightorhighspiritedplayfulness,formoreorlesssecuresubject
positionswithinprecariousscenariosofworkingwithaswellasforan
apparatus.InanechoofAgamben’spartitioningofcreaturesandsubject-
position-endowingapparatuses,whatseeksoutthisorthatparticular
subjectpositionbydealingwithanapparatusincertainofthese
scenariosisinfactnolongerahumanbeingatall.‘Itispossibletoread
Kafka’sanimalstoriesforaconsiderabletime,’Benjaminremindsus,
‘withoutrealisingthattheyarenotabouthumanbeingsatall.
Encounteringthenameofthecreature[Geschöpf]–monkey,dogormole
–onelooksupstartledandseesthatoneisalreadyatagreatdistance
fromthecontinentofthehuman’.311
310Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,70.311Benjamin,‘FranzKafka’,419.
141
Distortion[Entstellung]AsStand-InOf‘TheNew’
Acontextthatrepeatsotherwiseandperhapsbringstogetherin
productivewayssomeofourpreviousconcernswiththeradical
performative–orelse,afformative–qualityofgesture,arethewritings
ofWernerHamacher.312Inhisessay‘TheGestureInTheName:On
BenjaminandKafka’,Hamacheremploystheconceptofthegesture
preciselyasafiguresaturatedwiththeimmediacyofthemedial.
Hamacherbeginshisreflectionswithareadingoftherecurringtropeof
‘thecloudyspot’inBenjamin’swritingsonKafka,thebecomingopaque
oftransmissionthatisusedmoreorlesssynominouslywiththefigureof
gesture.‘ForKafka,’Benjaminstates,‘somethingwasonlyever
comprehensiblethroughgesture.Andthesegestures,whichhedidnot
312WernerHamacher,‘TheGestureintheName:OnBenjaminandKafka’inPremises,294-336.(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress1999).InthecontextofhisreadingofWalterBenjamin’sconceptionofapuremeansofviolenceandlanguage,Hamacherputsforwardtheconceptualseriesofafformation,afformance,andafformativeincontrasttoperformation,performanceandperformativeact.Hamacher’sconceptionoftheconceptionoftheafformative,whichIcanhereonlypointtowardsbutnotdevelop,‘asa‘condition’foranyinstrumental,performative’actthat‘atthesametime[…]suspendsitsfulfillmentinprinciple,’isfundamentallyrelatedtoeverythingthatherecomesundertherubricofthevirtual:‘Butwhileafformationsdonotbelongtotheclassofacts–thatis,totheclassofpositingorfoundingoperations–theyarenevertheless,neversimplyoutsidethesphereofactsorwithoutrelationtothatsphere.Thefactthatafformationsallowsomethingtohappenwithoutmakingithappenhasadualsignificance:first,thattheyletthisthingenterintotherealmofpositings,fromwhichtheythemselvesareexcluded;and,second,thattheyarenotwhatshowsupintherealmofpositings,sothatthefieldofphenomenality,asthefieldofpositivemanifestation,canonlyindicatetheeffectsoftheafformativeasellipses,pauses,interruptions,displacementsetc.,butcannevercontainorincludethem.Theafformativeistheellipsiswhichsilentlyaccompaniesanyactandwhichmaysilentlyinterruptanyspeechact.What‘is’afformativecanthereforeneverberepresentedintheformofaruleoralaw.Whileeverypresentationdependsonapositingandisessentiallyperformativeincharacter,the‘deposing’ofwhichBenjaminspeaks,theafformative,wouldnotlenditselftopresentationofanysort.[…][Hamacher‘Afformative,Strike’,125-6].
142
understand,formthecloudyplace[Stelle]oftheparablesfromwhich
emergesKafka’sliterature’.313PickinguponBenjamin’sassertionthat
Kafka’sworkconstitutesatraditionthathasfallenill,Hamacherpays
specialattentiontothestatusofalanguagethatcontinuestocommit
itselftothepassingon[Tradierung]ofwhathasbecomeimpossibletobe
passedon[desUntradierbaren].Thecloudyspotofgestureperforms
suchatransmissionofanopaquedoctrine.Kafka’stextsinfinitely
hesitatebeforetheirownmeaning,Hamachernotes.Blockageofthe
movementoftransmissionmultipliesitssignifyingpotential.
Representationpassesoverintotheunrepresentable[Undarstellbare],
revealingtheabsenceofallrevelation.314Suchatransmissionofthe
untransmissablefollowsthestructuralmovementofameanswithout
end,aswehavealreadyencounteredit,andthatisneverthelessnotan
endinitself,butretainsanaspectofitselfasmeans.Hamacherdescribes
thismovementasapassingonwithoutcontent,agivingwithoutgift,
whichgivesnothingbutthegivingitself.315Hefurtherconstruesitasthe
movementofadefunctinheritance,bywhichtheprospectthatalawof
thepastwouldbevalidforthefutureandthusaconceptionofhistoryas
anormativecontinuumcannolongerbeupheld.Instead,the
interruptionofcontinuity(ofmeaning)canbeexperiencedbothasloss
andaschance.Whatmightbelost,arethepastdoctrineandasenseof
thehistoricalcontinuum.Whatmightbegained,isanopeningontoan
unknownfuture,thatis,the‘preparation’ofwhathasneverbeen.This
possiblecomingoftheother,however,Hamacherinsists,iscertainly
neverforus.ForwhatKafkasaysabouthopeisalsovalidforthelawof
traditionandtheliteraturethattransmitsitandaswhichittransmits
itself[sichübermittelt],namely:thereissufficienthope,infinitelyso–but
notforus.
313BenjamininWernerHamacher,‘DieGesteimNamen:BenjaminundKafka’inEntferntesVerstehen280-323.(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag2011),284.314ibid,290.315ibid,288.
143
Thereishopealwaysonlyforanother–andfor“us”onlywhen
thereis,sotospeak,no“us,”when“we”stopbeing“ourselves”
andbegintobeanother.“Plentyofhope,”therefore,“butnotfor
us.”Hope,rather,casebycase,forothers,foranotherliterature
andanotherhistory.316
IfthecloudthereforeconstitutesanopacificationofEnlightenment,
Hamachersays,oneshouldnothoweverbemorallycriticalofit.The
failureoftransmissionmustnotbediagnosedasasymptomofchance
[Zufallssymptom].Inotherwords,theaccidentofitsfall,theillnessthat
hasbefallentradition,warrantsaresponsethatdoesnotsimplypropose
toseektorecover‘oldgoods,’asHamacherputsit,butatleastconsiders
thepossibility‘thatthroughthedisintegrationofrepresentation
somethingotherpreparesitself,whichhasnotbeenpresentthusfarnor
issimplyanticipatable’.317ForBenjamin,Kafka’sparableswithout
doctrine–non-presentremainders,aswemightalsohereputit–may
notonlycontinuetotransmitwhatisleftofthedoctrineasrelic,butalso
prepareitasitsprecursor.Thedoctrine,lawandorderbeforewhich
Kafka’sparablesfailorwithholdthemselves,asHamacherstates,‘belong
[…]tothefuturenolessthanthepast’.318Yetneitherfuturenorpastis
figuredinKafka’swritings.Instead,the‘cloudyspot’andthe
incomprehensiblegesturethatinhabititmustberead‘preciselyasa
testimonyofrefusaloranimpossibilitytoanticipatethecomingand
subjectittopastformsofrepresentation’.319‘Distortion[Entstellung],
whichproliferatesinKafka’sprose,isthereforethestand-in
[Platzhalterin]ofanew,whichhasnoplace[Platz]inanasyetaccepted
orderofrepresentationanditselfdoesnotconstitutesuchanorder’.320
Here,thestatusofastand-in,whichwehavepreviouslyattributedtothe
actingcharactersinKafka’sdisintegratingorganisationsofthehuman
316Hamacher,‘TheGesture’,303.317Hamacher,‘DieGeste’,292.318ibid.319ibid.320ibid,293.
144
community,grapplingwiththeremainsofanapparatusininsecure
subject-positions,returnsinthecontextofaconsiderationoflanguageas
themediumofhistoricaltransmissionoftraditionandthehistorical
continuityoforganisation.Yettheopacityofatransmittedinheritanceas
stand-inisnotsimplyahistoricalconsequenceofanailingtradition,but
alsothedeconstruct-abilityofallpositingastheveryconditionofits
limitedsuccess.Test-performances,aswesaw,mightplaywiththenon-
presentremainingofatraditionthathasfallenill,orelseexposethenon-
presentremainingofanopaquestand-inwithinlimitedcontextual
effectsofpresence.Notunlikethestatusoftest-performancesandtest-
performers,distortions[Entsellungen]asstand-insarenolonger
properlyandsecurelyplaced[gestellt]withinacontextualorderof
representation,butprecariouslyexposedtothecomingofother
possibilitiesofuseorsignification.Hamacherlinkstheprovisionalstatus
ofthestand-intowhathedesignatesasitsmodernity.Themodernity
Hamacherherehasinmind,farfromfollowingthetrajectoriesof
teleologicalprogress,doesnotfollowonfromanoldorderasanewone,
butisthatwhich‘inallorderandfirstlyintheorderofrepresentation
opensupwhatbehavesheterogeneoustoit’.321Generalizingtheroleof
distortion[Entstellung]intherepresentationofhistoricalexperience,
Hamachersuggeststhatallarthasadimensionthatcouldbecalled
modern,if,initsrepresentationofhistoricalexperience,itexposesthe
caesura,the“cloudyspot”ortheunintelligiblegesture.
Resistanceagainsttheassimilationofthefuturetothepastisthe
minimalpoliticalprogrammeofamodernitythusconstrued.Itis
thereforetherefusaltocapitulatebeforethedemandfor
universalityofatraditionofrepresentationwhichcarriesoutthis
assimilation.Theolddoesnotfailsothatthenewsucceeds,but
whatfailsistheprincipleofrepresentationitself,whichinstigates
321ibid.
145
thecontinuitybetween„old“and„new,“andthereforethe
continuityofhistoricaltimethusfar,inthefirstplace.322
ThechanceofarevolutionofthesocialfunctionofartasBenjaminseeks
todiscernitinthewakeofthewitheringoftheauraoftheworkofartin
thetimeofitsreproducibility,followstheminimalpoliticalprogramme
ofamodernitythusconstrued.Nolongersubservienttothe
omnitemporalforceofritualaswhatseekstoguarantee‘thecontinuity
between„old“and„new,“andthereforethecontinuityofhistoricaltime
thusfar’,itbeginstorelyontheparticipatorypracticeofpoliticsand
play,whichperpetuallyrehearsesorreworkstheinheritanceofthepast
asthefuturetocome.
322ibid.
147
CHAPTERTHREE
ClumsyCreatures:
WalterBenjaminintheBestiaryofEdwinaAshton323
Fig.1.SevenSiteslaunchparty, Fig.2.WalterBenjamin,1937.August2011.EdwinaAshton. PhotographedbyGisèleFreund.
323ThepresentchapterhasbeenpublishedinPerformanceResearch18:4OnFalling.
148
‘Clumsinessspeaksoftheinfiltrationoffallinginhumanaction’.324In
otherwords,actionsandspeechacts,movementsthatstrivetoward
meaningfulends,areheredestabilised.Whetherdescribingthe
interruptionsofsuddenpratfallsandslipsofthetongue,orslower
processesofrenderingfuturityuncertain,theclumsyinfiltrationof
fallingunderminesmasterythroughamoreorlessgraduallossof
controloverend-directedambitions.
‘Theclumsyoneisweigheddown[…]byabodythathedoesnot
fillorcoincidewithsufficientlytocommand’.325Here,Connerdescribesa
breakdownofmasteryundertheweightofnon-coincidence.Aprocessof
doubling,self-distancingandself-multiplicationthatCharlesBaudelaire,
inhisessay‘OftheEssenceofLaughter’hadsimilarlyassociatedwitha
professionalattitudetowardsfalling,practicedalikebyphilosophersand
buffoons.326Falling,inthiscontext,exposesthefailureofthemythof
self-identity.Itisthegestureofself-alienationparexcellence.Inthis
light,Baudelaire’snotionofaprofessionalstancetowardsfalling,ifone
canputitthussomewhatparadoxically–amoreorlesscontrolledlossof
control,degreesofmasteryinnon-mastery–perhapsnecessitateswhat
WalterBenjaminsaysoftheactorinEpicTheatre,thatis,‘topreservefor
oneselfthepossibilitytoartfullyfalloutofone’srole’.327
Suchtechnologiesofandprofessionalattitudestowardsfalling
mustbeputinrelationtoBenjamin’slifelongpractico-theoretical
fascinationwiththe‘theoff-fall[Abfall,lit.rubbish]ofhistory,’theruins,
fragments,imagesandgesturesdiscardedbyorcutfromadominant
324StevenConnor‘ShiftingGround’.ThisistheEnglishversionofanessaypublishedinGermanas'AufschwankendemBoden',inthecatalogueoftheexhibitionSamuelBeckett,BruceNaumaned.byMichaelGlasmeier.(Vienna:KunsthalleWien,2000):80-7.AccessedNovember2011.325ibid.326CharlesBaudelaire,‘OftheEssenceofLaughter,andgenerallyoftheComicinthePlasticArts’,inBaudelaire:SelectedWritingsOnArtAndArtists,trans.P.E.Charvet,(Harmondsworth:PenguinBooks,1972).327WalterBenjamin,‘WasistdasepischeTheater?(2),29.
149
historicalorganisation(Benjamin1983:575).Acrisisoforganisation
andtheproliferationoffallenfragmentsinformBenjamin’sreadingof
twoparadigmaticcontexts:theGermanbaroqueTrauerspielandthe
literaryworkofFranzKafka.Bothdepictaworldthatismarkedbythe
lossofredemptivehorizonsinlightofafailure[Aus-fall]ofeschatology.
Here,actionsfindthemselvesseveredfromtheircollectivesymbolic
organisation.Barredfromredemptiveguaranteesandinhibitedfrom
accesstograce,movementsarenolongersetuponateleological
trajectoryandthusinfiltratedbyfalling.InthiscontextBenjamin
developsanotionofthecreature[dieKreatur]assomanydistortions
[Entstellungen]fromtheorderedposition[Stellung]ofhumanmastery.
Distortedandclumsy,thecreaturefindsitselfvulnerablyexposedtoan
utterlackofsecurityandfuture.Unless,thatis,itturnsouttobemore
professionallyateaseinprecariousconditionsofnon-mastery,playfully
atworkinexuberantattitudesofexperiment.
Inwhatfollows,Iwouldliketoreflectfurtherontheambiguous
conditionsoftheclumsycreature,bothproductivelyandprecariouslyat
playintheworkofcontemporaryartistEdwinaAshton’screature
costumes,performancesandfilms,andthewritingsofWalterBenjamin.
Finally,IwouldliketoconsiderBenjaminhimself,ofwhomTheodorW.
Adornosaidthatheresembledananimalthatcollectsthingsinits
mouth,whethervulnerablyexposedorexuberantlyatplay,asonemore
creaturewithinAshton’sbestiary.328
AnAmbiguousPoliticsoftheClumsy
‘Inthesedays’,WalterBenjaminproclaimsinanotefromOne-
WayStreet,‘nooneshouldbesetupon[sichversteiffen]whathe“cando.”
328EckhardtKöhn,‘Sammler’inBenjaminsBegriffe.ed.byMichaelOpitz&ErdmutWizisla.695-724.(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag2000).
150
Strengthliesinimprovisation.Alldecisiveblowswillbedealtbytheleft
hand’.329Thesmallaphorismhangsambiguouslybetweenanactive
ethico-politicalcalltoself-interruptionandthereactivestanceofmaking
dowithanimposedlossofcontrol.Inanycase,adecisive[entscheidende]
blowcannolongerbeplannedoranticipated,butspringsforthfrom
positionsofinsecurity,whetheractivelysoughtoutorpassively
experienced.Frombeingthusprecariouslyplaced,actionsunfold
severedfromguaranteedmeaningfulendsinprocessesofexperimental
non-mastery.Thelatter,perhapsakindofpoliticsoftheclumsy,istobe
foundinBenjamin’sthoughtandlife,inallitsactive-reactiveambiguity.
Throughouthisworkandletters,Benjamin’sattitudeseemingly
oscillatesbetweenthelamentforthelossofsecurepositions[Stellungen]
embeddedwithininheritedtraditionsandtheradicalcallforexploding
andcuttingtobitstheprecariousremainsoftheordersofthings.Not
leastofalltheteleologicalorganisationofactionswithinaprogressive
historicalcontinuum.Hisownlifeistestamenttothepullofthispolarity.
Itstrikesout,sotospeak,inextremes;attimesstifledwithinconditions
ofvulnerableexpositionwithinforceduponexiles,atothersexuberantin
attitudesofdestructionwithincunningordersofself-experiment.
ToFindPathwaysEverywhere
InalettertoGershomScholemfrom1930,Benjaminexpressesa
frustrationwithhisgenerallackofasecuresocialposition[Stellung].‘It
isindeednoteasy,’hesays,‘atthethresholdofforty,tostand[zustehen]
withoutproperty,position[Stellung]andcapital[Vermögen]’.330Yetin
hisessay‘ThedestructiveCharacter’writtenaroundthesametime,he
emphaticallydescribesthefeaturesofthisadmirabletypeasanactive329WalterBenjamin,Einbahnstraße,14.330GershomScholem,WalterBenjamin–dieGeschichteeinerFreundschaft.(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag1975),202.
151
rejectionofthesecuritiesoftheproper.ThepolarityofBenjamin’sdesire
forandagainstaminimumofpropersecuritiescanfurtherbeconstrued
byjuxtaposinghislife-longpassionasacollectorwiththedestructive
character’scalltomakeroomforajoyfuluprootingofone’scondition
[Zustand].331WritingtoScholemin1931,Benjaminspeaksofthereunion
withhislibraryinaBerlinflatatPrinzregentenstrasse66thathetook
overfromthepainterEvaBloyinthelateautumnof1930.Thelibrary,
whichbythenhadgrownfrom1200to2000books,‘eveninthesetimes,’
ashesuggestivelyputsit,issituatedintheofficeoftheflat.Thepresence
ofhisprivatebookcollectionmakestheoffice,despiteitsunfinished
condition,quiteinhabitable.Here,Benjaminseeminglyoffsetsthe
fragilityoftheoffice’scondition–aworkinprogressthatdenies
masterfuluse–withthereassuringpresenceofoneofhisdearest
possessions.Asifhowevertomakeupforamomentaryweakness,
Benjamingoesontocalmlyrelatetheabsenceofawork-desk.Contrary
towhatonemightexpectfromaprofessionalwriter,heisnothowever
putoutbythisintheleast.DrawingScholem’sattentiontohislong
acquiredhabit,duetoavarietyofcircumstances,towritewhilstlying
down,hebeginstojoyfullyrelatethepresenceofasofathat,albeit
unsuitabletosleeponduetoitshardness,apparentlymakesfora
marvellousplacetowork.Here,Benjamin’shappytransvaluationofthe
useofthingsisabletofollowhisowndescriptionsofthedestructive
character’sabilitytofindpathways[Wege]everywhere.‘Becausehesees
pathways[Wege]everywhere,hehimselfalwaysstandsatthecrossroads
[Kreuzweg].Noinstantmayknowwhatthenextwillbring’.332Despite
thecontextualrhetoricofempowerment,thedescriptionclearlyretains
thedarkeraspectsofstandingprecariouslyatthecrossroadsin
perpetualalert,thatis,ofafragileexpositiontotheutterunpredictability
ofallfuturity.BenjaminsaysasmuchwiththefirstentryofhisDiary
fromtheseventhofAugustNineteenhundredthirtyoneuntiltheDayof
331Benjamin,Illuminationen,289.332ibid,290.
152
Death,whichremarksonthehopelessness[Ausweglosigkeit,lit.absence
ofawayout]ofhissituation.333
BeingInsecurelyPlaced
Similarpolaritiesbetweenstatesofhopeandhopelessnesswithin
givenpositionsofinsecurityareatworkinBenjamin’sreadingofFranz
Kafka.Kafka’shermeticfictionalworldsrigorouslyputintoplay
questionsregardingthepositions[Stellungen]oftheircharacters.The
GermanwordStellunginthiscontextistobeunderstoodinallitssenses
andassociatedmeanings–ofposition,placeandstance,ofemployment
andstatus,aswellasgeneralrelationsofsocialhierarchy.Whatoccupied
Kafka,themoreitbecameimpenetrabletohim,wasthe‘questionofhow
lifeandworkareorganisedinhumansociety’.334Kafka’scharacters
scramblefor,orretreatfrom,theirgivenpositions[Stellung],following
anambiguousdesireof(dis-)
belongingtotheorganisinginstitutionsoftheirworld.Centralcharacters
likeK.,JosefK.andtheyoungKarlRossmannoftenfindthemselvesoutof
(their)place,aswellasintheprocessofmoreorlessdesperatelyseeking
togainsecurerpositions[Stellungen].Theirendeavourtoappropriate
andsecureacertainstatusoremployment[Stellung]forthemselves
oftenexposesthetheatricalorganisationoftheirworld.
Ascenethatcombinesthedistributionoftheatricalroleswiththe
sinisterstakesofaviolentthreattothemostminimalsecurityofposition
playsitselfoutoverthefirstfewpagesofTheCastle:K.iswokenbya
youngmanwithanactorly[schauspielerhaften]face.335Soonenough,
followinganaggressivedebateconcerninghislawfulrighttosleepinthe
mostrudimentplace[Stelle]onasackofstrawinthecornerofastill
333Köhn,719-20.334Benjamin,Illuminationen,420.335FranzKafka,DasSchloß.(FrankfurtamMain:Fischer1998),7.
153
busyinn,hewantstoputanendtothiscomedy.336Accusedofbeinga
vagabond,K.seekstoasserthimselfwithreferencetohisemployment
[Stellung]bylettingitbeknownthatheisthelandsurveyorwhowas
calleduponbythecountofthecastle.Judginghoweverfromhisown
reactiontotheauthority’sbelatedconfirmationofthisaudaciousclaim,
hisproclaimedland-surveyorness[Landvermesserschaft]turnsoutto
perhapshavebeennothingbutacunningyetdesperateattemptatself-
preservation.TheCastle,assovereignpower,doesnotsomuchas
confirmaposition[Stellung]andtitlepreviouslyarranged,butseemingly
acceptshisrole-playbyretrospectivelyappointinghimtoit.337K.’slack
ofsecureposition,hisexileandtheatricality,perhapsconstituteamiddle
groundofaspectrumofdisplacementsanddistortions[Entstellungen]
thatrunthroughoutKafka’sworld.ForBenjaminthereishopeforvery
fewcharacterswithinthisspectrum.Thefragilityofthemajorityoftheir
positions[Stellungen],henotes
[…]weighsheavilyonthisworldofcreaturesasadarkkindof
law.Nonehasafirmposition[Stelle],nonehasafirm,non-
exchangeableoutline;nonethatisnoteitherrisingorfalling;none
thatisnottradingplaceswithitsenemyorneighbour,nonethatis
notdeeplyexhaustedandyetisonlyatthebeginningofalong
duration.Here,tospeakofanyorderorhierarchyisimpossible.338
Benjamin’sreadingneverthelessprimarilyconcernsitselfwithdrawing
ourattentiontothosecharactersthatformexceptionstothenorm.
Althoughfarfromexemptfromalackofsecureposition,thesecharacters
aresomewhatabletotakeupadifferentattitudewithregardstothe
fragilityoftheirpredicament.TheyareKafka’sassistants[Gehilfen],
studentsandbuffoons,whoneitherbelongtonorareforeigntoany336ibid,8.337ibid,10.338Benjamin,‘FranzKafka–ZurzehntenWiederkehrseinesTodestages’inGesammelteSchriftenBandII.409-438.(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag1977),415.
154
otherordersofbelonging.‘Forthemandtheirkind,theunfinishedand
clumsy,thereishope’.339Fullofanexuberantresilience,theircourageous
fumblingandgropingdrawsonamixtureofcunningandhighspirits.340
Performinghappyinvestmentswithoutguaranteedreturns,orelse,
‘experiments,alwaysofcourseaccompaniedbylispsandchuckling,’they
ambitiouslyventureintotheworldliketheladwholefthishomeforhe
wantedtolearnwhatfearwas.341Withoutpower,yetfarfromimpotent,
aswellashopefulasJosephinethesingingmouse,theyarefullof
‘unfathomableyetneverthelessexistingandnottobeterminatedhigh
spirits’[Munterkeit].342
339ibid,415.340Inanasideof‘TheStoryteller’Benjaminnotesthat‘thisishowthefairytalepolarisesMut[courage],dividingitdialecticallyintoUntermut–thatis,cunning–andÜbermut[highspirits](Benjamin,Illuminationen,404).’341Benjamin,‘FranzKafka’,414-5.342ibid.
155
Fig.3.WalterBenjaminatthe Fig.4.WarmHandofHistoryBibliotèqueNationale,Paris1937. (filmStill)2008,EdwinaPhotographedbyGisèleFreund. Ashton.
TheCreature-WorldofEdwinaAshton
InMay2012ItravelledtothecapitaloftheBasquecountry,
Vitoria-Gasteiz,tovisittheexhibition‘IntheBellyoftheWhale(ActIII),’
curatedbyRosieCooperandAriellaYedgar,atMontehermoso,acentre
forcontemporaryart.Thetitleofthegroupshowwasgivenwith
referencetoOrsonWelle’ssaidhabittorefertohistheatrehallasthe
bellyofawhale–‘inwhichtheactorsareunwittinglytrapped’–and
resonateswiththephysicalrealityoftheexhibitionspace,aformer
water-tankofthecity.343Theaccompanyingexhibitiontextaddressesthe
readerasfollows:‘Youhaveenteredanexhibitionconcernedwith
rehearsalanditsrelatednotionsofversion,repetitionandfailure[…]’.344
Spreadoutoverthevast,tallandhollowspaceoftheoldwater-tank,in
andamongsttheotherworks,arefivesmallTVmonitorsdisplaying
loopedvideorecordingsofdiversecreatures–performersdressedin
elaboratecostumesmadefromscrapsofoldfabricandmakeshift
343RosieCooper&AriellaYedgar,IntheBellyoftheWhale(ActIII),(exhibitioninformationleaflet),Vitoria:Montehermoso2012,11.344ibid.
156
everydaymaterialslikeoldtongs,duvets,scarvesandjumpers–bythe
artistEdwinaAshton.Thesecreaturesareeachdepictedinmoreorless
awkward,clumsy,yetoftenexuberant,franticandattimesdesperate
pursuitsoffutiletaskswhoseendsareinfinitelypostponed.Astickman
inahelplesshuntforaflyonthewindow,itsfragilestiffwoodenarms
approachingitagainandagainwithouttheslightestsignsofimpatience
oradherencetoarealityprinciple.Endlesslypursuingafutiledesire,this
stickman’smissionmakesforanambiguousscene,bothmelancholicand
hilarious.Abeetlecaughtupinamad,busy,effortfulandnoisyactivity
withoutend–franticallyshufflingagiantpapiermachéballupanarrow
stairwayonlytoimmediatelyletitrolldownagain.Achubbysilkworm
sportingatinylittlebrownhat,concernedwiththeconstructionofa
‘BeautifulPot.’Withtentaclearmsittriestomouldalumpofclaythat
liesonatableinfrontofit.Seeminglyhalf-blind,thecreaturegropesfor
aribbonadjacenttotheclayandbeginstoclumsilywrapitaroundthe
lumpyshape.Ataskthatprovesmostdifficultyetisnevertheless
pursuedawkwardlywithwhat,afterawhile,perhapsresemblesan
ambitionthatbordersonthedesperate.Whentheactionmomentarily
endsinfailure–potandribbonfalltotheground–thecameralingersfor
ashortwhileonthehelplessprotagonist.Atthismoment,whether
audibleornot,itisasifthecreaturegivesoffasigh.Adelicatemomentof
helplessfrustrationexposesthesilkworm’svulnerability.However,soon
enoughthevideocutsbacktoitsbeginningandwefollowoncemore,
amusedyetnotwithoutanawkwardhintofpity,therenewedenergetic
commitmenttoarepeatedattempt.
ACreaturelyDimensionoftheHuman
Afourthvideooftheseriesdepictsacreaturemoredifficultto
attributetoaspecificanimalspecies.Ithasleftthedomesticinterior
behindandventuredoutside,yetisneverthelessoccupiedwithan
157
activitythatembodiesthedomesticscene.Holdingabucketandmopit
standsinfrontofalargerockfacehappilypolishingwithoutnoticeable
effecttherockinitsimmediatereach.Everysoofteninterruptedby
followinganairplanewithitsgaze,itseemsnotintheleastputoutbythe
unfathomablesizeofthetaskthatseeminglyliesahead.Thefourvideos’
emphasisondomestichabitatsandhome-makingendeavoursbringto
mindanotherencounterwithAshton’sworld.In2011,onthetopfloor
flatofArthurMillwoodCourt,Salford,SEVENSITES,aseriesof
performancesforunusualcontextsandlocations,curatedbyLaura
Mansfieldandmyself,launchedwithaperformancebyEdwinaAshton.
Uponarrival,abird-likecreatureinyellowandblue,equippedwith
turquoiserollersforclawsandabeak,showsgueststhewaytothelift.
OnceinthesmallflatoverlookingtheskylineofManchester,inplaceof
curatorandartist,guestsarehostedtoashambolicteapartybyfive
othercreatures:abearfranticallyatworkinthekitchen,twocat-
servantsrunningaroundbetweentheguests–seeingtoandobstructing
theircomfortinequalmeasure–animmobilebeetlesatonthecouch
tangledinwool,aswellasacaterpillarbusilycleaningawindowfrom
outonthebalcony.Onceagain,aclumsyexuberanceaccompaniesthese
creature’sactionsthatdistort[entstellt]therealmofhumandomesticity.
Battenbergcakeisservedinunpredictablesizes,speedsandmannersto
selectedguestsonly,aswellashiddenorstoredinbathroomcupboards
andcornersinequalmeasure.Inthekitchen,thebearrepeatedlystarts
andstopstofollowarecipeforscones,creatingaspectacularmesswith
flower,water,potandwhisk.Theseplayfullyneuroticdomestic
displacementsperhapsgesturetowhatmoregenerallystrikesmeas
Ashton’screatures’humorousyetmelancholicdistortionsoftheorders
ofthehumananditsmeaningproducingstructuresandinstitutions.
Theirclumsinessdisplaysitselfasaresultoftheinfiltrationoffallingin
humanaction.Itissuchregressionsfromhumanskillsetsandend-
orientedendeavours,aswellasitsassumptionsofself-identicalmastery
thatbringforthacreaturelydimension.LikeKafka’screatures,these
“animals”areonlyevermoreorlessremovedfromthecontinentofthe
158
human,asiseverythinginKafka,Benjaminsays,includingthe“human
itself”.345Ashton’ssuggestiveyetvaguevisualreferencestobirds,cats,
caterpillarsandbeetlesarenotsomuchanthropomorphisedanimalsas
creaturelyhumans,occupyingamiddleworld,unfinishedandclumsy.By
interrupting,suspending,distorting[entstellen]aswellasrepeatingthe
fragileremainsoftheordersof“human”organisationandteleology,they
exhibitacreaturelydimensionthatmaybeboth,signofactiverevoltin
self-experimentaswellasfragileresilienceinimposedpositionsof
vulnerableexposure.
FallfromRedemptiveHorizons:theCreatureoftheBaroque
Kafka,Benjaminnotes,removesthetraditional[überkommenen]
supportsofhumangesture,‘torenderitanobjectofendless
contemplations’.346Suchaprocessofapassivelossoractiveremovalof
inheritedsupports–schemataofmeaningfulordersofgestures,words,
things–combinedwithanattitudeofcontemplationwithoutend,is
preciselythesituationBenjaminlocatesinhisanalysisoftheGerman
baroqueTrauerspielandtheoperationofitsallegoricalTiefblick[deep
(in)sight].Withinthiscontext,ahistoricalscenethatdoublesasa
structuralparadigm,Benjaminfirstintroducestheconceptofcreature
[Kreatur].
ForBenjamin,thebaroque’sparadigmaticstructurehastobe
understoodasaresultofafailure[Ausfall]ofeschatology.The
Trauerspielrespondstothisfailurebyseekingtoaddressquestionsthat
haveescapedtheologyafteritlostitsprivilegedclaimtointerpretation.
InlightoftheReformation,thecurie’sorganisationofredemptive
guaranteesisrendereduncertain.Luther’srejectionof“goodworks”in
favourof“faithalone”instigatesaninstitutionalcrisis.Thefailureofall
345Benjamin,‘FranzKafka’,419-20.346ibid,420.
159
privilegedclaimstothesocialorganisationofthesensibleexposes
isolatedindividualscutofffromoneanotherandtheworld.Life,no
longerendowedwithameaningthatcouldsurpassindividualmortality,
increasinglybecomesengulfedinfeelingsofanxietyandalienation.
Actions,severedfrompredictableendsbecomemeaningless,ephemeral
andundecidable.Fragmentsofafallennaturefindthemselvescutfrom
theirteleologicalorganisation,exposingthemselvestoaradically
unforeseeableanduncontrollablefuture.Withinthiscontext,the
creature[dieKreatur]describesafallenhumanityseveredfrom,yet
neverthelessunderstoodwithreferencetoasacredrealm.Creaturelylife
thusre-emergestothedegreethatlifeisnolongerembeddedwithin
institutionsthatorganiseitsaccesstoasymbolicorderabletoraiseit
aboveitsfallencondition.Inthisstructuralparadigmthecategoryoflife
itselfissplitbetweenacreaturelydimensionofmerelifeandits
redemptiveparticipationinasacredsymbolicrealm.Creaturelylife
thereforedescribesthesurvivalofafallencreationseveredfromaccess
tograce.Nowhereisthissplitstructureofthehumanmoreapparent
thanwithregardstotheTrauerspiel’srepresentationofthesovereign.
‘Nomatterhowhighheisenthronedabovesubjectandstate,’Benjamin
notes,‘hisrankisdecidedintheworldofcreation.Heisthemasterof
creatures,butremainscreaturehimself’.347Nolongerabletowield,soto
speak,adecisiveblow,henowmarksthelimitofsovereigntyitself.A
sovereignty,asDerridaputsit,which‘willalwaysimplythepossibility
of…positionality,…thesis,…self-thesis,…autopositionofhimwhoposits
orpositshimselfasipse,the(self-)same,oneself‘.348‘Nothingteachesthe
fragilityofthecreaturemoredrastically,’Benjaminelaborates,‘thanthe
factthatevenhewasovercomebyit’.349Thecauseofhisdownfallcannot
befoundinaparticularmoraloffencebutmustbeexplainedthroughhis
generalpositionascreaturelyhuman[Standdeskreatürlichen
347Benjamin,Ursprung,65-6.348JacquesDerrida,TheBeastandtheSovereignVolume1ed.byMichelLise,Marie-LouiseMalletandGinetteMichand,trans.ByGeoffreyBennington.(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress2009),67.349Benjamin,Ursprung,123.
160
Menschen].350ThisStand–position,rank,stance–isatthesametime
whatundermineshispreviousplaceatthetopofsocialhierarchy.Ina
perpetualoscillationfrompowertopowerlessness,hisexemplaryself-
masteryunravelsintosovereignindecisionandactsofclumsynon-
mastery.Withtheinfiltrationoffallinginsovereignaction,end-directed
demeanoursfindthemselvesinterrupted.Whatisleftisamoreorless
anxiousdisplayofclumsiness,actsofnon-masterywithuncontrollable
ends.
350ibid,70.
161
Fig.5.MyBeautifulPot(filmstill), Fig.6.WalterBenjamin,19372008,EdwinaAshton. PhotographedbyGisèleFreund.
BenjaminasCreature
LisaFittko,whoin1940facilitatedBenjamin’sflightfromthe
GestapoacrosstheFrenchPyrenees,entersachorusofbiographical
accountsthatdescribethephilosophers’lackofphysicalprowess.
‘Never,’shesays,‘haveIbeenmadesoconsciousofthetragicconflict
betweenthoughtandactioninaperson’.351MichaelTaussig,whorelates
Fittko’sobservationsonBenjamin’sapparentlackofadaptability,
perceivessuchaconflictas
[…]allthemorestrikinginBenjamin’scasewhenweconsider
howoverwhelminglyattunedhistheoriesweretowhathehimself
calledtheobjectworldandtomimeticbehaviour,suchbehaviour
beinginsomeregardthequintessenceofwhathascometobe
called“embodiedknowledge”andwhatIthinkLisaFittkomeant
by“adaptability.”“Fautdebroullier,”shesaid,“onemustknow
howtohelponeself,toclearawayoutofthedebacle.”(…)
Benjamin’sloveofmodernism,andinparticularofmontage,
351MichaelTaussig,WalterBenjamin’sGrave.(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress2006),11.
162
allegory,andfragmentation,allwouldseemtostrongly
predisposeoneto“adaptability,”meaningcopingwithnewand
strangecircumstances[…].Moreover,hislettersandessays
writtenonIbizain1932-33areglowingtestimonytoaloveof
materialcultureandkeeneyefornature.Butwhatdoesallthis
adduptoifyoucan’tevenholdacupofhottea?352
Vulnerablyexposed,onhisflightacrossthemountains,Benjaminis
unableorelseunwillingtoadapt.Perhapswemustreadthescene
againstthegrainofanassumedinabilitytocopewithnewandstrange
circumstances.Taussighimselfsuggestsasmuchwhenhestatesthatitis
‘asifthelackof“adaptability”hadacertainethicalprinciplebehindit,
whichwas,precisely,nottoadapt’.353Inanycase,Fittko’sdemandsfor
mastery,theskilledhandlingofahotcupoftea,arehereatoddswith
Benjamin’skeeninterestinaverydifferentsortofadaptation.
AdaptabilityaspracticedbyKafka’sservants,forinstance,whoareable
toinstallthemselvesontwooldskirtsonthefloorinthecorner,paying
heedtoacreaturelydimensionofnon-mastery.
Itwastheirambitiontotakeupaslittlespaceaspossible.They
undertooktothispurposeseveraltrials[Versuche],alwaysof
courseunderlispsandgiggles,crossedarmsandlegs,huddled
themselvestogether.Atdawnonecouldonlyseealargebundlein
theircorner.354
Theassitant’sdecisivetrickseeminglyliesinnotsoreadilystrivingfor
thesecuritiesofmasteryandStellung,buttobeabletotakeuphigh-
spiritedattitudestowardsexpositionsofvulnerability.Benjamin,albeit
grippedattimesbylongingsforgreatersecurity,aswellasviolently352ibid.353ibid.354Benjamin,‘FranzKafka’,414.
163
driventoextremeformsofexile,forthemostpartsoughttoembrace
whatperhapscanbetentativelycalledapoliticsoftheclumsy.Viewedin
thisway,itispreciselytheclumsy,awkward,experimental
postponementoftheaccomplishmentofskillsorgoalsthatperhapslies
attheheartofhisthoughton“embodiedknowledge.”Benjamin’slifeand
workaretestamenttobeingthusdis-placed,insecurely,inanambiguous
attitudeofvulnerableexpositionandhopefulexperiment.Anot
dissimilarattitudecanbesaidtoinformAshton’screatures’strange
ambitions.Theystruggle,clumsily,forbetterorworse,inhighspirited
yetvulnerablepursuitsofmeanswithunfathomableoruncontrollable
ends:astickmaninfutilepursuitofafly,asilkwormawkwardlyoccupied
withribbonandclayandWalterBenjamin,ontopamountain,helplessly
fumblingwithahotcupoftea.TheAusweglosigkeit[hopelessness]ofthe
latter’sfinalpredicamentisthedarkundersideofallofthesecreatures’
highspiritedhopeandcunningtofindpathwayseverywhere.
165
CHAPTERFOUR
OfSecretSignals,AbsentMastersandtheTremblingoftheContours:WalterBenjamin,YvonneRainerandtheRepeatabilityofGesture.355
Introduction
Repetitionreliesonprocessesofidealisation,techniquesor
technologiesofexternalisation,degreesofretentionandspacing,the
tracingofrelationsbetweenpastandfuture.Inextricablyboundtothe
constructionanddeconstructionofhabit,traditionandidentity,the
movementofrepetitionfollowsataskof(self-)inheritancealongchains
ofcounter-signaturesassomanyre-cognitions,re-readings,re-
enactments,re-uses,re-affirmations,re-appropriationsandparodiesof
allthatremains.Yetbeforerepetitionactuallytakesplace,asJacques
Derridahasshown,thesignature–paradoxicallysingularperformance
ofaniterablemark–isalwaysalreadyhauntedbythepossibilityof“its”
comingcounter-signature,‘thetimeandplaceoftheothertimealreadyat
work,alteringfromthestartthestartitself,thefirsttime,theatonce’.356
Toavowofthisvirtualpossibilityofrepetition–repeatability–inmodes
ofradicalperformativity,Iwillargue,istotakeupanattitude[Haltung]
ofnon-masteryinanygivencontext,orelse,toabeing-in-rehearsal.
TheperformancepracticesofYvonneRainerandothersatJudson
Dancetakeanoftenoverlookedinterestinengagingwitharchival
remains,developing‘strategiesfordancingyesterday’bywhichthelive
momentofperformanceletsitselfbehauntedbyanother,pasttimeand
355ThepresentchapterhasdevelopedoutofapaperdeliveredattheinterdisciplinaryconferenceAndsoon:OnRepetitionatAngliaRuskinUniversity,Cambridge,30thNovember2013andhassubsequentlybeenpublishedinEiriniKartsakied.OnRepetition:Writing,Performance,Art.(London:Intellect2016).356Derrida,LimitedInc,62.
166
place.357Anotdissimilarconcernwiththerecognisabilityofre-enacted
marksinformsthetheatreofBertoltBrecht.InWalterBenjamin’s
writingsonthelatteranimportantshiftofemphasistakesplace:a
concernwiththeactofrepetitiongiveswaytoananalysisofthe
structureofrepeatabilitythatconditionsit.Gestures,asthemoreorless
uniqueandthereforeprivilegedrepeatablemarksof(Epic)theatre,are
theclearlyframedtimeormovementfragmentsthatstandstillinthe
interruptedcontinuityofaplotorthetemporalunfoldingofa
performance.Momentarilyseveredfromtheflowoftime,aminimal
movementofspacing–timebecomingspace–rendersgesturescitable.
Ascitablegestures,theybegintostandinafundamentalrelationshipto
thefuture,namely,towardsthepossibilityoftheirrepetitioninother
contextstocome.Suchpossiblefuturedisplacementsintimeandspace
areboundtoentaildifferenceasmuchasrepetition.Citablegestures
virtuallypartwiththeirpresentcontextofdeterminationandbeginto
signaltowardsthepossibilityofafuturealterity.Findingsimilar
structuresatworkintheexperimentsindanceofYvonneRainerand
othersatJudsonDance,IhereseektotraceacertainBrechtianechoin
thepracticesofthelatter.Anecho,tobesure,whichlikeallechoes,links
themovementofrepetitiontodifference.Movingbeyondthespecific
practicesanddiscoursesofBrechtandRainer,Ifurtherwanttosuggest
thatperhapsalltheatricalpracticerestsonageneralstructureof
repeatability,particularlywhenremainingclosetotheprocessofits
assemblage,namely,therehearsal.Inadetailedreadingofcertain
extractsfromBenjamin’sessayona‘ProgramforaProletarianChildren’s
Theatre’Ifinallypursuethethemeofrepeatability,asithasleaptfrom
BrechttoRainerviaasharedconcernwithcompositionaldevicesof
357Lambert-Beatty,51.Ihereadopttheunfortunatelyellipticalphrase–‘YvonneRainerandothersatJudsonDance’-forpurelyeconomicalreasons.ForadetaileddocumentationofthehistoryofthisinfluentialinformalgroupofAvant-gardeexperimentalistsworkinginNewYorkduringthe1960s,takingaccountofitsmanymembersanddiversepractices,seeSallyBanes,Democracy’sBody.(Durham:DurhamUniversityPress1993).
167
interruptionandcitation,byrearticulatingitasapolitico-pedagogic
attitudeofradicalperformativity.Asamovementofrepetitionthat
maintainsasimultaneousreferencetothepastandtothefuture,
performanceasrehearsalbeginstodescribeanexperimentalattitude
[Haltung]towardstheinheritanceofapast.Designatingaradically
performativeandprovisionaltime-spacefortheexperimentalattitudes
ofnon-mastery,thetheatreasrehearsalturnsouttobetheparadigmatic
contextofeducation:anuncertainlocality,whereknowledgeneverquite
settlesnorperformativeseverquitetake(their)place.358
358Abriefclarificationofthetermsperformance,performativeandradicalperformativeisperhapsheredue.Inthefirstplace,aswillbecomesufficientlyclearinthelatterpartofthechapter,‘performance’shouldbeunderstoodaswhathastraditionallybeenopposedtotherehearsalasendproductbutcanbestrictlyspeakingsonolonger.ThewordthatBenjaminusesintheGermanisAufführung,apresentationontheraisedplatformofthestage,which,contrarytotheEnglishperformance,haslittleresonancewithwhatcontemporarytheorydesignatesasperformativitynorwhatinPerformanceandTheatreStudiesseekstodifferentiatemoreorlesssuccessfully,performancefromtheatre.Thislatterdistinctionordebatehaslittleimporthere.Infact,apoliticsofrehearsalasanattitudeoftheradicallyperformativeisinnowayboundtotheinstitutionsofthetheatreanditsderivatives,whichareheremerelytakenasparadigmatic.Finally,referencestothewordperformativityand‘theperformative’seektosignaltowardscontemporaryconcernswithnon-essential,processorientedsubjectformations,whilstbeingrootedinJ.L.Austin’soppositionoftheperformativeandtheconstative(speechact).FollowingJacquesDerrida’scritiqueofAustin,Iseektofurthermoredifferentiate‘theperformative’–anutteranceoractionthatholdsoutforthesuccessofitseffectiveoccurrencewithinasaturatedcontext–withacertainbeyondoftheperformative,thatis,agesturethatalreadydistancesitselffromitselfandthecertaintiesofitsowntakingplacewithinagivencontextbytheuseofthesuperlative‘radical’.Thetheatreis,ofcourse,alreadyinAustin’sownanalysis,aparadigmaticcontextforthefailureoftheperformative.Itispreciselythereevaluationofthisfailurethatisatstakehere.Radicalperformativityeschewstheorderofthe“Ican”andofmastery,aswellastheontologicalassumptiontheyarefoundedupon.Aperformativitybeyondtheperformative,asDerridafittinglyputsit,‘puncturesthehorizon,interruptinganyperformativeorganization,anyconvention,oranycontextthatcanbedominatedbyaconventionality’.[Derrida,‘TheUniversityWithoutCondition’inWithoutAlibied.&transbyPeggyKamuf,202-237.(Stanford:StandfordUniversityPress2002),244,myemphasis].ForDerrida’sincisivereadingofJ.L.Austinsee‘Signature,Event,Context’andLimitedInc.Forhisreflectionsonnon-
168
TheKaiserpanorama
InasmalltextofhiscollectionofchildhoodreflectionsBerlin
Childhoodaround1900,WalterBenjamin,whenrelatinghismemoryof
theKaiserpanorama–anelaborateearlystereoscopicpicture-displayof
mostlyforeignlandscapescenes–describesanauditoryeffectofan
interferingkind,whichtohimseemsneverthelesssuperiortothelater
developmentsofthephoneymagicofmusicalaccompanimentofsimilar
image-scenesonafilmstrip.‘Itwastheringingofabell,’hesays,‘fora
fewsecondsbeforetheimagejoltinglydisappeared,togivetoview,at
firstagapandthenanewone’.359Uponhearingitring,Benjamin
remembers,amelancholymoodofdeparturesaturatedeachimage.In
thosebriefmoments,realisingthatitwouldbeimpossibletoexhaustthe
‘glory’oftheimageinonesittingalone,aresolutionwasmade,albeit
neverfollowedup,thatis,tocomeagainthenextday.360
Thestructureofinterruptionandtherhythmofajoltingdis-
continuityrunsthroughoutBenjamin’svehementlyanti-progressivist
thoughtontimeandhistory,leapingacrossawidevarietyofcontexts
encompassingdiverseperiodsandmedia.Whetherdescribingthe
baroquemourningplay’sfixationofthedramaticplottothestilledtime-
spaceofthemidnighthour,theinterruptionsofplotandmovementin
BertoltBrecht’sEpicTheatre,thejoltsandjerksofthemontage
techniqueofearlyfilmstrips,orthemanifoldimagesofarevolutionary
cessationofhappening–theshootingoftheclocktowers,thepullingof
theemergencybreaks–thatrunthroughouthisfamousthesis‘Onthe
ConceptofHistory’,itisalwaysamomentaryhaultofcontinuitythat
opensupagap,atime-space[Zeitraum]andatimebecomingspace,
suspendedatthejointsofatemporalflowrendereddiscontinuous.
masterableperformativityinthecontextofeducationsee‘TheUniversityWithoutCondition’.359Benjamin,Einbahnstraße,81.360ibid,82.
169
InthememoryoftheKaiserpanoramaaselsewhere,arhythmof
interruptionanddiscontinuityfindsitselflinkedtothepossibilityand
desireforrepetitiontotakeplace.Asifinterruptionfirstrenders
repetitioncontemplatable.Thefactthatitisneverfollowedupin
actualitydoesnotpreventthisvirtualityfromactuallyaffectingthe
statusofwhatherestandsexposedandsuspendedintimeunderthe
blareofaringingbell.Inexhaustibleinasingularviewingthatnolonger
happensquitesimplyonceandforall,theinterruptedandsuspended
temporalexperienceresiststhelinearsublationoftheflowofapresent.
Unabletomasterhisexperienceoftheimageinasingleviewing,yet
knowingofitsimminentdeparturefollowingtheringingofthebell,the
youngBenjaminseeminglydoesnotwanttosurrenderittotheoblivion
ofacontinuousflow,northesimplememory-traceofanabsentpresent.
Instead,hekeepstheimageinreservebyarrangingwithitafuture
rendez-vouz,inamovementthatistosupplantthemelancholic
backwardlookingglanceofrecollectionwiththespectralsendingofa
rememberingahead.
Giventheincompletionoftheinterruptedexperience,adesirefor
repetitioncannolongerhopeforthesimplereturnofthesame.Asthe
time-spaceofspectatorshipaffectedbythisdesireisalreadysplit,thatis,
impossibletomasterorexhaustinasingleviewing,deferredandsent
forth,stretchedtowardsthepossibilityofafuturereturn,itsrepetition
to-comeimpliesanecessaryalterity.Inthisstrangelydeferred,stretched
andnon-localizabletime-spacethatopensupwiththeinterruptive
ringingofabell,amelancholymoodofdeparturemixeswiththenon-
teleologicalhopeofaperformativeresolutiontorepeat.Theyoung
Benjaminseeminglyseekstosimultaneouslysayfarewelltowhathas
neverquitearrived,whilstwelcomingthedeferredpossibilityof“its”
returninarepetitionthatparadoxicallyisboundtobeotherwise.
Readinthisway,thechildhoodmemoryoftheKaiserpanorama
insertsitselfintoaseriesofothertextsandcontextsofBenjamin’swork,
whichrepeatotherwisethethemeofastructureandattitudeof
170
repeatability:theaffirmationofaconstitutivepossibilityofthediffering
returnofmarks,splitintheirorigin,inothercontextsto-come.For
Benjamin,suchapossibilitynevermerelybefallsthemarkaccidentaly
fromanoutside,butpertainstoitstructurally,affectingitbeyondthe
traditionaloppositionsofpossibilityandrealisation,thevirtualandthe
actual.InBenjamin’s–abilities,SamuelWeberdiscernsthisthoughtofa
structuralpossibilityofalteritythataffectsidentityinits“origin”in
Benjamin’srecurrentnominalizationofverbsbythesuffix-abilitywhen
formulatingmanyofhismostsignificantconcepts.Readingseveralofthe
diversecontextsoftheirappearance,Weberdwells,forinstance,on
Benjamin’sconceptionofthestructuralimpartability,criticisability,
translatability,reproducabilityorreadabilityofmarksandthestructural
effectsthe‘-ability’hasontheiridentity.361Onesuchcontextconstitutes
Benjamin’swritingsonBertoltBrecht’sEpicTheatre.InBenjamin’s
readingofBrecht,aconcernwiththeproductionofgesturesasclearly
renderedintheircitabilitybecomescentral.Notunlikethedisruptive
ringingofabellintheKaiserpanorama,EpicTheatre’sgestures,as
Benjamindiscerns,arerenderedcitablebyaninterruptionthathaltsthe
forwardthrustofcontinuousmovement.Severedfromthetelosofthe
plot,thegesturestandsstillandmomentarilyexposedbeforean
audience,signallingtowardsthepossibilityof“its”differing(re-
)inscriptioninothercontexts,whetherpastortocome.Virtuallyparting
with“itself”anditspresentcontextofdetermination,thestilledposeof
thegestureisputintomotionbythestructuralpullofitscitability.The
possibilityofthismovement–citationcomesfromcitare,“toputin
motion”–linksrepeatabilitytoanalterityalwaysalreadyinscribedin
everysocalled“firsttime,”affectingthegestureintheverynowofits
occurence.362
361Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,4.362Thevirtualspatio-temporalityherediscernedwithrecoursetoWeber’sreadingofBenjaminian–abilitiesstructurallyresemblesthelogicofJacquesDerrida’snotionof“iterability.”Weber’sreadingofBenjamin,ashisIntroductionstates,isinpartinspiredbytheworkof
171
TwoTimesoutofJoint:YvonneRainerandBertoltBrecht
InherbookBeingWatched–YvonneRainerandthe1960s,Carrie
Lambert-BeattymakesseveralifsparsereferencestoBertoltBrecht,
indicatingacertainechoacrossthecenturiesbetweentwoseeminglyso
diversepractitioners:oneoftenassociatedwiththemodernisteffortsof
anewpoliticaltheatreduringthelastthroesoftheWeimarRepublicand
beyond,theotherwithabuddingminimalismofanincreasingly
interdisciplinaryUSNeo-Avant-gardeartsceneduringthe1960sandthe
imminenceofpostmoderndance.YetLambert-BeattyrelatesRainer’s
ownexpressionofanawarenessatre-inscribingaBrechtianreworking
oftheAristotelianconceptionofdrama,notasreferencetoapast
momentinalineararthistoricalnarrative,butastheunfinishedbusiness
ofapersistingproblematicofthetemporalexperienceofspectatorship.
Theatreisstillbasedon–andpeoplestillgotothetheatrewith–
theoldAristoteliannotions.Ifnotactualcatharsisorpurgingthru
fearandterror,itisa“loosingofoneself”thatoneissupposedto
experience.Onejudgesatheatricaleventaccordingtothedegree
towhichonebecame“involved”withit.YesIknowallabout
Brecht&alienation[….]andhowtheyhavesupposedlychanged
allthat.Butitjustain’tso.Theatreisasconcernedasiteverwas
withmagic,transformations,transcendencies,ifnotoutright
ascendanciesandvarious&sundrie[sic]formsofseductionto
assurethe“drawingin”ofthespectator.363
Rainer’slinkstotheexperimentsofneo-Brechtianism,however,gofar
beyondherownidentificationwiththegeneralaimsofhinderinga
spectator’sinvolvement,hisorherbeingdrawnintoandalongwiththe
linearflowofevents,toincludesomeoftheverydeviceswithwhich
Derrida,whichforhim‘hasalwaysbeenprofoundlyrelatedtoBenjamin’swritings’[Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,4].363Lambert-Beatty,119.
172
Brechtsoughttoallowforamorerelaxedanddistancedviewing
position.Forinstance,whenexaminingtheeffectsrepetitionmayhave
ontheviewerofRainer’swork,Lambert-Beattymakesthefollowing
briefrecoursetothediscourseofBrecht.‘Thirtyyearsbefore,’shewrites,
BertoltBrechthadwrittenofhisattemptstoreplacethesingular
flowofdramathat“carriedaway”thespectatorwithsomething
moreliketheloopingtemporalexperienceofreadingand
rereading.ThesequentialrepetitionsintheworkofRainerand
othersatJudsonareverymuchinthisspirit,asiftheythought
danceviewers,likeBrecht’stheatre-goers,shouldbeprovided
someversionof“footnotes,andthehabitofturningbackinorder
tocheckapoint.”In1965RainerwroteofherdancePartsofSome
Sextetsthatmomentsofrepetitionmade“theeyejumpbackand
forthintime.”364
AlthoughLambert-Beattydoesnotfurtherpursuethesuggested
analogiesbetweenBrechtandRainer,betweenfootnotesand‘some
versionof“footnotes,”’oncloserinspection,‘versionsof“footnotes”’in
bothRainerandBrechttakeonverysimilarshapesandstructures.As
footnotesfunctioninawrittentext,theyinterruptandcutintothe
continuousflowoflinearity.Whereasthestatusofaliteraryfootnoteis
alreadyuncertain,belongingbothtotheinsideandoutsideofthebodyof
atext,these‘versionsof“footnotes”’insertedintothetemporalunfolding
oftheperformanceintensifytheexperienceofasplitintime,thatis,of
beinginmorethanoneplaceatthesametime.Leavingtoonesidefor
nowthestakesofsuchanonto-orhauntologicalsplitinthetemporal
experienceof‘versionsof“footnotes,”’itisclearthatwhatresemblesthe
effectoffootnotesforRainer,accordingtoLambert-Beatty,isaparticular
useofthetechniquesofinterruption,repetitionanddiscontinuity.Infact,
Rainer’sself-proclaimedconsistentengagementwiththeinterruptionof
linearityquarepetitionperhapsrepeats,muchmoreliterallythan364ibid,63.
173
Lambert-Beattysuggests,aBrechtianconcernwithtemporal
discontinuity.AsRainerwritesinherownretrospectivenotesonPartsof
SomeSextets:
Itwascleartomethattheremustnotbeaflowingor
developmentaltypeofprogressionintheaction,butrather
whateverchangesweretotakeplacemustbeasabruptandjagged
aspossibleoccurringatregularintervals.SoIresortedtotwo
devicesthatIhaveusedconsistentlysincemyearliestdances:
repetitionandinterruption.Inthecontextofthisnewpiece,both
factorsweretoproducea“chunky”continuity,repetitionmaking
theeyejumpbackandforthintime[…].365
WalterBenjamin’swritingsonEpicTheatrerevealstrikingsimilaritiesto
Rainer’sdiscourse.Benjamindescribestheessentialaccomplishmentof
Brecht’sexperimentsasthatofrenderinggesturescitable.Hearrivesat
thisachievementpreciselythroughthedevicesofrepetitionand
interruption.Inthefirstplace,gesturesappearastheresultof
interruptions.Whatisinterruptedistheatre’stemporalflow,theend-
orientedcontinuitiesofplot,actionandmovement,whicharespliced
intoclearlyframed–perhapswhatRainercalls‘jagged’–elements.The
factthattemporalfluiditycannotbebroughttoahaltentirely
necessitatesthereinsertionofeachframedelementintothetemporal
fluxtocreatea“chunky”continuity,touseRainer’swords,or,following
Benjamin,onethatmovesinjoltsandjerks,notunliketheimagesofa
filmstrip.Atitslargestpointofframing,EpicTheatreisdividedinto
severalpartsinterruptedbyregularintervals,makingtheclearly
demarcatedsituationsoftheplayclash,asBenjaminputsit,inastateof
shock.366Throughthemoreminuteinterruptionsandself-interruptions
ofeachactionandactor,theclearlyframedgesture-fragmentbecomes365YvonneRainer,‘SomeRetrospectiveNotesonaDancefor10Peopleand12MattressesCalled“PartsofSomeSextets.”’TheTulaneDramaReview.10/2(1965),172(myemphasis).366WalterBenjamin,‘WasistdasepischeTheater?(2),29.
174
subjectedtorepetitionsthat,notunlikeRainer’suseofsuchtechniques,
makestheeyejumpbackandforthintime.‘Oneandthesame[gesture],’
Benjaminsays,‘summonsGalyGaytothewall,firsttohavehisclothes
changed,andthenagaintobeshot.Oneandthesame[gesture]getshim
torenouncethefishandtoaccepttheelephant”’.367Here,‘“[o]neandthe
same”’,asSamuelWeberobserves,‘ispreciselywhatthecitablegesture
bothsituatesandunhingesinaninstantthatdoesnotcomefullcircle
[….]’.368Suchunhinginginandoftheinstantrendersthetimeofits
occurrenceoutofjoint.Liketheuncertainspatio-temporalstatusofthe
footnote,thegestureisalwaysinmorethanoneplaceatonceandthus
neverfullycontemporaneouswithitself,neverfullypresenttoitself.Its
performancehasalwaysalreadydepartedfromitspresentcontextof
determinationbygesturingfromortowardsanother,whetherthatofa
previousoccurrenceorapossiblefutureonetocome.Thisinturn
impliesthatthecontextofdeterminationcanneverbesaturatedand
masteredinasingleviewing,asitisalwaysalreadysplit,itstimeoutof
joint,stretchedbetweenatleastmorethanoneplaceandtime,atthe
sametime.
RememberingAhead
Beyonditsactualuseasacompositionaldeviceinthetime-
structureoftheperformance,repetition,inbothRainerandBrecht,
furthermoreexceedsthespatio-temporalconfinesoftheeventitself.For
instance,asBenjaminstateswithregardstoEpicTheatre,evenbefore
repetitionoccursduringtheperformanceassuch,Brecht’sendeavourto
ridthestageofitsnarrativesensationsalwaysalreadyseekstoalienate
theplotfromasimpleself-presencebydoublingamoreorless
367ibid,p.20&Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,109.368Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,109-10.
175
recognisablepast.369Beforebeingrepeatedonstage,gestureslargely
occuralreadyascitationsforthefirsttime.Similarstrategiesofcitation
informthemovementvocabulariesofYvonneRainerandothersat
JudsonDance,inwhichspecificgesturesmoreorlessrecognisably
embodyahistoriographicmark,distancingtheviewerfromitspresent
re-inscription.
Lambert-Beattyattendstotheseperhapsoftenneglectedaspects
oftheworkofJudsonDanceinthecontextofamoregeneralendeavour
towrestitsanalysisfromanyquickrecoursetothediscourseson
liveness,immediacy,co-presenceandlivedexperiencecirculatinginthe
1960s,aswellasfromlaterperformancetheoriesofevanescence-as-
dissent.Payingcloseattentiontothehistoriographicaspectsofthese
works,heranalysisoftheuseofrepetitionbeginstotakeaccountofits
citationalelements.‘[S]tillnessmeantquotation,’Lambert-Beattyrelates.
‘Posesnotonlyarrestedonstageaction,butalsoembodiedaprevious,
photographicstoppage[…]’.370Throughitscitationalandmnemicmodes
ofperformance,aproclivityforstillposes,photo-derivedandphoto-like
positioning–whatLambert-Beattycalls‘strategiesfordancingyesterday’
–Rainer’sworkthusavoidssimplylandingoneithersideofadichotomy
oflivedexperienceandhistoriographictrace.371ForLambert-Beatty,
369Benjamin,‘WasistdasepischeTheater?(2)’,23.370Lambert-Beatty,p.48.371ibid,p.51.ForanexcellenttroublingofthebinaryconceptionofthephotographandperformanceseeRebeccaSchneider’schapter‘Stillliving’inPerformingRemains.Schneiderconsiderswhatshecalls‘thelivenessofdeath’orthe‘livingnessofpassing,’thatis,thephotograph‘notonlyasrecord,butalsoasdurationalevent–ongoingthroughthecirculatoryaspectsof[…]callandresponse’.[RebeccaSchneider,PerformingRemains.ArtandWarinTimesofTheatricalReenactmanet.(London&NewYork:Routledge2011),140].Yetbeyondaconcernwiththeliving-onorsurvivalofphotographicstillsincontradistinctionto‘long-standingassumptionsthatphotographyoffersthanatical“evidence”ofatimeconsidered,inlineartemporallogic,irretrievable,’Schneiderfurthertracesanoftenforgottenprehistory,assheputsit,ofphotographylocatedinthe“livingstill”[ibid,138-140]:‘Clearlythereareothertechnologiesofthestillthatarereconstituted(reenacted)inthesceneofphotographybywhichaviewerisarrestedinthearrestoftheimage–technologiesofthelive,suchastableauxvivants[...].Are
176
thesetendenciesoftheworkareevidenceofawiderepistemological
scepticismandanxietythatcanbefoundinmanyotherworksofthe
period.Drivenbyaquestioningofavailableepistemologiesfor
experiencingthelive,theseworks,farfromdisplayingasimplefaithin
theunmediatedaccesstotheeventquaco-presence,proximityand
participation,complicateallbinaryconceptionsoftheliveandthe
mediated.Nowhere,however,Lambert-Beattystresses,is‘thetension
betweensingular,embodiedexperienceandsomethingelse–whichisto
thesenotinsomeways“technologies”ofimagecapture?Reflectingonthelegacyoflivingstills,andtherelationoftheposetothesceneanditsframe,wemightaskinwhatwaysphotographyinherits(ratherthaninvents)thestill,andinthatwayaskinwhatwaysphotographycanbeconsideredanotheramongagreatmanytechnologiesofthelive’[ibid,140-1].ForSchneider,bothphotographyandperformance‘participateintheambivalentgestureofthetime-lag’.Followingthistroublingofthebinariesoflifeanddeath,performanceanddocument,withrecoursetothe“technology”ofthe‘livingstill,’Schneiderfurtherrevealsaninterestinthelatter’s(possible)chainsofrepetitionthatisofgreatrelevancehereinthecontextofaconceptionof‘rememberingahead.’Shelinksthe‘posture’ofthe‘gestureofthetime-lag’to‘awobblycourse’ofrepetition(samenessanddifference)that‘basiccitationalityaffords’[ibid,143].WithoutexplicitrecoursetoDerridaorBenjaminandalbeitperhapswithanemphasisonthecross-temporalmomentsofactual“encounter”overthehauntingoffuturepossibilitiesthatthestillaffordsinitscitability,Schneiderneverthelessclearlyconsidersthelatter’sposeas‘call’or‘hail’(herloosereferencehereisAlthusser’s‘reverberatorymechanicsofinterpellation’):‘Ifthepose,oreventheaccidentcapturedassnapshot,isakindofhailcastintoafuturemomentofitsinvitedrecognition,thencanthatgesticcallinitsstilledarticulationbeconsidered,somehowlive?Or,atleast,re-live?Canwethinkofthestillnotasanartifactofnon-returningtime,butassituatedinalivemomentofitsencounterthatit,throughitsarticulationasgestureorhail,predicts?Thisistoask:isthestilledimageacalltowardafuturelivemomentwhentheimagewillbere-encountered,perhapsasaninvitationtoresponse?Andifso,isitnotlive–takingplaceintimeinthesceneofitsreception?Isittimedeferred,findingitslivenessinthetime-lag,thetemporaldrag,“inyourhands”atthemomentofitsencounter?’Thegestureoftemporaldrag,whetherperformedin-timeorcaughtbythecameraasout-of-time,Schneidersuggests,allowsfora‘complicatedleakageofthelive(andtheremain)acrossseeminglydiscretemoments’,‘troublingthedistinctionbetweenliveartsandthestillartstowhichwehavebeenhabituated,’andfacilitatingtherewithwhatshecallsthe‘inter(in)animation’oftheanimateandinanimate,lifeanddeath,remaininganddisappearingthatis‘ongoingbypassingon’[ibid,140-142,145&147].
177
say,thelived,liveartexperienceasaproblem’moreevidentthaninthe
historyofJudsonDance.372Itispreciselyhere,then–butwhere,
precisely?–inthetensionresultingfromastretchingbetweenthe
singularityofan‘embodied’experienceand‘somethingelse,’orindeed
somewhereandsometimeelse,someotherplaceandtimein(steadof)
thefirst,thatthestructuresofcitationandcitabilitybegintoundermine
masteryoverasimplepresent.Techniquesanddevicessuchasstilling,
quotationandrepetitionhighlightthepersistenceofapastthatsignalsin
thetimeofthepresent,hauntedbyitsmoreorlessuncannyreturns.Yet
beyondsuchdoublingsoftimesandplaces,thespectralityofthis
structuralscenarioimplicatesatleastanotherplaceandtime.Forintheir
clearlyframedstillness,citationalgesturesfindthemselvesalways
alreadyaffectedbytheirowncitability.Adheringthustoaspectrallogic
ofinheritanceturnedtowardthefuturenolessthanthepast,citational
gesturesarealwaysalreadyheldinvirtualsuspenseandtension,
stretched,notonlytowardsthepreviouscontextoftherepeatedmark,
butthepossibilityofitsfuturerepetitioninanothercontexttocome.
InBenjamin’sanalysisofEpicTheatre,therelationshipofthe
performancetoitshistoriographicsourcetakesonpreciselysuchan
emphasis.BenjamincallsgesturesthepreparedrawmaterialofEpic
Theatrethatthelatterputstouse.Eachgesture,Benjamininsists,must
bemoreorlesscompatiblewiththecontemporaryfieldofgestural
possibilities.Ifhistorical,gesturesmustbelongtoavocabularythatitis
possibleforcontemporarymentoexecute.Inotherwords,imitated
gesturesmustthemselvesbeimitable.Imitatedgesturesareworthless,
Benjaminsays,unlessitispreciselytheirgesturalprocessofimitation
thatisatissue.373Thesegesturesarenevermererepetitions,butreckon
withandexposetheirownrepeatability.Ratherthanre-presenting,they
repeat,inKierkegaard’ssenseoftheword,by‘rememberingahead’.For,
asKierkegaardsuggests,‘[r]epetitionandremembranceareoneandthe
372Lambert-Beatty,36(myemphasis).373Benjamin,‘StudienzurTheoriedesepischenTheaters’,VersucheüberBrecht,31-33.(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag),31.
178
samemovementbutinopposeddirections,forthatwhichisremembered
hasbeen:itisrepetitioninreverse;whereasrepetitionintheproper
senseisrememberingahead’.374
TowardsanAttitudeofRehearsal
Withoutwantingtoreducetheimportanceofananalysisof
specificcitationalperformancepracticesinJudsonDanceormore
contemporaryperformancepracticesinitswake–andhereIam
particularlythinkingofChicagobasedperformancecompaniesGoat
Island(1988–2009)andEveryhousehasadoor–Iwouldliketo
suggestthatperhapsallperformancestructurallyrestsonthe
hauntologicalsplitofarememberingahead.Particularly,thatis,when
performance,inwhateverway,nolongerseekstofullyseparateitselfas
endproduct,accomplishmentorrealisationfromitsprocessof
assemblage,thatis,itsrehearsal.For,asSamuelWeberpointsoutin
recallingtheKierkegaardiandefinitionofrepetition,thetheatrical
repetitionimpliedbythewordrehearsalinvolvessomethingfarmore
paradoxicalthanmerelyrecallingthepast.
Repetition–whichinturnimpliesacertainmemoryjustas
memoryforitspartentailsamovementofrepetition–isstillnot
simplythemoreorlesssymmetricalinversionofmemory.For
“rememberingahead”,asKierkegaardwrites,involvessomething
farmoreparadoxicalthanmerelyrecallingthepast.As
potentialityandpossibilityofthefuture,remembering“ahead”
opensthewaytothereturnofwhathasneverbeenpresentas
suchandwhichtherefore,inacertainsense,remainseveryetto374SamuelWeber,‘UppingtheAnte:DeconstructionasParodicPractice’inDeconstructionis/inAmerica.ed.byAnselmHaverkamp,60-77.(NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress1995),63.
179
come.ItshouldbenotedthattheFrenchword,repetition,
maintainsthissimultaneousreferencetothepastandtothe
future–asdoestheEnglishword,rehearsal.Torehearseaplay,
forinstance,entailsmorethanthemerereproductioninthe
presentofsomethingthatispast,onceandforall.375
InBenjamin’sanalysisofEpictheatre,therepeatabilityofcitable
gesturessimilarlydefiesaconceptionofrepetitionasmererecollection.
Hereaselsewhere,whenconcernedwithquestionsoftemporalityand
historicity,Benjamininsistsontheinscribedpossibilityoffuture
alteritiesineverymark.Therepeatabilityofastilledandclearlyframed
instant,aspatialisedtime-fragment,cutorblastedoutofthecontinuum,
beginstosignaltowardssuchvirtualalterities,splittingthemarkinits
“identity”fromthestart,notdependentonitsactualrepetition.Inthe
suspendedgapthatopensquainterruption,timeunhingesandfinds
itselfdoublyoutofjoint.Notonlyconsistingofthespectralreturnofa
pastsignallinginthepresent,butreckoningwiththevirtualspectrality
ofthepresent“itself,”singularlyextended.Atime-fragmentthat‘only
“is”initspossibilityofbecomingother,ofbeingtransported
elsewhere’.376
TheTremblingoftheContours
Everythinghereseeminglyrevolvesaroundthevarioustensions
thatspringfromaseriesofstretchingexercises.Exercises,forinstance,
asthosebywhichBenjaminfiguresBrecht’sattitudetowardstheplot,to
which‘histheatrerelates[…]thewayaballetteachertoapupil,’ashe
putsit,‘hisprimarytask[…]toloosenupherarticulationstothelimitof
375ibid.376Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,103.
180
thepossible’.377Everythingrevolvesaroundissuesofspacingand
stretchingtothepointofunhingingthejointsofbodiesandtheir
movementthroughtimeandspace.TheactorofEpicTheatre,Benjamin
insists,mustbeabletoblockouthisgesticulationsasatypesetterhis
words.378Suchblocking,onthelevelofthescene,producedbythe
insistentinterruptionsoftheplot,helpstorevealwhatBenjamincallsa
Zustand,thefixedstate,stanceorconditionmarkedbytherelational
syllableofatowards[zu-],literally,astanding-towards.Zuständeare
stilledimage-scenesorfrozentableauxsmarkedbytheinnersplitofa
spatio-temporalinstantgesturingtowardssomeotherplaceandtime.
Cutofffromthecontinuumoflinearity,theZustandnolongerawaitsits
futureresolutioninthedrama,themoreorlessseamlesspassingofa
plottowardsitsfinalconclusion,butfindsitselfmomentarilyinterrupted
andsuspended,asifbytheblareofaringingbell,beforejoltingly
disappearing,notunliketheimagesoftheKaiserpanorama,‘togiveto
view,atfirstagapandthenanewone’.379Fixedyetstretchedbetween
377Benjamin,‘WasistdasepischeTheater?(2)’,23.378ibid,27.379Benjamin,Einbahnstraße,81.IntheAristotelianconceptionofdrama,tobesure,theplotmovesfarfromsimplyseamlesslytowardsitsconclusion.Instead,itfindsitselfinterruptedatasinglepointbyasuddenturnofevents:peripeteia.A“reversal”thatneverthelesshasitskeyfunctioninpreparingthewayfortherecognitionoftheunderlyingunityoftheplot.Inthisregard,asSamuelWeberhaspointedout,BrechtandBenjaminrepeatotherwisetheinheritanceofanAristoteliantradition.Here,thedialectictensionofasudden‘reversal’andthepowerofthenegativenolongersublateintoafinalsynthesis,butfindthemselvessuspendedatastandstill.Thedramaisnolongerinterruptedatasinglepointorjointbutvirtuallyatallofthem.Weberrelatesthisdialectictensiononceagainbacktothemotifofacertainstretching:‘The“stretchingexercises”oftheballetpupilthusbecomeamodelforthestretchingofdramaticactioninEpictheatre;suchstretching,Benjaminadds,isintendedtorevealthearticulationsthatstructurewhatisapparentlyaunifiedplot.Ittherebyrevealsatensionverydifferentfromtheconflictoftragedy.Unlikethelatter,whichderivesfromuncertaintyaboutoriginsand“outcomes,”thatofepictheatreconcerns“eventsinthesingular.”Itisdirectedlessat“ends”thanatthemiddle,”atthemembers,butintheirsingularityandnotsimplyaspartsofanorganicwhole’[Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,103].
181
itselfandthepossibilityofreturningotherwise,theZustandexposes
itselfas
[…]aconfigurationthatisnotsimplystableorself-containedbut
aboveallrelational,determinedbythetensionofitsex-tension,by
itsrelationtothatwhichithasinterruptedandfromwhichithas
separateditself.Theresultisahighlyunstablestateofaffairs
markedbywhatBenjamin,inafelicitousformulation,describesas
the“tremblingofitscontours”(dasZitternihrerUmrisse).380
TheSecretSignaloftheTo-Come
Totheorganicwholeofbodiesandtheteleologicalflowofplots,
Benjamin,BrechtandRaineropposethesingularityofthespatio-
temporalfragment,clearlydemarcatedinitscontours,buttrembling.
Thistremblingtime-space[Zeitraum]ismoreorlesshauntedbyboth
“its”pastandfuture,itspre-andafterlife.Thelattersignalsthroughit,
makesitselfknownasunknowablealteritytocome.Benjamin
furthermorehintsatsuchhauntingsofanunknowablefutureinthe
presentbyemployinganotherfelicitousformulationthatappearsina
relatedtheatricalcontext.Inhis‘ProgramforaProletarianChildren’s
Theatre,’helinkstherepetitivemodeoftheatricalrepresentationtothe
geniusofvariationatplayinthegestureofthechild,opposingtherewith
thepseudo-revolutionarydemeanourofapropagandaofideaswiththe
trulyrevolutionaryeffectofwhathecalls,emphaticallyandsomewhat
mysteriously,‘thesecretsignaloftheto-come[desKommenden]that
speaksfromthegestureofthechild’.381
380Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,103-4.381WalterBenjamin,‘ProgrammeinesproletarischenKindertheaters’,769.
182
InBenjamin’sconceptionofproletarianchildren’stheatre,
revolutionary,transformativepotentialisnottobefoundonthesideof
ideologemes–here,theideasandcontentsofwhatisbeingpresentedon
thestage,understoodorconsumedbyperformerandspectatoralike–
butratherinthemodesandmannersofthehowofre-presenting:a
presentationirreducibletoaonceandforalldeterminablecontent.For
Benjamin,thegestureofthechildmustbeinexcessofitsrelative
determinabilityassign.Nevertheless,initsimmediateinaccessibilityas
secret,initswithdrawalfromorsupersessionofpresentsenseandtense,
itssecretneverthelesssignals,makesitselfknownassecret–notasthe
simplewithholdingofknowledge,butasthesharingofacertainkindof
not-knowing–non-self-present,un-knowable,gesturingbeyonditself
towardsthenon-appropriableotheroftheto-come[dasKommende].
Earlierinthetext,Benjamininsiststhatideologyassuch,thatis,
inthecontextofaproletarianchildren’stheatre,class-consciousness,is
indeedofutmostimportancetoanyproletarianeducationingeneral,yet
runstheriskofonlyreachingthechildasanemptyphrase[Phrase].To
avoidsuchhollowarrivals,hesuggests,onemustrejectthetypeof
schoolingthatseekstoeducatetowardsanidea.Insteadof
communicatingreadymadeknowledgeofaparticularfield,education,at
leastforchildren,Benjamininsists,musttakeplacewithinaparticular
subjectareaofknowledge.Here,knowledge,ideas,ideologemesareno
longersimplycommunicatedfromtransmittertoreceiver,foritis
preciselytheidealityofthecontentthatwouldguaranteesucheffective
repetitionsastheinstrumentaltransmissionofatransportablecontent
thatisputintoquestion.Instead,inBenjamin’smodelofeducation,the
contentsofaspecificsubjectareaaregivenupforandovertoa
repetitionthatnolongercomesfullcircle.Here,repetitionbecomes
subjectedtowhatBenjamincallsthechild’s‘geniusofvariation’.
Benjaminthusemphasisesthemodeoftherepetitionitselfoverthe
identityofarepeatablecontent.Thelatterbecomesthecontextual
playgroundforvariationstotakeplacewithinorupon.Theuncertain
183
locusforsuchnon-completetakingplaceturnsouttobethetheatre,a
placethatcannotsoeasilybeidentifiedandsecuredonceandforall.
Whenitcomestotheeducationofthechild,Benjamin
furthermoreinsists,itisnecessarythatitswholelifebeencompassed.
However,thegeniusofvariationmuststillandsomewhatparadoxically
applyitselfwithinoruponacircumscribedorframed[begrenzt]fieldor
area.Toovercomethisimpasse,thetheatre,forBenjamin,turnsouttobe
thedialecticallydestinedplacefortheeducationofchildren,‘as[…]the
wholelifeinallitsnon-predictablefullnessonlyappearsasaframed
[gerahmt]fieldin,’ormoreambiguouslyintheGerman,‘upon[auf]the
theatre’.382Thetheatreframeslifeandbydoingsonotsimplyre-
presentsitonceandforallbutrendersitcitable.Itmakespossiblean
educationwithinlife,alifeframedandbreached,detachablefrom“itself,”
whichhasbecomerehearsable.Asrehearsablelife,theatre‘callsupon
thestrongestforceofthefutureinchildren’.383Theexactplaceortaking
placeofthiscallingbecomeshoweverdifficulttolocate.Benjamininsists
thatitcannotbefoundsimplyintheperformanceitself,atleastnotas
thelatterisoftenconceived,thatis,asfinalendproduct.InBenjamin’s
idealconceptionofproletarianchildren’stheatre,thelattermerely
materializes,ashesays,almostincidentallyasaprank[Schabernack]of
thechildren,onlybrieflyinterruptingtheirun-endingstudies.384
Benjaminclearlyfavoursanunfinished,improvisationalaspectof
thefinalperformanceoverthe‘well-roundedachievement’thathasbeen,
ashedramaticallyputsit,‘torturedoutofthechildren’.385‘Performance
orTheatre,’hetentativelysuggests–displayinganuncertaintyastowhat
precisetoposoreventheisinfactreferringto–mustformthesynthesis
ofmoreorlessimprovisedgesturesthatstandinaspaceofnon-
accidentalsingularity[Einmaligkeit].Nottheacccomplishmentsofart
[Kunstleistungen]thatmayfillthecupboardsandmemoriesofparents
withsouvenirs,notthe“eternity”ofproducts,butthe“instant”382ibid,764.383ibid,764-5.384ibid,765.385ibid,767.
184
[“Augenblick”]ofthegestureiswhatconstitutestheaccomplishmentof
thechild.Theatre,asatransitoryart,saysBenjamin,istheartformofthe
child.Atransitoriness[Vergänglichkeit],however,ofamomentof
singularity–theinstantofvariation–thatparadoxicallydependsona
structureofrepeatability.Thetransitorymomentofasingulargestureis
notherelinkedsimplytothelatter’sabsolutedisappearancewithinthe
ephemeraltemporalflux,butdependsonitsnon-presentremaining.As
thegesturesofEpicTheatre,aswellasthoseofYvonneRainerand
othersatJudsonDance,theirmomentarysuspensionasclearlyframed
time-fragmentscutfromthetemporalfluxofalinearcontinuumqua
interruption,isalwaysalreadyaffectedbyitsstructuralrelationtoat
leastthepossibilityofrepetitionatsomeotherplaceandtime.Asan
instantofrepetitionthatneithercomesfullcirclenorstrictlyhappens
onceandforall,thegestureofthechildtooremainsopentoaspaceof
alterityquarepeatbility.Inthetheatremoregenerally,suchaspaceof
alterity,asSamuelWeberdescribesitinadifferentcontext,
isalwaysprovisionallyembodiedinand,evenmore,exposedasan
“audience”–singularnounforanirreduciblyheteroclitestand-in.
The“audience”standsinfortheothers,thosewhowereandthose
whowillbe–andperhapsevenmoreforthosewhowillnever
cometobe.386
EchoingaconcernalsoatworkinBenjamin’sprogramforaproletarian
children’stheatrepitchedagainstitsbourgeoisvariant’semphasison
consumableendproductsandreifiedmemorabilia,Webercontinues:
Ofcourseitisinthenatureofoursocio-economicsystem[…]to
doeverythingpossibletoappropriateanddomesticatesuch
“standing-in”sothatitseekstofulfilitselfinandasactual
consumption.387
386Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,341.387ibid.
185
OfAbsentMasters
Thefacilitatorofproletarianchildren’stheatre,Benjaminsays,
retreatsmostfullybeforethemomentoftheperformance,knowingthat
‘[n]opedagogicalintelligencecanpredicthowchildrencombinewith
thousandsofsurprisingvariationsthetaughtgestures[Gebärden]intoa
theatricaltotality’.388Anotdissimilarretreatinfacilitationseemsto
informtheformativepedagogicalexperiencesofYvonneRainerand
othersatJudsonDance.DescribingtheteachingstyleofJohnCage
studentRobertDunne’snownotoriousclassinchoreographytaughtat
theMerceCunninghamstudiointhefallof1960,StevePaxton
admiringlyrelates:
DunnhimselfmanagedtodosomethingthatI’veadmiredever
since.Hetaughtusideasalmostbyneglectingus,bymentioning
thingsbuttendingtodisappearatthesametime,leavingwitha
smile.389
Here,ideasaretaughtnottoarriveinidenticalrepetitions,butasthe
generativeconstraintswithinwhichamultitudeofvariationscanbe
unleashed.InBenjamin’sprogramforaproletarianchildren’stheatre,
followingtheprocessofitsassemblage,theperformancebecomes
preciselysuchanoccasionfortheradicalunleashingofplay.Itmakes
sovereignthechild’sgeniusofvariation,asheputsit,outofwhich
gesturesthesecretsignaloftheto-come[desKommenden].
Benjamindoesnotfurtherexplorethisemphaticexpression,
which,likethesecretitself,seemstosignalonlyinitsretreat,perhaps
withasmile.Onthenatureofthesignal,however,hesaysthatit
emanatesfromaworldinwhichthechildlivesandrulesasdictator.390In
388Benjamin,‘ProgrammeinesproletarischenKindertheaters’,767.389Banes,10.390Benjamin,‘ProgrammeinesproletarischenKindertheaters’,766.
186
theabsenceofmastersandmastery,thechildisheregivenfreereignin
therepetitivepracticeofwhatelsewhereBenjamindescribesas‘citation
asthesovereignusurpationoftheencountered’.391Theatricalplay
unleashesphantasyandbringsittobearontherepetitionsofan
inheritance.Here,thechild’sdictatorialreignperhapsresemblesanother
Benjaminianfigureofarelatedtheatricalcontext.Inhiselaboratestudy
oftheGermanbaroqueMourningPlay[Trauerspiel],Benjamindiscerns
theroleofthe‘plotter,’acounter-figuretothetyrant’sdespoticeffortsat
self-institutingsovereignty,ofwhomSamuelWebersaysthathe
[…]manipulateslinksandconnectionssimplyforthepleasureof
doingso,notinthehopeofaccomplishinganything,leastofall
leavingbehindagreatwork.[…Here],“power”changesits
meaning:itisnolongertransitive,thepowertodooraccomplish
anything,butratheramodeofbeingthatarrangesandcombines,
manifestingitselfinvirtuosityratherthancontrol.392
Liketheinstantofthegestureofthechild,likethechild’sgeniusof
variation,virtuositywithoutcontrol–amovementofarrangingand
combiningthatalwayscomesupshort–findsitselfsuspendedinan
experimentalattitude,amodeofbeingthataccomplishesnothingother
thanitsownaccomplishing.
Rainer,ofcourse,inherfamousNo-manifesto,saysnoto
virtuosity.Shesaysso,andseeminglyretreatswithasmile,leaving
generationsofdanceandtheatrestudentsinherwaketograpplewitha
positiveresponsetohernegativedirective.Perhapsthisstructural
retreatfurtherinvitesustore-andtransvaluetheconceptofvirtuosity
itself,repeatingitotherwise,nolongerastheaccomplishedskillof
trainedbodiesintraditionalworksofart,butasanexperimentalattitude
ofbeing-in-rehearsal,thatis,avirtuosityoftrembling.
391ManfredVoigts,‘Zitat’inOpitz&Wizislaed.Benjamin’sBegriffe,826-850.(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag2000),830.392Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,178(myemphasis).
187
Benjamin’sreadingofBrechtdiscernssimilarmodesofpositioning
oneselfinsecurelyinexperimentalattitudesofnon-mastery.Modesof
beingcommittedtoacertainpracticeorexercise–Übung–arelativeof
therehearsalthatisabletospilloutoftheinstitutionsoftheatreintoan
everydaylifeframed.SituatingwhatBrechtcallsattitude[Haltung]
withinadiscourseonaperformativepoliticalpraxis,Benjaminopposes
ittotheconstativeconvictionsofknowledgeandunderstanding.
”Notwhatoneisconvincedofisofimportance.Ofimportanceis
whatone’sconvictionsmakeofoneself.”ThisWhatBrechtcalls:
attitude[Haltung].Itisnew.Whatisnewestaboutitisthatitcan
belearned.393
Brechtfacilitatessuchaprocessoflearningthroughhisattempt
[Versuch]torendergesturescitable.Todoso,hesays,demandspractice
[Übung].Apractice,itseems,likethatoftherehearsal,whichisnolonger
fullysubservienttoanend,afinalproductoranaccomplishmentthat
accomplishessomethingotherthanitsownaccomplishing.Citationisno
longertheendofcitability,actualitynolongerthegoalofvirtual
possibility,fornothingevergetsaccomplishedhereonceandforall.The
GermanwordHaltung[attitude]resonateswiththeholdofHalt,the
stoppageofAnhaltungandthestilledbodilyposeofaparticularwayof
holdingoneselfthatinterruptstheflowofthepresentasastilledgesture
severedfromthetelosofcontinuumsofmovement,plotandhistory.
Standingthusexposed,attitudeasgesturereckonswithitsownalterity
quarepeatability.Astrategy,then,notmerelyofdancingyesterday,as
Lambert-BeattysofittinglydescribestheuseofcitationinYvonneRainer
andothersatJudsonDance,butofdancingwhatisto-come[das
Kommende]byholdingontothepossibilityofdancingyesterdayand
todayotherwise.‘[…T]heplaceofthisfuture,’however,asWeber393Benjamin,‘AusdemBrecht-Kommentar’,VersucheÜberBrecht.34-38.(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag1966),35.
188
remindsus,‘whichcannotbereducedtoapresentthathasyettoarrive,
is,paradoxically,nowhereifnotnow’.394
394Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,105.
189
CHAPTERFIVE
AVirtuosityofTrembling:
TheBodyandTheArchiveinGoatIslandandEveryhouse
hasadoor
[…]Andthe“interiority”ofatheatreisverydifferentfrom
thatofaprivatehomeoradomestichouse(afactthatworried
Platonoend).Inatheatre,onastage,aspartofascene,subjects
arenolongerauthentic,nolongerathome,nolongerfullyin
control.Insideandoutsidearenolongersimplybinaryopposites.
Thespaceofthetheatricalscene,whichisnotnecessarilythatof
traditionaldrama,isnolongersimplyaninteriorspace,sinceitis
alwaysdirectedoutward,away,towardothers.Asalready
mentioned,theatricalitycanevenbedefinedasrepresentationfor
others.Inthiscase,however,dramaticconflictandplotarenotits
constitutiveingredients.395
Thereisnohouseorinteriorwithoutadoororwindows.396
Inheritanceisneveragiven,itisalwaysatask.Itremainsbefore
us.397
[…]butfinallyitwillbeuptoyounow,itwillalsobeuptothe
otherstodecidethis.Thesignatoriesarealsotheaddressees.We
don’tknowthem,neitheryounorI.398
395Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,246-7.396JacquesDerrida,OfHospitality.AnneDufourmantelleinvitesJacquesDerridatorespond,trans.RachelBowlby.(StanfordCalifornia:StandfordUniversityPress,2000),61.397JacquesDerrida,SpectersofMarx.trans.PeggyKamuf.(London&NewYork:Routledge2006),54.
190
NoToVirtuosity:AnAmateur’sRehearsalofthePastastheFuture
toCome
Severalpossibletrajectoriesofinheritancecanbetracedbetween
theperformanceworksofthecontemporaryChicagobasedperformance
companyEveryhousehasadoor(previouslyGoatIsland)andthe1960s
minimalistexperimentsofJudsonDance.399Forinstance,asthe
companies’directorLinHixonrelateswithregardtoGoatIsland,one
suchdiscernibleinfluenceconcerns‘acertainrespectforpedestrian
movement,’aswellas‘theuseoffoundmovementandtask-like
activity’.400Here,there-affirmationofapedestrianmovementstyle
seeminglyfollowsRainer’scallforarejectionofvirtuosityinherfamous
1965“NoManifesto.”Hixon’sownexampleof‘Rainerpushingavacuum
cleanerasdance,’however,seemsfarremoved,notsomuchfromthe
modalityof‘doing’butthetypeoffoundmovementre-doneorrehearsed
bytheperformer’sofGoatIslandandEveryhousehasadoor.Insteadof
thereforeidentifyingthemodalityofacertainpedestrianismwiththe
qualityofthefoundmovementvocabularyoftheeveryday,oneis
perhapsbetterservedtoattendtothe‘pedestrian,’thatis,“non-skilled”
oramateurqualityandattitudeofthetask-likeretracingofallmannerof
398JacquesDerrida,‘TheUniversityWithoutCondition’,237.399TheChicagobasedperformancecompanyEveryhousehasadoorwasformedin2008byLinHixonandMatthewGoulishtocreateproject-specificcollaborativeperformanceswithinvitedguests.HixonandGoulishhadpreviouslycollaboratedfortwentyyearsasthefoundingmembersoftheperformancecompanyGoatIsland.Althoughtheworkofbothcompaniesismoreorlessdistinctiveinstyle,thereisalsomuchcontinuitybetweenthem.BeforefocusingmorespecificallyonEveryhousehasadoor’s2013performanceTestimoniuminthefinalpartofthechapter,Iwillmovefreelybetweenexamplesofandcommentariesonperformanceworksbybothcompanies.400StephenBottoms&MatthewGoulished.SmallActsOfRepair.Performance,EcologyandGoatIsland.(London&NewYork:Routledge2007),70.(Myemphasis).
191
movements,‘found’inwhatarepredominantlyavarietyofarchival
sourcematerials.401
Theaboveevocationofacertainamateurisminthecontextofa
‘pedestrian’re-enactmentof‘foundmovement’isthusapplicableboth
withregardstothequalityofthe“final”(re-)presentation,aswellasthe
modalityortechniqueoftheprocessofitsacquisition.This‘loverof’–for
instance,contemporarydance–seesnolimittohisorherdesireto
‘participate’bymimeticallyinteriorizingandtransformingthereceived
(i.e.thefoundmovement)intothereturnofaperformedexteriorization.
Ifthelatterformulationherelooselyrecallscertainaspectsofthework
andidiomofBernardStiegler,itistobrieflyevokethelatter’saccountof
whatIwillcallthecunningoftheamateurasitresonateswiththe
techniqueof(movement)appropriationdemonstrativelyatworkinGoat
IslandandEveryhousehasadoor.ForStiegler,thefigureoftheamateur
hasanimportantroletoplayinresistingwhatheidentifiesasageneral
lossofparticipationthatstemsfromaprocessofincreased
proletarianisation,thatis,inbrief,thelossofmemoryandknow-how
inducedbythemachinicgrammatisationofthegesturesofproduction
andtheradicalseparationofproducersandconsumersin
hyperindustrialsociety.Thisstrictseparationisboththecauseforan
401Tobesure,althoughmovementisattimesliterallyfound–forinstanceinMartinFigura’sflatinBerlin,wheretheencounterwithadocumentaryvideoofPinaBausch’sWupperthalTanztheatersparksthecitationalreinscriptionofa45secondsolobyDominiqueMercyfromtheperformanceDieFensterPutzer–itisnotalwaysfoundassuch.Instead,movementoftenresultsfromaprocessofbodilytranslationandresponsetoallmannerofsourcematerials.Atitsmostextreme,thecompanyfollowsastrategyofself-settasksof(impossible)embodiments,forinstancein‘theattempttobuildtheHagiaSophiaoutofbodies,gesturesanddance;anattempt,’asJaneBlockerfittinglyputsitbyemphasisingthefragilityoftheendeavour,‘thattheleastgigglewilldestroy’[seeJaneBlocker,‘TheLastmaker’,Parallax,(2013)19:3,11].AsimilarfragilityofenactmentalsoinformsGoulish’sattempttoresemble,ifonlyfor45seconds,DominiqueMercy-‘themaledancer[fromDieFensterPutzer]whomIfeltIleastresembled’[see,MatthewGoulish,‘Memoryisthis’,PerformanceResearch:AJournalofthePerformingArts,(2000)5:3.AccessedMay2016http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rprs20].
192
initialdisappearanceofanamateurthatfindshimselfincreasingly
reducedtothestatusofamereconsumer,aswellasforhisorher
potentialreturnbyacunningparticipation.Thereturnoftheamateurin
hyperindustrialsocietycouldthusbesaidtofigureboththesymptomof
alossofparticipationandthedesireforitscomingrecovery.Ontheone
handheisnota‘professional’producer,lacksacertainskillsetorknow-
how(forinstance,inStiegler’sprivilegedexample,theabilitytoreador
playmusic),andfindshimselfmarginalizedwithregardstoaposition
[Stellung,also:statusoremployment],thatis,apublicforumforhis
Stellungnahme[response].Neverthelessresistanttoareductiontothe
statusofamereconsumerthatisunabletoreturnthereceived(i.e.
listeningtomusicwithoutknowinghowtomakeit),theamateurseeksto
reworktheapparatusofproductioninordertoparticipateinspiteofa
lackofclassicalknow-how.Indoingso,hebeginstofigurethenecessary
cunningforthecomingofarenewedandincreasedinterrelation
betweenlisteningandcreating,receivingandreturning,perceivingand
producing,consumingandparticipatingbeyondthevirtuosityof
specialistknowledge.Fortheamateur’scunningliespreciselyinhisor
herabilityoftransformingapositionofpassiveconsumptionintoare-
activeparticipation.Followingaschemathatperhapsresembles
Derrida’saccountof‘Echo’sruse’,theamateurbecomesabletospeakof
andforhimselfunderthetightconstraintofhavingtofollowtheother.If
Derrida’sevocationofEcho’sruse,asPleshetteDeArmittsuggests,
indeedconstitutesapowerfulinterpretationofaseemingpowerless
figure,itwouldperhapsnotbeunwarrantedtorecastthefigureofEcho,
deprivedofinitiativebydivineprohibition,intheroleofaproletarian
avantlalettre,who’sresistingpowerresidesinactingoutaninsatiable
desireforproduction(andindividuation)bythecunningoftheamateur:
shewhoseekstoproduce(andtherebyparticipate)byabidingtoan
inheritedlawotherwise.402Inanycase,forStiegler,thepossibilityofan
increasedinterrelationbetweenreceivingandreturning,consumingand
402IwillreturntothefigureofEchointhecontextofDerrida’sconceptionofexappropriationinmoredetailbelow.
193
producing,doesnotrestonareturntoamoreprimitivestageof
grammatizationbuttheverytechnologies(i.e.analoganddigitalformsof
reproduction)thathaveexpropriatedtheproducerofhisknowledgeof
productioninthefirstplace.Inotherwords,itisoftheorderofa
refunctioningoftheiruse.Forinstance,oneofStiegler’spreferred
anecdotalexamplesforanearlyuseof‘symbolicrepetitivemachines’
thatmightpavethewayfor‘anewepochofrepetitionwhichis
productiveofdifference’isCharlieParker’sinventionofbe-bopthrough
‘listeningtoLesterYoung’srefrainsonthephonograph(whichheslowed
sohecouldbreakdownwhatthesaxophonistwasplaying-[…])’.403The
descriptionofthissceneofanappropriativeuseofatechnological
reproducibilityherebeginstoresonatewithasimilarmethodof
appropriationthatinformsGoatIslandperformerMatthewGoulish’s
attemptto“interiorize”aparticularlydifficultmovementsequencefrom
PinaBausch’sperformanceDieFensterputzer.404BothParker’sand
Goulish’stechniquesoflearningdecisivelylinkadesireforappropriation
(thatis,ofreturningthereceivedorconsumed,ofrejectingareductionto
thestatusofmereconsumer)tothepossibilityoftheinterruptionofthe
flowoftemporalobjectsthataparticularuseofa(here,analogue)
reproductiontechnologyallowsfor.Havingdiscoveredarecordingof403BernardStiegler,SymbolicMysery.Volume2:Thekatastropheofthesensible.trans.BarnabyNorman(Cambridge:PolityPress2015),15&19.404Givenmusicanddance’sdifferentrelationtothehistoryofgrammatizationandproletarianisation,theresonancebetweentherespectivescenesofappropriationinthecontextofStiegler’swidercontextofanalysisperhapsonlygoessofar.Choreo-graphy,althoughmoreorlessdependentonexternalmemorysupportsintheformofscoresisunabletoraisethelattertoalevelofstandardizationthatwouldallowittobereadbyanyonewhohasacquiredareadilyavailableknow-how.Remainingtolargedegreesidiosyncratic,thedancescoredoesnotyieldtothestandardizedskillofanacquiredtechniqueofreading.Professional(contemporary)dancers,albeittrainedinalooseformof“repertoire”ofpossiblemovement,thusencountersimilarproblemstotheamateurwhenfacedwiththetaskofmovementacquisitionquarepetition.Whatisofinteresthereisnotprimarilythemoreorlessnon-skilledperformer’sappropriationand“pedestrian”re-enactmentofrecordingsofskilledmovement,butmoregenerallythemodelqualityofaparticipatorydesiretorespondquatransformingcitationtoallmannerofarchivalsourcematerials.
194
PinaBausch’sDieFensterPutzeraspartofadocumentaryonthe
choreographerandtheWuppertalerTanztheater,Goulishsetsoutto
followthetaskofa‘choreographicappropriation’byattemptingtolearn
a45secondsolodancebyDominiqueMercier,‘thedancerthatIleast
resembled’.Duringtheensuingstruggleatmimeticinteriorization,he
findshimselfcompelledtowatchasmallextractofthevideoabout
twentytimes,pausingit,rewindingit,playingitrepeatedlyuntilheis
able‘tocommittomemoryarelativelyaccurateimitationoffour
sequentialbeatsofthesolo–aboutthreesecondsinlength’.405Inthis
sceneofamimeticappropriationbytheamateur,response-abilityand
participationincreasesrelativetotheslowing,stilling,interruptingand
spacingofthetemporalflowofthetransmittedmaterial.Assuch,aswill
becomeincreasinglyapparent,italsobeginstoanticipatethemodel
Haltungoftheinterruptiveappealtoresponse-abilitythatinformsthe
compositionalstructureoftheperformancesofGoatIslandandEvery
househasadoor.Thelatter,bydemonstrativelyexposing“its”own
dependenceoncounter-signatoriesthroughtherepeatedinterruptionof
itsflow,callsfortheparticipatorycomingoffutureappropriations.Inthe
contextofStiegler’swiderpoliticalconcerns,theurgencyofacallto
resistproletarianisationinthefaceofthecultureindustries–whathe
elsewherealsodesignatesasthe‘memoryindustries,’andeverything
thatishereputforwardinrelationtoanattitudeofappropriationof
‘foundmovement’mustbereadinthelargercontextofanappropriative
attitudetowardsanarchivalinheritance–inlargepartsseekstorespond
tothedangerofalossofparticipationthatspringsfromthecoincidence
oftheflowofitsproducts(i.e.cinema,music,TV)withthatofthe
consciousnessexperiencingthem.Particularlyaptatharnessingthe
attentionofviewers,thetemporalobjectsofculturalindustriesbecome
privilegedinstrumentsofcontrolsocietiesthatseekto‘captur[e]the
attentionofsoulssoastocontrolthebehaviourofbodies,withthe
intentionofgettingthemtoconsumegoodsandservices’.406
405MatthewGoulish,‘Memoryisthis’,8.406Stiegler,SymbolicMysery,9&12.
195
Participation,ontheotherhand,asaformofappropriativeperceptionin
whichperceivingandproducinginextricablyentangle,restsonthe
interruptionandspatializationoftheflowofconsciousnessandits
capturedattentionbyretentionalformsthatallowforthepossibilityof
repetitionastheproductionofdifference(différance).Iftheperformance
practiceofGoatIslandandEveryhousehasadoor,aswewillsee,finds
itselfintimatelyrelatedtostrategiesof‘repair,’‘response’and
compositional‘interruption,’suchstrategiesmightherebereadas
functionsofitsmodelcharacterofaresistancetothestupefyingflowsof
informationofwhatStieglercallsthecontrolsociety.Inotherwords,it
presentsitselfasthemodelofanattitude[Haltung]oftheamateurwho
overcomeshisproletarianisationbythecunningandhighspiritsofa
participatorydesire.Here,a“pedestrian”qualityofenactment,aswewill
see,whichdoublesupasacertainrestraintofvirtuosityandof
performance–becomingwhatGoulishdesignatesas‘non-performance’–
isnothingbuttheHaltungofademonstrativeappealtoacoming
participationinitsstructuralrework-ability.
Whatisatstake,therefore,isa“pedestrianism”ofnon-virtuosity
thatrelatestothemodeofenactingratherthan,aswellasoftenin
contrastto,the“foundmovement”thatisbeingenacted.407ForHixon,
whatisfurthermoreofinterestinRainer’suseof‘foundmovementand
task-likeactivity,’istheconcomitantobjectiveof‘“removingthebody
fromthegazebyreturningittoanactivity,totheconditionofalways
doingsomething”’.408Putdifferently,lackinginvirtuosity,thepedestrian,
task-boundbodyrefusestoturnitselfintoaspectaclethatotherwise
mightdirectthegazeawayfromtheunderlyingmaterialsubstrateofthe
sourcefromwhichemitsthecallortaskofre-inscription,aswellasfrom
theverylabourofthe(re-)enactment.Asimilar,moreorless407Pedestrianismhererelatestotheautomatic,non-expressiveandtask-likequalityofthe‘doing.’Itdoesnothoweverimplytheabsenceofthephysicaleffortoflabour.Tothecontrary,ifthespectacleseekstohidethelabourofitsproductionpreciselybehindeffortlessvirtuosity,here,givenalackofvirtuositythusconstrued,thehardlabourofperformanceisallthemoreexposedforit.408Bottoms&Goulished.,40.
196
“pedestrian”styleof(re-)enactmentofarchivalsourcematerialswasof
coursealreadyatworkinRaineraswellasothersatJudsonDance.
Rainer’sfrequentemploymentofstilledgesturesasquotationsofmore
orlessrecognizablemnemictraces,aswesaw,demonstratively
entangledtheliveperformingbodyinadancewithitshistoriographical
source.Yettheexposedinterrelationofthearchiveandthebody–an
expositionthatturnsinside-outtheoutsideontheinside–ismuchmore
overtlyatworkasthepredominantifnotsolemodalityofperformance
intheworkofGoatIslandandEveryhousehasadoor.Forthelatter,
historyanditsarchivalremainingaretheprime‘subject’andmaterialof
theperformativeenactment.‘Whatdrawsmerepeatedlytotheworkof
GoatIsland,’JaneBlokerrelates,‘isthegroup’sabidinginterestin
history,inthetaskofhistoricisingbyperformingandreferencing,the
taskof‘self-consciousremovalfromthepresentsoastotrytostandin
theplaceofthepast’.409Tobeclear,theseworksneverconstitute
concreteformsofhistoricalre-enactmentastheyhavecometobe
understoodasbothformsofpopularpast-timesandcurrenttrendsina
varietyofaestheticpractices.410Whereasthelatterusuallyrevolve
aroundtherestagingofspecific(art)historicalevents–whethera
particularbattleorliveartperformance–theworkofGoatIslandand
Everyhousehasadoorassemblesawidearrayofmoreorless
historiographicsourcematerialsspanningdifferenttimesandplacesin409Blocker,20.410HereIamthinkingbothofcontemporaryartpracticesinterestedinhistoricalreenactmentsaswellasperformanceart’sinterestinthereenactmentofprecedentperformances.WhereastheformerperhapsfindsitsmostfamousexampleinJeremyDeller’sTheBattleofOrgreave,thelatterismostovertlyatworkinrecentre-enactmentpracticesofMarinaAbramovic.Everyhousehasadoor’sperformance9BeginningsBristol/Chicago,whichrestagesthebeginningsofninehistoricalperformancesbyninedifferentartistsorcompaniesfoundintworespectiveperformancearchives,certainlyfallswithinthebroaderremitofperformanceart’sengagementswithitsownarchive.However,heretheconcernisneverwithexactrepetitionbutratherwithresponse.Theemphasisonninedifferentbeginningsthatare‘knittedintoone’alreadyimpliesaprocessoftransformativecitation,whichisfurtheratworkintheselecteddetailsofthereenactmentofeachsingleone(http://everyhousehasadoor.org/projects/9-beginnings).
197
fragilecompositionsthatcarefullyavoidthesubsumptionofitspartsto
thesynthesizinglogicsofnarrativeortranscendentcommentary.Dueto
thefragmented,discontinuousnatureofthecompositionalassemblage,
aswellasthemoreorlessovertly“unfaithful”translationratherthan
exactrepetitionsofunderlyingfragmentsofsourcematerials–often
resultinginaphysicalstrugglethat“fails”beforethetasksof
embodimentsthattendtowardthe(physically)impossible–theirsis
neveraconcernwiththemoreorlessexact(ifequallyfailing)
reconstructionofhistoricalevents.Instead,whatisatstakeisaselective
weaveofarchivalmaterialintimeandspaceinamannerthatGoulish
comparestothemovementofanessaythat‘tracesthejourneyof
discoverythatthemindmakesthroughasubject’.411Thedisjointed
spatio-temporalityofaliveeventthatretracesanessaylikepaththrough
itsdiscoveredmaterialiscomplicatedfurtherbythelongdurationofthe
periodofthelatter’sassemblage.Theprocessofpath-forgingthatwill
allowforitsperformativeretracing,whichcouldbesaidtoresemblea
techniqueof‘writing’thatStieglerdescribesasthe‘[organisation]of
thoughtbyconsigningitoutsideintheformoftraces,thatis,symbols,
wherebythoughtcanreflectonitself,actuallyconstitutingitself,making
itselfrepeatableandtransmissible,’takesplaceoveraperiodofupto
twoyearslong.412Beyondthetemporaldehiscenceofanagain-timeof
citedpastandpresentre-citation(aswellas,asitwillbeincreasinglyour
themehere,futurecitability),thedurationalaspectofapath-forging
(thought-)processquarepeatablemarkshascausedthelattertoswell
undertheaccumulateddifferenceoftheirrepeatedreturnatdifferent
timesandplacesduringtheprocessoftheirassemblage.Hixonrelates
thedizzyingeffectoftheprolongedaccumulationofmaterialthrougha
411MatthewGoulish‘First,Second,Third’PerformanceResearch:AJournalofthePerformingArts,(2010)15:2,35.Accessed11April2014http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rprs20412 BernardStiegler,‘AnamnesisandHypomnesis.Platoasthefirstthinkerofproletarianisation’,http://arsindustrialis.org/anamnesis-and-hypomnesis/AccessedonlineMay2014.
198
seriesofdirectives,responsesandcounter-responsesthatmakeupthe
company’sprocessasfollows:
Ourprocesscouldbedescribedasaseriesofdirectivesand
responses.Wecurveforward,likewhirlingdervishescallingback
andforth.Iproduceadirective.Themembersofthegroup
presentresponsestothedirective–actsinreturn.Inresponseto
theresponses,Iproducemoredirectives,combinematerialinto
sequences,submitmyownperformativematerial,ordosome
combinationofthese.Theperformers,inturn,maypresentnew
materialinresponsetothenewdirectives,theolddirectives,the
sequences,orotherresponses,whichservethen,asecondary
function,asindirectdirectives.413
Asaconsequence,theorganisationofthoughtfindsitselfchallengedby
thedurationofitsprocess.‘NowtherevivedactivityofMark,retrieved
fromthelongdistanceofstoredtime,’Hixonrelates,
sitsnexttothelectureactivityofBryaninthesameperformance
spaceandthesameperformancetime.Distancecontinuesto
separatethetwo,theiroriginscomingfromdifferentlandsand
differenttimes.Theirdivided-two-nessunitedseemscontrary
anddisruptive.Icannotabsorbthemtogether.Theydelaytheir
meaning.Iwillneedtotravellongerwiththistwo-nessto
discoverintheperformance,thelogicthatholdsthemtogether.414
Thedividedtwo-nessofthespatialproximityofatemporaldistancehere
bringstomindthespatio-temporaljuxtapositionsofHäufunginWalter
Benjamin’sdescriptionofthebaroqueTrauerspiel,thatis,thepilingupof
previouslytemporaldataintothe‘stackedterraces’ofspatial413LinHixonin‘WhenwilltheSeptemberrosesbloom?Lastnightwasonlyacomedy:ReflectionsontheProcess’,FrakcijaPerformingArtsMagazine,No.32(Summer),nopagination.414Hixon,Frakcija(myemphasis).
199
inauthenticity.However,themovementof‘pilingup’herenotonly
concernsspatial(synchronic)juxtapositionofpreviouslytemporal
(diachronic)data,butalayeringofothertimesandplaceswithinasingle
time.Inthisscenario,performedgesturesbegintoswellunderthe
intrudingechoesofawholeseriesofpreviousinscriptions.Theaspectof
suchaswellingisreflectedinandmodelledbyGoatIsland’sinterestin
Istanbul’sHagiaSophia,whichservesasanimpossible‘score’fora
prolongedmovementsequenceandappearsasascaledmodelinthe
company’sfinalperformanceTheLastmaker.AsJaneBlokerhaspointed
out,theformermosque,formerchurchandcurrentmuseum‘functions
[…]asachronotopeinBakhtin’ssense:astructurethatoccupies
differenthistoricalperiodsandculturallychargedspacessimultaneously
(mosque,church,museum).Itisaspatio-temporalamalgam’.415Likethe
chronotope,GoatIsland’sperformancessimilarlyconstitutespatio-
temporalamalgamsinwhichdifferencenotonlyappearsinjuxtaposition
butalsowithinsingulargestures,haunted,notonlybytheagain-timeof
re-enactment,butawholeseriesoflayeredpreviousinscriptions,more
orlessrevealingageneralhistoricityofthere-inscribedmark.‘These
threeindividuals,’thecompanywriteswithregardstoSimoneWeil,
LillianGishandPaulCelan,‘aphilosopher,anactress,apoet–appearin
variousformsenactedandoverlaidliketransparenciesatoponeanother
inournewperformanceWhenWilltheSeptemberRosesBloom?’.416The
hauntedbodiesofGoatIsland’sperformersmightthusbeinhabitedbya
multiplicityofothertimesatasingletime.Agatheringandmoreorless
transparentlayeringofdifferentmomentsoftimeinthesametimethat
inpartsprings,asIhavetriedtoshowhere,fromtheprolongedduration
oftheperformance’sprocessofassemblageduringwhichrepeatable
markscontinuetoreturnotherwise,becomingsaturatedwithtracesof
theirpreviousinscriptions.
Whetherbyassemblingamultiplicityofdiversesourcesthrough
temporalmontage,spatialjuxtapositionortransparentlayering,these
415Blocker,8-9.416Frakcija(myemphasis).
200
performances’engagementswiththearchivestarklydifferentiate
themselvesfromthekindofpracticesaspiringtotheexactrepetitionofa
singlehistoricalprecedent.Albeitthusfallingoutsidethepreciseremitof
RebeccaSchneider’sseminalanalysisofthesyncopatedtimeof
performancere-enactment,theworkofGoatIslandandEveryhousehas
adoormustneverthelessimposeitselfonanyscholarinterested,asshe
putsit,‘inhistory’stheatricalreturns’.417Fordespitetheirdifferences,
theseperformancesaresimilarlyconcernedwithwhatSchneidercalls
the‘replayofevidence(photographs,documents,archivalremains)back
acrossthebodyin‘gesticnegotiation’‘intheagainofatimeoutofjoint,’
orelse,in‘theambivalenceofthelive’in‘itsinter(in)animationwiththe
nolongerlive’.418Ifthe‘subject’oftheseperformancesremainshowever
‘largelyabsentedfromthefinishedwork,’asEveryhousehasadoor’s
websitedescribesit,theself-consciousremovalfromthepresentnever
amountstoanattempttostandfirmlyintheplaceofthepastbutrather
tostand-inforit,thatis,tofacilitateanencounterwithanabsenttraceas
itpassesacrossbodiesinagain-time,orbetter,bythebackandforth
relayofanagain-and-againtime:anamateur’srehearsalofthepastas
thefuturetocome.419
ThePerformanceasModelNotebook:HupomnēmataandtheCallto
aParticipatoryArtofLiving
Inselectivelyassemblingandrehearsinganarrayof
heterogeneousarchivalmaterialsreplayedacrossthebodyinagain-and-
again-time,theseperformances,Iwanttosuggest,begininpartto
resembleaformofSelfWritingasMichelFoucaulthasidentifieditinthe
practicesofanddiscoursesonthehupomnēmataofGreco-Romantimes.
417Schneider,1.418ibid,1&9.419Seewebsitewww.everyhousehasadoor.org/
201
Likethosenotebooksinwhich‘[o]newrotedownquotes[…],extracts
frombooks,examples,andactionsthatonehaswitnessedorreadabout
[…],’theseperformancesaresimilarlyputintheserviceofan‘exercise’
or‘training’–orwhatwemightherealsocallarehearsal–of‘theartof
living’.420NotunlikethemodelorHaltung[attitude]ofatraining[Übung]
todealwithanapparatus,whattheperformanceasrehearsednotebook
exercisesisthebody’sparticipatoryentanglementwiththearchive,of
lifewithdeath,ofphysiswithtechne,oftheflowoftimewiththe
movementofspacingthatinterrupts,disjointsandaugmentsit.Here,the
constructionoftheethos,thatis,ofahoweverlimitedfamiliaritywith
oneself–andthereforeofacertainstyleandindeedart,thatis,techneof
living–quarepetitionandproductiveretracingofapathalwaysalready
travelleddependsonanarchivalprincipleofgatheringtogethera
selectionofrepeatablemarks.Ifthecollectiveendeavourofthe
companies’processofassemblageinpartresemblesthatothertechnique
of‘SelfWriting’Foucaultidentifiesas‘correspondence’–theprocessof
constructionmadeofaprolongedpursuitofchainsofaddress(task),
responseandcounter-responsemirroringanepistolarypractice-the
finalperformancesomewhatpresentsitselfasacollectivelywritten
hupomnēmata,nolongerinscribedonthepagesofanotebookbut
“within”thebodiesofperformersmovingthroughspacein(repeatable)
time.Construedasahupomnēmata,theperformanceitselfconstitutesa
‘recordofthingsread,heard,orthought,thusofferingthemupasakind
ofaccumulatedtreasureforsubsequentrereadingandmeditation,’or
elseforrehearsal.421JoeKelleher,inhisreadingofGoatIsland’s
performanceTheLastmakermakesasimilarobservationwithregardsto
thetreasure-likeassemblageofarchivalmaterialswhendescribingthe
workas‘somesortofphysicalizedmeditation,baseduponthe
rememberingofhoarded,treasured,orpickedupandpatchedup
420MichelFoucault,‘Self-Writing’inEthics.TheEssentialWorksofFoucault1954-1984.ed.PaulRabinow,trans.RobertHurley207-222.(London:PenguinBooks2000),208-9.421ibid,210.
202
material’.422Thattherehearsedtreasureisfinallypresentedtoapublic
makesoftheperformanceamodelofapracticeofself-writing,thatis,an
exemplaryrehearsaloftheinterrelationofindividualbodieswithapre-
individualfundofcollectivememorytraces.Kellehermakesasimilar
observationwhenspeakingofthepublicnatureofits‘craftofthought’
putintheserviceofadisseminationofstructuresforthinking.423The
performersphysicallyre-traceorrecallandtherebyinscribethebody’s
encounterwithanarrayofarchivalsourcematerialsthatarequite
literallyrendered“neartohand,”asFoucaultputsitwithregardstothe
hupomnēmata,‘notjustinthesensethatonewouldbeabletorecallthem
toconsciousness,butthatoneshouldbeabletousethem,wheneverthe
needwasfelt,inaction’.424WhatFoucaultsaysofthehupomnēmata
seemsthusmoreorlessapplicabletoaperformancepracticethat
gathersandmimeticallyinteriorizesaselectionofarchivaltraces,
namely,thatthegathered‘mustnotsimplybeplacedinasortofmemory
cabinetbutdeeplylodgedinthesoul,“plantedinit,”[…]andtheymust
formpartofourselves:inshort,thesoulmustmakethemnotmerelyits
ownbutitself.Thewritingofthehupomnēmataisanimportantrelayin
thissubjectivationofdiscourse’.425Aprocessofsubjectiviation,as
FoucaultspecifieswithrecoursetoSeneca,wherebytheabsorptionof
thegathereddiscourseislinkedtotheproductionofadifference.426Yet
atleastwithregardstothegesturesofappropriativerecallunder
considerationhere,suchphysicalabsorptionsofgatheredexternalmarks
aredecisivelynotwithoutremainder:therememberingoftreasured
materialneveramountstoafullblownincorporationinthesenseofa
HegelianErinnerung,butratherremainspreciselyofarelaymovement
422JoeKelleher,‘TheirHandsFullofGhosts:GoatIslandattheLast’AJournalofPerformanceandArt,(2009),31:3,100.423ibid,101.IwillreturntoKelleher’sobservationandtheirrelevanceforaconceptionoftheperformanceashupomnēmatainmoredetaillateron.424Foucault,‘Self-Writing’,210.425ibid,(myemphasis).426ibid,213.
203
withoutend.427Therelaycharacterofaprocessofrehearsingagathered
treasureofmaterialsthereforeremainsdemonstrativelycaughtupina
retracingofanintervalbetweentheactofrecallandthematerial
recalled.
Likethenotebookashupomnēmata,theperformanceconsistsofa
gatheringofotherwisescatteredarchivalremainsandcouldbesaidto
similarlyseektoresistthedistractionsofanendlessflowofreadingas
passiveconsumption.Aflowthat,aswehavealreadyindicated,inhibits
thepossibilityofthinkingastransformativereturn,appropriativere-
productionanddifferance–repetitionanddifference–bydissociating
readingfromwriting,consumptionfromproduction.AlthoughFoucault’s
accountoftheuseofhupomnēmatadoesnothereliterallytalkofthe
distractionsofatemporalflow,itsemploymentintheefforttoresistthe
distraction,mentalagitationandanxietyofaconsciousnessperpetually
turnedtowardthenoveltyofthefutureclearlyreliesonitsabilityof
interruptingandstillingtheflowofconsciousnessby‘fixingacquired
elements,[…]constitutingashareofthepast,[…]towardwhichitis
alwayspossibletoturnback[…]’.428‘Thispractice,’Foucaultrelates
further,
canbeconnectedtoaverygeneralthemeoftheperiod;inany
case,itiscommontothemoralphilosophyoftheStoicsandthat
oftheEpicureans–therefusalofamentalattitudeturnedtoward
427Inashortinterview,Derridasketchestheroleoftheconceptof‘Erinnerung’inHegel’sphilosophyasfollows:‘Theconceptof“Erinnerung,”whichmeansbothmemoryandinteriorization,playsakeyroleinHegel’sphilosophy.Spiritincorporateshistorybyassimilating,byrememberingitsownpast.Thisassimilationactsasakindofsublimatedeating—spiriteatseverythingthatisexternalandforeign,andtherebytransformsitintosomethinginternal,somethingthatisitsown.Everythingshallbeincorporatedintothegreatdigestivesystem—nothingisinedibleinHegel’sinfinitemetabolism’.[DanielBirnbaumandAndersOlsson,‘AnInterviewwithJacquesDerridaontheLimitsofDigestion’e-flux,(2009),01.AccessedonlineMay2016http://www.e-flux.com/journal/an-interview-with-jacques-derrida-on-the-limits-of-digestion/].428Foucault,‘Self-Writing’,212(myemphasis).
204
thefuture(which,duetoitsuncertainty,causesanxietyand
agitationofthesoul)andthepositivevaluegiventothe
possessionofapastthatonecanenjoytothefullandwithout
disturbance.Thehupomnēmatacontributeoneofthemeansby
whichonedetachesthesoulfromconcernforthefutureand
redirectsittowardcontemplationofthepast.429
Foucault’sformulationheremustrecallWalterBenjamin’sconcernwith
thetemporalpredicamentoftheGermanbaroquetowhichthe
Trauerspielsoughttofindanappropriateresponse.Deprivedofan
institutionallyregulated,moreorlesssovereign,thatis,atleast
seeminglyomnitemporalholdoverthefuture,Benjamindepictsthe
experienceoftimeduringtheGermanbaroqueasdeeplyinthrallofan
anxietybeforethefuture.Confrontedwithageneralcrisisof‘works’and
anopaquemeansof“faithalone,”isolatedindividualsfindthemselves
precariouslyexposedtotheunpredictableeffectsoftheiracts,helplessly
aswellashopelesslyexposedtothecomingoftimewithoutany
guaranteesoverthepositiveoutcomesoftheiracts.Inlightofthis
dilemma,Webernotes,memory‘takesonanewfunction,thatof
consolingaworldinwhichactionisnolongertheunquestionable
pathwaytograce’.430Whatismore,theTrauerspiel’sresponsetoan
epochalcrisisofeschatology,asBenjaminrelates,entailsthemovement
ofaconversionofpreviouslytemporaldataintospatialinauthenticity
(timebecomingspace).Intheabsenceofanostensiblecontroloverthe
comingoftime,towardofanxietyinviewofahistoricalflowperceived
tobemovingtowardscatastrophe,temporalprocessesarebroughttoa
haltbytheirspatialinscription.Thepilingupofpreviouslytemporaldata
ontheshowplaceofTrauerspielformstheconditionandcallsfora
cominglabourofitsperpetualre-workingquaallegorical
theatricalization(spacebecomingtime).Benjamindetectsaverysimilar
strategydescribed,aswellasrehearsedandthereforedemonstrated,in
429ibid.430Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,194.
205
andbytheworkofFranzKafka,whorepeatedlyreturnstotheimageofa
certainpreferenceforthemovementofahappyreturn[Umkehr]tothe
pastovertheunhappypursuitofafuturegoal.431Theresonanceof
Kafka’smotifofUmkehrwiththefunctionofhupomnēmataasa‘means
bywhichonedetachesthesoulfromconcernforthefutureandredirects
ittowardcontemplationofthepast,’aswellaswithitsmoreliterally
embodiedformintheperformancepracticesofGoatIslandandEvery
househasadoor,isperhapsnowherebetterevokedthaninBenjamin’s
descriptionofUmkehras‘thedirectionofstudy[i.e.ofKafka’sstudents]
whichtransforms[verwandelt]being[Dasein]intowriting[Schrift]’.432
Furthermore,ifKafka’sparabolicworkwithoutdoctrinemoregenerally
setsouttotransmitanopaquetraditionnolongerintheserviceof
continuity,butinsteadconstitutes,asWernerHamacherputsit,a
‘clouding[Trübung]ofEnlightenment’byitstransmissionofanopaque
inheritancethatbelongstothefuturenolessthanthepast,the
hupomnēmatacouldbesaidtoserveanotdissimilar‘circumstantialuse
value’thatisneversimplygiveninadvanceoronceandforallbythe
omnitemporalsovereigntyofadoctrinebutmustbesituatedandinsome
waysalwaysremainstocome.Forthetendencytocounteractdispersal
throughthegatheringoftreasuredmaterials,asFoucaultrelates,never
amountstosubscribingtothedoctrinalunityoftheirfiliallinks.
‘[…W]hileitenablesonetocounteractdispersal,’Foucaultrelateswitha
formulationthatresonatesdeeplywiththe“final”assemblageofarchival
sourcematerialintheperformancesofGoatIslandandEveryhousehasa
door,‘thewritingofthehupomnēmataisalso(andmustremain)a
regularanddeliberatepracticeofthedisparate.Itisaselectionof
heterogeneouselements’.433‘Itdoesnotmatter,saysEpictetus,’Foucault
notes,‘whetheronehasreadallofZenoorChrysippus;itmakeslittle
differencewhetheronehasgraspedexactlywhattheymeanttosay,or
whetheroneisabletoreconstructtheirwholeargument.Thenotebook
431WalterBenjamin,‘FranzKafka’,435.432ibid,437.433Foucault,212,(myemphasis).
206
isgovernedbytwoprinciples,whichonemightcall“thelocaltruthof
precept”and“itscircumstantialusevalue”’.434Theorderofsuch
circumstantialusemustthereforeremainlargelythatofatest
performance,perhapsnotunliketheexuberant,cunning,probing,
theatricalgesturesofKafka’sGehilfen[assistants]–devotedamateursin
Kafka’sworldofbogusprofessionals–theireffectsandeffectiveness
unabletobeguaranteedinadvance.Thus,‘training’in‘theartofliving’
neverleadstoafinalaccomplishmentbutmayonlyeversecurean
essentiallyprecariousethos,fromtimetotime.‘Skillasaresultof
learningorpractice’heredoesnotamounttoprofessionalismbuta
virtuosityoftrembling.
TheOutsideInsideOut:
Non-Performance,AppropriativeRestraintandTheDouble-Take.
Inhisreflectionsonthe‘roleoftheonstageperformeras,tosome
degree,anon-performer’inbothEveryhousehasadoor’sperformance
SweetMovieandRaimondHoghe’s‘essayperformance’BoleroVariations,
MatthewGoulishre-inscribesthecallforadebunkingofvirtuosityby
linkingittothemodalityofacertain‘restraintofonstagepresence’by
whichtheperformersbegin‘tooccupyfunctionalroles–asfacilitators,
translators,mediators,stage-hand[sand]stand-ins’.435Whatthey
434ibid.435Goulish,‘First,Second,Third’,34-6.Notwithstandingapossibleconfusionofthetermsofmyargument,IamheretemptedtobringintocontactGoulish’scallforaperformativerestraintwithanotdissimilar‘restraint’thatDavidCampanyidentifiesinthefilmsofRobertBresson.Bresson’sfamousemploymentofnon-professionals–avariantofthenon-performer-equallysetsouttoavoidanexcessofvirtuosity–hereofthe(star)performer–thatmightdistract,asCampanyputsit,fromthepartplayed.Eschewingwhatforhimarethetheatricalimplicationsoftheexcessoftheactorasspectacle,Bressonpreferredtheideaofthenon-professionalasmodel,aterm,asCampanystates,thatrecallsthestillphotographorthepainter’sstudio,butwhichherealsomustbebrought
207
facilitate,translate,mediateorstand-inforisanarrayof‘pre-existing
material’or‘tracesofthepast’.436Itisthuswithregardstothematerial
intocontactwiththemodelcharacterofaHaltungasBenjaminidentifiesitinthegesturaltheatreofBertoltBrecht.‘He[Bresson]hadhismodelsdraintheirperformancesoftheatre,’Campanyrelates,‘insistingtheyperformactionsoverandoverinrehearsal.Finallytheycouldperformbeforethecamerawithoutthoughtorself-consciousness.’Campany’sdescriptionofBresson’seffortsto‘restrain’andtherebyreduceperformancetotherepetitive,habitualmodeofanautomatismherefurtherrecallsHixon’sproclaimedinterestinRainer’sobjectiveof‘“removingthebodyfromthegazebyreturningittoanactivity,totheconditionofalwaysdoingsomething.”’Inhisownversionofasortof“No-Manifesto,”Bresson,asCampanyrelates,writes:
Noactors.(nodirectingofactors)Noparts.(noplayingofparts)Nostaging.Buttheuseofworkingmodelstakenfromlife.BEING(models)insteadofSEEMING(actors).
Laterhenotes‘Nine-tenthsofourmovementsobeyhabitandautomatism.Itisanti-naturetosubordinatethemtowillandthought’’.[SeeDavidCampany‘Posing,Acting,Photographing’inStillnessandTime.PhotographyandtheMovingImage.ed.byDavidGreen&JoannaLowry,97-113.(London:Photoworks2005),102].Althoughtheanti-theatricalregisterofthisdiscourseseeminglyjarswiththetermsofmyargument,itsowncontradictionoftermsneverthelessseemtoallowforacomparativereading.ForthemovementofBresson’s‘models’displayalackofvolitionthatcanbesimilarlyattributedtothenon-performersofGoatIslandandEveryhousehasadoor,eachfollowingtheother-directedcallofahabitualautomatismthatBressonlocatesintheeverydayandrelates,ifdubiouslyso,to‘nature’and‘being,’albeit–andtherebycomplicatingtheterms-ofahabitualkindandmodelcharacter.Thelatterinflectionssurelymustmakeitdifficulttorelatetherepetitivepracticeofhabittoaproclaimed‘nature’of‘being.’Therelationshipofhabittotheaspectofahowevermuchsedimentedtheatricalityofrehearsal,mustcomplicateanyrecoursetotherhetoricofauthenticity.Rather,strippingtheperformanceofitsnarcissisticandfetishisticaspectsasspectacle,Bresson’snon-performersseemtoexposeatheatricalitythatwasalwaysalreadyatworkbeforetheinterventionoftheatricalorcinematicartifice.Inanycase,Campany’sdescriptionofthemodel’sperformanceas‘‘go[ing]throughthemotions,’aswesay,’certainlyresonateswiththestyleofa‘pedestrianism’thatisneverfarfromtheother-directedmovementsofthepuppetasitisoftenattributedtothemodalityofnon-performanceandtherestraintofonstagepresenceintheworkofGoatIsland.436Goulish,‘First,Second,Third’,35.
208
tracesofthepastthatthenon-performertakesupwhatwemight
designateasanattitudeofappropriativerestraint.Here,inthecontextof
the‘non-performance’ofanappropriativerestraint,Goulishturnstothe
rhetoricofarejectionofvirtuosityinseekingtoundowhathedesignates
asageneralconundrumoftheatre,namely:
[t]hewayvirtuosityofanysorts,oncerecognized,becomesthe
subject,attheexpenseof,orbywayofreplacing,orsupplanting,
theintendedsubject.Thisinturnpointstoatheatricalnarcissism,
atendencyofperformance,orperforming,tobeaboutitself,while
pretendingtobeaboutsomethingelse.Thesomethingelsethat
theperformanceclaimstoinvestigateretreatstoa
sentimentalizedbackground,lurkingbehindtheforegroundedact
andpresenceoftheperformers.437
The‘subject’forwhichthehumanpresencesonstagebothstandinand
retreatbefore,isheredrawn,orbetter,selectedfrom,thearchive.‘Theirs
isadancewithhistory,’Goulishexclaims.438Adance,wemightadd,that
hangsbythethreadsofanarchivalsourcethatother-directsit.Leading
thespectatorsas‘guides’–asGoulishalsocallsthenon-performers–on
an“embodied”trajectorythroughpre-existingmaterial,theperformers
appearbothdevoidofagencyandpersonalitywhilstseemingly
possessedbytheabsentedmaterialtheystandinfor.Thelatterisnever
fullyinteriorizedandonlyeverhalf-inhabitedbythe“embodiment”,
leavingagapatalltimesbetweenthedemonstratedandthe
demonstration,theshownandtheshowing,thetraceanditsre-
enactment.If,mostgenerallyput,memoryandhistoryarethe‘subject’of
theperformedenactments,itiswhatSallyBainescalls‘the
demonstrationoftheeventofmemory(asmuchasthememoryofan
event)’thatpreventstherememberedfromappearingassimply
errinnert[remembered/interiorized]ortransparentlyrecalled.Instead,
437ibid,36.438ibid,35.
209
thepresenceoftheperformativeactofrecallandremembrancehere
coincideswitharememberedtracethatsimultaneouslyremains
distinctlynon-present,neitherpresentnorabsent,butspectral,‘their
handsfullofghosts’.439Aspectralitythatisthusabletounhingethe
spatio-temporalcoordinatesofthe“live”actofperformativerecalland
exposetheinextricableinterrelationoftheoutsideandtheinside,the
archiveandthebody.Theexposedbodilyrecallofanarchivaltrace
preventsbodyandarchivefrombeingperceivedaseitherseemingly
opposedortransparentlyconfused,demonstratingthenecessary
eviction,asDerridacallsit,ofthefinitelifeofmnemebythedeadsignof
re-memoration.440Thus,whatSamuelWebersaysaboutEpicTheatreis
alsoandperhapsevenmoresoatworkforthe‘non-performers’ofEvery
househasadoor,namely,that‘[t]herepresentative,mimeticactivity[…]
splitsandturnsbackonitself,retracinginthisdouble-takeaninterval
andagapbetweenthefunctionofrepresentingandthatwhichisbeing
represented,’aswellas,wemightadd,betweenthefunctionof
rememberingandthatwhichisbeingremembered.441Therepresented
andrememberedisneverfullyabsorbedinto,orobscuredby,the
performanceofrememberingandrepresenting,‘isneverallowedto
becomefullyidenticalwithit’.442Thedemonstratedlackofidentity
betweentherememberedandtheeventofremembranceexposesthe
spatialopacityofamediumthatisalwaysboundtocomebetweenthe
ostensibleself-presenceoftheflowoflife–here,thelifeofthe
performer,which,aswewillsoonsee,willseriouslycomeintoquestion
bytheattributeofacertainpuppetry,aswellas,inthecontextofthe
experienceandanalysisoftheeventofperformance,theostensible
immediacyoftheflowoftheliveevent.Thetemporalityofthelivingflow
ofthepresentfinds“itself”dislodgedbyitsentanglementwithnon-
presentremaindersthatfacilitateboththeintrusionofanabsentpast–
439SeeKelleher.440JacquesDerrida,Dissemination.trans.BarbaraJohnson.(London:TheAthlonePress1981),109.441Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,106.442ibid,106.
210
themoreorlessspecifiedsourceofenactment–aswellas,followingthe
logicofiterability,“its”possiblefuturerepetitionanddifference.Here,
thehalf-inhabited,non-presentsourceofapasttraditionisboundto
remaininexcessofitspresentre-enactment,followingamovementof
spectralinheritanceturnedtowardsthefuturenolessthanthepast.In
otherwords,thecitedmarkremains“itself”citable,thatis,abletobreak
withitspresentcontextofre-inscriptionandengenderinfinitenew
contextstocome.Takingaccountofthepossibilityofthiscutqua
repeatability,therepetitionbeginstoswellundertheintrusionofa
beforeandbeyond,hauntedbythepastitrepeatsotherwisewhilst
signalingtowardstheunknowablecomingofthefuturebyanact
ofteleiopoesis,atelephonecallormessagetransmittedtodistantothers–
ghostsfromthefuture.Themodalityofactinghereemployedtherefore
beginstoresemblethatofa‘theatricaliterability,’forwhich,asSamuel
Weberputsit,‘[…]the“act”ofan‘actuality’[…]mustberepeatablein
ordertobeenacted’.The“en-”of“enactment”isthusinseparablefrom
theimplicit“ex-”ofaniterabilitythatcanneverbeself-contained’.443
Whatisexposedbythere-memoratingbodiesofGoatIslandandEvery
househasadooriswhatJacquesDerridahassorigorouslyanalysedand
describedastheoutside–thespatialintervalofwriting,thesupplement
ofthearchive–withintheworkoffinitememory,boundtore-calling
non-present,iterablesignsinamovementofself-relationand
communicationthatsimultaneouslybindsanddisjoins,securesand
exposes.444Whatismore,iftheoutsidecannolongerberigorously
443Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,341.444‘The“outside,”’Derridawrites,‘doesnotbeginwherewhatwenowcallthepsychicandthephysicalmeet,butatthepointwherethemneme,insteadofbeingpresenttoitselfinitslifeasmovementoftruth,issupplantedbythearchive,evictedbyasignofre-memorationorofcom-memoration.Thespaceofwriting,spaceaswriting,isopenedupintheviolentmovementofthissurrogation,inthedifferencebetweenmnemeandhypomnesis.Theoutsideisalreadywithintheworkofmemory.Theevilslipsinwithintherelationofmemorytoitself,inthegeneralorganizationofthemnesicactivity.Memoryisfinitebynature.Platorecognizesthisinattributinglifetoit.Asinthecaseofalllivingorganisms,heassignsit,aswehaveseen,certainlimits.Alimitless
211
opposedtotheinside,abodycannolongerstrictlybeconceived–
followingapowerfulWesterntradition–asself-containedcontainer,but
insteadfindsitselfstretchedandtremblinginaninsecurespatio-
temporalsceneofaugmenteddis-containment.
ThePuppetBody:DemonstratingaWayofBeingMoved
InlightofthesereflectionsitisunsurprisingthatGoulish,when
teasingouttheeffectoftheperformingnon-performer,construesthe
performanceofthebodyassecondarywithregardstotheprimary
performanceofthemoreorless“embodied”materialtraceand,whatis
more,linksittothereactivemodalityofacertainpuppetry.
Theirperformanceappearssecondary,asitallowsforaprimary
performancebythesetracesofthepast,intheformofobjects,
documentarysoundrecordings,andcarefullycalibrated,enacted
gestures.[…]
Theirdance,likeanessayonthepage,tracesthejourneyof
discoverythatthemindmakesthroughasubject.
Theirnon-performerperformancesinfactseem,asastyle,
necessarytobringaboutthisrelationwiththematerialofthe
subject.
Inasensetheyperformasortofpuppetry,inwhichitisessential
thatthey,theperformers,donotovertakethesubject.445
Goulish’srecourseto‘asortofpuppetry’whenseekingtodescribethe
modalityofnon-performanceinSweetMovieandBoleroVariationshere
memorywouldinanyeventnotbememorybutinfiniteself-presence.Memoryalwaysthereforealreadyneedssignsinordertorecallthenon-present,withwhichitisnecessarilyinrelation.(SeeDerrida,Dissemination,109).445Goulish‘First,Second,Third’,35.
212
recallsasimilarcomparisonmadebyStephenBottomsandAdrian
Heathfieldwhendescribingthemodalityofperformanceintheworkof
GoatIsland.Theseobservationsfurthermorelinktheontologicalquality
ofthepuppet–heremarkedbytheappearanceofdispossessionanda
generallackofvolition–toGoatIsland’suseoffacialblanknessasan
indicatorofitsfiliallinktoJudsonDance.Afacialblanknessthat
furthermoreseemsnotatallunrelatedtothequalityofacertain
‘pedestrianism’ofnon-virtuosityatworkintheretracingoffoundsource
materialsasithasbeenoneofourguidingthreads.‘Likesomuchelsein
thecompany’saesthetic,’Bottomsbeginshisreflections,
alinkcanperhapsbetracedbacktotheJudsonDanceTheatre
(basedatGreenwichVillage’sJudsonMemorialChurchfrom
1962-1964):StevePaxton’schoreographywasemphasizingfacial
blanknessasearlyas1963.GoatIsland’swork,however,retrieves
andredevelopstheoften-neglectedJudsonexperimentsin
rigorouslyawkwardnewdirections.Iftheperformersoftenseem
devoidofindividualagencyandevenpersonality–somewhat
“besidesthemselves”–itisinpartbecauseoftheimpossibletasks
theyarechargedwith,butalsoinpartbecauseofthewaytheir
movementsaresooftenplagiarizedfromothersources,models
thattheycannotquiteliveupto.Thus,theyarenotquite“in
possession”ofthemselvesortheiractivities.AsAdrianHeathfield
notesoftheextensivecopyingofPinaBausch’schoreographyin
It’sanEarthquakeinMyHeart:
It’snoaccidentthattheperformersoccasionallyseemto
bemovinglikepuppets,orrehearsingasetofmovesthat
theydonotyetknow.Themovementisexposedasa
repetition.Wearewatchingthemlearnhowtomove.That
theperformersonly“half-inhabit”themovementiscrucial
totheworksinceitcreatesaquestionoverthesourceof
themovementandtheperformer’svolition.Their
213
physicalityseemstooriginatesimultaneouslyfromoutside
andinsidetheperformer:fromsomenotionalinstruction,
patternorplan,butalsofromapsychicforce,whichgrips
theperformerwithinarepetitionofagesturalform.446
ThelackofvolitionHeathfieldascribestotheperformersofGoatIsland
clearlysetsthemapartfromwhatSamuelWeberdescribesasthe
modernconceptionoftheautonomoussubject,whoseprivilegedsite
sincetheReformation,asheputsit,hasbeen‘thebodyunderstoodas
embodiedindividual’.447Itiswithregardstothelatter’sprincipleof
containmentthattheperformingbodiesofGoatIslandandEveryhouse
hasadoorcomeundone.Anundoingthatexposesthebody,inWeber’s
words,as
nolongerdemarcatedfromitssurroundings[and]inevitablyraises
thequestionofitsrelationtoplacewhichisnolongersimplyits
exterior.Rather,thisbodycanitselfbeaplace,astageorstaging
areaforeffectswhosescopeisnotclearlypredictable.448
Nolongerself-determiningandautonomous,theseexposedbodiesare
‘ratherdeterminedbytheir“ties”towhattheyarenot,’performing
motionthat‘doesnotappearastheactofanindividualbutratherbears
[them]alonginamovementthathasitsoriginelsewhere.449‘Neither
passivenoractive[…],theydemonstrate,quiteliterally,awayofbeing
movedthatconfoundssuchoppositions’.450Weberlinksthereactive
modalityofsuchactingto‘theskilloftheperformer’–andtherefore,
curiously,backtoacertainvirtuosity,onlythistime,perhaps,avirtuosity
oftrembling–that‘allowsamovementtobedeployedthatcanneverbe
446Bottoms&Goulished.,74(myemphasis).447Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,317.448ibid,51449ibid,27&318.450ibid,27.
214
reducedtothepropertyorproductofanindividualquaindividual’.451
Thesereflectionsonthedispossessedmodalityofactingbodiestake
placeinavarietyofcontextsthatincludeaperformanceofPekingOpera,
Brecht’sEpicTheatre,aswellasaspoutofpopularfilmsfromTheBody
SnatchersthroughAlientotheTerminator(s)andbeyond,which‘bear
witnesstothebecoming-uncannyofwhatseemsmostfamiliar,the(not
alwayshuman)body[…]’.452ItisinthislattercontextthatWeberturns
toamorerecentexampleofthisgeneralthemeasitresurfacesinthefilm
BeingJohnMalkevitch.Here,theparadigmaticexampleofabodythatis
determinedbyits“ties”towhatitisnotturnsouttobe,precisely,a
puppet.Itistheother-directedmovementsofthepuppetthatforWeber
‘revealaconstitutiveheterogeneitythat[theWesterntraditionofa
modernconceptionoftheautonomoussubject]isobligedtodenyor
combat’.453Thus,ifthemodalityofnon-performingperformers
resemblestheappearanceofpuppets,itisbecausetheysimilarlyappear
tobe‘suspendedonthreads;theirmovementscom[ing]fromelsewhere.
Theyrespond[,]’Webersayswithaformulationthatdeeplyresonates
withthemethodifnotethicsoftheperformancepracticesunder
considerationhere,‘theydonotinitiate’.454WhatWebersaysofthe
451ibid.452Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,51.453ibid,319.454ibid.Weber’saccountofpuppet-bodiesthatrespondbutdonotinitiate,herenotonlyrecallsthestyleofnon-performanceasGoulishdescribesit,butfurthermoreresonatesstronglywiththeoverallethosandmethodthatinformsbothcompanies’workingprocesses,itsoutcomesderivingfromalongseriesofresponseandcounter-response.Suchanethosorattitudeofreactionoverinitiativefurtherinformsthestrongeducationalagendathataccompaniestheirworkthroughextensiveworkshops,talksandpublicationsoftenaimedatother,youngerpractitioners.Perhapstheirs,likeBenjamin’s‘authorasproducer,’isalsoanendeavortoprovideotherswithanimprovedapparatusbyemphasizingacalltoresponse-abilityinscribedinthe‘model’characteroftheirHaltung.Inanycase,oneindicatorforthecentralityofanattitudeofresponsivenessamongstmanyotherscomesintheformofHixon’sandGoulish’swritingsontheirperformanceprocesses,whichmoreoftenthannotbeginwiththesmallthreadsofananecdote,thecoordinatesofaspecifictimeandplaceofachanceencounterwithasourcematerialthathadnotbeenactivelysoughtout.
215
puppet,therefore,canherebemoreorlessequallyappliedtothenon-
performersofGoatIslandandEveryhousehasadoor:
Althoughtheycanhardlybesaidto“act,”[they]nevertheless
“embody”theessenceoftheactinginwhichthebodyitself
becomesastageuponwhichforcesthatcomefromelsewhere
playthemselvesout;suchremotebodiesarealwaysdefinedby
theirrelationtotheplacetheyoccupywithouteverpossessing.
Puppetsnevertakeplace,andinthistheyareatoddswith
humansinthespecificsenseaccordedthattermbyapowerful
Westerntradition:namely,thatofanindependent,autonomous,
self-conscioussubject.Puppets,bycontrast,repeat,respond,
react,re-movewithouteverreachingoraspiringtoself-
consciousness.Theyarebothbeforeandbeyondit.Correlatively,
their“bodies”neverembody:notasoul,noramind,noran
identity.Theirbodiesarenonhumanintheextreme,andyetno
less“bodily”forit.Theirarticulations,joints,andmemberstake
WhetherthediscoveryofrarefootageofaPinaBauschperformanceinMartinFigura’sflatatFidicinstrasse32ainBerlin,theencounterwiththe1970sBritishrepairmanualAroundtheHomeinaphysicist’sapartmentatAberystwyth’sseafrontinNovember2001,ortheout-of-printtwovolumesofTestimonybytheJewishAmericanpoetCharlesReznikoff–which,asGoulishrelates,‘afriendgavemesomeyearsago’–anattitudeofreactivenesssurroundsthesenon-intendedchanceencounters.[Goulish,‘Memoryisthis’,6;LinHixon,‘SmallActsofRepair’frakcija32,2004,nopagination;MatthewGoulish&LinHixon,‘Poetry,DocumentandObjectivity’,TranscriptofLectureheldatLICA,LancasterUniversity,November2014.]Perhapstherecurrentmotifofdatesandaddressesthatmarktheeventofanunexpectedarrivalmustnotthenbereducedtothehabitofastylisticdevice,butinsteadbereadasevidenceofsomethingofanethico-politicalstance,thatis,theaffirmationofadis-containedsubjectasa‘stageuponwhichforcesthatcomefromelsewhereplaythemselvesout’[Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,319].Orelse,ofaconceptofidentityas‘house’thatisabletocontainonlyinsofarasit‘givesupapassagetotheoutsideworld[l’etranger].’Aninsight,thatisfurthermorereflectedinthecitationalpracticeoftheirlatestcompanyname,whichreinscribesDerrida’sassertionthat‘thereisnohouseorinteriorwithoutadoororwindows’.SeeJacquesDerrida,OfHospitality,61.
216
theircuefromelsewhere,andtheirbeing,reiterativeand
inconclusive,alwayshangsonathread.455
Inthetheatre,onewaytofigurethecuethatcomesfromelsewherehas
ofcoursealwaysbeenthemoreorlessovertlyexposedcrack[Sprung]in
theboardsofastageinwhichislocatedthetechnologyoftheprompter:
‘mechanicalruse(mekhane),’asDerridaputsit,‘ormistakingaperson,
repetitionupontheperverseinterventionofaprompter[souffleur],
parolesoufflé,substitutionofactorsorcharacters’(Specters5).The
prompterexposestheprimaryrepetitionofthetheatrical“event”inthe
shapeofanopening–notunlikethatofadoororwindow–thatdoubles
thatofthemouthoftheperformer,stealinginadvancetheperformance
ofspeech.Inourcontext,however,itisnotexclusivelynorprimarilythe
speechofactorsthatfindsitselfstoleninadvance,butthegesturesof
bodiesbornealongbyamovementthathasitsoriginelsewhere.InEvery
househasadoor’sperformanceSweetMovie,themechanicalruseofthe
promptisfiguredovertlybytwolap-tops–theirscreensturnedaway
fromtheaudience–playingthefeastscenefromDusanMakavejev’s
1974filmSweetMovie.Thelatterpromptsthe‘re-enactmentofsome,
any,oralloftherolessimultaneously,’asGoulishrelates,whichthe
audienceencountersas‘anelaboratewordlesslip-synch’facilitatedby
theperformerasstand-in.456Theperformersstand-inforanabsent
‘subject’(theme)without,asGoulishpointsout,‘hopingtoeverinhabit
it’.457Althoughtheabsenceofthesourceisherefiguredbythelap-top
prompt,theresultingeffectofdispossessionthatinformsthestyleof
non-performanceinnowayreliesontheuseofsuchatheatricaldevice.
Forrepetition,asHeathfield’saccountoftheperformersofGoatIsland
hassoughttodescribeit,isalwaysalreadyexposedbytheuncannymode
ofahalf-inhabitedenactment.
455Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,319-20.456Goulish,‘First,Second,Third’,34-5.457ibid,37.
217
RehearsingTheFutureToCome
IncontrasttoGoulish’soutrightrejectionofahopetoeverfully
inhabittherepetition,Heathfield’sdescriptioncontinuestolinkthe
repetitiveandrepeatablemodalityoftherehearsaltoamoreorless
goal-directed,progressivemovementofaprocessoflearning(‘weare
watchingthemlearn’).Here,apresentstateofnot-knowing(‘rehearsing
asetofmovesthattheydonotyetknow’)isrehearsedinviewofthe
horizonofanotyet,thatis,ahowevermuchdeferredandprojected
(possibilityof)finalacquaintance.458Particularlyhoweverinviewof
Goulish’srecoursetothenotionofperformativerestraintwhen
describingthemodalityofnon-performance,theaspectofrehearsalthat458Heathfield’scommentary,whichisconcernedwithaparticularmomentofcitationofadifficultfoundmovementsequenceinGoatIsland’sperformanceIt’sanEarthquakeinMyHeartisofcourseonlyimplicitlyrelatedtothewiderquestionsofthebodyandthearchive,aswellasofthetemporaldehiscenceoftheeventofperformancequaiterabilityasitinformsthemuchbroader,structuralremitofmytheoreticalanalysis.Therefore,Iamnotconcernedwithacritiqueofthereadinganddescriptionthatitoffersofthisparticularsceneonitsownterms–whichindeedwouldbedifficulttodivorcefromahorizonofpossibleacquisitiononthelevelofmerephysicalskill–butrathertorenderexplicititspotentialrelationtothephilosophicalandpoliticalstakesofmyargumentbyaslightdisplacement–forinstance,bysituatingtherepetitionof‘foundmovement’moreovertlyinasceneofspectralinheritance,thatis,thecitationalpracticeofretracingthesedimentedmarksofa‘tradition.’Thelatterisnevermerelyaphysicalbutalsosymbolicpractice.Inthiscontextofbodilycitationasthelabourofculturalinheritanceandtransmission,theperformance,experienceandtestimonyofnot-knowingatplayinahalf-inhabitedrepetitionmustthenalsoconcerntheproductionofsocio-culturalsignificance.Itispreciselyinthisexcessofanin-andover-determination,thebecomingopaqueoftheVorstellung,thatthemovementofrepetitionasrehearsal,insteadofbeingsubmittedtoateleologicprojectofaccomplishment,beginstosignalinsecrettothepossibilityof“its”comingalterity.ThereforeitisonlyinthecontextofthisslightcitationaldisplacementofHeathfield’sremarks,ratherthanwithintheirownremit,thatmorepreciseattentionmustbepaidtotheconceptionofahalf-inhabitedrepetitionasaninstanceofrehearsal.Inthiscontext,itbecomesnecessary,asDerridaputsit,‘tofreethevalueofthefuturefromthevalueof‘horizon’thattraditionallyhasbeenattachedtoit–ahorizonbeing,astheGreekwordindicates,alimitfromwhichIpre-comprehendthefuture’.[SeeDerrida&Ferraris,20].
218
pertainstothehalf-inhabited(re-)enactmentmustbeseveredfromthe
structuralresidueofsuchateleologicalperspective.Here,the
performanceofnon-masteryandnot-knowingcannotbereducedtoa
structurallogicofthenotyet.Toavoiddoingso,thestructureof
rehearsalthatexposestheperformanceasrepetitionmustbedifferently
construed.Nolongerconstitutingarehearsalforthefuture,followinga
repetitivepracticethatseekstoberidofitsverycomingbytheskilful
institutingofcontinuitythroughexactrepetitionsofthepast,whatisat
stakeintheappropriativerestraintoftheenactmentisamore
paradoxicallogicofarepetitionofwhatisindeedalwaysyettocome.
Theenactmentsofrehearsalnolongermerelystand-inforanabsent
‘subject,’sourceorprompt,butfortheverypossibilityof“their”future
alterity.Thedislocatednatureofsuchstanding-iniswithoutproper
placeandactualtaking-placeandthereforeonlyeverradicallyhalf-
inhabitedbothwithregardstothepastand(possible)futureofthe
“present”enactment.Linkingtheunknowablecomingofthefuturetothe
repetitive,thatis,repeat-able,modesoftherehearsal,thelatterbeginsto
describenevermerelyamodeofre-institution,butamovementof
repetitionthatmaintainsasimultaneousreferencetothepastandtothe
future.Nomatterhowmuchitmightdesiremasteryandidentityqua
repetition,itsstructuralrepeatabilityexposestherehearsaltothe
future’suncontrollablecoming.Repetitionorrepetition–theFrench
wordfortherehearsal–musteitheraccountforandbegintoswellunder
afuturealteritythatalwaysatleastpotentiallyawaitsit,orelseseekto
disavowitscoming,whetherthroughthemoreorlessviolentappealto
omnitemporalityorbyre-inscribingthemodalityofapresent
dispossessionortemporal(aswellasethical)disadjustmentintoa
teleologicnarrativeofitseventualovercoming.Attitudeswithregardsto
thestructureofrehearsalasdifférance–thatis,asarepetitionboth
alteredandalterable–maythusbetwofold:ontheonehand,inagesture
ofdisavowal,onemayseektoputtherehearsalintheserviceofa
teleologicaltrajectoryofmasteryoverthefuture–rehearsingforitby
moreorlessseekingtocontrolitscomingthroughtheskilfulrepetitions
219
ofthepast,layingdown,asitwere,thelaw,forothertimesandplacesto
come–or,ontheother,onemayseektorehearsethefuturetocome,ina
gesturethatrepeatsaninheritanceotherwisewhilstremainingopento
theunpredictableanduncontrollablecomingof“its”future
transformation.‘[..B]ecausethereisafuture,’Derridasays,‘acontextis
alwaysopen’.459Inthecontextofthestyleormodalityofperformance
employedbytheperformersofGoatIslandandEveryhousehasadoor,
whatGoulishdescribeswithrecoursetotheperformativerestraintofthe
stand-inmustthusbereadasan“active”engagingofthisopening,in
otherwords,a“passive”modalityorattitude[Haltung]ofplaceholdingas
modelofresponse-ability:‘signifyinghospitalityforwhatistocome,’
‘enact[ing]akindofopening[…]oftheplaceleftvacantforwhoisto
come,forthearrivant,’asDerridaputsit.460This‘zoneof
disacquaintance,ofnotunderstanding,’asDerridafurtherrelates,
preventsthepresentfrombeingconsumedimmediately.Indoingsoit‘is
alsoareserveandanexcessivechance–achanceforexcesstohavea
future,andconsequentlytoengendernewcontexts’.461ForDerrida,here
speakinginthecontextofhisownwritingsandaparadoxicaldemand
‘forthisexcessevenwithrespecttowhatImyselfcanunderstandof
whatIsay,’suchamarkingofanemptyplaceforsomeoneabsolutely
indeterminateissimilarlyrelatedtoaformofrestraint,namely,whathe
callswithrecoursetoaChristiantraditionfromwhichheradicallyparts
inrepeatingitotherwise,thekenosisofthemessianic‘thatdoesnot
necessarilyhavetobetheobjectofamysticalexerciseorascetic
despoilment’.462
459Derrida&Ferraris,20.460ibid,30.461ibid.462ibid,21.InChristiantheology,kenosisdescribesthe‘self-emptying’ofone’sownwillandbecomingentirelyreceptivetoGod’sdivinewill.
220
AnEconomyofNarcissism
[…]and,likeallinheritors,weareinmourning.[…]Tobe[…]
means[…]toinherit.Allthequestionsonthesubjectofbeingorof
whatistobe(ornottobe)arequestionsofinheritance.[…]That
weareheirsdoesnotmeanthatwehaveorwereceivethisorthat,
someinheritancethatenrichesusonedaywiththisorthat,but
thatthebeingofwhatweareisfirstofallinheritance,whetherwe
likeitornot.463
Weareundeniablytheheirsorlegatees[…]ofthisword[here:
democracy,butlateralso:archive]thathasbeensenttous,
addressedtousforcenturies,andthatwearealwayssendingor
puttingoffuntillater.Thissendingorputtingoff[renvoi]gestures
towardthepastofaninheritanceonlybyremainingtocome.464
Intheabovedescriptionandanalysisoftheentanglementofthebody
andthearchiveintheperformancepracticeofGoatIslandandEvery
househasadoor,thelatterhasemergedoutofaseriesof“enacted”,but
atmosthalf-inhabitedappropriationsofcarefullyselectedarchival
remains.Assuch,itparticipatesandintervenes,inhoweversmallaway,
inanarchivalsceneofhistoriographicaltransmissionandtheformation
andtransformationofcollectiveschemataofinheritanceandcom-
memoration.Thebodiesoftheperformersenactorrepeatanembodied
journeythroughanarrayofoutsidetracesthatatthesametimethey
explicitlyavoidtoincorporatethroughthenon-performanceofan
appropriativerestraint.Thismoreorlessexplicit“refusal,”thatis,the
demonstrationofaconstitutivefailuretointeriorize,mightbedescribed
bywhatDerridadesignatesasthestructureofexappropriation,whereby
‘eachandeverymovementofappropriationis,ineffect,an“ex-
appropriation”ora“finiteappropriation”’andthusadoublemovement
463JacquesDerrida,SpectersofMarx,54.464Derrida,Rogues,9.
221
involving‘bothaninescapablegestureof(re-)appropriationandthe
necessaryfailuretointeriorizethatwhichremainsoutside,overthere,
alwaysoutofreach’.465Thecom-memorativeaspectsofthese
performances,whichseektocontributetotheprecarioussurvivaland
transmissionofmoreorlessneglectedorforgottenarchivalremains,
couldbesaidtomakeofitaworkofmourningastheconstitutively
failingprojectofintrojection,amimeticinteriorizationcaughtup
preciselyinadoublemovementaswellasadoublebindof
exappropriation–boththedesiredrecoveryandsafekeepingofa
neglectedarchivaltrace,aswellasasimultaneous“refusal”tomakethe
deadotheralivingpartofone.Sucha“refusal,”however,cannever
simplybeoftheorderofachoice,butmerelyoftheorderofa
demonstrationofanecessary,structuralimpossibilityattheheartof
everydesireforappropriation.Itisthereforeoftheorderofamodality
orstyleintheformofagestureof‘puttingoff’theverydesirefor
appropriation.466
465PleshetteDeArmitt,TheRighttoNarcissism,131.466Inanticipationofwhat,beyondanaïverejectionofnarcissismwillsoonbecalledaneconomyofnarcissism,wemightthusheresimilarlyspeakofaneconomyofdesireandneverofanoutrightrejectiontoappropriate.Appropriation,interiorization,‘eatingwell,’asDerridainsists,isneveranoption.‘”Oneeats[theother]regardlessandletsoneselfbeeatenbyhim”[DerridainDeArmitt,129]’.‘Ofcourse,’DeArmittrelates,‘weshouldhearthisDerridiandeclarationasextendingfarbeyondanyempiricalconsumptionoffoodordrinkto“theveryconceptofexperience”itself,becausethelawofneedordesire–the“‘itisnecessary[ilfaut]’thatIwantthethingtobemine”–isequallyatworkinallexperience,fromeatingandperceivingtolovingandmourning’[DeArmitt,129].Whatismore,Derrida’sconceptionofdesire(toappropriate)isconditionedonitsconstitutivefailure.AsDeArmittputsit:
[A]lthoughtheabsolutealterityoftheother,timeandagain,thwartsorbarsourattemptsatappropriationandhencelimitsourinsatiabledesires,thisiswhatwedesire.Whetherweareconsciousofitornot,[Derrida]contends,we“desire”thattheother“remainforeign,transcendent,other.”Indeed,fortheretobedesireatall,[…]itisessentialthattheotherremainsufficientlyothersothatonestillhasaninterestinmakingitone’sown[DeArmitt,131].
222
AsimilarreadingoftheDerridianconceptionofdesireinformsthediscernmentofwhatMartinHägglundcallsthe‘radicalatheism’ofdeconstruction.Here,inthecontextofacontestationofthereligiousidealofimmortality,theunscathedandsalvation,thefailureofdesire’sfulfillmentnolongerdescribesanegativelimitationbutthenecessaryopeningforacontinuedprocessofre-appropriationintrinsictothemovementoflifeitself.[SeeMartinHägglund,RadicalAtheism.DerridaandtheTimeofLife.(StanfordCalifornia:StanfordUniversityPress,2008),8-11].Derrida,Hägglundargues,‘reliesonthedesireformortallifeinordertoreadthemostreligiousideasagainstthemselves’(ibid,11).Forinstance,bringingtobeartheresourcesoftheFrenchidiomonthedeconstructionofthereligiousideaofsalvation,Derridashowsthateverydesireforsalvation(salutde)mustbecompromisedbythegreetingaddresstotheother(saluta).AsHägglundputsit:
Derrida’sstrongclaimisthatthegreetingoftheotherisincompatiblewiththeveryhopeforsalvation:“thesalutapresupposesarenunciationofthesalutde.Toaddressagreetingtotheother,agreetingfromone’sownselftotheotherasother,forthisgreetingtobewhatitmustbeitmustbreakoffallhopeofsalvationorredemption,allreturnandrestitutionofthe‘safe.’”TheradicalityofDerrida’sargumentemergesifonebearsinmindthatgreetingtheotherisnotamatterofchoice.Whateveronedoes,oneisgreetingtheother,sincenothingcanhappenwithoutthecomingoftheother.Thus,inspiteofDerrida’srecoursetovoluntarymetaphors,the“renunciation”ofthehopeforsalvationisconcomitantwiththeadventoflifeassuch[ibid,128].
Iwillreturntothiscontextinmoredetaillateron,particularlywithregardstothequestionofthedesireforandpromiseofjusticeasitsurfacesinEveryhousehasadoor’sperformanceTestimoniumandresonateswiththeworkofbothBenjaminandDerrida.Myinterestwithregardstothegeneralstructureofdesirethusconstruedhereliesinprobingfora(didactic)valueofthedemonstrationofthestructurallimitandconstitutivefailureofappropriationinthecontextofatheatricalVor-stellung[representing-before].Fortodemonstrate,thatis,toactivelyavowthequasi-transcendentalstructureinaparticularbearingofastyleormodalityofaHaltungremainsoftheorderofachoice.Inthisscenarioofanexposedmovementofappropriation,thedemonstrationofitsinterruptionandfailure,Iwanttosuggest,notonlykeepsalivethedesiretore-appropriateforthoserepresenting,butalsoinducesitforthosewitnessing.Thelatteraretherebyactivatedintheir(limited)abilitytoappropriate,respond,participate,contributeandmaketheirown.Thedoublemovementofanexposedexappropriationasasimultaneousgesturetowardsthepastandthefuture,ormoreprecisely,towardsthe
223
Inthecontextofthecom-memorativesceneofperformancepractices
activelyengagedinthetaskofinheritance,thehalf-inhabitingmodality
ofanappropriativerestraintcanthusnolongerbeinscribedina
teleologictrajectoryofaprojectedsuccessfulintrojection.Instead,the
concomitantgestureof‘puttingoff’themovementofappropriationisat
thesametimeagestureof‘sending’a“saved”inheritancetowardsthe
unpredictablepossibilityofitsotheredreturn.Asavingthatisalways
onlyprovisionalandmoreorlessprecariouslyexposed.Here,thedouble
movementoftheexappropriatedenactment–‘inseparablefromthe
implicit“ex-”ofaniterabilitythatcanneverbeself-contained’–must
rejectanddemonstrativelywardofftheseemingacquisitionof“skill,”
“professionalism,”or“know-how”infavourofwhatIhavecalleda
virtuosityoftrembling.467TheHaltung[attitude]ofnon-performanceis
thusalsooneofanAnhaltung[stoppage]ofitsownmovementofre-
appropriation,self-interruptingandimmediatelypartingwithitselfbya
passivesendingorputtingoff[renvoi]that,asDerridaputsit,‘gestures
towardthepastofaninheritanceonlybyremainingtocome’.468
pastastocome,inturnappealstoanaudiencetofollowEcho’sruse,thatis,amimeticinteriorizationthatcounter-signsinitsownname.467Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,341.468Derrida,Rogues,9.Themovementofthissimultaneous‘gesture’tothepastandthefuture–arepetitionofthepastastocome–ispreciselythatofthe‘citabilityofgesture’asBenjamindescribesit,andasithasbeenourprivilegedmarkofreturnthroughout.Evenifitdoesnotalwaysexplicitlyappearherebyname,itnonethelessinformsthepresentcontext.Thecitablegesturedescribesaprocessof‘saving’byamovementoftimebecomingspace,retention,theleavingof(external)tracesandthepossibilityofreturnandre-appropriation,aswellasthestructuralexposuretothefuturequaiterabilityasboththreatandchance.ForDerrida,whetheronthelevelofasubjectoracollective,thebreachedinteriorityofself-identity,theintrusionofalteritythatspringsfromthespacingoftimeastheconditionofeveryrelation,includingtherelationtoself–thestructurallynecessaryopeningtothefutureingeneral–isofcourseneverlimitedtoaspecificstyle(i.e.ofnon-performance)oratanypointsubjecttochoice,decisionandthepossibilityofasuccessfulavoidance.Instead,itis,asMartinHägglundhassoconvincinglyargued,aquasi-orultra-transcendentalconditionfromwhichnoethicalnormcanbederived.Nevertheless,incontrasttoitshoweverfutiledisavowal,aswellastoitsmeredescription,Iamhereprobingforadidacticandpoliticalvalueofits‘demonstration’[seeHägglund,75].Foritisthe
224
Thehalf-inhabiting,restrainedappropriationofnon-performance
resemblesthisdoublegesturetowardsapastthatisstilltocome.
Goulish,aswesaw,linkstherestraintofnon-performancetoacritiqueof
whathecallsatheatricalnarcissism,thatis,‘atendencyofperformance,
orperforming,tobeaboutitself,whilepretendingtobeaboutsomething
else’.469Yetasthemediatedencounterwiththeabsentmaterialofthe
performancethroughthebodyoftheperformerasstand-in
demonstrates,thewithdrawaloftheperformerbeforethematerialmust
necessarilybeincomplete.Instead,theperformerhalf-inhabitsthe
embodiedtrace–retracingtherebyanintervalandagapbetweenthe
functionofrepresentingandthatwhichisbeingrepresented–ina
movementofanalwayslimited,finiteappropriation.Assuch,following
themodalitythatDerridareferredtowiththetermexappropriation,
non-performancemustnotherebereadintermsthatopposenarcissism
andnon-narcissism,butinsteadcanbesaidtopursuewhatDerridacalls
‘theeconomyofamuchmorewelcoming,hospitablenarcissism,onethat
ismuchmoreopentotheexperienceoftheotherasother’.470Hixon,
speakinginthecontextofthesoberstyleofappropriationofAmerican
poetCharlesReznikoff’sTestimony:TheUnitedStates(1885-1915)
Recitative–theprimarymaterialofEveryhousehasadoor’s
performanceTestimonium(2006)–hintsatherownmethodological
effortsatexercisingwhatresemblessuchaneconomyofnarcissismin
herstyleofdirecting:‘Ihavealwaysfoundthewayforwardbyrestraint
andbytheparticular,’shesays,‘–theparticularsofawalk,afall,a
specificname,adeathorsayinggoodbye’.471
Haltungofsuchademonstrationthatwouldbeabletoprovideotherproducersand,whatismore,receiversasproducers,withwhatwemightherecallwithBenjaminonBrechtan‘improvedapparatus,’namely,onethatforegroundsthepossibilitiesofitsperpetualtransformationthroughparticipationquaresponse-ability.469Goulish‘First,Second,Third’,36.470DeArmitt,96.471 Goulish&Hixon.IwillreturninmoredetailtothecontextofEveryhousehasadoor’sperformanceTestimoniumbelow.Inthiscontext,itwillbeamatterpreciselyoflinkingasobrietyofstyle,thatis,anappropriative‘restraint’beforetheparticular,tothepromiseofan
225
Inthecontextofaneconomyofnarcissismbeyondanaïve
denunciationofnarcissisticappropriation,itbecomespossibleto
reinscribetheother-directed,passive-activeorre-activemodalityof
enactmentofthenon-performerinproximitytowhatPleshetteDeArmitt
callsDerrida’sstrategicemploymentofthefigureofEcho‘inorderto
elucidateadeconstructivenotionofthe“self”anditsrelationtothe
other’.472Particularly,thatis,ifonedoesnotlimitthestructureof
individuationthroughcalland(limited)response-abilitytothatofan
inter-subjectivescene.For,inDerrida,thefigureoftheother,onwhich
thelimitedmovementof(Echo’s)individuationbothdependsandby
whichitcomesundone,isneverlimitedtothatofanothersubject,but
insteadmustbereadastheauto-immuneself-relationofthelivingbody
with‘whateverisnotthebodybutbelongstoit,comesbacktoit:
prosthesisanddelegation,repetition,difference’.473Thepossibilityof
returnquare-appropriationisthusatthesametimetheimpossibilityof
thepurityofthisreturn,inotherwords,anexpositiontothenecessary
possibilityofnon-returnandamovementofsimultaneousgatheringand
dividing,individuationanddisindividuation.Toavowthenecessary
possibilityofnon-returninthelimitedmovementofre-appropriationby
agestureofputting-off,sending,leavingorallowing[Lassen],impossiblejusticebeyondthesubsuminggeneralityofanygivenlaw.Forthe(impossible)actofjustice,Derridastatesinhisarticle‘ForceofLaw’,‘mustalwaysconcernsingularity,individuals,irreplaceablegroupsandlives,theotherormyselfasother,inauniquesituation’.[Derrida,‘ForceofLaw’,947]. 472DeArmitt,98.473Derrida,SpectresofMarx,177.‘Toprotectitslife,’Derridacontinues,‘toconstituteitselfasuniquelivingego,torelate,asthesame,toitself,itisnecessarilyledtowelcometheotherwithin(somanyfiguresofdeath:differanceofthetechnicalapparatus,iterability,non-uniqueness,prosthesis,syntheticimage,simulacrum,allofwhichbeginswithlanguage,beforelanguage),itmustthereforetaketheimmunedefensesapparentlymeantforthenon-ego,theenemy,theopposite,theadversaryanddirectthematonceforitselfandagainstitself’[ibid,177].SeealsoHägglund:‘InDerrida“theother”doesnotprimarilydesignateanotherhumanbeing.Onthecontrary,alterityisindissociablefromthespacingoftime.Suchspacingisirreduciblyviolentbecauseitbreachesanyinteriorityandexposeseveryone–myselfaswellasanyother–totheperilsoffinitude’[Hägglund,75].
226
demonstratestheexpansionoraugmentationoftheselfbyaprocessof
infiniteexappropriationintheentanglementoftheegowiththearchive
ofhypomnemata.Here,itismycontentionthattheother-directedbodies
ofthenon-performingperformersofGoatIslandandEveryhousehasa
door,whichphysicallyforgeanessay-likepaththroughasubjectbythe
moreorlessmimeticinteriorizationofarchivaltraces,demonstratetheir
hypomnesicaugmentation,visiblystretchedacrosstheassembled–
whethersuccessivelylaidoutorstackedontoponeanother–arrayof
half-inhabitedexternalmarks.Albeitthereforeeschewingatheatrical
narcissismbydemonstrativelyleavingtheinteriorizedotherasother,
onemightneverthelessidentifythenon-performer(onthelevelofhisor
heruniqueperformance),orindeedtheperformanceitself(onthelevel
oftheworkasuniquesignature),followingDeArmitt’sreadingof
Derrida’srecoursetothefigureofEcho,as
a“littlenarcisissist”whoisresponsibletotheotherbyanswering
andreturninghiscall.Yet,whileechoingthewordsofherother,
[…]isresourcefulenoughtospeakofandforherself,signingin
herownname.474
ThefigureofEcho,whobydivineprohibitionhasbeendeprivedofher
abilitytoinitiatespeech,isboundbylawtospeakonlyafterandthusto
foreverfollowtheother.Herspeech-actresemblesthatofanactor’s,
stoleninadvancebythemechanicalruseofaprompter.YetEcho,
seeminglydeprivedofallinitiative,isneverthelesscapableofherself
playingaruseonamechanicalruse.Condemnedtorepetition,shefeigns
torepeatwhilstrepeatingotherwise,signinginherownname.Iterability
–forinstanceofNarcissus’(self-)address–rendersaprocessof
appropriationpossible,thatis,toidentify,recognize,repeatandrepeat
otherwise(respond).Atthesametime,however,giventhestructureof
ex-appropriationthatstemsfromthe(re-)iterabilityoftheappropriated
mark,Echo’sruseofacounter-signature,aswellasthatofthe474DeArmitt,98.
227
performancepracticeofGoatIslandandEveryhousehasdoor,mustbe
exposedtothecomingofotherrespondents.IfDerrida’sdiscernmentof
Echo’sruseasthatofanabilitytospeakofandforherselfbyfollowing
theother,asDeArmittsuggests,constitutesa‘powerfulinterpretationof
thisseemingpowerlessfigure,’itdoesnothoweverridthisreactively
productivesceneofindividuationofaconstitutiveprecariousness.Even
whenpowerfullyappropriatinganexternalprosthesis,thisactiveruse
remainspassivelyorindeedpowerlesslyexposedtothefuture.Echo,as
DeArmittsuggests,offersusanothernarrativeofnarcissism,‘whichdoes
notdisavowmourningbutinsteadopensitselftotheexperienceofthe
otherasother’.475Thisexperienceofalimitofappropriationmust
concernboththepast–theotheraswhatprecedesandproducesa
uniquebodyandvoicethroughwhatresistsrepetition-aswellasthe
future–theotherofanalreadyinscribedcominglossorruininthe
presentof(re-)appropriation.Thepresentruseofalimited
appropriationisambiguouslyexposed,bothinthesenseofanhowever
limitednarcissisticmovementofre-appropriation(ashowingneverfar
fromthatofashowingoff)aswellasthatofan‘open,vulnerableposition
ofapersonorthing,[…]thusbring[ing]togetherthenotionsofputting
onshow[aswellas]thepresentationofideaswiththedangerofsuch
exposure’.476Theworkofmourning,asDeArmitt’sreadingofDerrida
shows,isthereforecaughtinadoublebind,demanding‘thatthemourner
“mustandmustnottaketheotherinto[her]self”’.477Iftheperformances
ofGoatIslandandEveryhousehasadoorseemlargelydrivenbya
counter-archivalimpulseofsafekeepingtheneglectedandforgotten–
demonstratingaconcernwithwhatmustbeappropriatedandkeptsafe–
themodalityofrestraintinnon-performancefurthermorebespeaksa
concernwithhowoneoughttoappropriatetheother,thatis,withthe
ethicalaporiaofdeterminingthemostrespectfulwayofrelatingtothe
otherthatistobemimeticallyinteriorized.Thisunresolvableaporia
475ibid,99.476Ibid,p.104.477DeArmitt,115.
228
describesanimpasseofundecidabilitybetweenrespectanddisrespect
(violence)fortheother.478Thearchivalmarksthataretakenupand
appropriatedintheperformancepracticeofGoatIslandandEveryhouse
hasadoor–butareonlyeverhalf-inhabited–notonlyprecedebutalso
exceedthetimeoftheir(re-)enactment.Thedemonstrationofthis
precedenceandexcessofarepeatablemarkonwhichasingularyetfinite
appropriationquacounter-signaturedepends,callsforthecomingof
“its”futureappropriations,orelse,thereplyorresponsefromtheone
whocomestosigninhisownmanner.‘Itistheearoftheotherthat
signs,’Derridasays.479Thedemonstratedpossibilityofthecomingofa
counter-signaturebywayofapassiveattitude[Haltung]ofplace-holding
asmodelofresponse-ability‘signif[ies]hospitalityforwhatistocome.’
‘[E]nactingakindofopening[…]oftheplaceleftvacantforwhoisto
come,forthearrivant,’isalsotheHaltungofanappealtoamodeof
receptionthatcannotsoeasilybereducedtotheorderofamere
consumption.Forinorder‘tohearandunderstand[…],’Derridastates
further,‘onemustalsoproduce’.480
EveryArchiveHasaDoor
WhenspeakingoftheprimarymaterialofEveryhousehasdoor’s
2013productionTestimonium-aselectionof‘objectivist’poemsbased
onthelawreportsofUScourtcasesbetween1885-1915fromthetwo
out-of-printvolumesofTestimonybytheAmericanpoetCharles478GeoffreyBenningtonrelatestheimpossibilityofanon-violentrelationtotheotherinthecontextofreadingthetextsofatraditionasfollows:‘[…][T]herecouldbenoreadingabsolutelyrespectfulofatext,foratotalrespectwouldforbidonefromeventouchingthetext,openingthebook,sotherecouldbenocountersignatureabsolutelyrespectfulofthesignatureitcountersigns,forinthatcaseitwouldbecomeconfusedwiththatfirstsignatureandwouldnolongersignatall’.[Bennington,Derridabase,165].479DerridaquotedinDeArmitt,137.480ibid,138.
229
Reznikoff–GoulishdescribesReznikoff’sendeavourasoneofimagining
‘analternatehistoryoftheUnitedStates,onethatwouldincludevoices
omittedfromthehistorybooks’.481Indoingso,hecouldeasilybe
speakingofthecompany’sownsmalleffortsatconstructingwhatJane
BlockerdescribeswithregardstoGoatIsland’sperformanceThe
Lastmakeras‘anarchiveforeverbeingmadeandremade’.482Forwhen
selectingthecontentsfortheseseeminglyopen-endedarchivalor
hypomnemicendeavours,thecompanyoftenseesitselfdrawntothe
historicallyorcriticallyneglected,asif,insomesmallway,asHixon
relates,tomakeamends.483Inthusgatheringtheforgottenand
neglected,thearchivalaspectoftheperformancescouldbesaidto
constructacounter-archivetoahistoricalrecordthathasalwaysbeen
skewedtowardstheprivilegedandpowerful.Ascriticalinterventions
intoaprecedingarchive,inhoweverminuteaway,theperformancesof
GoatIslandandEveryhousehasadoorseeminglyconcernthemselves
withthequestionofapoliticsofthearchive.Thatquestion,asDerrida
remindsus,isnevertobedeterminedasonepoliticalquestionamong
othersinsofaras‘[t]hereisnopoliticalpowerwithoutcontrolofthe
archive[…].484‘Effectivedemocratization,’Derridastates,‘canalwaysbe
measuredbythisessentialcriterion:theparticipationinandtheaccess
tothearchive,itsconstitution,anditsinterpretation’.485Thus,the
companies’concernwithaestheticparticipationthroughcompositional
aswellasdiscursiveappealstoresponse-abilityheredoublesupasa
concernwithapoliticsofarchivalco-production.Yetbesides
contributingtothenecessaryredrawingofinheritedlimitsandtrendsof
exclusionandinclusion–anendeavourthatisneveritselfwithoutthe
violenceofneworrepeatedexclusionsandcanonlyeverraisethestakes
ofresponsibilityinfaceofanecessaryaporiaofselection–these
481Goulish&Hixon.482Blocker,10.483Goulish&Hixon.484JacquesDerrida,ArchiveFever.AFreudianImpression.trans.EricPrenowitz.(Chicago&London:UniversityofChicagoPress1996),4.485ibid,(myemphasis).
230
performancesarenotsimplyconcernedwithwhatisbeinggathered,but
furthermorewiththehowofthegathering,thatis,themannerofthe
facilitatedtransmission.Ifthemannerofitsassemblagedifferswith
respecttodominantarchivalstructures–forinstancebycarefully
avoidingtheconsignationofitspartstoatotalizingsystem‘inwhichall
theelementsarticulatetheunityofanidealconfiguration’–thecounter-
archivalperformancepracticemustnothoweverstrictlybeopposedto
thearchivethatprecedesit.Incontestingexistinglimitsofinclusionand
exclusion,aswellasanarchonticprinciplethatwantstosealatradition
byputtingitunder‘housearrest,’asDerridaputsit,byconsigningthe
gatheredtoapermanentdwellingundertheguardianshipofaprivileged
hermeneuticrightandcompetence,theperformanceascounter-archive
demonstratesanessentialdividednessandopen-endednesstowhich
‘thatre-producible,iterable,andconservativeproductionofmemory,[…]
calledthearchive’wasalwaysalreadystructurallydestined.486The
counter-archive,however,notsimplyredrawstheboardersofexclusion
andinclusionandcontestswhatDerridacalls,withreferenceto
Benjamin,thearchive’s‘forceoflaw’–theviolenceofapower[Gewalt]
whichatoncepositsandconserves–byreinstitutingareconfigured
archonticauthority(howevermarginal),butinsteadseekstointerrupt,
insofaraspossible,themovementofoscillationbetweeninstitutiveand
conservativeviolencebytheopen-endedgestureofagatheringthat
stands-inasplaceholderfor“its”comingalterity.Exposingthestructural
opacityanddividednessoflanguageasthesceneratherthaninstrument
fortheexplorationofthepast,theperformanceascounter-archive
indeeddemandstoberead,aswehaveheardBlockersuggest,as‘an
archiveforeverbeingmadeandremade’.487Whatismore,anysuch
readinginevitablybeginstoparticipateinthelabourofarchival
deconstruction,ex-appropriatingtheperformanceashupomnēmataby
furtheraugmentingitsarchivalmaterials.Thedemonstrated
impossibilityofconsigningthegathered,essentiallydivided,
486ibid,2&26.487Blocker,10.
231
heterogeneousmarksofasecret,spectralinheritancetotheunityofan
idealconfigurationmakesforanunmasterablestructuralcomplexityand
compositionalfragilitythatatonceoverwhelmstheflowofimmediate
receptionandevokesaparticipatory,appropriativedesireinthelong
durationofitsaftermath.‘Thewholethingisexcessive.Itistoomuch.
Therearetoomany[,]’JaneBlockerexclaimsbeforeembarkingonher
readingofTheLastmaker.ForBlocker,thecluttered,extremelydense
andlayeredwebofassembledreferencesoftheperformanceleadsherto
declarethefailureoftheperformanceasarchive.488Yettheperformance
asarchivecouldbesaidto“fail”onlyiftheconceptofthearchivewould
essentiallydependonthepowerofitsarrestingauthority.Given
howeverthattheconceptofthearchivewasalwaysalreadymenacedby
essentialcontradictions–i.e.thatthepossibilityofkeepingthepastthat
thearchiveseekstofacilitateatthesametimeexposestheimpossibility
ofkeepingthepastunscathed–asDerrida’sanalysisseekstoformalize
it,thefailureoftheauthorityofthearchive,hereaselsewhere,never
befallsasanavoidableaccidentfromtheoutsidewhatwouldotherwise
havebeensavedundamaged,‘inahardandlastingway[…]soasto
ensureinthiswaysalvationandindemnity’.489‘Tohaveaconceptat
one’sdisposal,’Derridanoteswithregardstotheconceptofthearchive
aswellasanyotherconceptthatpresentsitselfasarchivableinalasting
way,‘tohaveassuranceswithregardstoit,istopresupposeaclosed
heritage[…].’Andalthough‘[…]thenotionofthearchiveseem[s]atfirst
[…]topointtowardthepast,torefertothesignsofconsignedmemory,
torecallfaithfulnesstotradition,’asiterablehypomnemicretentionit
mustremaininexcessofanygivenfiniteschemata,therebybecominga
questionofthefutureandaquestionofaresponse.490‘Thearchive,’
Derridasays,‘ifwewanttoknowwhatthatwillhavemeant,wewillonly
knowintimestocome.Perhaps.Nottomorrowbutintimestocome,
488ibid,9.489Derrida,ArchiveFever,26.490ibid,36.
232
lateronorperhapsnever’.491Toexposethestructuralunknowingofthe
gatheredistodemonstratetheessentialfailureofarchivalauthority.An
avowalanddemonstrationthatexposesandaggravatesthearchive’s
essentialopeningtothefuture,itsaugmentationandliving-on,forbetter
and/orforworse.492Structurallytakenintoaccount,thecomingofthe
491ibid.492Thatanarchive’sessentialopeningtothefutureisnecessarilyforbetterand/orforworsespringsfromwhatDerridadesignatesasthelawofcontamination.Speakinginthecontext,amongstotherthings,thenecessarypossibilityofcontaminationofNietzsche’stextsbyNaziideology,Derridagivesthefollowingaccountofalogicofcontaminationasboththreatandchance:
Thereisatimeandaspacingofthe“yes”as“yes-yes”:ittakestimetosay“yes.”Asingle“yes”is,therefore,immediatelydouble,itimmediatelyannouncesa“yes”tocomeandalreadyrecallsthatthe“yes”impliesanother“yes.”So,the“yes”isimmediatelydouble,immediately“yes-yes.”Thisimmediateduplicationisthesourceofallpossiblecontamination[…]Thesecond“yes”caneventuallybeoneoflaughterorderisionatthefirst“yes.”Itcanbetheforgettingofthefirst“yes.”[…]Withthisduplicityweareattheheartofthe“logic”ofcontamination.Oneshouldnotsimplyconsidercontaminationasathreat,however.Todosocontinuestoignorethisverylogic.Possiblecontaminationmustbeassumed,becauseitisalsoopeningorchance,ourchance.Withoutcontaminationwewouldhavenoopeningorchance.Contaminationisnotonlytobeassumedoraffirmed:itistheverypossibilityofaffirmationinthefirstplace.Foraffirmationtobepossible,theremustalwaysbeatleasttwo”yes’s.”Ifthecontaminationofthefirst“yes”bythesecondisrefused–forwhateverreasons–oneisdenyingtheverypossibilityofthefirst“yes.”Henceallthecontradictionsandconfusionsthatthisdenialcanfallinto.Threatischance,chanceisthreat–thislawisabsolutelyundeniableandirreducible.Ifonedoesnotacceptit,thereisnorisk,thereisonlydeath.Ifonerefusestotakearisk,oneisleftwithnothingbutdeath[DerridaquotedinHägglund,34].
Morecloselyrelatedtothequestionofmemoryandarchivalreworking,Derridaassertsinanotherinterview,thatthereisnohistoricalprogressingeneralwithoutthethreatofareturnoftheworst.‘Yes,aghostcanreturnastheworst,butwithoutthisrevenance,andifonechallengesitsirreducibleoriginality,oneisalsodeprivingoneselfofmemory,legacyandjustice[…]’.[JacquesDerrida,Negotiations.InterventionsandInterviews1971-2001.trans.&ed.ElisabethRottenberg.(StanfordCalifornia:StandfordUniversityPress2002),106].Here,counter-
233
futuresuspendsintheconditionaltheverypossibilityofpresent
knowledge,causingtheapriori‘failure’ofeveryattemptat‘reading’the
archive–ortheperformanceasarchive–asBlockersuggestswith
regardstothearchivalclutterofreferencesinGoatIsland’sThe
Lastmaker.493Todesignatethefrustrationofreceptionasa‘failure’of
‘reading,’however,wouldbeappropriateonlyifitwouldbepossibleto
knowinadvancewhatitssuccessmightconstitute.Readingwould
therebybegintodesignateaprocessoffollowingareadymade
programme,theabilitytohermeneuticallydecodewithoutdifferenceand
remainder.494Suchanidealconceptionofcommunicationasa
archivalremembranceastheunsealingofdangerouscapitalizationsofsilencewithinvariouseconomiesofmemory–(‘MyimmediatefeelingisthatwhattookplaceinFrancewellbeforeandduringWorldWarII–andstillmore,Iwouldsay,duringtheAlgerianWar–hasreinforced,andthereforeoverdetermined,thelayersofforgetting’)–isdesignatedbyDerridaas‘contradictory,inbothitseffectsanditsmotivations[…].Themomentonerememberstheworst(outofrespectformemory,thetruth,thevictims,etc.),theworstthreatenstoreturn.Oneghostrecallsanother.[…]Thetwomemoriesrelauncheachother[serenflouent];theyexacerbateandaverteachother;theywagewaroneachother,necessarily,overandoveragain.Alwaysonthebrinkofallpossiblecontaminations.[…]’[Derrida,Negotiations,107,myemphasis].493Blocker,9-10.494Speakinginthecontextofreadingasanactoftranslationthatfacilitatesthe“livingon”[sur-vie]oftextsbecausetheyareatoncetranslatableanduntranslatable,Derridagivesabriefaccountofhisengagementwiththe“failure”oftranslationasthedefeatof‘theprogramofthepassageintophilosophy’asanabsolutetransparencyofmediation.[JacquesDerrida,TheEarOfTheOther.ed.ChristieV.McDonald,trans.PeggyKamuf.(NewYork:SchochenBooks,1985),119-20].
Theprogramofthepassageintophilosophysignifiesinthiscontext[…]thatthephilosophicaloperation[…]definesitself[…]asthefixationofacertainconceptandprojectoftranslation.Let’simaginethatit’spossibletoasksuchaquestion:Whatdoesphilosophysay?Whatdoesthephilosophersaywhenheisbeingaphilosopher?Hesays:Whatmattersistruthormeaning,andsincemeaningisbeforeorbeyondlanguage,itfollowsthatitistranslatable.Meaninghasthecommandingrole,andconsequentlyonemustbeabletofixitsunivocalityor,inanycase,tomasteritsplurivocality.Ifthisplurivocalitycanbemastered,thentranslation,understoodasthetransportofasemanticcontentintoanothersignifyingform,ispossible.Thereisnophilosophy
234
coincidenceofcodinganddecodingabletotraverseunscathedaspatio-
temporalintervalherebringstomindtheAristotelianconceptionofthe
mediumasameanstoanendandthetransparencyofitsscenicvariant
thatrenderspossibletheactoftakinginthespectaclewithasingleview
inthefinalrecognitionoftheunityofactionandlife.495Orelse,the
immediacyofconsumptionbythemerecoincidenceoftheflowof
consciousnesswiththeflowoftemporalobjectsofwhichBernard
unlesstranslationinthislattersenseispossible.Thereforethethesisofphilosophyistranslatabilityinthiscommonsense,thatis,asthetransferofameaningortruthfromonelanguagetoanotherwithoutanyessentialharmbeingdone.Obviously,thisproject[…]hastakenacertainnumberofformswhichonecouldlocatethroughoutthehistoryofphilosophy[…].Theoriginofphilosophyistranslationorthethesisoftranslatability,sothatwherevertranslationinthissensehasfailed,itisnothinglessthanphilosophythatfindsitselfdefeated(Derrida,TheEarOfTheOther,120).
Hintingatapossibletransferbetweenhisuseofaconceptionofsur-vieandBenjamin’srhetoricofÜberlebenandFortleben,DerridagivesanaccountofBenjamin’sconceptionofthestructureoforiginaltextsassurvivalandthetaskofthetranslatorthathereresonateswiththeopen-endednatureofallarchivalgatheringandliving-onofarchivalremainsthroughtheirreworking:
Atextisoriginalinsofarasitisathing,nottobeconfusedwithanorganicoraphysicalbody,butathing,letussay,ofthemind,meanttosurvivethedeathoftheauthororthesignatory,andtobeaboveorbeyondthephysicalcorpusofthetext,andsoon.Thestructureoftheoriginaltextissurvival.[…]Tounderstandatextasanoriginalistounderstanditindependentlyofitslivingconditions–theconditions,obviously,ofits’author’slife–andtounderstanditinsteadinitssurvivingstructure.[…]Giventhesurvivingstructureofanoriginaltext[…]thetaskofthetranslatorispreciselytorespondtothisdemandforsurvivalwhichistheverystructureoftheoriginaltext.[…]Todothis,saysBenjamin,thetranslatormustneitherreproduce,represent,norcopytheoriginal,noreven,essentially,careaboutcommunicatingthemeaningoftheoriginal.Translationhasnothingtodowithreceptionorcommunicationorinformation.[…][T]hetranslatormustassurethesurvival,whichistosaythegrowth,oftheoriginal.Translationaugmentsandmodifiestheoriginal,which,insofarasitislivingon,neverceasestobetransformedandgrow[ibid,122.myemphasis].
495Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,100.
235
Stieglerspeaksinthecontextofanincreasingproleterianisationof
producersandconsumersbythecultureindustries.496Yetifreading,to
thecontrary,preciselyimpliesthehetero-affectiveencounterwithan
onlypartiallyappropriableotheraswellasanattitudeofresistanceto
theconcatenatedcontinuityoftheflowofdiverseformsofmediationin
ordertoparticipateintheintermittentproductionofmeaningqua
counter-signature,thefacilitatedencounterwithlanguageasexcess–far
fromforeclosingthepossibilityofreading–appealstoitsverytask.What
thenfailsinthefacilitatedencounterwithlanguageasexcessisnot
reading,buttheimmediacyofconsumption.Whereasinthepresent
contextthefacilitatedencounterwithlanguageasexcessspringsfroman
absenceoftheunityofanidealconfigurationandthesubsequent
fragility,complexityandbewildermentoftheordersof(compositional)
gathering,inwhatfollowswewillfurtherseethedemonstratedfailureof
consumptioncloselylinkedtoacompositionalstrategyofinterruption.
Suchstrategiesofinterruption,asexplicitlyputtoworkinEveryhouse
hasadoor’sperformanceTestimonium,relaunch,whetherknowinglyor
not,therolegestureplaysintheexpositionofanon-consumable,divided
andexposedpresentofEpicTheatreinWalterBenjamin’saccount.497It
496See,Stiegler,‘AnamnesisandHypomnesis’.497Interruption, inthecontextofTestimonium, ispreciselyemployedtobringtoahalttheflowoftheperformancealonga‘horizontalaxisoftimewithout pause’ in order to provoke a ‘recognition’ of the present ofperformanceas thezoneorSchwelleofastructuraldisaquaintanceandunknowing.SpeakinginthecontextofthecompositionalemploymentoftransitionalgapsinTestimonium,Hixonrelates:
Erasure is one approach to transitions. Using this device, theperformance tumbles across the horizontal axis of timewithoutpause.Oneeventflowsintotheother.Therearenotransitions.Ifthis dynamic forward motion is interrupted with a temporarystopinaction,wheretheperformersstopperforming,agapopensup. Those watching become aware of themselves watching andthe others in the room watching. Perhaps this is one of theremaining powers of the live event, a recognition of each other,howeveruncomfortablethatmaybe.Theexperienceoftheeventfollowsthelogicofitscomposition.Thelogicofthecompositionisfacilitated by the guidance of the poet. A performance emergesthat provides a place of recognition – a place of recognition as
236
isthusafailureofconsumptionthatforcesthespectatortonegotiatethe
structuraldivision,secrecyandopacityoflanguageasmediumbythe
labourofaprocessofreadingthatSamuelWeberfittinglydescribesasa
movementofgroping,stumblingandinterruptingoneselfthatmayonly
considertheaftermathofdividedmarks.498Thetaskofreadingthus
construed,whichhereorindeedalwaysdoublesupasthetaskof
inheriting,mustrejectthepossibilityofasimpleconsummationand
consumptionofagiven,knowablecontent.Inotherwords,thefailureof
consumptionopensthechanceforreading.Henceforth,thesuspenseof
knowability,thesecrecyofanunknowableweight,which,asDerrida
remindsus,theconceptofthearchivemustinevitablycarryinitself,
‘doesnotweighonlyasanegativecharge,’butmakesofarchivization‘a
movementofthepromiseandofthefuturenolessthanofrecordingthe
past’.499Thedemonstrationofitsessentialindeterminationexposesthe
counter-archivalperformancepracticeas‘dependen[t]withrespectto
whatwillcome,[…to]allthat[which]tiesknowledgeandmemorytothe
promise’.500Toavowofanarchivaldependencywithrespecttothe
futurebyrejectinganideaofthearchive‘determinedasalreadygiven,in
thepastor[…]determinableandthusterminableinafutureitself
determinableasfuturepresent,’Derridasays,istosuspendthevery
orderofclassicalknowledge.501Thedemonstrationofsuchstructural
secrecy,Derridaseemstosuggest,mustseekto‘let’spectralarchival
marksspeakbytheperformanceofacertainrestraintorretreat,a
‘steppingaside’thatis‘thesignofarespectbeforethefuturetocomeof
thefuturetocome’.502
acknowledgementof theunknowingof events, people, time, anditspassing.[Goulish&Hixon].
498SamuelWeber,Benjamin’s–abilities,299.499Derrida,ArchiveFever,29.500ibid,29-30(myemphasis).501ibid,51-2.502ibid,70.SpeakinginthecontextofacommentaryoncertainaspectsofthewritingsoftheYewishHistoryscholarYosefHayimYerushalmi,Derridanotes:‘[...]whatisatissueforhimislettingtheimagesspeakinabookofphotographs,thatis,anotherspeciesofarchive.Buteachtimea
237
Here,inthecontextofhisdevelopmentofamessianicstructureof
archivization,Derrida,withrecoursetoWalterBenjamin’sevocationof
‘the“narrowdoor”forthepassageoftheMessiah,“ateachsecond,”’in
hisThesesonthePhilosophyofHistory,istemptedtodesignatethe
‘affirmationofthefuturetocomeasopening’bythenameofdoor.503
Consequently,if‘themeaningof“archive,”’asDerridanotes,‘[…]comes
toitfromtheGreekarkheion:initiallyahouse,adomicile,anaddress,the
residenceofthesuperiormagistrates,thearchons,thosewho
commanded[,]’anotherwayofdesignatingitsnecessarystructural
exposuretoanuncontrollablefuturewouldbetosaythateveryarchive,
likeeveryhouse,hasadoor.Derrida’scautiousreferencestoand
citationsofBenjamin’sdiscourse–aperformativerepetitionand
enactmentof,ifnotsecretencounterinthefigureofthedooras
metonymyforthestructureofthemessianic–augments,aswemightput
itwithDerridaonDerrida,aBenjaminianarchivethatfindsitselfthereby
engrossedwhilstsimultaneouslyloosing‘theabsoluteandmeta-textual
authorityitmightclaimtohave’.504Inwhatfollows,Iwouldliketo
furtheraugmentbothBenjamin’sandDerrida’s“archive”byfacilitating
theirsecretencounterwithinthefigureofthedoorandthestructureof
themessianic.Iwillbegintodosobyattendingtotheresonanceshistorianassuchdecidesto“stepasideandlet…speak,”forexampletoletaphotographicspecterorFreud’sphantominthemonologuespeak,itisthesignofarespectbeforethefuturetocomeofthefuturetocome.Thusheisnolongerahistorian.Goodsensetellsusthereisnohistoryorarchiveofthefuturetocome.Ahistorianassuchneverlookstothefuture,whichintheenddoesnotconcernhim.Butmeaningsomethingelsealtogether,isthereahistorianofthepromise,ahistorianofthe[…]door?’[Derrida,ArchiveFever,70].503DerridamakesasimilarlysparsereferencetotheworkofBenjamininthecontextofapreviousdevelopmentofthestructureofthemessianic–aspectrallogicofinheritanceturnedtowardsthefuturenolessthanthepast–inafootnoteofSpectersofMarx.There,thereferencetothe“door”appears,albeitinadifferenttranslation,inDerrida’sappealforthenecessitytoquoteandreread,asheemphaticallyputsit,Benjamin’s‘dense,enigmaticandburning’theses‘OntheconceptofHistory’‘[…]uptothe“straitgate”[door]forthepassageoftheMessiah,namely,every“second”’[Derrida,SpectersofMarx,228].504DerridausesthesetermswhendiscussingYerushalmi’srelaunchingofthearchiveofSigmundFreud.[SeeDerrida,ArchiveFever,68].
238
betweentheBenjaminianconceptofRettungandtheDerridiannotionof
renvoyeraswehavealreadyencounteredit,beforeaddressingthe
messianicstructurefiguredbytheopeningofadoorinBenjamin’s
conceptionofthecitabilityofgestureinEpicTheatre.505Forjustasthe
conceptofRettungdescribesaparticularrelationtothepastasfutureto
come,thegesturesofEpicTheatreareinextricablylinkedtothe
structureofthemessianicbythedisadjustedtimeoftheircitability.
Furthermore,theconceptualfieldofRettungandrenvoyer,asparticular
modalitiesofinheritingthatfacilitatethelivingonofaninheritanceby
augmentingandtransformingit,aswellasbyexposingitsessential
dehiscencethroughthevirtualisationof“its”futurepossibilities,here
findthemselvescloselylinkedtothereturningfigureof‘repair’inthe505Aninsightfulsummaryoftheconceptualfieldofrelaunching–bothrelancerandrenvoyer–inthecontextofthetaskofinheritancecanbefoundinSamirHaddad’sDerridaandtheInheritanceofDemocracy:
First,relancercarriesthesenseofkeepingtheinheritanceinplay,oflaunchingitinone’sturn.Whenaninheritanceisreceived,itistheheir’sturntodosomethingwithit.Andsincethecommandhereistodothis“otherwise,”whatistobedoneisnotjustasimplerepetitionofthepast.Thisatteststotheactivedimensionofinheritance,inwhichtheheirhasaroletoplayinmakingadifferencetowhatistransmitted.Atthesametime,the“other”in“otherwise”alsomarksthefactthatthisfirstmeaningofrelancerdoesnotimplythatinheritanceisleftsolelyuptotheheir.Thatoneinheritsinone’sturnsignalstheplaceofthisactioninahistoricalchainofactions.Othershaveinheritedbefore,andotherswillcometoinheritafter.Thistakesplacebeyondtheheir’scontrolandisanirreduciblepartoftheinheritancerelation.Inthiswaythereisanimportantplaceoccupiedbyalterityininheritance,andtheactivityofrelaunchingisbalancedagainstthepassivitythisentails.Therelationtoalterityisbothamplifiedandgivenamorespecificarticulationinthesecondmeaningofrelancer,asrenvoyer.Thisterm,whichappearsacrossDerrida’soeuvre,meansasendingaway,sendingback(tothesource),and/orsendingon.Itthusreinforcesthefirstmeaning’simageofinheritanceasconstitutedinachainofactions,wherealegacyisbothacknowledgedasgivenfromapastother,andpassedontoanothertocometoliveon.[SamirHaddad,DerridaAndTheInheritanceofDemocracy.(Bloomington&Indianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress2013),33-4].
239
workofGoatIsland.Finally,byreturningtoamoredetailed
considerationofcertainaspectsofEveryhousehasadoor’sperformance
Testimonium,Iseektoshowhowsimilarpolitico-compositional
strategiesofinterruption,suspense(ofknowledge,ofjudgement,of
action)andvirtualisationareemployedinviewofanappealtothe
comingofan(archival)participationquaresponse-abilityasjustice-as
wellasdemocracy-to-come.
RelaunchingtheArchive:Repair,Rettung,(Salut).
1. Repair
Perhapsthetwomostpotentifnotfrequentwordsusedwith
regardstotheworkofGoatIslandareresponseandrepair.Wehave
alreadyhadamplerecoursetotheformer,whetherinthecontextofthe
company’sperformanceprocessesortheiraccompanyingeducational
programme.Thelattertermappears,forinstance,inthetitleoftheonly
book-lengthstudyontheworkofGoatIsland–SmallActsofRepair:
Performance,EcologyandGoatIsland–andplaysamajorroleasan
underlyingthematicintheperformanceWhenwilltheSeptemberroses
bloom/Lastnightwasonlyacomedy,whichbeganitsdevelopmentwith
thequestion:howdoyourepair?Drawingonavarietyofsourcematerials
thatrangefromhouseholdrepairmanualstothepoetryofPaulCelan
‘thepiecequestions,’thecompanystates,‘ourplaceinadamagedworld
andouraptitudeatrepairingit’.506Althoughthesemanticfieldofthe
506GoatIslandWhenwilltheSeptemberrosesbloom?Lastnightwasonlyacomedy.adoubleperformance[online].AccessedJanuary2013,www.goatislandperformance.org/perf-septemberRoses.htm.‘Webeganthislatestworkwiththequestionofrepair.Welookedatrepairmanualsfromthe1950sforwecouldnotfindanycurrentrepairmanualsinChicagobookstores.TheUnitedStatesnolongerrepairs.It“disposesof”instead’[SeeBottoms&Goulished.31].‘CelanhadbeenbroughtintorehearsalbyMatthewaroundtheideaofrepair–Celantook
240
wordrepairmayfinditselfquicklyinscribedinatheologicalnarrativeof
theFallanditsprospectiveovercomingassalvationorredemption–that
is,asthetaskofhealing,curingorremedyingwhathasbeendamaged,of
restoring,rehabilitating,rebuildingorretrievinganoriginaryplenitude
andabsoluteindemnity–itcannotandmustnotherebereducedtoit.
Similarly,notwithstandingtheredemptivelogicofrepairinscribedinthe
injunctionofjusticeconstruedasthetaskofputtingright,correcting,
redressingandadjustingsomeformofpastorpresentdis-adjustment,
thatis,thebringingintoalignmentorstraighteningoutofatimethatis
crookedor‘outofjoint,’thecallforjusticequarepaircanandmusthere
bedifferentlyconstrued.Tobesure,noteverythingintheworkand
discourseofGoatIslandcanperhapsbefullydistinguishedfroma
struggleforjusticeinthenameofabsolutejustice.Despiteitsclearest
effortstoraisethestakesofcomplexity,absolutejusticemightattimes
indeedremainthedistanthorizon,asBottoms’seemstosuggest,ofwhat
hesubsequentlyconfusinglycallswithrecoursetoDerridathe
company’ssystematicengagementwith‘thepossibilityofthe
impossible’.507Ifso,myreadingisconcernedwithallaspectsofthework
thatmightallowustothinkotherwise.Bottom’srecoursetothe
Derridianlogicofimpossibilityisconfusedinthecontextofhisown
argumentasfarasforDerridaimpossibilitypreciselydescribesthe
structuralimpossibilityofanabsolute–whetherofpresence,self-
containment,identity,closure,orindeedtheethicalidealandregulative
ideaofjusticeastotalrepair–fromwhichheisseeminglyunabletofully
disentanglehisaccountoftheethico-politicalstanceofGoatIsland’s
practice.Derrida’saccountofastructuralimpossibilityofanythingever
beinginitselfseemsirreconcilablewithwhatBottomscontinuestocall
‘theresponsibilityofartiststoatleastattempttoseedamore
redemptiveenviron/mentalsystem’.508Unless,thatis,seedingwould
hereamounttoagestureofdissemination(ratherthantheembryonicontheproject,throughhispoetry,of“repairing”theGermanlanguageaftertheholocaust’[ibid,139].507ibid,25.508ibid.
241
originofaprocessofripening)thatcanonlyeverfacilitateamoreorless
redemptivefuture,withoutanyguarantees.AlthoughBottomsclearly
situatesGoatIsland’sengagementwithimpossibilityinthe
‘contradictions’and‘blindspots’ofresponsibilitythatwarranthis
recoursetoDerrida’sconceptionofthelatteras‘“acertainexperience
andexperimentofthepossibilityoftheimpossible,”’heneverthelessand
almostwithinthesamebreathremainswithinalogicofthehorizonofa
postponedpossibilitywhenheconceivesofthesmallnessoftheactof
repairasaminimalstartingpointinfaceofthescaleoftheproblems
confronted:‘Perhapsweneedtostartsmall,’hesays,‘giventhescaleof
theproblemsconfrontingus’.509Impossibility,however,as‘“the
conditionofpossibilityofthisthingcalledresponsibility,’”asBottoms’
quotationfromTheOtherHeadingitselfseemstosuggest,isnever
reducibletoaproblemofscale,butinsteadconstitutesanessential,
paradoxicalconditionofpossibility:ofresponsibilityasmuchasof
justiceandthusofrepair.510MartinHägglundsumsupthisstructural
conditionofimpossibilitywithregardstojusticeasfollows:‘the
possibilityofjusticeis[…]theimpossibilityofabsolutejustice.Justiceis
andmustbemoreorlessunjust,sinceitmustdemarcateitselfagainsta
futurethatexceedsitandmaycallitintoquestion’.511Itisnotherea
matterofdiscreditingthecalltojustice–whetherBottoms’orindeed
GoatIsland’s–foritsrelationtoanhowevermuchpostponedabsolute
horizon,butrathertorevealitslogicalincoherence,particularlyinlight
ofwhatthroughoutwehaveidentifiedasthedistinctpolitical“power”of
theatreandtheatricalitymoregenerally,aswellascertainaspectsofthe
workofGoatIsland(andEveryhousehasadoor)inparticular.Inshort,
itispreciselywhatIhavediscerned–withBenjamin,WeberandDerrida
–asthedemonstrativepoweratexposingthestructuralimpossibilityof
closureandself-containmentqua(critical)response-ability,whichlinks
theseactsofrepairtowhatDerridadescribes,asHägglundputsit,‘the
509ibid.510ibid,(myemphasis).511Hägglund42-3,(myemphasis).
242
negativeinfinityofjusticeasaninfiniteperfectibility,whichisthesame
asaninfinitecorruptibilityandundercutstheregulativeIdeaoffinal
perfection’.512Thegestureoftherehearsal,orelse,therehearsalofa
gesture,repeatsotherwisewhilstatthesametimemoreorless
demonstrativelyappealingtothecomingpossibilityof“its”transformed
repetition,whetherbyothersortheselfasother.Putinanothercode,it
isademonstrativelydemocraticposturing[Haltung]thatexposesits
non-identicaldehiscence,reckonswithitsownprincipleofruinandcalls
forbeingfurthercalledintoquestion:revisedandtransformedinthe
aftermath[Nachwirkung]ofaparticipatory[Mitwirkung]afterthought
[Nachdenken]thatfacilitatestheafterlife[Nachleben]of“original,”thatis,
originallysplitmarksofaninheritance.Theactofrepairthusconstrued
facilitatessurvivalthroughtransformativerepetitionsthatare
themselvesexposedastransformativelyrepeatable.Its“power”isthatof
aweakforce,whichisnotthesameasasmallforce,andcannotbe
describedasacompromisedsmallfirststeponroutetoahowever
distantconsummation.513Instead,itisthedemonstratedmarkofan
512ibid,169.513Callingforanecessaryiffragiledistinctionbetween“sovereignty”and“unconditionality”inRogues,Derridalinkstherenunciationofsovereigntyastheopeningtothesingularcomingoftheothertothenotionofa‘weakforce.’Whatismore,hehintsattherelationofwhatwemightcallagestureoflettingorrestraint,thatis,acertainpassivityintheactivetakingupofaninheritance–thefigurethatcomesclosesttodescribesuchagestureinRoguesisthatoftherenvoi,‘thissendingorputtingoff,’which‘gesturestowardthepastofaninheritanceonlybyremainingtocome’(Derrida,Rogues,9)–totheparticipatorycallfordistributionorsharing.
Butthroughcertainexperiencesthatwillbecentraltothisbook,and,moregenerally,throughtheexperiencethatletsitselfbeaffectedbywhatorwhocomes[(ce)quivient],bywhathappensorbywhohappens,bytheothertocome,acertainunconditionalrenunciationofsovereigntyisrequiredapriori.Evenbeforetheactofadecision.Suchadistributionorsharingalsopresupposesthatwethinkatoncetheunforseeabilityofaneventthatisnecessarilywithouthorizon,thesingularcomingoftheother,and,asaresult,aweakforce.Thisvulnerableforce,thisforcewithoutpower,opensupunconditionallytowhatorwhocomesandcomestoaffectit.Thecomingofthiseventexceedstheconditionof
243
essentialvulnerability,anunconditionalopeningtothecomingoftime
onwhichthepossibilityofastructurallyimpossible–possibleimpossible
–justicedepends.Althoughabsolutelyseveredfromanyformof
guarantee(i.e.ofjustice),itsstructuralimpossibilityofplenitude,as
Hägglundcontinues,isnevertheless‘notaprivationbutthepossibilityof
changeatanyjuncture,forbetterorworse’.514Theimpossibilityof
absoluterepairmarkstheactofrepairwithanessentialdisadjustmentas
theconditionforajustice,aswellasademocracy(quaparticipation),
which,asDerridarepeatedlystresses,albeitunabletowaitmust
paradoxicallyalwaysremaintocome.Iftheactofrepairtransformsas
muchasitrestores,wemightsaythatitisalwaysalreadyoftheorderof
aresponsebyitsselectiveandinventivereworkingofaninheritance.
Whatismore,theparticipatory(critical,“creative”)responsetoor
reworkingofagiveninheritance(i.e.agivensocialorganisation,an
availableapparatus,amoreorlessaccessiblearchive)isinturn
breachedinitsintegrity,carryingwithinitaprincipleofruinthatopens
ittothecomingofitsongoingparticipatorytransformations.Itisthus
masteryandtheconventionallyacceptedauthorityofwhatiscalledthe“performative.”(ibid,14).
InourcontextitseemsnecessarytoatleastpointtowardstheresonancebetweenDerrida’sconceptionofa‘weakforce’ofmessianicityandBenjamin’snotionof‘aweakmessianicpower.’Iwillreturntothisthemeinalittlemoredetaillateron.Inanycase,thedegreeofconsonanceordissonancebetweenDerrida’sandBenjamin’srespectiveconceptionsofthemessianicarewidelycontestedandanydetailedanalysishamperedbyDerrida’ssparsereferencestotheBenjaminianinheritanceandthelatter’sdenseandenigmaticstyle.Adetailedconsiderationoftheirdifferenceperhapsexceedsthescopeandalsothetenorofmyproject.Certainlyattimesthisamountstoaviolentlyselectivereadingthatmoreorlessunjustlyhomesinontheircompatibilityratherthandifferences,particularlywithregardstoareadingofBenjaminthatfocusesonthoseelementsofhistextsthatallowforadeconstructiveassimilation.Ofcourse,asimilarthingcanindeedalwaysbesaidforthoseargumentsthatseektodiscernifnotprotectasimpleandneatdivisionbetweenthetwo.Foradetailed,patientandnuancedcomparativereadingbetweenBenjamin’sandDerrida’sconceptionsofthemessianicseeMatthiasFritsch,ThePromiseofMemory.HistoryandPoliticsinMarx,BenjaminandDerrida.(NewYork:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress2005).514Hägglund,169.
244
activeandpassiveatthesametime,interventiveifnotinventiveand
simultaneouslyvulnerablyexposed.Actsofrepairmaythereforebe
profferedonlyprovisionallyfromtimetotime,severedfromallrecourse
toahorizonofconsummation,inordertoconstitutewhatDerridacalls‘a
certainexperienceandexperimentofthepossibilityoftheimpossible’.515
Torepairistofacilitateaprecarioussurvivalthroughagestureof
relaunching(ortherelaunchingofagesture)of(archival)marks,objects
andritualsthatseekstowardofftheforgettingormereconsumptionof
aninheritance,recastingitsdominantinterpretations,interruptingthe
flowofitssedimentedtransmissionanddispensingwithahorizonof
consummationofwhatwemightheredesignateits(re-)workof
mourning.
Ifacultureofrepairisabletoresist–anditispreciselyamatter
hereofawith-standingtheforceofaflowofcontinuity,astoppage,halt
andstancemoreorlessfirm–apassiveconsumeristcycleof
consumption,wasteandreplacement,thisisbecauseitsconstitutive
impossibilityatrestoringanoriginalplenitudecallsforacontinued
participatoryreworking.Here,alookatthepracticalrealmofthings,in
whichrepairconstitutesaprocessofmendingasreworking,might
fittinglyillustratesuchanon-redemptivemovementofrepair.516Theact
ofrepairthatreworks,andtherebyfacilitatestheliving-onofthings,
neitherhidesaprecedingdamagenoritsownintervention,givingsecond
(third,fourth,fifth…)lifewhilstgivingtoviewanobject’shistoricity.517
515DerridaquotedinBottoms&Goulished.25.516InourcontextitisperhapsofinteresttocallattentiontoJohnMowitt’ssuggestiontotranslatetheBrechtianconceptofUmfunktionierungas“re:working”.‘“Refunctionalization”hasemergedasthestandardtranslationofUmfunktionierung.Whilenotdissatisfiedwiththis,Iproposetheperhapsrebarbativealternative“re:working”becauseithastheadvantageofkeepingwork,working,andworkersinfocus,while,throughtheprefixsetoffbyacolon,underscoringbothwork,working,andworkersareunderreconstructionandthatthetermisaboutitself,itsownreworking.[…].’[JohnMowitt,Radio.EssaysinBadReception.(BerkeleyandLosAngeles,California:UniversityofCaliforniaPress2011),207].517Goulishhintsatthismultiplicationofliveswhenconsideringtherepairofanobject.‘Arepair,’hesays,‘givesanobjectatriplelife,and
245
Whatisreworkedmayonlyeverbe‘asgoodasnew’orindeedsimply
‘patchedup’byamoreorlesstransformativereconstruction.518What
herecountsforthepracticalrealmisalsoatworkinthesymbolic,where
theeffortto“repair”–forinstanceCelan’s–ofacertaincultural
inheritance,mayleaveinplaceandtherebyexposethehistoricityofthe
“found”orinheritedgestural,imageortextualmaterialretrievedfrom
thehistoricalworld.PhilStanier,whenreflectingonGoatIsland’sWhen
willtheSeptemberrosesbloom/Lastnightwasonlyacomedy,situatesthe
lattersquarelywithinsuchanon-redemptivetraditionofrepair.In
Stanier’sreading,theperformanceprofferssmallactsofrepairasan
alternativebothto‘theacceleratedcycleofreplacementcommonwithin
capitalistculture,’aswellasadesirefor‘recoverywhereintheoriginal
stateofbeingisrestoredandthefaultorlossisforgotten’.Indoingso,
Staniersuggests,theworkemploysactsofrepairthatleavean
awarenessofthefaultinplace.519Onceagain,alookattheconstruction
ofthematerialworldoftheseperformancesmightheregiveusaninsight
intothehandlingorgesturalbearingofitssymbolicmaterial.Inresponse
tothequestion’howdoyourepair?’GoatIslandmemberMarkJeffrey
relates,thecompanyconsideredworkingwithprinciplesoflightness,
fragility,collapse,fallinganduncertainty:constructingtablesoutof
cardboard,chairsmissinglegsandforeverunbalanced,crutchesofwood
andcardboardtoholdpeopleup.‘Instatesofrepair,’Jeffreystates,
‘tablesteeter,topple,collapse.Repairsaremadewithparceltapeand
cardboard.Lightnesscreatesitsownweight.Asmoreweightandpressure
isapplied,rigidtemporarystatesbecomestatesoffragility.Objectsare
makesthattriplenessvisible.[…]Weseethree[objects]atonce–whole,damaged,repaired’[Bottoms&Goulished.175].518JoeKelleher’saccountofGoatIsland’s‘TheLastmaker’relatestheimpressionthatthematerialsubmittedtorehearsalingesturalrecallhasthefeelofsomethinghoarded,treasured,pickedupandpatchedup,thatis,foundandoftenrepairedobjectsretrievedfromthehistoricalworld[seeKelleher,100].519Bottoms&Goulished.95.
246
alwaysinastateofimbalance,instability’.520
520ibid,42(myemphasis).Thefragilematerial‘world’thattheseperformancesconstructoutofactsofrepairmightherebedesignatedasaminimalresistancetothedestructiveflowofacultureofconsumption.‘Todaywearecontinuallyconsumingthings,’Stieglersays,‘which,becausetheyarealwaysnew,becomeincreasinglydifficulttoestablishasthings,somuchsothattheyareincreasinglywithoutplace,andlessandlessdotheygiverisetothatforwhichthingsexist,whichistosay,aworld’[Stiegler,SymbolicMisery,86].
AlthoughStiegler’srecoursetotheaffirmativerhetoricofarelativestabilityofplacemightatfirsthereappeartobeincontradictionwitheverythingwehavethusfarputforwardundertherubricofageneraluncertaintyofplaceandtaking-placeinthestructureofiterability,itisneverthelessnotirreconcilablewithit.Forthestructureofiterabilityaswehavediscernedit,ismadeofadoublemovement,bothdependentonaminimalsecurityandstabilityofplace,ofidentityandabode–inshort,oftheconstructionofamoreorlesssharable‘world’–thatspringsfromtheinterruptivemovementoftimebecomingspace,thepossibilityofreturn,repetitionandtransmission,aswellasanimmediateimpartibilitythatunderminestheverygroundthatmakesitpossiblebytheconcomitantmovementofspacebecomingtime.Analwaysnecessarybutlimitedsecurityofplaceherefindsitselfimmediatelyandparadoxicallywithoutplace,markedbyanessentialprecariousness:aplacewithoutplace,heldinplacemerelybywhatwemightheredesignateafragileweightoflightness.
Stiegler’scommentsonthenecessitytoresistacultureofconsumptionthroughtheestablishmentofthings,placesandworldsarehereperhapsparticularlyaptifreadinthewidercontextofhisownreflectionsonthereductionofsymbolicreceptiontoaproletarianisedconsumerismthatisunabletoparticipateinthere-productionofculture.Inthiscontextofaresistancetosymbolicconsumerism,aswesawinbrief,itisalsoamatterofinterruptingtheflowoftemporalobjectsthatcoincidewiththeflowofconsciousness.Here,interruptionandspacingisabletofacilitateparticipationquaafter-thoughtsthatareabletoconsigntheirmovementstorepeatable,transmissiblespatialmarksthatgiverisetoan(howeversecret)sharingofa‘world.’
TherelationshipbetweenspatialresistanceandthemovementofthoughtalsoplaysanimportantpartinJoeKelleher’sreflectionsontheworkofGoatIsland.KelleherunderscorestheimportanceoftheunderlyingimagematerialofitsrehearsedgesturesofrepetitiverecallbyfiguringthemwithreferencetoMaryCarruther’sstudyofthetechniquesofmedievalmonasticmeditationas‘machines(i.e.devicesforliftingthingsupandconstructingthings)thatenabletheliftingandconstructionofcomplexthought’[Kelleher,100].ForKelleher,thinkingtakesplaceintheseperformancesas‘somesortofphysicalizedmeditation,basedupontherememberingofhoarded,treasured,orpickedupandpatchedupmaterial’[ibid].Kelleher’sdescriptionofahoardedtreasureservingasthememorysupportforaphysicalized
247
meditationhererecallsourcomparisonoftheperformanceworksofGoatIslandandEveryhousehasadoortoFoucault’sdescriptionoftheuseofthehypomnemataforapracticeofself-writing.AcomparisonthatisperhapsfurtherwarrantedbyKelleher’saccountofthenecessarilyunfaithfulrelationtotheimitatedmaterial,whichisnevermerelyrecuperated,hesays,somuchasputtouse‘asawayofthinking“through”and“into,”sothatwhattheperformanceexhibits[…]issomethinglikea“craftknowledge,”whatthehistorianofmedievalmonasticintellectualpracticesMaryCarruthershascalleda“craftofthought”[…]’[ibid].‘Allofwhichistosay,’Kelleherconcludes,‘thatthereisnothinkinginthisworkthatisnotamatterofmovingthroughandintothearchitecturesthatsupportthethought’[ibid,101].This,ofcourse,canbesaidofallthinking,whichalwaysrequires,asCarruthersputsit,somementaltoolormachine.Theparticularvalueoftheseperformancesistobefoundintheexpositionofsuchdependencies,thatis,themodelcharacterofthelabourandtechniqueofthinkingitperforms.Iftheirdemonstrativelymnemonicthinking,asKelleherrelates,seeks‘tomarryarespectfortheprimacyoftheobjectofthought[…]’–arespectthatheremustrecalleverythingwehavesaidaboutaperformativeandappropriativerestraintwithregardstothemimeticallyappropriatedmaterial–‘withtheintegrityofasubjectiveresponse,acreativeremakingorreuse[,]’thedemonstrativedistancebetweenthetwoispartlyemployedinviewofwhatwemightdesignateasthedesired‘opensource’natureoftheircraftofthought.For‘thiscraftofthoughtisalso,’Kelleherstates,‘essentially,socialandpublic.BythatImeanthatitisrhetorical,havingtodowiththeproduction,dissemination,andexchangeofstructuresforthinking:persuasivestructures,inventivestructures,structuresthatwetoomayrecallandre-inhabit,themorningaftertheperformanceortenyearsaftertheperformance,usingtheseasourownthinkingdevices,ourowntoolsforinvention’[ibid].Finally,whenKelleherseekstoreconcilehisreadingoftheperformanceassuchasharedcraftofthoughtwiththecuriousdifficultyofrememberingitinanydetail,hepreciselyforegroundsthegeneralmodelcharacterofthekindofworkitperformsratherthanthespecificsofitsinstantiation.Muchcouldperhapsbesaidhereaboutthecomplexrelationshipbetweentheperformanceasaneventthatisalwaysalready,toputitinaDerridiancode,(demonstratively)dislocated,disjointedinatimeoutsideitself,besideitself,unhinged,notgatheredtogetherinitsplace,initspresentetc.–thatis,splitbetweenarespectedobjectrecalled,aresponsive,inventiveactofrecall,aswellasafuturecalled–anditsmemorythatwillalwaysalreadybeaugmentedacrossdifferenttimesandplaces,likethespecificsofawitnessedlabourofenactmentanditsarchivalelsewhere:i.e.theconstellationsofpropernamesandfragmentsoftextual,imageandgesturalmaterialbeforewhichtheuniquegesturesofcitationalrecallatalltimesalsoretreat.Here,theclearseparationoftheretracedmaterialandthephysicalretracing,betweentherememberedandtheactofremembering,orelsebetweentheobjectofthoughtanditsreworking,problematizeseasyconsumptionandcallsfor
248
Putmoregenerally,KarenChristophersumsupwhatwemighthere
designateasanon-redemptiveactofrepair:‘Aspartofoureffortto
approachtheideaofrepair,SeptemberRosesattemptstoperform
incompleteness,toforceakindoffracturethatdoesnotautomatically
healitself’.521Inthecontextofagestureofremembranceofhistorical
damageordis-adjustment,theeffortofrepairthatdoesnotseekto
installhealthonceandforall,beginstoconstituteaworkofmourning
againstconsolation.522Itistheeffortto‘save’andkeep“alive,”orbetter,
tofacilitateasurvivalandliving-onofthememoryofaninjusticewithout
theprospectofitsfinalredemption.Resistingalossofworldbroughton
bythecycleofconsumptionandwaste,itexposesthehistoricityofits
owninterventionbyappealingtoacomingresponse-ability.Yetevena
cultureofrepairthusconstrued,albeitnolongerconcernedwithan
absoluterecoveryandrestoration,seemsneverthelessdifficulttofully
disentanglefromthestatusofanoriginalaccidentthattheactofrepair
somewhatseemstoneverthelessimply.Thus,inordertodivorceitmore
theinterruptive,participatory,transformativereuseofitshypomnemicassemblage.Inanycase,Kelleher,whoperhapstoohastilydivorcestheperformance’sparticipatorycallfromthespecificsofitshupomnemictreasure-chest,neverthelessmakesaconvincingcaseforitscallforalabouroftheafter-thought(‘thenextmorning,’‘tenyearslater’)thatisnolongertiedtoanythingrememberedindetail,butamoregeneralexemplarityofwhatwemightheresuitablycallthemodelcharacterofaHaltung:‘Except…[…]Idon’trememberanythingindetail.[…]Rather,thebitsseemtogetpulledbackastheyappearintothe“whatgoeson,”backintothecommunalhumanoperationthatperformsitswayofthinkinginfrontofyou,sothatwhatyoumighttakeawayisthememoryofasortofimagelesstheatrethatoffersitself,aboveall,asare-iteratedexampleofitsownpractice,anexamplethatIreiterateinmyrememberingofthework,apracticewecanborrowfromandimitatecertainly(andinourclassroomsmanyofushavebeendoingthatforsometime)butonlybywayofarehearsalthat–inthecontextofanattempttorememberwhatitwaslikeandtofollowtheway–risksengaginginaformofbetrayal’[ibid].521Bottoms&Goulished.106.522IamtakingthelatterphrasingfromthetitleofMartinJay’sessay‘AgainstConsolation:WalterBenjaminandtheRefusaltoMourn’inWarandRemembranceintheTwentiethCentury.ed.JayWinterandEmmanuelSivan,221-239.(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress1999).
249
fully,notonlyfromthehorizonofatelosofrecoverybutthebeliefinthe
purityofanorigin,Iwouldliketorecastthe‘actofrepair’inlightof
Benjamin’snotionofRettung.Likerepair,thewordRettungalsofinds
itselfinscribedinasemanticfieldofasavingredemption,asonepossible
translationofthetermwouldhaveit.YetinWalterBenjamin’shands
Rettungundergoesadecisivetransformation.Employedtodescribean
interruptiveinterventionintotheviolentlysubsumptivetransmissionof
acourseofhistoryandtheseemingtransparencyoftheflowofits
mediation,Rettungpreciselysavesfromtheclosureofaphantasmatic
self-identitybyexposingtheoriginarycrack[Sprung]offinite
phenomena.Followingthislogic,theoriginwasalwaysalreadybreached
andexposed,swellingunderthefutureof“its”transformativesurvival.
TheactofRettung,seekingtoexposeanoriginaldehiscenceby
interruptingitsabstracted,sedimentedtransmission,returnstothe
crack[Sprung]intheorigin[Ursprung]inordertore-launchit,thatis,in
ordertoreturntotheoriginaryleap[Sprung]atplayinthecrackofthe
(word)origin“itself.”
2.Rettung
WalterBenjamin’swritingsfamouslyrevealanacuteawarenessofthe
entanglementsofpowerwiththeclosureofaculturalheritagethathe
famouslylikenedto‘thespoilscarriedalonginthetriumphalprocessions
inwhichtoday’srulerstreadoverthosewhoaresprawledunderfoot.’In
resistancetoaclosureofinheritancequatradition,muchofBenjamin’s
scholarlyeffortsdrawtheirpalpablepathosfromthenecessity,ashe
putsit,tobrushhistoryagainstthegrainofitstransmission.523
Benjamin’sconceptofRettungperhapsconstitutesanattemptto
describeatechnique,modalityandstyleofsuchabrush.Inasceneof
inheritanceandself-inheritance,heemploysandreemploystheterm
Rettung–awordthatcanbewidelytranslatedasrescue,salvation,
salvage,redemption,retrievalorsaving–atseveralinstancesthroughout523Benjamin,‘ÜberdenBegriffderGeschichte’,Illuminationen,254.
250
hiswork.BenjamintherebyrelaunchesaconceptofRettungasanother
namefortheverygestureofrelaunchingandinflectsitwiththeplayof
differencethatititselfseekstoexpose.InBenjamin’swritings,Rettung
findsitselflinkednotonlytothedifferentstrandsofitsetymologyand
historicaluse–butfurthermoretotheshiftingcontextsthroughoutthe
developmentofhisownthought.Forinstance,heappropriatesthe
conceptofRettungfromGermanromanticism,whereitseekstodescribe
acriticalreconsiderationofaworksreceptionhistorybyaneffortto
recoveranoriginalworkfromitsdistortedtransmission,yetnotably
complicatestherelationofahistoryofreceptiontothe“original”
work.524Acomplication,astheinvertedcommasintheprevious
sentencesuggest,thatwilllargelycentreonaquitedifferentconception
oftheoriginaswellasthatofanoriginal(work).525Initswidestsense,as
524Opitz&Wizisla,627.525IftheBenjaminiangestureofRettungentails,likethatoftheRomantics,amovementofreturntothe“origin,”thelattermusthowevernolongerbeconceivedasafinalpointof(de-)termination.The“origin”[Ursprung],forBenjamin,isneversimplebutfindsitselfdividedbya‘crack’[Sprung]thatsplitsitspresentintoapre-andapost-history.‘[I]tislessaself-containedphenomenon,’asSamuelWeberrelates,‘thanacomplexrelationshipthatisdescribedasa“rhythm”(seeWeber,Benjamin’s–abilities,89).Inthisdynamicscenario,an‘originalmovementofrestorationorreinstatementremainsforeverincompleteandneverreachesitsgoal,’makingofeveryworkthatisnolongerself-containedorlasting,asWeberputsit‘“only”thestopping-placeofanongoingmovement’(ibid,91).‘Inorigin,’Webersays,‘thegoalendsupasinterruption’(ibid,136).Callingawordbacktoitsoriginbysummoningitbyitsname,asBenjaminwillsaywithregardstothecitationalwritingpracticeofKarlKraus,farfromrecoveringasecureplaceandtimeofanabsolutebeginning,exposesthedynamicaspectofastructuralfailureofinstitution,andthusthepossibilityofongoinghistoricaltransformationquanecessaryreinstatementofadividedorigin.Thelatteris‘fromthestart,asitwere,caughtupinaprocessofrepetitionthatinvolvesalterationandtransformation,dislocationanddisplacement’[ibid,90].Inotherwords,citationexposesanoriginaryvirtualhistoricityqua(historical)citability.ThesameprincipleofastructuralvirtualityisatworkinallofBenjamin’s–abilities.Hedevelopshisreflectionsoftherelationbetweenan“original”(work)anditsafterlifeorsurvivalmostelaboratelyinthecontextofhisreflectionsontranslation.Thereitisalsoamatterofidentifyinganoriginarytranslatabilityofworksasapotentialthatcanberealizedbutthatalwaysalreadysplits(teilt)anon-identicaloriginalintheprocessofdepartingfromitselfbeforeorbeyondanysuch
251
HeinrichKaulenrelates,forBenjaminthetermRettungtakesontherole
ofacounter-concept[Gegenbegriff]totheconceptofmythasthe
inextricablecourseofafatedlifeandasresistancetoabstractright‘to
whichitopposestheattentiontothenon-conceptualsubstrateof
experience,theunique[dasBesondere]andnon-identical’.526
realizations).Returningacontextuallycongealedmarktoits“original”potentialitytherebydescribesamovementthatissimultaneouslydirectedtowardsthefutureandthepast.Itexposestheorigin’sstructuralhistoricality,which,asWeberrelates,‘residesnotinitsabilitytogiverisetoaprogressive,teleologicalmovement,butratherinitspowertoreturnincessantlytothepastandthroughtherhythmofitsever-changingrepetitionssetthepaceforthefuture’[ibid,89].Toreturntotheoriginofaninheritanceisthusmoreakintoamovementofrelaunchingitthatentailsdifferenceasmuchasrepetition.Furthermore,itexposesoraggravatesitshistoricalpotentialitybywrestingitfromthecongealmentofitstransmissionhistory.Theirreparablefissureorcrackintheorigin,Webersuggests,both‘impairsthepossibilityofhistoryeverbeingwrittenorthoughtofinafullandauthenticmanner,’and‘constitutesthechanceofhistorytobesomethingmorethanthemereregistrationandreproductionofwhathasbeen’[ibid,138-9].Suchachancewemightherealsodesignateasanoriginallyinscribedpotentialityofparticipationquaresponse-ability.526SeeOpitz&Wizisla,625,(myemphasis).ThelatterpartofKaulen’sdescriptionofan‘attentiontotheuniqueandnon-identical’hererecallsHixon’sexclaimedinterestin‘theparticulars’aswehaveseenitlinkedtothenon-performanceofanappropriativerestraintintheperformanceworkofGoatIslandandEveryhousehasadoor.Elsewhere,Hixonfurthermorelinksattention–whichisalwaysanattentiontotheparticular,thatis,towhatexceedsthecongealedschemataofperceptiveprocessing–toanecessaryrestraintofintentionality.Shedoessobyrelating‘athoughtonbewildermentasawayofenteringtheday,amovementforwardthatisactuallyacatchingupofwhatiscomingtowardyouandthereversalofintentionintoattention’(Companion,WhenwilltheSeptember).Bewildermentheredescribesperhapsnothingotherthananon-conceptualexperienceofanexcessoftheparticular,whichwillalwaysbelinkedtoaffect(i.e.bewilderment,shock,astonishment)asaformofrecognitionthatdoesnotsimplyreproduceapriorcognition.Inthecontextoftheseremarks,namelyGoatIsland’sperformanceWhenwilltheSeptemberrosesbloom/Lastnightwasonlyacomedy,itseemsfittingtofurtherrelateHixon’sstatementtothethoughtofthephilosopher,mysticandfactoryworkerSimoneWeil,ofwhomHixonsaysthatshedoesnotfiteasilyintotheusualhistoriesofmodernphilosophyandperhapsappearspreciselyforthatreasonasafigureintheperformance.‘”Wedonotobtainthemostpreciousgiftsbygoinginsearchofthem[,]’HixonquotesWeilelsewhere,‘butbywaitingforthem.Thiswayoflookingis,inthefirstplace,attentive.Thesoulemptiesitself
252
InBenjamin’searlyworkonaphilosophyoflanguage,asKaulen
notes,rescue[Rettung]fromabstractionisputintoplaybyanactof
ofallitsowncontentsinordertoreceivethehumanbeingitislookingat,justasheis,inallhistruth.Onlyonewhoiscapableofattentioncandothis.”’[HixoninLiveArtandPerformance.ed.AdrianHeathfield(London:TatePublishing2004),131,myemphasis].BringingintorelationHixon’sevocationofWeil’sdescriptionofattentionasanemptyingofthesoul’scontentswithherownthoughtonbewildermentasawayofenteringtheday,thatis,withaparticularattitude[Haltung]towardsthecomingoftime,mightreturnustoDerrida’srecoursetotheconceptofkenosisasthepassiveactofleavinganemptyplaceforthecomingofsomeoneabsoluteindeterminateinadisadjustedpresent.However,theaspectofWeil’sdiscoursethatspeaksofanencounterwiththe‘truth’ofbeing(‘justasheis’)ofthehumanbeing,forwhichattentionissaidtoprepareinwaiting,somewhatjarswithDerrida’sconceptionofthecomingofanevent.Oneaspectofwhatunderliesthisdifferencemayconcerntwodivergingconceptionsofthe‘unique’aseithersingularorindividual.‘Ifthelattergenerallyinvolvestheclaimofbeingindivisible,’asSamuelWeberrelates,‘singularitybycontrastisaccessibleonlythroughitsconstitutivedivisibility’[SamuelWeber,‘FeelofToday’presentationatTheLondonGraduateSchoolSummerAcademyintheCriticalHumanities,26thofJune,2014].Assuch,theexperienceofsingularityisirreconcilablewiththatofplenitude–forinstancetheencounterwithaproperandproperlyuniquesubject,justasheorsheis.Instead,‘constitutedbyanintrinsicsplit,byaconstitutivedivisionthatpreventsitfromeverbeingstrictlycontemporaneouswithitself’[….]singularity,Webersays,‘canonlybeexperiencedthroughacertainabsence,differenceorperhapsbetter,asacertainresistance’[ibid].Whereasindividualitydescribesauniquenessthatwouldbeabletomoreorlessremainthesameovertime,singularityemergespreciselyaswhatresistsarepetitiononwhichitneverthelessdepends.ForWeber,inanaccountthatherebeginstoresonatewithHixon’sthoughtonthelinkbetweenthepassivityofattentionandtheaffectofbewilderment,itispreciselywhatresiststheplenitudeofarepetitionthatnolongercomesfullcirclethatexceedsaconceptualgriponphenomenaandtiesittotheexperienceoffeeling.‘Sinceitemergesonlyinandthroughwithdrawal,’Webersays,‘it[thesingular]canneverconstituteastableandidentifiableobjectofcognition.Thesingular,then,belongstotheexperiencenotofknowledgebutofacknowledgementthroughaffect,asaformofrecognitionthatdoesnotsimplyreproduceapriorcognition’[ibid,5].Finally,Weber’sreflectionsareneverthelessabletoreturnusbacktoanotheraspectofWeil’sterminologybyrelaunchingthefigureofa‘truth’oftheunique.Forgiventhatitscharacteristicmodeofemergenceisthatofwithdrawalfromdeterminaterepetition,WeberisabletodescribesingularityasthereappearanceoftheHeideggerianmotifoftruthasaletheia,albeit,asheadds,inamoretemporalor“temporized”mode[ibid].
253
namingthatfrees‘theuniquesignatureofobjects’fromtheassimilating
gripofaconcept[Begriff].AsimilarconstellationofRettungandnaming
informsBenjamin’sdiscussionofthecitationalwritingpracticeofKarl
Krauss.527
Inthiscontext,theactivityofnamingquasaving[rettende]
citationfindsitselfinextricablyrelatedtoanendeavourtointerruptand
priseopentheconcatenatedflowofsentencesandwordsinordertofree
fragmentsfromtheirlinearcontextualsubsumption.Krauss’scitational
polemics,Benjaminemphaticallyrelates,applyacrowbartothemost
delicatejointsoftheconcatenatedtext,breakingandslashingintothe
syllables.528
527Inourcontext,itisnon-fortuitousthatBenjamin’sportraitofKraus’scitationalwritingstyleisnotablyheldintheatricalterms.‘“Iam”,’saysKraus,saysBenjamin,‘“perhapsthefirstcaseofawriterwhoexperienceshiswritinglikeanactor[schauspielerisch]’[Benjamin,‘KarlKraus’,364].Kraus’s‘mimicgenius,’saysBenjamin,‘copiesandmakesfaces’incommentaryandpolemic.It‘unleashesceremoniallyinthepublicreadings[Vorlesungen]ofdramaswho’sauthorsnon-fortuitouslytakeupacuriousmiddleposition[Mittelstellung]:ShakespeareandNestroy,poetandactor;Offenbach,composerandconductor’[ibid].Here,thereferenceistoKraus’sone-manpublicreadingsofplaysandoperettas.Yetbeyondthelatter,his‘mimical’styleofwritingthat‘creepsinto[its]material’–stagingitquatransformingcitation–seemsneverfarfromthemodalityofatheatricalperformativityitself.Whatisthereforenon-fortuitousaboutKraus’schoiceofliteratureforhispublicreadingsandtheirauthor’sso-calledmiddleposition[Mittelstellung]isthatitechoesKraus’sowntasteforthemiddle,lodgedsomewhereintheintersticesbetweentextandperformance,archiveandstaging,signatureandcounter-signature,writingandreading.Wearethusneverfarfromwhatwemightdesignateasanaspectofdemonstrated‘performativity’thatexposestheillusorystabilityofcongealedidentitiesbyexposingtheirdividedorigin[Ur-sprung]uponanarche-stage.528ThepolemicaspectsofKraus’scitationalwritingstyleperhapssomewhatjarswiththerelationshipofthemodalityofcitationtothecitedmaterialintheworksofGoatIslandandEveryhousehasadoor.ItisforthisreasonthatIamhereavoidingtheovertlyviolentrhetoricbywhichBenjaminattimesdescribesit.Forinstance,Kraus,accordingtoBenjamin,notonlytakesrecoursetoacrowbarbuta‘crowbarofhatred’–itsbreakingandslashingofsyllablesinsomanywaysouttodoharmorinanycase‘punish’thecontextofitsintervention.Uppingtheanteonatheatricalregister,Benjaminfurthermorerepeatedlyevokestheimageofacitationalcannibalism,whichinteriorizesitsadversaries–likeanactorwouldapart–inordertodestroythem[Benjamin,‘KarlKraus’in
254
GesammelteSchriftenBandII.334-367.(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag),365,372&375].Thus,notunlikeacertainaspectofBrechtiandistanciation,here,acitationalrepetitionmayappropriateadetestedsourceinordertorevealacriticaldistanceoftheperformancetotheperformed.SuchaviolentlycriticalrelationtothecitedsourceisabsentfromtheworkofGoatIslandandEveryhousehasadoor,whichisnotablyunpolemic,displayinginsteadanovertlylovingrelationshiptoitssourcematerials.Assuch,itresemblesthegestureoftheamateur,ifthelatter,asStieglernotes,‘isthenamegiventoonewholovesworksorwhorealizeshim-orherselfintraversingsuchworks’[Stiegler,‘AnamnesisandHypomnesis’].Theamateur’sparticipatoryorcontributoryrelationtotheworkthatisloved,however,impliesandopensthepossibilityofthelatter’scritique.Inourcontext,itisfurthermoreofnote,thatStiegler,incontrasttotheconsumer,linksthecritical,participatoryrelationoftheamateurtotheworklovedtothecapacityofacarefulattention.‘Toloveanythingatall,’Stieglersays,‘islikelovingnothingatall,andtolovenothingatallistobenolongercapableofcarefulattention:theamateurcannolongerlovewhereverconsumptionhaskilledattentivenesstowhatisconsumed’[ibid].Inanycase,therelevanceofKraus’scitationalpolemicsforourpresentconsiderationimposesitselfinthiscontextnotthroughitsabilityto‘punish’butto‘save’[retten].Benjaminhimselfexclaimsapreferenceforthe‘saving’[rettende]aspectoftheKrausiancitation.Albeitimpossibletostrictlyseparateitfromviolencealtogether,aswellasalwaysalsoatworkineverypunishment,Rettunghereneverthelessdistinguishesitselffrom‘punishment’byitsprimaryconcernwiththefutureofanuncontrollableafterliferatherthanthemerecritiqueofapreviouscontext.Relaunchinganinheritancebyuppingtheanteonitswithdrawalfromknowledgeintothesecretofironyandoverdetermination,a‘savingcitation’exposesthestructuralbreach[Sprung]anddisadjustmentattheorigin[Ursprung]ofthemarkinordertoaggravateandmultiplyitspotentialafterlife.EchoingathemethatDerridadevelopedatlengthinSpectersofMarxand‘ForceofLaw’–andthatwillbecomeincreasinglyrelevantinmyreadingofEveryhousehasadoor’sperformanceTestimonium–Benjaminhailstheexposedstructuraldisadjustmentofalanguage‘saved’fromcontextualclosureas‘thematrixofjustice.’SeeforinstancethefollowingextractfromBenjamin’sessayonKraus,whichtouchesontherelationshipbetweencitation,naming,interruption,destruction,punishment,RettungandjusticeasIhaveevokedthemhere:
Fromwithinthelinguisticcompassofthename,andonlyfromwithinit,canwediscernKraus’sbasicpolemicalprocedure:citation.Toquoteawordistocallitbyitsname.SoKraus’sachievementexhaustsitselfatitshighestlevelbymakingeventhenewspapercitable.Hetransportsittohisownsphere,andtheemptyphraseissuddenlyforcedtorecognizethateveninthedeepestdregsofthejournalsitisnotsafefromthevoicethatswoopsonthewingsofthewordtodragitfromitsdarkness.How
255
Theydosoinanefforttowrestlanguagefromitsreductiontopure
instrumentality.InBenjamin’saccount,Kraus’ssavinggestureisthus
performedinviewofanencounterwithlanguageasexcess.Language,
forBenjaminaswellasKraus,isfundamentallynon-instrumental.Even
whereitistreatedinthemostinstrumentalwaypossible–Kraus’s
privilegedandabhorredexampleisthenewspaper–itwillhavebeen
citable.Ascitableitwillcarrythedeferredtraceofadifferencethata
saving,transformingcitationisabletoexpose.Thereforeitisnever
merelyaquestionofopposingonepossibleuseoflanguagewithanother,
butratherofexposing,despiteallappearancestothecontrary,the
structuralfailureofthepurityoflanguage’sinstrumentality.Themoreor
lessdestructive,ifnotdeconstructiveforceofRettung’sinterruptive
interventionisthusnecessarilyoftheorderofademonstrationofwhat
isalreadystructurallyatworkbyitselfbeforeandbeyondit.Toactively
intervenequapunishingandsavingcitationistoexposethefalse
appearanceofatransparentinstrumentalityoflanguage.Asthepowerof
thisillusoryappearancealwaysturnsouttoberelatedtoacertain‘flow,’
rescue[Rettung]fromthereductiontoinstrumentalityquacitation
impliesthemovementofaninterruptionandsubsequentsuspense.In
Benjamin’sessayonKraus,twointerrelatedtypesorordersofanillusory
flowcanbeidentified.Ontheonehand,asthewieldingofacitational
crowbarindicatesit,itisfromthesemanticlinearityofthe‘idylliccon-
wonderfulifthisvoiceapproachesnottopunishbuttosave[retten],asitdoesontheShakespeareanwingsofthelinesinwhich,beforethetownofArras,someonesendswordhomeofhowintheearlymorning,onthelastblastedtreebesidethefortifications,alarkbegantosing.Asingleline,andnotevenoneofhis,isenoughtoenableKraustodescend,assaviour,intothisinferno,andinsertasingleitalicization:“Itwasanightingaleandnotalarkwhichsatthereonthepomegranatetreeandsang.”Inthequotationthatbothsavesandpunishes,languageprovesthematrixofjustice.Itsummonsthewordbyitsname,wrenchesitdestructivelyfromitscontext,butpreciselytherebycallsitbacktoitsorigin[Ursprung].[Benjamin,TheworkofArt,384;Benjamin,Illuminationen,379].
256
textofsense’thatthewordasnamemustberoused.529Here,tociteisto
priseopenthesuccessive,concatenated‘pseudo-logicofthediscourse’–
torecallanexpressionofRolandBarthesspeakinginthecontextof
Brecht’sinterruptivetechniquesofdistancingmarksfromanelaborate
layerofcontextualcodification–‘links,transitions,thepatinaof
elocution,inshortthecontinuityofspeech’thatproducestheeffect‘ofa
kindofforce,[…]anillusionofassurance’.530Orputintherhetoricof
Benjamin’sstudyofBaroquelanguage-dismemberment
[Sprachzerstückelung],tointerruptandsuspendthejoint,connection,
conjunctionofsense[Sinnverbindung]istoorphanfragments–words,
syllables,phonemes–fromeveryconventionalconnectionofsense,
inducingafracturingoflanguageintopieces[Stücke]or‘things’[Ding]
thatallowfortheir‘allegoricalexploitation’.531‘Languageisbrokenup,’
BenjaminsaysaboutcertainBaroquetexts,‘inordertolenditselftoa
transformedandenhancedexpressionthroughitspieces’.532Onthe
otherhand,Kraus’scitationalpracticeseekstointerruptadifferentorder
offlow–encompassingthefirstbutalsosomewhatraisingitsstake–
namely,of‘information’gatheredanddistributedbynewspapersasthe
dominantapparatusofnewsproductionanddistributionofhistime.In
529Benjamin,‘KarlKraus’,Illuminationen,380.530RolandBarthes.‘BrechtandDiscourse:AContributiontotheStudyofDiscursivity’inBrecht,TheRustleofLanguage.212-222.(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress1992),216(myemphasis).531WalterBenjamin,UrsprungdesdeutshcenTrauerspiel.(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag1978),183-4.532ibid.Rousedfromidyllicsense,theisolatedfragmentornamedoesnottherebystrictlybecomenon-sense.Instead,thefailureofdeterminatesenseisindeterminateonlyinasfarasover-determinate.Itispreciselyfortheincreasedpotentialofsensethatthefragmentlendsitselftoallegoricalexploitation.InoneofBenjamin’sexamplesofaBaroquetext,itiswhatBenjamincallstheremainderofsense[Bedeutungsrest]thatimbuesthefragmentwithamenacing,thatis,affectivequality.Languages‘enhancedexpression’maythusrefertotheaffectivequalityofwhatresistsbutalsomultipliesthepossibilityofdetermination.Thereceptionofdis-contextualisedlanguage-fragmentsthusfindsitselflinkedtoboththeexperienceofaffectaswellasdesire.Foritsmultiplied(allegorical)potentialofmeaning–orwhatwemightalsocalltheexposureofitsincreasedresponse-ability–callsforthe(historical)participationintheproductionofsense.
257
Benjamin’saccount,newspapersstructurallyenhancethereductionof
languagetothestatusofaninstrumentintheiracceleratedendeavourto
takeholdanddisseminate‘anyareaoflife,politics,economyandart.’As
acceleratedproductionanddistributiontimescallforanincreaseinthe
gatheringofinformationtobemadereadilyavailableforconsumption,
everykindofmaterialtakenfromanyareaoflife,Benjaminsays,hasto
bequicklyreachedand‘journalisticallyprocessed.’Suchprocessing
amounts,asheputsit,tothe‘makingtradableofthought’[denGedanken
verkehrsfähigmacht].533Renderedmoreliterally,whatisevokedbythe
latterexpressionisapreparationfortheroadortheflowoftraffic
[Verkehr].Inshort,whatisatstakeisareductionoflanguagetoan
instrumentaleconomythatisabletowithstandthedemandsofa
changingpublicsphere.534Ademandforacertainlightness,compactness
andunequivocalityoflanguageasatransparentmeanstoinformand
communicatebestmetinwhatBenjaminwithKrauscallsthe‘empty
phrase.’535Benjamin’sKrausianappealtointerrupttheacceleratedflow
of‘information’inducedbythemodernpressapparatusinordertofree
languagefromitsreductiontotheinstrumentalityofan‘emptyphrase’
perhapsfindsanechoinDerrida’sdemandforvigilanceandresistancein
faceofthedeterminingspeedofcontemporarymediaintheconstruction
ofactuality,‘inthesenseof“whatistimely”[“cequiestactuel”]orrather,
inthesenseof“whatisbroadcastundertheheadingofthenews[sousle
titred’actualités].Derridafittinglydesignatesthisgeneraland
necessarilyartificialconstructionoftimeandactualitybytheterm
533Benjamin,‘KarlKraus’,Illuminationen,337.534Benjamin’srhetoricaluseoftrafficmetaphorswhendiscussingtheacceleratedmovementof‘information’bythemodernpressapparatusofcoursetakesonanotherresonanceinlightofwhatforsometimeatleastwouldhavebeenoftenreferredtoastheinformationsuperhighway.535Benjamin,aswehaveseen,usesthesameformulationwhendiscussingdifferentmethodologicalattitudestowardsthetransmissionofeducationalcontentsinhisreflectionsonaproletarianchildren’stheatre.There,inlinewithhiscritiqueofaninstrumentaluseoflanguage,healertstothedangerthatanideathatismerelytransmittedbutnotrehearsed(i.e.classconsciousness),runstheriskofmerelyreachingthechildasanemptyphrase[Phrase].
258
artifactuality.InaninterviewwiththeFrenchjournalPassages,which
likesomanyothersbeginswithacritiqueofthe‘rhythm’ofitstemporal
conditions,thatis,itscomplicityintheartificialproductionofthetimeof
apublicspeechthat,giventhetemporalconstraintoftheinterviewform,
mustnotgotowasteandsurrendertowhatwemightherecallthe
‘makingtradableofthought,’ifnotareductiontotheemptyphrase–
Derridagivesthefollowingdescriptionoftheproductionofactuality:
Itisnotgiven,butactivelyproduced,sifted,contained,and
performativelyinterpretedbymanyhierarchizingandselective
procedures–falseorartificialproceduresthatarealwaysinthe
serviceofforcesandinterestsofwhichtheir“subjects”andagents
[…]areneversufficientlyaware.The“reality”(towhich
“actuality”refers)–howeversingular,irreducible,stubborn,
painful,ortragicitmaybe–reachesusthroughfictional
constructions[facture].Theonlywaytoanalyseitisthrougha
workofresistance,ofvigilantcounterinterpretation,etc.Hegel
wasrighttoremindthephilosophertoreadthenewspapers
everyday.Today,thesameresponsibilityalsorequiresustofind
outhowthenewspapersaremade,andwhomakesthem,the
dailies,theweeklies,andthetelevisionnews.536
Derrida’scallforvigilance,resistanceandcounterinterpretationinfaceof
theflowofartifactuality–thelatterfindingitsapotheosisinthe
productionoftheillusionofpresencethroughthedeviceofa
teleprompter,orelse,moregenerally,inthe‘liveeffect’ofaseemingly
immediatetransmissionofimagesanditsconcomitantproductionof
belief–hereresonateswiththeinterruptiveinterventionofapunishing
andsavingcitationinBenjamin’saccountofKraus’scritiqueofthe
newspaperanditsinstrumentalreductionoflanguagetothestatusof
536JacquesDerrida,‘TheDeconstructionofActuality’,Negotiations,86.
259
mereinformation.537AlthoughDerrida’saccountofthestructural
changesofthepublicspherearelargelyconcernedwithwhathecallsthe
new‘resourcesof“live”communicationand“realtime”transmission,’
thelatterseemtoremaininarelationofcontinuitytotheaccelerated
productiontimesofnewspapersofwhichBenjaminspeaksinthecontext
ofKraus.Furthermore,inwhatDerridaissoontomoreorlessdesignate
himselfasaBenjaminianinjunction,hecallsforthetasktomakeuseof
‘new[technological]resourceswhilecontinuingtocritiquetheir
mystifications’.538Todoso,heasserts,mustneverremainamatterof
merely‘pointingout,’thatis,ofdescribingtheimpurityofamoreorless
illusorytransparency,immediacyandneutralityofmediation,butmust
involveitsnecessarydemonstration.Itisnecessaryto‘continu[e]topoint
out,anddemonstrate,’Derridasays,‘that“live”communicationand“real
time”areneverpure:theypermitneitherintuitionnortransparency,nor
anyperceptionunmarkedbyinterpretationortechnicalintervention.
[…]’.539TheBenjaminiangestureofcitationalRettung,aswehaveseen
thusfar,similarlyseekstoexposeanillusoryassuranceofthe
informationalflowbyitsinterruptionandsuspense–thatis,bythe
Anhaltung[stoppage]thatdoublesupasaparticularHaltung[pose,
attitude]towardsthecomingoftheother.Itisthusalwaysoftheorderof
537WithregardstothemediaapparatusingeneralandthetechnologyoftheteleprompterinparticularDerridasays:‘Wewouldneedtolookatthem[newspapers,television]fromtheotherside:fromthesideofthenewsagenciesaswellasfromthatoftheteleprompter.Andletusneverforgetwhatsuchastatementimplies:wheneverajournalistorapoliticianappearstobeaddressingusdirectly,inourhomesandlookingusstraightintheeye,he(orshe)isactuallyreadingonthescreenatthedictationofa“prompter”andreadingatextthatwasproducedelsewhereatanothermoment,possiblybyotherpeopleorevenbyawholenetworkofanonymouswriters’[Derrida,Negotiations,86].Foranotherdiscussionofartifactualityingeneralandthe‘liveeffect’ofso-called“live”imagesanditsprofoundtransformationofthefieldofperceptionandofexperienceingeneralsee JacquesDerrida&BernardStiegler.EchographiesofTelevision:FilmedInterviews.(Cambridge:PolityPress2002)39-43.538Derrida,Negotiations,88.539ibid,(theemphasisondemonstrateisDerrida’sbutwouldhavealsobeenmine).
260
whatBenjaminelsewherecallswithBrechtthe‘refunctioning’or
‘reworking’ofanavailablemediaapparatus,thatis,thedemonstrated
exposureofitsopacityandpossibletransformation(forinstance,inview
ofitsdemocratizationquaresponse-ability).540
AlthoughitcouldseemasifthisreadingofBenjamin’saccountof
Kraus’sinterruptivecitationalpracticeinthecontextofDerrida’s
discussionofartifactualityhasdriftedafarfromthemodalityofarchival
exappropriationofGoatIslandandEveryhousehasadoorasoutlined
above,thereneverthelessremainclearresonancesbetweenthe
respectivemovementsofresistancetoconsumptionandaparticipatory
calltoreworkqua‘repair’andRettung.Tobesure,theseperformance
practices,albeitcitational,donottaketheirmimeticmaterialfromthe
realmoftheartifactualityofcurrentnewsproduction,norseektoreveal
or‘punish’itshiddenideologicalsubstrate.541However,tobeginwith,
theycanneverthelessbereadasaself-consciouslyindirectresponseto
540Aspartofthesameinterview,inabriefdiscussiononthechangingstakesofpoliticalcommitmentsofintellectuals,DerridadistinguishesbetweentheattitudesdisplayedbyHugoorSartretothatofBenjamin.ThebriefreferencerecallsourpreviousdiscussionofBenjamin’sreflectionsontheBrechtianconceptof‘refunctioning’in‘TheAuthorasProducer’andputsforwardanextendedconceptoftheapparatusthatresonateswithwhatistherecalled‘thetransformationoftheformsandinstrumentsofproduction’bytakingintoaccountboththeinstitutionalstructuresofapublicspace–withallthemacro-politicalquestionsofaccesstopower–aswellastheintimate‘experienceoflanguage.’‘IamnotsayingthatHugoorSartreneverquestionedortransformedtheformoftheengagementthatwasavailabletothem.Iamonlysayingthatitwasnotaconstantthemeoramajorconcernoftheirs.Theydidnotthink,asBenjaminsuggested,theyneededtobeginbyanalyzingandtransformingtheapparatus;theysimplybeganbysupplyingitwithacontent,howeverrevolutionarythiscontentmightbe.Theapparatusinquestioninvolvesnotonlytechnicalorpoliticalpowers,proceduresofeditorialormediaappropriations,thestructureofapublicspace(andthusofthesupposedaddresseesoneisaddressingorwhomoneshouldbeaddressing);italsoinvolvesalogic,arhetoric,anexperienceoflanguage,andallthesedimentationthispresupposes.[…]’.[Derrida,Negotiations,113].541AprominentexampleofacontemporaryliterarypracticeforthetheatrethatmuchmoreovertlyfollowsandrelaunchesKraus’sgestureofacitational‘punishment’ofcontemporarymassmediacanperhapsbefoundintheworkoffellowAustrianwriterElfriedeJelinek.
261
currenteventsandpoliticalurgencies–forinstance,thequestionofhow
torepairarisesintheaftermathof9/11asanalternativetotheill-judged
immediatemilitaryandpoliticalresponsesofthetime–that
demonstrativelyresisttherhythmofthelatter’sappropriationbya
mediasaturatedpublicsphere,‘inorderthatthedebate,’aswemightput
itwithBottoms,‘reorganiseitselfonahigherlevelofcomplexity”’.542Yet
whatismore,theirhypomnemicinterventionintoanarchivalsceneof
inheritanceisneverfarfromtheproblematicofaselectiveconstruction
ofartifactualitybywhatBernardStiegler,inconversationwithDerrida,
suggestivelycallsthe“memoryindustries”.543Bydesignatingthe
apparatusofproductionofartifactualityamemoryindustry,Stiegler
seeminglyalertsustoafieldofcontinuitybetweentheproductionof
actuality(artifactuality)andhistory.Indeed,Derrida’saccountof
artifactualitymoreorlessresembleshisowndescriptionofanarchontic
principlethatsimilarlydependsonthemanyhierarchizingandselective
proceduresofsifting,containing,andperformativelyinterpretinginthe
serviceofcertainforcesandinterests.544Inshort,afieldofcontinuity
542Bottoms&Goulished.,25.543Derrida&Stiegler,41.544InEchographiesofTelevision,a‘filmedinterview’withStiegler,Derridafurthergeneralizesthenecessarystructureofan‘interpretativesifting,’which,asheputsit,‘isnotconfinedtothenewsorthemedia,’but‘isindispensableatthethresholdofeveryperceptionorofeveryfiniteexperienceingeneral’[ibid,42].Stiegler,inalatertext,similarlyretracesthestructurallogicofartifactualityinitsrelationtothegeneral‘plightofmemory’–strikinglyfiguredinBorge’sfamousstoryofFunestheMemorius–whilstalertingtothefieldofcontinuitybetweenhistoryandartifactuality:‘Thedailyandindustrialfabricationoftimebyapressagencyisnotamereaccountofthenews:theindustriesofcurrenteventsarenotsatisfiedwithrecording“whathappens,”fortheneverythinghappeningwouldhavetoberecorded.Butthis“whathappens,”happensonlyinnotbeingeverything,bydistinguishingitselffromalltherest,andinformationhasvalueonlyasresultofahierarchisationin“whathappens”:byselectingwhatdeservesthenameofevent,theseindustriesco-produce,atleast,theaccessof“whathappens”tothestatusofevent.Thisistheplightofmemoryingeneral,thatit(mustbe)aselectioninthepresent,andthatitspassing,itsbecomingpast,isitsdiminution.ThisisthethemeofFunesormemorybyJorge-LuisBorges.Buthere,thecriteriaofselectionbecomeindustrial–andtheselectiontakesplaceinrealtime,andnotthroughthisworkoftimethatishistoryquaHistorie
262
opensupbetweenthemnemicconstructionofhistoryandthemnemic
constructionofartifactualityasthatofaselective,interpretativeand
abstractedsurvivalandtransmissionoffiniteevents.Inturn,theflowof
artifactuality,whichRettungseekstointerrupt,mustbereadinafieldof
continuitytoanotherorderofflow,namely,preciselythecongealed,
interestedandabstractedtransmissionoftraditionBenjaminhasinmind
whencallingforthenecessitytobrushhistoryagainstthegrain.What
concernsBenjaminabouttheconstructionofahistoricalcontinuum,
which,asheputsit,coversitsrevolutionarymoments–revolutionary
“moments”thatBenjaminalwaysassociateswiththeinterruptionand
suspenseofthehistoricalcontinuum–isnotonlytheoutright
denigration,exclusionormarginalityofwhatfallsoutofthearchivesofa
moreorlessmonumentalhistoriography(itdoesthatalso),butthe
abstracted,partialtransmissionofanunequivocalappraisalofworks
enteredintotradition.545‘Appraisalorapologia,’Benjaminsays,
andGeschichte.Theconservationofmemory,ofthememorable(theselectionfromwithinthememorisablewhichistheretentionofthismemorableconstitutesitassuch)isalwaysalreadyitselaborationaswell:itisneverthesheerreportingof“whattakesplace”,andwhattakesplaceonlytakesplaceinnotquitetakingplace:onememorizesonlyinforgetting,ineffacing,inselectingwhatdeservestoberetainedinwhatcouldhavebeen–[…]’[Stiegler,‘AnamnesisandHypomnesis’].545BenjaminwasofcoursealsoconcernedmoresimplywithwhatMartinJaycalls‘theimperativetorescuewhathadbeenforgottenbythevictorsofhistory’[Jay,‘AgainstConsolation’,229,myemphasis].TheprivilegedandbiographicallyinformedexampleofJay’saccountisthesocialremembranceofWWIcasualtiesbyareparativenarrativethatnecessarilyprescribestheforgettingofBenjamin’sclosefriends’FritzHeinleandRikaSeligsonanti-warsuicides.‘Forthesuicidesofthetwoteenagersvainlyprotestingtheoutbreakofhostilities[,]’Jaynotes,‘cannothavehadthesamemeaningasthedeathsofthesoldierswhowereassumedtohavegallantlyfoughtfortheircountry’[ibid,228].Devotedtotheirmemory,Benjaminbrushesagainstthegrainofhistoryinpursuitofamelancholicworkofmourningthatcannotsoeasilybeassimilatedtothemovementofahealthyworkingthroughthatseekstomakesenseofor‘repair’thedeathsofhisfriends.Ifforgettingisherelinkedtothemnemicpreferenceandselectionofsometracesofhistoryoverothers–whatisbeingremembered–itmighthoweveralsoconcernaselectivekindofremembrance.Itisthissecondorderof‘forgetting’inremembrancethatprimarilyinformsourdiscussionofagestureofrescuethatseekstorepeatotherwiseaninheritanceinresistancetotheflowof
263
strivestocovertherevolutionarymomentsinthecourseof
history.Ithastheproductionofcontinuityatheart.Itattaches
importanceonlytothoseelementsofaworkthathavealready
entereditsaftermath[Nachwirkung].Itevadesthecliffsand
prongsthatprovideafoothold[Halt,also:halt,stop,support,
purchase,hold]totheonewhowantstoprogressbeyondit.546
Cliffsorprongs,aswhatresiststhemovementofaninstitutionalised
transmission,providingafoothold[Halt]thatdoublesupasthestoppage
[Halt]–interruption,suspenseandSchwellung–ofaflowofcontinuity
thatmerelyappealstoitsnon-participatoryconsumption.547Yetthis
“its”congealedtransmissionhistory.Boththeseaspectsofresistingaselectiveremembrance(i.e.betweendifferentmarks,betweendifferenttransmissionsofthe“same”mark)areseeminglyatworkinBenjamin’sdescriptionofthetaskofremembranceaswhat‘mustnotproceedinthemannerofanarrativeorstilllessthatofareport,butmust,inthestrictestepicandrhapsodicmanner,assayitsspadeinever-newplaces,andintheoldonesdelvetoever-deeperdepths’[BenjaminquotedinJay,229].546WalterBenjamin‘Zentralpark’,GesammelteSchriftenBandI,655-690.(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag1977),658.547ReflectingonBenjamin’scriticalinheritanceofMarxistconcepts,MatthiasFritschrelateshowinhiscritiqueofahistoricismthatsuppresses‘the‘drudgeryofthenameless’inordertoreduceaheritage‘toadeadpossessionorinventorywhoseorigininlaborandahistoryofexpropriationisforgotten,’Benjaminseekstorevealhowaheritagetakesonafetishisticaspect.Fritsch’sadmittedlyverygeneralcommentthat,‘moreover,commodityfetishismingeneralissaidtohamperactiveinterventionintopoliticalprocessesinthatitcontributestothemelancholicboredomcharacteristicofmodernity’hereneverthelessresonateswithwhatIhaveidentifiedasthenon-participatorytendenciesoftheflowsofhistoricaltransmissionandartifactuality.Benjaminemphasizesthedangeroftheseeminglyapoliticalnatureofsuchaflowwhenseekingtoputforwardhisconceptofhistoricalmaterialismasanalternativemodelofhistoriography.Thelatter,Benjamininsists,mustquestiontheflowofhistoricaltransmission.Thehistoricalmaterialist,asFritschrelates,
mustaskaboveallabouttheoriginofthedevelopmentalprocessunifiedina“streamoftransmission[StromderÜberlieferung]”:“Whosemillsaredrivenbythisstream?Whoutilizesitsrapids?
264
foot-hold[Halt],albeittheminimalgroundforasharingofworldqua
participationinitsinfinitereworking,isessentiallyanythingbutsecure.
Preciselyeschewingaconceptual[begrifflich],instrumentalgrip[Griff]
ontheessenceofphenomena,itdescribestheminimalandlimited
identityofaHalt,Haltung,gesturethatbeginstoswellandtrembleunder
thevirtualintrusionofthepossibilitiesif“its”living-on.Rettung,which
performsagestureofinterruptionquacitation,relaunchesan
inheritanceotherwisetorevealitsstructuraldehiscenceandhistoricity,
uppingtheanteonaconstitutivedisadjustment:
Fromwhatarephenomenatobesaved?Notonly,andnotso
muchfromthedisreputeandcontemptintowhichtheyhave
fallenasfromthecatastrophethatacertainkindoftradition,their
“valorizationasheritage,”veryoftenentails.Theyaresaved
throughthedisclosure[Aufweisung]ofthebreach[Spung:leap,
crack]inthem.548
Inotherwords,whatisdisclosedorexposedbyRettungisthe
impossibilityofself-containmentandself-identityofthecitedmaterial.
Indoingso,theinterruptiveinterventionprisesopentherelativeclosure
ofatransmissionthattendstowardsnon-participation.549
Whocontainedit?–thusasksthehistoricalmaterialist.”[Fritsch,166].
ForBenjamin,thedeadinventoryofafetishizedheritage–astreamoftransmissionthathampersactiveintervention–‘doesnotallowany“genuine,thatis,politicalexperience.”[…]Overcomingthefetishistic,historicistnotionofculturalhistory,inthecraftingofanewhistoriographicalmethod,’FritschsumsupBenjamin’seffortstoreactivatepoliticalexperience,‘contributestoamemoryofsufferingthat,inturn,motivatespoliticalresistanceagainstthosewhoprofitfromthefetishism’[ibid].548Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,139.549Isaytends,followingDerrida’saccountofthe“logic”ofsovereigntythatcanreignonlyforalimitedtimebynotsharing.‘Assoonasthereissovereignty,thereisabuseofpowerandaroguestate.Abuseisthelawofuse;itisthelawitself,the“logic”ofasovereigntythatcanreignonlybynotsharing.Moreprecisely,sinceitneversucceedsindoingthis
265
EveryTheatreHasaDoor:
ExposingtheUnknowingofEvents,People,Time,anditsPassing
SamuelWeber,aswehaveseen,readsthetheatre(whetheras
suchormorebroadlyconstrued)asaprivilegedspaceorzoneforthe
sceneofsuchanexposureofthelimitofself-containment.Forthespace
ofthetheatrefindsitself‘internallysplit,dividedintospectacleand
spectators,stageandaudience,inseparableandyetdistinct’.550Aspace,
aswemightputit,thatembodiestheverydivision,breachorcrackof
everymarkthatisstructurallyboundtopartwithitselfquaopening
towardsfutureiterationsthatwilltransformit.551Nowheredoesitdoso
moreovertlythanintheinterruptionsofitsowncontinuum,forinstance
thoseofaplot.InBenjamin’sreflectionsonBrecht’sEpicTheatreandthe
citabilityofgesture,thefutureintrudesasthevirtualswellofacoming
alterityinaproliferationofgapsthatopeninthecompositionaljointsof
theperformance.Thesegapsdemonstrativelyinscribeintothe
experimental,tremblingconditions[Zustände]ofEpicTheatre’stest-
performancestheappealtoanaudience’sresponse.Yetinasfarasthe
citabilityofthesuspendedgestureorscenario[Zustand]alsomarksthe
openingtoothertimesandplaces,theappealofresponse-abilityisnever
simplyaddressedtotheimmediacyofthepresentormerelytothosein
attendance[dieAnwesenden].Insteaditaddressesitselftothefutureof
after-thoughts,thecomingresponseofothersortheselfasother,for
whichanexposedpresent[desAnwesenden]maymerelystand-in.
Confrontedwiththelimitofcontextualsaturation,asituatedaudience
exceptinacritical,precarious,andunstablefashion,sovereigntycanonlytend,foralimitedtime,toreignwithoutsharing.Itcanonlytendtowardimperialhegemony’[Derrida,Rogues,102].550Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,235-6.551‘Theatricalrepresentationscannotbeframedbyacomplete,self-contained,meaningfulnarrative[…]sincetheactualizationoftheatreinvolvesatemporalrepetitionthatissuspendedinadividedspace.Itisthesimultaneityofthisdivision,ofactorsactingbeforeandtoanaudience,whichbothdistinguishestheatricalrepresentationfromotherkindsandmakesitdifficultforittobeenclosedwithinthestablestructureofawork’[Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,259].
266
experiencesatensionbetweenanintrinsicallyoverdeterminedand
open-endedrelationalnetworkofsignificationandthefinitudeof
experience.552Reducedtoseeingwithoutknowingjustwhatoneis
seeing,theaudience“recognizes”‘thattheirreduciblesecretofwhatever
oneseesisthatitcouldmeansomethingentirelydifferentfromwhatone
expects’.553Inthiscontext,Hixon’sassertionthat,withinthegapsofthe
composition,‘thosewatchingbecomeawareofthemselveswatchingand
theothersintheroomwatching,’becomessuggestiveofa“recognition”
ofwhatWebercalls‘thecomplexlyrelationalstructureofcognition’by
which‘thesignificanceofevents,persons,andthingsdependsnotjuston
theirintrinsicqualitiesbutontheirsituation,whichistosay,ontheir
relationtowhatisexternaltothem’.554‘[..S]uchsituatedness,’Weber
continues,‘canneverbeinternallydefined,neverfinishedinthesenseof
beingcompleted,butonlyinterrupted’.555Aninterruptionthatdoubles
upasasuspenseofsignificancequaunderstanding,exposingthetheatre,
552PerhapsanotdissimilartensionisatworkinBenjamin’sexperienceofthelimitofcontextualsaturationintheinterruptedencounteroftheimagesoftheKaiserpanorama.Benjamin’spromiseofrepetition(thedesire‘tocomeagainthenextday’)furthermoreconstitutesacommitmenttotheresponseoftheappealtotheafter-thought.553Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,264.554ibid,263.Kelleher,inhisaccountofattendingaGoatIslandperformance,describesanexperiencethatherecomesveryclosetoarecognitionoftherelationalstructureofcognitionthatiscloselylinkedtowhatHixondesignatesasthebecomingawareoftheothersintheroomwatching.AlthoughwithregardstotheworkofGoatIslandsucharecognitionisquiteliterallyfacilitatedthroughthetraverseseatingarrangement,asHixon’scommentsinthecontextofTestimoniumshow,theydonotdependonit.Speakingof‘theassociativeleapsthatwespectatorsareabletomakeacrossthespiralsandthroughthestrataofthecompositionasourthoughtseeksitsway,itsductus,amongthepossibilitiesonoffer[,]’Kellehernotes:‘Thesepossibilities,though,arestrungoutacrossarangeofverydifferent,evencontradictory,approachestothesamething;sothatitisneverquitepossibletoonly“go”inonedirectionatatime.Thereisalwaysanotherviewopeningup–likeanamorphosis–anotherperspectivefromwhichtheobjectbeforeyoumightbeseenandunderstooddifferently[…],ifonlyyouwerecomingatitnotfromherebutfromoverthere,wheretheotherpeopleare,andhavebeenallthistime,theotherpeoplewhoappeartobewatchingthesameshowasyou’[Kelleher,106].555Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,263.
267
asHixonandGoulishevocativelydescribeit,as‘aplaceofrecognitionas
acknowledgementoftheunknowingofevents,people,time,andits
passing’.556
NowhereinBenjamin’swritingsonEpicTheatreistheopeningto
othertimes,placesandrespondentsmoreovertlyfiguredthaninthe
self-titledprimitiveexampleofaliteralopeningofa(stage)doorontoa
familiarscenefrombourgeoislife:thewifewasjustabouttograba
bronzebustinordertolaunchittowardsthedaughter;thefatherabout
toopenthewindowtocallforanofficer.Inthisverymoment,Benjamin
556Goulish&Hixon.Therhetoricof“recognition”atworkinHixon’sandGoulish’sexclamationherere-inscribes,whetherconsciouslyornot,atraditionthatgoesbacktothefoundingtextofwesterntheatre.Inanycase,itisthisinheritanceoftheAristotelianconceptofrecognition,whichinthePoeticsfollowsontheheelsoftheinterruptionofasuddenturnofeventsinAristotle’saccountofthecomplextragicplot,thatWeberhasinmindintheabovereflections.YetwhereasforAristotle“recognition”signifiestherepetitionorreturnofcognitionaftertheshockoftheunexpectedturn,aswellasthepassagefromastateofwonderandevenignorancetoastateofinsight,Weber’sreadingofSophocles’Oedipus(aswellas,aswesawelsewhere,ofBenjamin’sreadingofBrecht’sEpicTheatre)seekstodisplacethespatio-temporaldynamicofinterruptionandrecognitionbywhichthelatterbecomesanovertproblematizationoftheassurancesofunderstanding.Indoingso,recognitionbeginstoresembletheinterruptionfromwhichitsoughttosetitselfapartquaresolutioninawaythatrecallsHixon’spotentformulationofarecognitionofunknowing.NotbeingabletoreproduceWeber’sanalysisinmoredetailwemustherecontentourselveswithoneofitsconclusion:
Whatone“learns”inbeholdingatragedysuchasOedipuscouldthereforebethatasamortalbeing,onealwaysseeswithoutknowingjustwhatoneisseeing.Andthereforethattheirreduciblesecretofwhateveroneseesisthatitcouldmeansomethingentirelydifferentfromwhatoneexpects.Thissecretbutubiquitouspossibilityisnotonlyresponsibleforthetheatricalperipeteia–itmakesitindistinguishablefromtheanagnorisisthatAristotlesoughttoseparatefromit.Theperipeteiaistheanagnorisis.Butthatmeansthatwhatistherebyrecognizedisthepossibilityofa“turn”whosesingularitycanneverbestabilizedorexhaustedinapredication,ina“thisoneisthat,”whichinturnsuggeststhatanagnorisisalwayscontainsthepossibilityofturningoutitselftobeperipeteia.[Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,264].
268
suggests,thestrangerappearsatthedoor.Suddenly,theimage-scene
comestoanabrupthaltandexposesitselfbeforetheeyesandearsofa
stranger.557Agapopensupquadoorthroughwhichapassageiscarved
totheoutsideworld–l’etranger–asDerridafittinglynamesthelatter
whendesignatingitsconstitutiverolewithinthearchitectureofevery
house,structuredbythedoorinsuchawaythatwhatconstitutesaspace
ofcontrolledandcircumscribedpropertyisjustwhatopensitto
intrusion.558Perhapshere,inBenjamin’sprimitiveexampleofan
interruptedtheatricalscenario,adoorthennotmerelyopensontoand
exposestherepresentedinteriorofahouse,butfurthermore,thetime
andplaceoftheperformancewithallthosegatheredinatheatre.
Benjamin,aswesaw,callstheinterruptedactionofEpicTheatrea
gesture,theinterruptedscenarioaZustand.AZustanddescribesa
conditionorstate,butalsoastanceandposition[Stand]advancedbythe
relationalsyllableof‘towards’[zu-],astateofthingsthatisneversimply
giveninadvanceandbyitself,readilyrepresentable,butwhich,as
Benjaminsays,mustbediscoveredbythosethatattendtoit.559A
discoverythatdoublesupasabecomingstrange(Verfremdung)andthus
asaresistancetoknowledge,theflowofcomprehensionandthe
consumptionoftheostensiblyself-identicalandfamiliar.560Never
merelyrepresentingagivenrepeatablescene,theZustand,astheresult
ofaninterruption,findsitselfexposedbeforeanaudienceasstand-in.
Thearrivalofthestrangerinthedoorliterallyfiguresthisstructural
possibilityofthecomingandgoingofotherrespondents,orelse,thepre-
andafterlifeoftheimage-sceneinothercontexts,pastorto-come.
FarfromtheAristotelianprojectofrenderingthescenicmedium
oftheatretransparentintheserviceofsynopticalvision–subsumingthe
shockoftheunexpectedturnbytherecognitionthatisabletofacilitate
557WalterBenjamin,‘WasistdasepischeTheater(1)’,522.558Derrida,OfHospitality,59.559Benjamin,‘WasistdasepischeTheater(2)’,26.560‘Thisdiscovery(alienation)[(Verfremdung)]ofconditions[Zustände],’Benjaminsays,‘unfoldsbymeansoftheinterruptionoftheflow[vonAbläufen]’[ibid].
269
‘thepassagefromastateofwonderandevenignorancetoastateof
insight’–atheatreofinterruptionexposesthescenicmediumoftheatre
asopaquemediumandVorstellung,arepresenting-beforeorstaging
ratherthanthemerealternationofconcreterepresentations.561Severed
fromthelinearpullofatelos,theinterruptedscenarioappealstoberead
‘againstthegrainofmeaning,’aswemightparaphraseitwithWeber,so
thatthescenariodoesnotdisappearintoitbutremainsasfigure,scenic
medium,gestureorwriting-image.Intheabsenceofacoincidence
betweenendingsandmeanings,eachaudiencememberismoreand
moreforcedtopositionherorhimselfwithregardstothehaltedand
exposedscenario.Benjamin,aswesaw,callssuchpositioninga
Stellungnahme[also:response].BetweenVor-stellungandStellung-
nahme,astructureresemblingthatofappealandresponse,everything
“is”onlyonthebasisofitsrelation.Thetaskofspectatorialpositioning,
thetakingupofaparticularrelationwithregardstotheVorstellung,
exposestheheterogeneityofanaudience’spointofview,inspaceas
muchasintime.Thestranger’sgazeofBenjamin’sprimitiveexampleof
interruptionfiguresthisheterogeneityanditseffectofothering
[verfremden]theimage-sceneinsuchawaythatitcanonlybe
experiencedasoverdetermined.Whathisarrivalonthedoorstepbrings
home,sotospeak,istherecognitionofequalitybeforelanguageandthe
other’srightofresponse.Sucharightandindeedresponsibilityto
respond,SamuelWeberrelates,‘opensthewaytoadifferentconception
andindeed,practiceoftheatre[thanAristotle’s],inwhichthemedium
reemergesasofdecisivesignificance.’Are-emergence,asWeberfurther
insists,thatis‘markedbytheimportanceoftheresponse:[…]’.562The
eyesandearsofBenjamin’s‘stranger’embodythepossibilityofsuchan
uncalculableresponseexceedinganycontextuallydetermined
conventionofacontextthatcanneverbefullysaturatedorclosedupon
itself.Thecontextofaparticulartimeandplaceofperformancefinds
itselftherebyexposedashistoricallydeterminedandopen.Thespaceof
561Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,261.562ibid,107.
270
acontrolledandcircumscribedpropertymustgiveupapassagetothe
outside.Everytheatre,likeeveryhouse,hasadoor.Its‘presentisex-
posedinbeingplacedbefore“us,”beforeoureyes,’Webersays,
butinawaythatcanneversimplybeseen,becauseitisnever
fullythere.Rather,suchpresenceisoverdeterminedbybeing
situatedinaspacethatislimitedandyetneverfullyclosedor
defined.Itmustbeseen,heard,commentedupon,andresponded
to,yetwithoutbeingentirelycomprehendedinanyofthose
responses.563
Ifthecrackandopeninginthestagefloorinwhichsitstheprompter
figurestheexposureofthetheatricalsceneasrepetition–thehaunting
ofhistoryintheliveeventofperformance–thefigureofthedoorhere
opensittoafuturerepeat-ability,thatis,“its”comingreworkingqua
participation(Mitwirkung).Followingthisspatio-temporalschema,the
‘actofrepair,’therelaunchingofthearchiveasare-workofmourning
thatsimultaneouslyputsoffitsmovementofappropriationisalways
alreadyanactof‘teleiopoesis,atelephonecallormessagetransmittedto
distantothers–ghostsfromthefuture’.564Repeatabilityimpliesthe
possibilityofacomingresponse[Stellungnahme](response-ability)by
theafter-thoughtofothers–aswellastheselfasother,whether
tomorrowortenyearsfromnow.
Theeyesandearsofthestrangeratthedoorholdinsuspensethe
possibilityofthealterityofher,hisoritsresponse.Thisactual
appearanceofastrangeratthedoorinBenjamin’sself-designated
‘primitiveexample’oftheinterruptionofaplotisofcoursehereonlya
figureforthestructuralnecessityofanopeningtothefuture,orelse,for
thenecessityofadoorwithinthetechnologyofthehouseandhomethat
mustkeepopenthepossibilityofsuchintrusionsinordertoprovidea
limitedsecurityoftheaccustomedplaceoftheethos.WhatBenjamin
563ibid,109-10.564DerridainLavery&Hassall,112.
271
saysofthebasicattitudeofthewriterofepictheatretowardstheplot–
namelythat‘itcouldhappenthisway,butitcouldalsohappenanyother
way’–isherefiguredbythegazeofthestrangerasstand-in,thisoneor
indeedanyotherwhowouldbewhollyother.Liketheaudience,who’s
conventionalgripontheperceivedscenefindsitselftherebyinterrupted,
thestranger’sembodiedpresencestands-inforaspaceofalteritythatby
farexceedsthosegatheredinaparticularspaceandtime.‘Inthetheatre,’
aswehaveheardWeberstateinapotentformulationthathasbecomea
sortofrefrainforourconcern,‘suchaspaceofalterityisalways
provisionallyembodiedinand,evenmore,exposedasan“audience”–
singularnounforanirreduciblyheteroclitestand-in.The“audience”
standsin,Webersays,fortheothers,thosewhowereandthosewhowill
be–andperhapsevenmoreforthosewhowillnevercometobe’.565
InthecontextofDerrida’sreflectionsonthestructureofthe
messianic,wemightthensaythatthedoorasopeningtothecomingof
timeexposesadisjointedpresenttothepossibilityofthequestionand
responseastheconditionforaninjunctionofdemocracy-asjustice-to-
comebeyondanygivenrightorlaw.Beforefinallyturningtoareadingof
Everyhousehasadoor’sperformanceTestimonium,inwhichaconcern
withtherelationsoftestimony,law,justiceandtheatrewillcometothe
fore,Iwanttobrieflyoutline,inviewofitsincreasingrelevanceforour
analysis,Derrida’sconceptionofthemessianicstructureofanimpossible
justiceasjustice-to-come.
TemporalDisjointmentastheConditionofanImpossibleJustice
Thecitabilityofgesture,asaresultoftheinterruptionofthe
continuumofaplotherefiguredbytheopeningofadoorandtheliteral
intrusionoftheoutsideontheostensiblyself-contained,rendersthetime
ofitssuspendedoccurrenceoutofjoint.Swellingundertheintrusionofa565Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,341.
272
possibleliving-onquaiterability–‘theirreduciblepossibilityofindefinite
repetitionasalteration,’‘theothertimeinthefirst’–anygivencontextof
judgementanddeterminationmustnecessarilyremaindis-adjusted,out-
of-jointandover-determined,thatis,opentowardthefuturecomingof
thequestionandtheresponse.566.Astructurallynecessarydis-
adjustmentandhospitalityforwhatistocome–temporalalterityasthe
nonethicalopeningofethics–thatconstitutestheconditionandlimitof
justice,notascalculableanddistributive,but‘asincalculabilityofthegift
andsingularityofthean-economicex-positiontoothers’.567Derrida
therebylinksiterabilitytoathoughtofjusticeasthestructureofa
messianismwithoutmessiah,thatis,to‘thecomingoftheother,the
absoluteandunpredictablesingularityofthearrivantasjustice’.568
Justice,forDerrida,canneverbefullyguaranteedinanygivenlawor
decision,norhopedtoeverbeachievedinhoweverremoteafuture,but
instead–followingwhatHägglunddescribesas‘thedeconstructiveidea
ofjustice[as]theideaofthenegativeinfinityoftime,whichwillalways
disjointhepresentfromitselfandexposeittotheunpredictablecoming
ofothercircumstances’–mustremainalwaystocome,promisedbeyond
whatitactuallyis.569Theidealofa(falselydesired)totalizingjustice,as
566Derrida,LimitedInc,60&120.567Derrida,SpectresofMarx,26.Hägglundrelatestheimpossibilityofabsolutejusticeastheconditionforthepromiseofjusticeasfollows:‘[…]Derridamaintainsthattherecanbenojusticewithoutthecomingoftime.Thecomingoftimemakesjusticepossible,sincetherewouldbenoquestionofjusticewithoutunpredictableeventsthatchallengethegeneralityofthelaw.Butbythesametoken,thecomingoftimemakesabsolutejusticeimpossible,sinceitopenstheriskthatonehasmadeorwillhavemadeunjustdecisions.WhenDerridaarguesthatthecomingoftimeistheundeconstructableconditionofjustice,hethusemphasizesthatitisa“de-totalizingcondition,”whichinscribesthepossibilityofcorruption,evil,andmischiefattheheartofjusticeitself.Ifthisimpossibilityofabsolutejusticeweretobeovercome,alljusticewouldbeeliminated.[…]Absolutejusticeisthusincompatiblewiththecomingoftime,sincethecomingoftimeexceedsanytotalization.Butbythesametoken,absolutejusticeentailsthatnothingcanhappentocausetheconcernforjusticeinthefirstplace’[Hägglund,122].568Derrida,SpectresofMarx,33.569‘Derridadescribesthenegativeinfinityofjusticeasinfiniteperfectibility,’Hägglundrecallsfurther,‘whichisthesameasaninfinite
273
Hägglund’sreadingofDerridainsists,wouldannultheirreversiblepast
andtheunpredictablefuture.Itcannoteventhereforebethecase‘that
thereoughttobeanidealjusticethatcanencompassanddojusticetoall
[…]others’.570Instead,Derrida’sargument,asHägglundrelates,
is[…]thatanygivendecisionordefinitionofjusticecanbecalled
intoquestion,sinceitisprecededandexceededbyinnumerable
finiteothersthatitexcludes.Accordingly,Derridaconnectshis
useofthetermjusticetoaprincipallyendlessquestioningby
defining“thepossibilityofthequestion”aswhat“wearecalling
herejustice.”Ifjusticeisinseparablefromthecoming,itisnot
becauseanythingoranyonewillcomeandordainafinaljustice.
Onthecontrary,itisthepossibilityofthequestionthatalways
comes,thepossibilityofyetanotherquestionthatalwaysopens
anewand“questionswithregardtowhatwillcomeinthefuture-
to-come.Turnedtowardthefuture,goingtowardit,italsocomes
fromthefuture,itproceedsfromthefuture.Itmusttherefore
exceedanypresenceaspresencetoitself”.571
Responsibilityinthefaceofaninjunctionofjusticebeyondrightorlaw,
DerridasayswithaformulationthatherebeginstoechoWeber’saccount
ofaspectralaudienceofghostsfromthepastandthefuture,risesupin
theveryrespectowedtowhoeverisnot,nolongerornotyet,living,
presentlyliving,’inotherwords,aswemighthereputit,whoevermight
cometoappearorreturninthedoortointerruptandsuspendthe
securitiesofahouse,home,archiveandtheatre.572
corruptibilityandundercutstheregulativeIdeaoffinalperfection.Theimpossibilityofsuchanabsolutestateisnotaprivationbutthepossibilityofchangeatanyjuncture,forbetterandforworse’[Hägglund,169].TheconceptionofaninfiniteperfectabilityhasalsoplayedapartinmyreadingofBenjamin’sreflectionsonthereproducibleworkofart’s‘capacityforimprovement.’570Hägglund,169.571ibid.572Derrida,SpectresofMarx,121.
274
Testimonium:RelaunchingtheArchiveasJustice-to-Come
ThroughouttheanalysisofthetheatrepracticeofGoatIslandand
EveryhousehasadoorIhavediscernedaconcernwiththe
demonstratedexposureofthestructuralimpossibilityofclosureand
self-containmentthroughresponse-ability’sappealtoacoming
participationthatstronglylinkittothemessianicstructuresofa
democracy-andorasjustice-to-come.Here,theHaltung[attitude,pose]
ofalimitedappropriativerestraintwasemployedbothwithregardsto
thedemonstratedstructuralopeningtothefuture,aswellasaconcern
withalimitedrespectpaidbeforethe“singularity”ofaninheritancethat
necessarilymustbecorruptedinordertobe‘saved’orrepairedinthe
firstplace.Byemployingagestureofrepairasre-workofmourning,such
aHaltungwasfurthermoreseentoimplicitlylaybareapreviousand
cominghistoricityofsurvivalofthe‘patchedup’andexappropriated
material.Readinthisway,itsnecessarilyviolentre-workingsofan
inheritancemightbesaidtofollowtheaporetictaskofworkingout
‘strategiesfora“lessorviolence”thatareessentiallyprecarious’.573A
precariousnessthat,aswesaw,isubiquitouslypalpableinthe
constructedfragilityoftheperformanceashupomnēmata,counter-
archiveandworld:themoreorlessaccustomedplaceofa
demonstrativelydeconstructableethos.Furthermore,aswehaveseen,
viaanaccountofBenjamin’sconceptofRettung,thegestureof
‘relaunching’thearchivalmarksofaninheritancequastrategiesof
repair/responsecouldatleasttentativelybereadasputintheserviceof
returningasedimentedtransmissionofarchivalremainsandhistorical
contentstoastateofgreaterin-asover-determinacy;makingamends,in
sofaraspossible,fortheviolenceofforgettingqua(critical)neglectand
distortedrecognitionbyadominanttradition(i.e.Benjamin’shistoryof
thevictors),aswellasdemonstrativelyopeningthedoorforan(ex-
)appropriativeparticipationtocome.Inthecontextoftheworkof
BernardStiegler,thelatteraspectofanaggravatedresponse-abilityas573Hägglund,101.
275
thecallforaparticipationtocomethroughtheinterruptionoftheflows
of(sedimented)historicaltransmissionsandartifactualitycanbefurther
saidtoresistorstandintheway–exposing,toputitwithintherhetoric
ofouranalysisandnottheterminologyofStiegler,thenecessarily
relationalstanceofVorstellung[representing-before]andStellungnahme
[response]–ofthetendencytoopposeproducersandconsumersbythe
flowofthememoryindustries.Withtheindustrialproductionand
passiveconsumptionofmemory,asStieglerwarns,comestheriskofa
hyper-synchronisationofthetimeofconsciousnessthatleadstoa
symbolicmiseryastheruiningofapre-pathologicalnarcissismof
appropriativedesire.Whereas‘tertiaryretentionssuchasthealphabet,’
asStieglerasserts,‘arethosethingsthatundergirdeverycollectiveand
psychicindividuation’saccesstopre-individualfunds’and‘condition
individuationassymbolicsharing[…]madepossiblebythe
externalisationoftheindividuatedexperienceintraces,’
‘[h]ypersynchronisationleadstothelossofindividuationthroughthe
homogenisationofindividualpastsbyruiningprimordialnarcissismand
theprocessofcollectiveandpsychicindividuation’.574Allthisistosay,
thatwiththecursoryrecoursetothelattercontext,anemphasisona
general(re-)activationofan(ex-)appropriativeattitudetowardsthe
archiveofpre-individualfundshasattimesimposeditself.Inother
words,animpositionoftheprivilegingofthecunningandexuberant
modalitiesoftakingupthetaskofinheritancebythe‘amateur,’towhich
theperformancepracticeofGoatIslandandEveryhousehasadoorboth
appealsandstands-inforasmodel.Giventheemphasisondefendingor
reignitinganappropriativedesireinviewofadangerofitsdryingup,
questionsconcerningtheimpossibilityof“just”modalitiesof
appropriation(theaporiaofmourningasanimpossiblerespectbefore
thesingularityofaninheritance)aswellasthepoliticalstakesof
counter-archivalsubversionsofan‘archonticprinciple’or‘victorhistory’
574BernardStiegler,‘SuffocatedDesire,OrHowTheCulturalIndustryDestroysTheIndividual:ContributionToATheoryOfMassConsumption’trans.JohannRossouw,Parrhesia(2013)13,57&58.
276
hasattimesperhapsmovedintothebackground.Boththeselatter
aspectshoweverreturntotheforegroundinEveryhousehasadoor’s
performanceTestimonium.WhereasinKelleher’saccountoftheworkof
GoatIsland,aswesaw,itwastheperformanceashypomnemicmodel,as
a‘machineforthinking’or‘craftofthought’divorcedfromthespecificsof
whatitgathersintheoperationofitsappropriativereworkingofan
inheritancethatwasprivileged,Testimoniumseeminglyinvitesusto
considerinmoredetailthespecificityoftherelationbetweenthe
modalitiesoftheperformance’sprocess,compositionandappropriated
material.Asthelatterrevolvesaroundaconcernwithrelaunching
documentsofcourtroomtestimonies–provoking,aswewillsee,a
considerationofwhatGoulishcallsthedifferencebetweenacourtroom
andatheatreasanalogoustothedifferencebetweenlawandjustice–it
becomesclearthatthequestionofjusticeandthestructuresofthe
messianicmustreturntotheforeofouranalysis.Both,thatis,inthe
senseofanimpossiblerespectpaidbeforethesingularityofanabsolute
pastandthemessianiccomingofanabsolutefutureingeneral,aswellas
amorespecificconcernwiththeprecariousre-constructionof
alternativeversionsofhistorythatareresponsivetothetraditionofthe
oppressed.Thus,inacloserreadingofcertainaspectsofEveryhousehas
adoor’s2013productionTestimonium,alongsideanaccompanying
lecturepresentedbythecompany’sdramaturgMatthewGoulishand
directorLinHixon,Ihereaimtoreinscribeseveralofthemajorconcerns
raisedintheaboveanalysisundertheexplicitheadingofanimpossible
justiceasjustice-to-come.
InthecontextofTestimonium,therelevanceofaconceptionofthe
structuralnecessityofjustice’simpossibilityarisesbothwithregardsto
theperformance’srelationtothe(appropriated)archivedpastaswell
thelatter’srelationtothefuture.Whereasthefirstconcernsaprecarious
ethicaldemandforanimpossiblerespectbeforethesingularityofan
inheritance–here,largelyofthetestimoniesofaninjustice–thatcan
onlyberemembered,‘saved,’repairedandre-launchedbybeingmoreor
lessviolentlysubsumedtoageneralityinordertoremainlegible,the
277
secondspringsfromtherelationofanycalltojusticetothecomingof
timeandtheabsenceofadeterminateethicsaslawinlightofan
essentiallimitofabsolutejusticeasthenecessaryopeningforajusticeto
come.575Inotherwords,anecessarydegreeofdisadjustmentofany
givencontextformstheconditionforthecomingofjusticeinafuture
thatexceedsitandmaycallitintoquestion,followingareiterativechain
ofinfinitefinitude.Acontextualdisadjustmentinatimeoutofjointthat
mustundermineanyconceptionsandphantasiesofidentityasself-
presence,whetherofthemarksofaninheritance(i.e.works),the
indebted,other-directedsubjectsof“its”receptionortheethosformed
aroundthecollectivesharingofpre-individualfunds.Itispreciselyto
wardoffthedisavowalofanessentialbreachofidentitythatBenjamin,
aswesaw,employsthegraftinggestureofasavingcitation–Rettungas
thematrixofjustice–intheserviceofanactivedehiscenceofidentity,
prisingopenthesedimentedphantasmsandrogueabusesoftimebythe
tendentiallysovereignself-same.Similarly,themessianicstructureofa
precariousgestureof‘repair’astherestrainedappropriationofan
inheritancethatdemonstrativelyleavesopenaplaceforfuture
transformativeparticipationquaresponse-ability,asIhaveidentifiedit
atworkintheovertlyexappropriativeperformancepracticeofGoat
IslandandEveryhousehasadoor,perhapsseekstofollowascloseas
possibletheaporeticprogramofanimpossiblejusticebyitstendency
towardsamaximumlimitofrespectbeforethesingularityofthere-
inscribedandaconcomitantretreatbeforethecomingof“its”future
transformation.Whereastherhetoricofparticipation,asIhave
privilegeditthroughout,ismorelikelytoevoketheDerridianthemeofa
democracy-to-come,itisneverthelessDerrida’scloselyrelatedanalysis
575Additionally,asthespecificationofthere-workedinheritanceasthatofan‘inheritanceofinjustice’hereindicates,thelatterperhapsexpressesamoreexplicitandconcreteconcernwiththequestionofjusticeinthecontextofaneffortatretrieving,asFritschputsitwithreferencetoapossiblewayofreadingBenjamin’sconceptionofthemessianic,‘thevoiceofthenameless’thatrequires‘aresistancetotherulersinthepresent’[Fritsch,168].IwillbrieflyreturntothisaspectoftheworkinalittlemoredetailinthePostscripttothesereflections.
278
ofthedistinctionbetweenlawandjusticeasjustice-to-comethatmust
herebeforegrounded.Bothareinanycase,asDerridaremindsus,
inextricablylinked,asintheverblessphraseofSpectersofMarx:‘“[f]or
thedemocracytocomeandthusforjustice,”’.576Theshifttowardsa
576Derridaglossestheinextracabilityofdemocracy-andjustice-tocomeinthefollowingparagraphfromRogues.Thepassagealsobrieflyrelatestheirreconcilabilityofjusticeasjustice-to-comewithadesireforallcommunitarianadjoinments,towhichitmustnecessarilyposeathreat:‘InSpectersofMarxtheexpression“democracytocome”isinextricablylinkedtojustice.Itistheergoortheigitur,thethusbetween“democracytocomeandjustice”:“Forthedemocracytocomeandthusforjustice,”asaverblessphraseputsitinSpectersofMarx.Thisgestureinscribesthenecessityofthedemocracytocomenotonlyintotheaxiomaticofthemessianicitywithoutmessianism,thespectralityorhauntology,thatthisbookdevelops,butintothesingulardistinctionbetweenlawandjustice(heterogeneousbutinseparable).ThisdistinctionwasfirstdevelopedinForceofLawandwasfurtherelaboratedinSpectersofMarxinthecourseofadiscussionoftheHeideggerianinterpretationofdikeasgathering[Sammlung/Konzentration,Zerstreuung],adjoining,andharmony.Contestingthatinterpretation,Iproposedaligningjusticewithdisjointure,withbeingoutofjoint,withtheinterruptionofrelation,withunbinding,withtheinfinitesecretoftheother.Allthiscanindeedseemtothreatenacommunity-orientedorcommunitarianconceptofdemocraticjustice’[Derrida,Rogues,88].ForDerridathereisno‘nowus’inthe‘asone’ofcommunity.Instead,intheirreduciblenowoftheevent,thereis,acomingtogetherinsecret.Theconditionforanysharingisthatthereissomethingnon-sharable,anabsolutesecret,cutofffromanybondyetconditioningitspossibility.Itisaconsensus,Derridasuggests,ifitstillispossibletosayso,ofthefactthatthesingularissingularandtheotherother,anaffirmationofthefactthateverythingthatexistssharestheunsharable.[Derrida&Ferraris,58].Thenecessarythreatposedtothecommunitarian‘asone’byanessentialdecompositionoftheindivisibilityofthe‘atonce’inDerrida’saligningofjusticewiththedisjointedgatheringwithincontextsthatarealwaysopenandoverdeterminedresonateswithHixon’saccountofthetheatreasaprivilegedspaceforthefacilitatedrecognitionofunknowing.Intheexposedpresentofatheatreofinterruption,Hixonasserts,‘thosewatchingbecomeawareofthemselveswatchingandtheothersintheroomwatching’[Goulish&Hixon].‘Perhapsthisisoneoftheremainingpowersoftheliveevent,’shecontinues,‘arecognitionofeachother,howeveruncomfortablethatmaybe.[…]Aperformanceemergesthatprovidesaplaceofrecognition–aplaceofrecognitionasacknowledgementoftheunknowingofevents,people,time,anditspassing’[Goulish&Hixon,myemphasis].InDerrida’sdiscourse,butalsoperhapsinBenjamin’s(forinstance,inthe‘secretrendez-vousbetweengenerations’andofcourseinthealreadyencounteredformulationofthe
279
focusonthemessianicstructureofanimpossiblejusticeasjustice-to-
comehereimposesitselfthroughthespecificityoftheappropriated
archivalmaterial.Forwhatissavedandrelaunchedandthusputbefore
theoutstanding‘judgement’ofanaudienceinTestimoniumarea
selectionofdocumentedvictimtestimoniesincriminalcasesandthose
ofworkplacenegligencebasedonthelawreportsofUScourtcases
between1885-1915.Orbetterandwhatismore,whatisheresavedor
relaunchedarenotthelawreportsthemselvesbutapreviousgestureof
theirrelaunching,namely,thetwoout-of-printvolumesofpoetry
Testimony:TheUnitedStates(1885-1915)RecitativebyCharlesReznikoff
thatconstitutetheprimarysourcematerialoftheperformance.Tobe
sure,neitherthelawreportsnorReznikoff’spoetryarehere‘saved,’asin
theprivilegedscenarioofBenjamin’sconceptionofRettung,froma
sedimentedvalorizationasheritage,butfromthethreatofhistorical
oblivion.577YetTestimonium’scounter-archivalforcemightbesaidto
‘secretsignaloftheto-comethatspeaksfromthegestureofthechild’),theunknowingnessofanout-of-jointtimebecomes‘theinfinitesecretoftheother’thatrejectsbelongingandtheputtingincommonoffamily,nationandtongue,aswellas,aswemighthereputit,thatofanaudience,howeverconventionallysituatedinaparticulartimeandplace.ThusputintheidiomofDerrida,whatHixon’sformulationseemstoevokeisaspectral‘bondbetweensingularities–thebondthatlinkswhatwillnotbelinked’[Derrida,Negotiations,4].Orelse,‘acommunitythatdoesnotconstituteitselfonthebasisofacontemporaneityofpresencesbutratherthroughtheopeningproducedby[…]allegoresis–thatis,theinterpretationofatextnotgiven,notclosedinonitself,aninterpretationthatitselftransformsthetext.Wewouldhave,then,acommunityofwritingandreading–acommunitythatwouldbeboundbyatestamenttothelawthatisneithergiveninadvancenorunderstoodinadvance’[Derrida&Ferraris,24-5].‘Ihavenomisgivingsaboutthiscommunity,’Derridaaddswithaformulationthatherereiteratesthemessianicdisruptionof(theatrical)presence,‘it’sjustthatthereissomethingthatwouldalwaysmakemehesitatetocallit‘community’–namely,thattheforceofthefuturethathastobeatworkinithastobeaforceofdisruptionnolessthanaforceofintegration,aforceofdissensionnolessthanaforceofconsensus’[ibid].577Althoughwhatatfirsthereseemsobviousinasfaraswhatissavedfromhistoricalneglectcannotatthesametimebesavedfromasedimentedvalorizationbytradition,mustperhapsimmediatelybecomplicatedinthisparticularinstance.ForhavingbeenrefusedthetheatricalrightstoanyextractfromReznikoff’sTestimonyfromthe
280
remaindemonstrativelyweak.Itsdelicateandprecariouseffortsat
counter-archivalsavingclearlyseektoexposeanessentialnon-
sovereigntythatkeepstoaminimumanytendentialabuseoftime
throughtheexplicitappealtoacomingparticipationastheconditionof
justice-to-come.Indoingso,aswewillsee,itmodelsitselfonthevery
gestureitrepeats.Forin“citing”andrespondingtoReznikoff’scritically
neglectedcollectionofpoetryandinterweavingitwiththeoutlinesofa
portraitoftheauthor,TestimoniumseeminglyaddsthenameofCharles
Reznikofftothosethathehimselfsoughttorescuefromoblivion.Yet
beyondfollowinghisendeavorto‘savevoicesomittedfromthehistory
books,’HixonandGoulisharefurthermoreconcernedwith
demonstrativelyrepeatingReznikoff’smodelHaltungofrelaunching,
namely,thatofasobrietyofstyleasaprecariousmodalityofsaving.
ThesoberstyleofTestimony
HixonandGoulishidentifyReznikoff’smodelasa‘generative
constraint,’thatis,acertainwithholdingofego,intentionandexpression
in(re-)production,aswellastheabsenceofallembellishmentofan
publisher,Goulishseeshimselfforced,byagesturethatwemightheredesignateasakindofreversalofEcho’spredicament,tosaveandfacilitatethesurvivalofthevoiceoftheotherbythecunningofanappropriativetransformationthatunderminestheprohibitiontocitebythepublisher’scopyright.Theseeffortsarethusclearlyimbuedwithataskofreturningthetransmittedclosureofawork,albeitnotonethatformspartofadominanttradition,toagreaterstateofindeterminacy.HereisGoulish’saccountofthisprocess:‘Inthewakeofthislegalrefusal,weresolvedtoattemptatransformationandunfoldingofthose6pages.Itbecamemyresponsibilityaswriteranddramaturgtorevisethetext.Iapproachedthetaskinonerespectaccordingtoapurelyformalmeasure:nofiveconsecutivewordscouldremainintactfromtheoriginalversion.Ibeganbyconsideringdifferencesbetweenwordsonthepageandwordsheardaloud.Infact,whenreadingpublicly,Reznikoffselectedandre-sequencedhispoems,fashioningreadingscriptsthatdifferdrasticallyfromthesequencesofthepublishedwork[…]’[Goulish&Hixon].
281
appropriatedmaterialthatother-directsthenon-performerasguide.An
expressiverestraintasgenerativeconstraintthatReznikoffhimself
identifiedwiththesoberstyleoftestimony.Here,sobrietyasamodality
of(re-)presentationsurelybecomesanotherwaytodescribethe
appropriativerestraintofwhatGoulishelsewheredesignatesasthenon-
virtuosityofnon-performance:theartistasfacilitator,guide,puppet.In
otherwords,sobrietydescribesalimittendencyofanimpossibleretreat
beforeaninappropriablesingularitythatmust,inordertobesavedand
relaunched,paradoxicallybeappropriated.AbrieflookatReznikoff’s
originaltextpalpablyrevealsthegenerativeforceofsuchaself-set
constraintofexpressiverestraint.BycomparingReznikoff’spoemstothe
historiographicdocumentstheyarebasedupon,RichardHaylandisable
torevealtheminute,mostcalculatedofchangesandadditionstothe
historicalrecords.578Activelywithholdinganyadditionalemotion,
commentaryorjudgment,Reznikoff’spoetrytherewithseekstoremain
withintheregisteroftestimonyitself,namely,asHixonputsit,thatofa
sober,‘ruthlesslystraightforward’stylerecountingthemany‘brutal,
irresolvablemomentsofethicalcrisis’withoutaccompanyingjudgment,
andemotionaleffect.Forinstance,merelytheunrecordedcolourofhair
offourteenyearoldfactoryworkerAmeliaisaddedforthesmallestof
effects–asshe‘[…]stoodatthetable,herblondehairhangingabouther
shoulders’–beforefeelingitgettingcaughtgently,asReznikoffcontinues
todescribethescene,zoominginonandslowingitdownwithaword
andimpressionthatoncemoreisnottobefoundintheofficialrecords,
bytheshaftofawirestitchingmachine,
woundandwindingaroundit,
untilthescalpwasjerkedfromherhead,
578CharlesBernstein‘CharlesReznikoff’s“Amelia”:AcasestudybyRichardHyland’.AccessedonlineApril2015.http://jacket2.org/commentary/charles-reznikoffs-amelia-case-study-richard-hyland
282
andthebloodwascomingdownalloverherfaceandwaist.579
ItiswithregardstothesobrietyofhisstylethatReznikoffwaswillingto
acceptforhispoetrythelabelofObjectivism,whichheidiosyncratically
definedas‘apoeticinflectionoftheobjectiveregisterrequiredof
courtroomtestimony’.580Onemustfollowtheruleswithrespectto
testimonyinacourtoflaw,hesays,asHixonrelates,thatis,evidenceto
beadmissibleinatrialcannotstateconclusionsoffactbutmuststatethe
factsthemselves’.581Inotherwords,onemustwresttheexternalsofan
event,howeverhorrific,fromanyemotion,commentaryorjudgment,
whichareleftforareadertoprovidehim-orher-self.Hixon,who
emphaticallyrelatesheradmirationforReznikoff’smodelrestraint,his
abilitytowithdrawbeforetheotherinordertoconstructratherthan
expressemotion,aswesaw,expressesasimilarlyambitionforasober
approachtowardsthetreatmentofmaterialwithinthecompositionof
theperformance.‘Ihavealwaysfoundthewayforwardbyrestraintand
bytheparticular,’shesays,‘–theparticularsofawalk,afall,aspecific
name,adeathorsayinggoodbye’.582Hereaselsewherethen,the
company’streatmentofhistoriographicmaterialsinitspersistent
engagementwiththearchiveechoesthemovementofBenjamin’s
conceptionofacitationalpracticeofRettungasthematrixofjustice.Ina
gestureofresendingwhathasbarelybeenreceived,aneglected
inheritanceissavedandsenton,ex-appropriated,exposedbeforethe
comingofotherrespondents.
In the context of the relaunched testimonies, the generative
constraintofasobrietyofstylefurtherdoublesupasthesuspensionofa
rushtojudgment.AssuchithererecallstheafterlifeoftheHölderlinian
conception of caesura as we have seen Weber locate it in Benjamin’s
writingsonEpicTheatre’spracticeof interruptionpreciselyaroundthe
579CharlesReznikoff,BytheWaterofManhatten.(NewYork:CharlesBoniPress1930),76.580Goulish&Hixon.581ibid.582ibid.
283
terminology of a certain sobriety. Unsurprisingly, in Testimonium, the
employment of a sobriety of style will be similarly associated with a
compositionalstructure thatemploys interruption, separationandgaps
as its overriding principle. Finding itself breached at the joints,
repeatedlyandtemporarilyhaltingtheforwardthrustoftheaction,the
performance unfolds in fits and starts, leaping across the openings of
gapswithinacontinuouslyinterruptedspatio-temporalcomposition.583
Farfromatransparencyoftransitionsbetweenmerealternations
of representations thatmoveseamlessly towards their final conclusion,
583‘Matthew:StephendeliversafiletoBryanatthetable.ThedeliveryinterruptsStephen’smovementsequence.Bryanopensthefileandimmediatelybeginstoreadthefirsttestimony,involvingthedaylaborerscrowdedintoaboatinapre-dawnicyharbor.Theoenters,setsuphisdrums,andsitsbehindthem.Bryanresumesreading.Theboatstrikesalargeicefloeandbeginstakingwater.
Menbegintoshout,ankle-deepinwater.Themanatthewheelturnsnowwithhisflashlight:–everybodyturningandeverybodypushing;–thosenearthewindowstrytobreakthewindows,inspiteofwiremeshintheglass;–thosenearthedoorarenowintheriver.Theyareintheriver.Theyreachfortheicefloe,–theirhands
Lin:Theo begins drumming an off-balance beat. Did he interrupt Bryan? Isthestoryfinished?Whatwillhappentothemenintheicyriver?TimandBobby enter with their guitars. The first song has already begun,exploding out of the first testimony as a kind of protest against theirreversiblenatureofthefacts. Iused thescythelikeacorkscrew. Iused thecorkscrewlikeawedge. Iused thewedgelikeahammer Becauseanytoolisalsoahammer Asanyruleissubjecttoitsmatter’.[Goulish&Hixon]
284
interruptionsofcontinuityexposeisolatedfragmentsbeforeanaudience
piecemeal, severed fromthe flowofemptyandhomogenousclock time
or the linear pull of teleological conclusions. Confrontedwith the thus
exposed fragments, Hixon relates, ‘thosewatching become increasingly
awareof themselveswatchingand theothers in the roomwatching’.584
Moreover, in Testimonium, the clearly framed and separated parts are
notmerely severed from linear continuity, but further belong to three
clearlyseparatedstrandsofmediatheperformanceputstowork:recital,
movementandmusic.Discussingtheeffect theclearlyseparatedblocks
haveon theviewer,Goulishobserves that ‘theblocksneverblend– all
juxtaposition, no accompaniment. Our audience/jury then has another
responsibility,’ he says, namely, ‘to assemble theparts.As oneobserver
notedinapost-showconversation,meaningcanbeconstruedinhowthe
partsmeet, in thegapsandleapsbetween them.Linmightsay thatone
can also construct emotion thisway’ (my emphasis).585The formaldis-
jointure of Testimonium’s composition, its structural open-endedness
andappealtotheresponseofanaudienceis,asGoulish’sabovelikening
oftheaudiencetoajuryhintsat,herecloselylinkedtothecontextofits
material, re-rehearsing a concern with the relations of testimony, law
and justice as they were already put to work in the two volume’s of
Reznikoff’sTestimony. What distinguishes a theatre from a courtroom,
Goulishreflects inthiscontext, is thatthe juryofanaudience ismerely
introspective,with‘nopowertoconvictbutonlytoconsider’.586Inother
words, the place of the theatre remains demonstratively open qua
disjointure to the future as a promise of justice to come. For ‘[o]ne
differencebetweenacourtroomandatheatre,’asGoulishcontinueswith
a formulation thatheremust evoke thediscourseofDerrida, ‘mightbe
analogoustothedifferencebetween lawand justice’.Reznikoff,Goulish
suggests,attemptedtoplacehispoetryintothebreachbetweenlawand
584ibid.585Goulish&Hixon,myemphasis.586Goulish&Hixon.
285
justice, ‘“with absurd hope of restoration and furious repair”’.587‘Our
performance,’ he continues, ‘like his poetry, requires the space of the
reader, or audience, the introspective jury, whose necessary attention
charges and completes the event’.588Yet this charge of attention, this
retrospectiveandintrospectiveconsiderationofwhathasbeenexposed
beforetheeyesandearsofreaders,mustherebestnotbedescribedas
an act of completion. For, by following the demonstrated model of
Reznikoff’sHaltung,placed in the breach between law and justice that
exposes the essential crack [Sprung] of any given judgement, the
performanceasmodelof inheritance turned towards the futureno less
than the past must appeal in turn to a modality of participation that
followstheaporeticprogramofacertainexperienceandexperimentof
the possibility of the impossible as the condition of responsibility.
Followingthismodel,anygivenaudiencedoesnotcompletethereceived.
Instead,theybecometemporarycaretakersofaprecariouslytransmitted
inheritance, takingup the taskof a responsiveand responsible reading
and Stellungnahme by becoming its heirs or legatees in turn. The
audience, ‘singularnounforanirreduciblyheteroclitestand-in,’ ‘stands-
in for the others […],’ re-sending what has been addressed to them,
puttingoffappropriationasfinaljudgment,orelse,rehearsingthefuture
as the promise of justice to come. 589 Put differently, instead of
completingthereceived,theaudienceisinturnsetthetaskofaspectral
inheritance thatmust greet [salut] the other in the sense given to this
French term by Derrida. Derrida employs the notion of salut, which is
able to add the sense of greeting or salutation to that of saving and
salvation, in order to draw out the irreconcilability of the necessary
(unconditional)exposuretothecomingoftimeandthehopefora final
salvation.
587ibid.IwillreturntoabriefdiscussionofhopeintheConclusionofmyThesis.ItshouldbeclearthatIwouldhavereservationsdesignatingitas‘absurd’andinthepursuitof‘restoration’.588Goulish&Hixon.589Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,341.
286
IftothenotionofsalutasRettenandHeilenweweretoaddthe
senseofsalutasGrussorgruessen[…],andif,[…],onewereto
separateasirreconcilablethenotionofsalutasgreetingor
salutationtotheotherfromeverysalutassalvation(inthesense
ofthesafe,theimmune,health,andsecurity),ifonewereto
considerthegreetingorsalutationoftheother,ofwhatcomes,as
irreducibleandheterogeneoustoanyseekingofsalutassalvation,
youcanguessintowhatabysseswewouldbedrawn.590
And yet salvation,Rettung, repair is not altogether out of thequestion.
Instead, it must be differently construed. Namely, precisely as what is
never assured and completed but only able to facilitate a precarious
survival. Although ‘[t]he religious notion of salvation,’ as Hägglund
asserts,‘is[…]emphaticallynegated.’
[…]Derridawrites[…]thatsalvationisnot“outofthequestion”
butshouldratherbeunderstoodassomethingthatisnever
assured.Theseapparentlycontradictoryclaimsbecome
consistentifweapply[a]distinctionbetweenimmortalityand
survival.Insofarassalvationisunderstoodastheabsolute
immunityofimmortality,itisoutofthequestion.Therecanbeno
suchsalvation,sincenothingcanhappenwithoutthegreetingof
anotherthatcancometocompromiseanyimmunity.However,
insofarassalvationisunderstoodasasurvivalthatsavesone
fromdeathbygivingonemoretimetolive,itisnotoutofthe
question.Itisratheraprecariouspossibilitythatalwayscan“be
refused,threatened,forbidden,lost,gone”becauseoftheinfinite
finitudeoftime(“theendlessnessoftheendthatisnever-
ending”).[…]591
590Derrida,Rogues,114.591Hägglund,131
287
Postscript:
LaborTrouble,MachineAge,Property:RememberingTheVoiceof
theNamelessinHistory
HewillcallthispartMachineAge.
Hehasreadthroughcourttranscripts:testimonies.
Hehasdistilledthewordsandforgedthesepoems.
Thesepoemsthatarenotpoems.
WhowasBernadette?
Hewillnotletherdisappear.
Hewillnotletherwordsburnawayintoash.
Machineage.592
Asalreadyindicated,anotherwayofemphasizingTestimonium’srelation
to the question of inheritance and justice seems possible. One that
bespeaksnolongerasoleorprivilegedconcernwithageneralattitudeof
exappropriative restraint in view of a maximum (if limited) respect
beforethesingularityofanabsolutepastandfuture,butamorespecific
endeavorofbrushinghistoryagainst thegrain.Aneffort that, never so
much as explicitly, yet nevertheless implicitly goes far beyond a self-
proclaimed interest inmakingamends for thecriticalneglectofcertain
sourcematerialsbutmoreradicallymightbesaidto‘freethepresentfor
amemory of the downtrodden in history’ and somewhat quietly ‘seize
thepolitical chancesof thedayand ‘rescue’ the imagesof thepast that
mostconcernthepresent’.593‘Reznikoff’sTestimony,’Hixonrelates,
makesirregularuseofintertitlesintheformofcategories:
SOCIALLIFE
DOMESTICDIFFICULTIES
LABORTROUBLES
592Goulish&Hixon.593Fritsch,161-2.
288
CHILDREN
PROPERTY
MACHINEAGE
STREETCARSANDRAILROADS
SHIPPING
Ofthese,wedecidedtoconcentrateonLABORTROUBLES,
MACHINEAGE,andPROPERTY’.594
Thecategoriesingeneral,butevenmoresotheparticularselection,
inscribeinellipticalformthetestimoniesofhumansufferingintoa
historicaltrajectoryofindustrialprogressasevidenceofBenjamin’s
famousclaimthat‘[t]hereisnodocumentofcivilizationwhichisnotat
thesametimeadocumentofbarbarism.’For‘[a]heritage,Benjamin
insists,owesitsexistence“notonlytotheeffortsofthegreatmindsand
talentswhocreatedthem,butalsotheanonymoustoiloftheir
contemporaries.[…]”’.595Toavoidasecondvictimizationofthe
“anonymous”deadatthehandsofthesurvivors,Testimoniummightthus
besaidtostandwithinacriticalhistoriographictraditionthatcallsfor‘a
“memoryofthenameless”ratherthanamemoryofthedeadingeneral,
soastoresist‘aprocessofcultural-historicaltransmission[…]that
dissimulatesbothpastoppressionsandcontemporarydomination’.596
594Goulish&Hixon.595Fritsch,161.596ibid.
289
Conclusion
AnAmateur’sCourage–CunningandHighSpiritsforthe
TaskofInheritancethatRemains
Inretrospect,perhapsthefigureoftheamateurcanbeseento
proliferatethroughoutthiswriting,whetherintheformoftheartist,the
child,theallegorist,theplotter,theassistant[Gehilfe],thecreature,Echo
orindeedWalterBenjamin.Thedecisivetraitthatallowsthesedifferent
incarnationsofthefigureoftheamateurtoparticipateinwhattheylove
anddesire,ofprofferingacriticalresponse[Stellungnahme]inspiteofa
lackofasecureStellung[position,status,employment]wouldbethatof
courage[Mut],which,asBenjaminrelateswithregardstotheFairyTale,
dialecticallysplitsintocunningandhighspirits[Unter-undÜbermut].597
Itisthecouragetocontributetothesocio-politicalconstructionofthe
ethosinspiteofanabsenceorlackofthesecuritiesoftheproperthat
heremarkoutthefigureoftheamateur.Barredfromtheparticipatory
taskofinheritancebyitsmonopolised,instrumentalizedandincreasingly
sealedtransmission,theamateurrevoltsagainsthisorheralienation,
expropriationandreductiontotheconsumeristexperienceoflifeasthe
ephemeralfluxofanindustriallyproducedflowofartifactuality.598The
597‘Thewisestthing–sothefairytaletaughtmankindinoldentimesandteacheschildrentothisday–istomeettheforcesofthemythicalworldwithcunningandwithhighspiritis.(ThisishowthefairytalepolarizesMut,courage,dividingitintoUntermut,thatis,cunning,andÜbermut,highspirits.)[WalterBenjamin,‘DerErzähler.BetrachtungenzumWerkNikolaiLesskows’,Illuminationen,385-410.(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,2002),404].598‘Theamateurisnotaconsumer.Contactbetweentheamateur’sbodyandhisartisveryclose,imbuedwithpresence.That’swhatisbeautifulaboutit,andthat’swherethefuturelies.Butherethingsopenontoaproblemofcivilization.Technicaldevelopmentandtheevolutionofmassculturereinforcethedivisionbetweenproducersandconsumerstoa
290
lackofStellungthatbarshimfromcontributingtothesocialproduction
ofvaluebecomestheprecariousresourceandhopeforanewconception
ofthetaskofinheritanceasthesocio-individualre-workofmourning.599
ThecounterstrokeagainstthelackofStellungandtherelegationtothe
passivityofconsumptioncomesintheformofaHaltungthatresiststhe
monopolizedflowofculturaltransmissioninordertoun-sealit,thatis,
openittothepossibilityoftransformationquaparticipation.The
temporallagofaresistanceexposestheinterruptedtransmissionas
essentiallybreached,swellingunderthevirtualintrusionofother
possibilities.Inotherwords,theamateur’sHaltungisanefforttorender
culturalinheritanceappropriable.‘Forwhatisthevalueofallourculture
frighteningextent.Weareaconsumersociety,andnotatallasocietyofamateurs’[RolandBarthes,TheGrainoftheVoice.Interviews1962-1980,217].599Iftheamateurisafigurethatherepredominantlyarisesinacontextofresistancetomonopolistcapitalism’stendenciestowardstheexpropriationofexperience[Erfahrung]–andthusfromthedissolutionofpre-industrial,non-similartraditions–anotableexceptiontothisdynamicimposesitselfwithinthecontextoftheGermanbaroqueasithasbeenoneofourthemes.ForBenjamin,aswesaw,portraysthelatterpreciselyasacrisisoftraditionasthecrisisoftradition’smonopolyoverthesocialorganisationoflife.Inthiscontext,itisthedissolutionoftheprevalenteschatologicalnarrativesoftheologyandtheirinstitutionalorganisationbytheChurchthatleads‘totheproblematicsituationofanisolatedselfanditsdifficultrelationtothecommunity’thatcallsforthecunningandhighspiritsoftheamateur[Weber,TheatricalityasMedium,168].Thevacuumleftbehindbythedepartureofamonopolistorganisationofthesocialpavesthewayfortheemergenceofthelatter(allegorist,plotter)tobecomethemodelofaneweconomyofcontribution.Byadoptinganattitudeofallegoricaltheatricalizationintheproductionofsocialsignificance,thebaroque“amateur”beginstoexperimentwithnewformsofsocio-individualappropriationinwhich,aswemightputit,‘therelationtoselfandtherelationtoworldarearticulatedtogether[…][Weber,Benjamin’s–abilities,246].Thebaroqueamateurtherebyseekstobuild,toparaphraseStiegler,‘asustainablelibidinaleconomyanddoesnotexpect[theCurie]toputitinplace’[BernardStiegler,‘Amateur’,ArsIndustrialis.http://arsindustrialis.org/amateur-english-version/.AccessedFebruary2016.Stiegler’ssentenceactuallyreads:‘…anddoesnotexpectindustrialsocietytoputitinplace’].
291
[Bildungsgut,moreliterally:thegoodsofeducation],’Benjaminasks,‘ifit
isdivorcedfromexperience?’600
Asaresponse,aswemightputit,toadifficultsituationofisolated
individualsandtheirrelationtothecommunity,theamateur’shopeful
experimentsarise–withouteverbecomingfullyerect–asaconsequence
ofamournedlossofamoreactivecultureofcontribution.Benjamin
unfoldsthismournfulnarrativeasasocio-economicdevelopmentthat
dissociatesthe‘goods’oftradition(s)fromthepossibilitiesoftheirsocio-
individualappropriation.WhatBenjaminmournsisthelossof
experience[Erfahrung]as‘aformofappropriationinwhichtherelation
toselfandtherelationtoworldarearticulatedtogetherandwhich
simultaneouslytransformstheappropriatedandtheappropriator’.601
Theacquisitionofexperience[Erfahrung]throughthebecomingpresent
ofthepastbyadynamicprocessthatdefiestheirmetaphysical
opposition–alongsidethatoflivinganddeadmemory(anamnesisand
hypomnesis)–couldthusbesaidtodescribearelaymovementthrough
which,asStieglersays,the‘livinganddeadcomposewithoutend’.602
Withinthisdynamicprocess,Erfahrungwouldbetheproductofthe
labourofsuchcompositions.Whathasbeenlost,therefore,isnotmerely
thespecific,situated,specialisedknow-how(tolive)passedonthrough
thegenerationsthatisasyetunstampedbytechnologicalandindustrial
drivestosimilitude,butmoreimportantly,theparticipatorypossibilities
ofitson-goingtransformationbyalabourofappropriationthatmust
doubleupasthatofaresponse.Whathasbeenlost,inotherwords,is
responsibilitybeforeaninheritancebroughtonbyalossoftheresponse-
abilityofitstransmission.Benjamindescribesthisprocessasthatofa
lossofexperiencewithincapitalistmodesofproduction(fromartisanal
productiontomachinelabour)andconsumption(fromuse-valueto
commodityfetish),aswellasanincreasinglyinstrumentalised
600Benjamin,‘ErfahrungundArmut’,292.601ThomasWeber,‘Erfahrung’inBenjamin’sBegriffe,ed.MichaelOpitzandErdmutWizisla,230-259.(FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag2000),246.602Stiegler,‘AnamnesisandHypomnesis’,nopagination.
292
transmissionofmemoryandknow-how(thedeclineofthestoryandthe
riseofindustrialflowsofinformation).WithrecoursetoBenjamin,
ThomasWeberfittinglysumsupthisparalleldissolutionofexperienceas
follows:
Asthesocialandtechnicalconditionsofproductionincreasingly
falloutofpeople’smemoryandexperience[Merk-und[…]
Erfahrungswelt]withthecommodity-form,historicalphenomena
become“inaccessible”[“unnahbar”]withinculturalhistory
[Kulturgeschichte].Thelattergoeshandinhandwithalossofan
awarenessthatculturalgoods[Kulturgüter]“notonlyowetheir
emergence[Entstehung]butalsotheirtransmissiontoa
continuoussociallabourbywhich,moreover,thosegoods
themselvesareprocessed[verarbeitet],thatis,transformed”.603
Seekingtobringtheostensiblytransparent,“inaccessible”flowsof
transmissionofculturalhistorytoahalt,theHaltungoftheamateur
rendersthemmemorablequastrange[merk-würdig].Indoingso,heor
shefacilitatesthebecomingopaqueofthemediumoftransmission,
prisingopenitscontextualclosureandexposingitasessentially
breached:demonstrativelyleavingroomforhisorherownaswellasthe
comingofother’sparticipation.604Towardoffthestultifying
transmissionofasealedinheritance,theamateurmustputtothetest,
againandagain,byalabourofappropriationthattakestheformof
rehearsal.Benjamin,tobesure,doesnotstrictlyemploytheterm
rehearsaltodescribethenecessarilytransformativelabourof
appropriationbutonethatcomesveryclosetoit,namely,Übung,thetask
ofpracticing,training,exercisingortakinglessons.Ifintherealmof
labourprocessesÜbungdescribesamoreartisanal,participatory,
603ThomasWeber,‘Erfahrung’,255.604Thedifferencebetweenaclosed,transparentandanopen,opaquemeansoftransmissionisforinstanceelaboratedinBenjamin’sdistinctionbetweenthepassiveconsumptionofinformationandthestory’scalltoparticipation.SeeBenjamin’sessay‘TheStoryTeller’.
293
transformativemodeofskillacquisitionbeforeoragainstthatofthe
conditioningdrill[Dressur]ofcapitalistmodesofproduction,inthe
contextofculturalhistoryitmightdescribeamodalityofinheritanceand
receptionassocio-individualco-productionbeforeoragainstthesealed
transmissionsofmemoryindustriesintheserviceofwhatBernard
Stieglercallsthecontrolsociety.ThelossofErfahrungspringsfromthe
lossofÜbungasthetechniqueofitsacquisition.Withtheriseof
industrial,monopolistcapitalism,Übungorrehearsalmustmakewayfor
thestultifyingexpropriationsofdrillandcontrol.
AlthoughBenjamin’sconceptofexperiencethusconstruedwould
becloselylinkedtothetransformativeaspectsofitsacquisitionthrough
rehearsal,inthecontextofthenarrativeofitslossheneverthelessseems
temptedtostresstheaspectofitsrelativepermanence.Asaresult,those
passagesinwhichhelamentsthelossoflastingexperiencesagainstthe
backgroundofanimmenseandmonstrousexpansionoftechnologyover
mankind,perhapsformtheapotheosisofonesideofwhatSamuelWeber
callsthe‘double(or“cracked”)tone’ofBenjamin’sthinkingandwriting,
splitbetweenmelancholyandmourningontheonehand,engagement
andhopeontheother.605‘Wherehasitallgone?’Benjaminasksinhis
lamentofatimeduringwhichoneexactlyknewwhatexperience
constituted.‘Whostillmeetspeoplewhoreallyknowhowtotellastory?
Wheredoyoustillhearwordsthatlast,andthatpassfromonegeneration
tothenextlikeapreciousring?’606Yetastheessay‘Experienceand
Poverty’seemstocloselyfollowtheprogrammeofadoubletone,split
betweenamournfullamentoftraditionandacallforhighspirited
improvisationsinitswake,onemightsuspectthatBenjamin’sstresson
thelastingaspectsofexperienceoverthoseofitstransformativesurvival
throughparticipatorytransmissionisinpartsemployedforthe
rhetoricaleffectoftheircontrast.Indeed,asimilarobservationcanat
timesbemadeattheothersideofthespectrumofacrackedtone,
namely,inthosepassageswhereBenjaminwantstobedonewith
605SamuelWeber,Benjamin’s–abilities,119.Seefootnote228,p.86.606WalterBenjamin,‘ErfahrungundArmut,291&731,myemphasis.
294
experienceandinheritancealtogether.Yetamorenuancedreadingofthe
relationbetweenwhatissadlymournedandparadoxicallyaffirmedwith
highspiritsseemspossible.Bycallingfortheradicalaffirmationofthe
lossoftradition,habit,securityandthepossibility‘toholdtight’
[Festhalten]that‘hasbecomethemonopolyofafewpowerfulpeople,’
Benjaminrejectsthelastingaspectofmoreorlessreifiedproductsof
experiencewhilstneverthelessseekingtorestoreandradicalize–
perhapsrelaunch–thedynamic,participatory,transformativeprocesses
thatpreviouslybroughtabouttheiracquisition.Putdifferently,the
counterstrokeagainstthesecurityandsteadfastnessofaStellungthat
hasbecomethemonopolyofthefewandpowerful,isnotthelatter’s
restoration,butthesearchforrenewedpossibilitiesfortransformative
participationfromanaffirmedpositionoflimitedsecurity.Thus,
Benjamin’scallforanavowalandaffirmationofthe‘povertyof
experience’describesamodalityofinheritanceasthedynamicprocessof
areworkingofitstransmissionthatavoidsreificationintolasting
‘products’ofexperience.ItisthisdesiretoparticipatewithoutStellung,
thehopefulaffirmationofapovertyofexperiencethatmust‘makedo
withlittle,’‘constructoutoflittle,’thatIamhereassociatingwiththe
cunningandhighspiritsoftheamateurandapoliticsofrehearsal.The
hopethatitconjuresisneverthatoftherestorationofamourned
securityoftradition,ofmoreorlesspossessableandcommunicable
experiences,butofaradicalcommitmenttothetaskofinheritance
throughitsperpetualreworkingintheabsenceofthesecuritiesofthe
proper.‘Tomakedowithlittle,’whichwasperhapsalsoanaspectofthe
methodofself-writingMichelFoucaultidentifiedintheGreco-Roman
practicesofkeepingatreasure-likeassemblageofrehearsablemarksin
thenotebookashupomnēmata–amodalityofappropriation,aswe
mighthereputit,inwhichtherelationtoselfandtherelationtoworld
arearticulatedtogetherbythesimultaneoustransformationofwhatis
appropriatedandwhoappropriates–withouteverbecomingtoofixated
295
onwhatoneknows.Nottoeraseone’straces,asBenjaminalsolikesto
quoteBrecht,buttoavoidtheirreifiedaccumulation.607
Inthecomfortofthebourgeoisinterior,Benjaminsays,a
maximumofhabitsaccumulateandsuffocatetheoccupantsofsuchplush
apartments.Thus,attheendof‘ExperienceandPoverty,’hecallsfora
verydifferentway‘tomakeoneselfathome’[sicheinrichten],thatis,to
constructanethosintheaffirmedabsenceoffamiliarity,securityand
identity.Itistheeffortof‘making[oneself]ahomeawayfromhome’
[Einrichtung],to‘setoneselfup’[sicheinrichten]anewandwithlittle,
whilstavowinganessentialprocessofself-deconstruction.608Benjamin
non-fortuitouslyemploystheverysameterm–Einrichtung–inthe
contextofhisanalysisofEpicTheatre,wheretheplaceuponwhichone
must‘takeone’splace’[sicheinrichten]becomesthatofthetheatrical
stage,ormoreprecisely,thepodiumofEpicTheatre.Whatthelatter
contextbringshome,sotospeak,isthatthecalltoEinrichtunginthe
absenceofthesecuritiesoftheproperandpropertyentailsabecoming
theatricalofthehouseandhomeandasubject’sbeing-at-home-with-
itself.Thelattermustgiveupapassagetotheoutside,whichprohibitsa
simpleoppositionofinsideandoutside,privateandpublic.For‘thespace
ofthetheatricalscene,’uponwhichonemustinstalloneself[esgilt,sich
einzurichten],asWeberputsit,‘isnolongersimplyaninteriorspace,
sinceitisalwaysdirectedoutward,away,towardothers.609‘Theselfis
neverthereforesimply“athome”onapodium,oronastage[,]’Weber
continues.‘Perhaps,’hefinallygoesontosuggest,‘thestagecancometo
standforaplaceinwhichoneisalwaysalreadyplaced,withoutbeing
fullyathomeordefinitelypositioned’.610Tobethuspositionedinthe
absenceofasecurityofStellungisalsotheHaltungoftheamateur,who
takesupaposeandattitudethatmakesdowithlittleandneverfully
comestorest(forinstance,onwhatheorshecomestoknow)asit
perpetuallyanddemonstrativelyappealstothecomingoftheother’s607WalterBenjamin,ErfahrungundArmut,294.608ibid,296.609SamuelWeber,TheatricalityasMedium,246-7.610ibid,68.
296
responsequatheatricaliterabilityasresponse-ability.InDerrida’s
account,aswesaw,tobethusexposedtothecomingoftimeisnever
simplyamatterofchoicebutanultratranscendentalconditionoflifequa
survival.Yetbyaffirmingandaggravatingcertainauto-deconstructive
processesofthelaws,goodsorproductsofaninheritance,theethico-
politicalbearingoftheamateurisneverthelessabletocounteralllimited
butnonethelessthreateningtendenciestowardstheirclosure.Forthe
amateur,thecrisisoftradition,whichheorshemeetswithacracked
sentimentofmourningandhighspirits,becomestheonlychancetokeep
alivethetaskofitsperpetualreworking.
IndesignatingtheplaceforamoreorlessprecariousEinrichtung
nolongersimplyasastagebutasapodium,Benjaminseekstoradicalize
thissceneofexposurethroughthepodium’smoreemphaticappealto
others.611ForinBenjamin’saccount,thedecisivetraitofthepodiumis
thatitisnolongerseparatedfromtheaudiencebythechasmofthe
orchestrapit.‘Althoughthestageisstilldistinctfromthatofthe
audience,“stillelevated,”’Weberrelates,‘itfunctionsmoreasa“podium”
thanasasacredspace’.612‘Onthispodium,’Benjaminconcludes,‘one
mustfindone’splace[giltes,sicheinzurichten]’.613Iftheorchestrapit
soughttoseparateplayersandtheatre-goers,asBenjaminputsit,likethe
livingfromthedead,thepodiumappears‘asasitewheretheliving
confrontthedead’.614Aconfrontationthatheremightalsobedescribed
astherelaymovementbetweenpastandpresentbywhichthelivingand
deadcomposewithoutendforwhichthestageaspodiumbecomesa
paradigmaticplacewithoutStellung.‘WhateverelseBenjamin’snotionof
Einrichtungmayentail,’Weberstates,‘itreferstotherelationofthe611SamuelWeberdescribesthedifferenceofstageandpodiumasfollows:‘Inbeingraisedabovethehorizontal,it[thepodium]ispositionedtoappealtoothers.Thisistrueofstagesingeneral,buttotheextentthatastageisalsoapodiumitsrelationtoitsaddresseeshasbecomemoreemphatic.Itbecomesasitefromwhichothersarenotjustaddressed,butenjoined.Inthepresenceofapodium,spectatorsareexpectedtodomorethanjustobserve’[ibid].612ibid.613WalterBenjamin,‘WasistdasepischeTheater(1)’,7.614SamuelWeber,TheatricalityasMedium,69.
297
livingtothedead,ofthepresenttothepast–andhencealsoofbothto
thefuture’.615Thus,tomakeoneselfathomeawayfromhomeonthe
stageaspodiumisto“inhabit”theparadoxicaltemporalityofrehearsal
byagestureofrepetitionthatmaintainsasimultaneousreferencetothe
pastandtothefuture.
In‘ExperienceandPoverty,’Benjaminfurtherdevelops,albeitin
ellipticalfashion,thestrangetemporalityofsuchanEinrichtungand
linksittothefigureofhope.There,theproponentsifnotexamplesof
whatIamherecallingtheamateur–BertBrecht,AdolfLoos,PaulKlee,
PaulScheerbart–‘rejectthetraditional,solemn,nobleimageofman,
festoonedwithallthesacrificialofferingsofthepast[,]to‘[…]turn
insteadtothenakedmanofthecontemporaryworldwholiesscreaming
likeanewbornbabeinthedirtydiapersofthepresent’.616Benjamin
therewithlinkstherejectionofthesecuritiesoftraditioninthepresent
withanimageofhopeforthefuture.Asimilarsentimentreturnsatthe
veryendoftheessay.Here,incontrasttothepossibility‘toholdtight’
[Festhalten]that‘hasbecomethemonopolyofafewpowerfulpeople,’
Benjaminevokesthenecessityofmostbutalsotheparticularcapacityof
some,‘toinstalloneself[sicheinzurichten]–beginninganewandwith
fewresources’.617Thelatterareabletodoso,Benjaminsays,with
laughter,thatis,aswemighthereputit,withthecourageofcunningand
highspirits.
Intheirbuildings,imagesandstories,mankindispreparingto
outliveculture,ifneedbe.Andthemainthingisthatitdoesso
withalaugh.Thislaughtermayoccasionallysoundbarbaric.618
615ibid.616WalterBenjamin,‘ExperienceandPoverty’,SelectedWritingsVol2.2,ed.MichelW.Jennings,HowardEiland,andGarySmith,trans.RodneyLivingstoneetal,732-738.(CambridgeandLondon:HarvardUniversityPress2005),733.617WalterBenjamin,ErfahrungundArmut,296.618EarlierintheessayBenjamindeclareshisintentiontointroduceanew,positiveconceptofbarbarianismtodesignateanaffirmativeattitudetowardsthepovertyofexperience.
298
Wellandgood.Maytheindividualfromtimetotimegiveupa
littlehumanitytothemasses,whoonedaywillrepayhimwith
compoundinterest.619
Althoughthecrisisoftraditionisunmistakablytheconditionforthe
hopethatopenswiththeincreasedpossibilitiesforitsfuturereworking,
Benjaminishereperhapstooquickinwantingtoofferguarantees
throughthetrade-offofapresent“barbarism”forafutureinterest.For
thenewbornbabeinthedirtydiapersofthepresentmightalwaysturn
outtohavebeenamonster.Amonstrosity,however,whichevenifit
remainsadanger,ispreciselywhatcarrieshopeintheabsenceofall
futureguarantees.Themonstrouschild,like‘thecallforathinkingofthe
eventtocome,ofthedemocracytocome,ofthereasontocome,’would
thuscarrythegoodandthebad,thechanceandthedanger,‘[…]bear
everyhope,tobesure,although[remaining],initself,withouthope.
Nothopeless,indespair,butforeigntotheteleology,the
hopefulness,andthesalutofsalvation.Notforeigntothesalutas
thegreetingorsalutationoftheother,notforeigntotheadieu
(“come”or“go”inpeace),notforeigntojustice,butnonetheless
heterogeneousandrebellious,irreducible,tolaw,topower,andto
theeconomyofredemption.620
619ibid,296.620JacquesDerrida,Rogues,xiii.
299
BibliographyAgamben,Giorgio.‘AbyWarburgandtheNamelessScience’in
Potentialities.CollectedEssaysinPhilosophy.89-103.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1999.
Agamben,Giorgio.‘InPlayland–ReflectionsonHistoryandPlay’in
InfancyandHistory.EssaysontheDestructionofExperience,65-89.London:Verso,1993.
Agamben,Giorgio.‘Kommerell,orOnGesture’,inPotentialities.Collected
EssaysinPhilosophy.77-88.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1999.
Agamben,Giorgio.‘NotesOnGesture’,inInfancyandHistory.Essayson
theDestructionofExperience,147-156.London:Verso,1993Agamben,Giorgio.WhatisanApparatus?AndOtherEssays.Stanford:
StanfordUniversityPress,2009.Austin,John.HowtodoThingswithWords.CambridgeMassachusetts:
HarvardUniversityPress,1975.Banes,Sally.Democracy’sBody.Durham:DukeUniversityPress,1993.Barthes,Roland.‘BrechtandDiscourse:AContributiontotheStudyof
Discursivity’inBrecht,TheRustleofLanguage.212-222.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1992.
Barthes,Roland.‘FromWorktoText’inImageMusicText,155-164.
London:FontanaPress,1977.Barthes,Roland.TheGrainoftheVoice.Interviews1962-1980.NewYork:
HillandWang,1992.Baudelaire,Charles.‘OftheEssenceofLaughter,andgenerallyofthe
ComicinthePlasticArts’,inBaudelaire:SelectedWritingsOnArtAndArtists,translatedbyP.E.Charvet,140-161.(Harmondsworth:PenguinBooks,1972).
Benjamin,Walter.‘AusdemBrecht-Kommentar’inVersucheÜberBrecht,
34-38.EditedbyRolfTiedermann.FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,1966.
Benjamin,Walter.Briefe.EditedbyGershomScholemandTheodorW.
Adorno.FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,1977.
300
Benjamin,Walter.‘DasPassagenWerk.AufzeichnungenundMaterialien’inGesammelteSchriftenBandV,79-654.EditedbyRolfTiedermannundHermannSchweppenhäuser,FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag1977.
Benjamin,Walter.DasPassagenwerk.FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,1982.
Benjamin,Walter.‘DerErzähler’inIlluminationen,385-410.Editedby
SiegfriedUnseld.FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,2002.Benjamin,Walter.Einbahnstraße.BerlinerKindheitumNeunzehnhundert.
FrankfurtamMain:Fischer,2011.Benjamin,Walter.‘FranzKafka–ZurzehntenWiederkehrseines
Todestages’inGesammelteSchriftenBandII,409-438.EditedbyRolfTiedermannandHermannSchweppenhäuser.FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,1977.
Benjamin,Walter.‘GoethesWahverwandtschaften’inGesammelte
SchriftenBandI,125-201.FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,1977.
Benjamin,Walter.‘KarlKraus’inGesammelteSchriftenBandII,334-367.
EditedbyRolfTiedermannundHermannSchweppenhäuser.FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,1977.
Benjamin,Walter.‘KurzeSchatten’inIlluminationen,297-306.Editedby
SiegfriedUnseld.FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,2002.Benjamin,Walter.‘ProgrammeinesproletarischenKindertheaters’in
GesammelteSchriftenBandII,763-772.EditedbyRolfTiedermannundHermannSchweppenhäuserFrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,1977.
Benjamin,Walter.TheOriginofGermanTragicDrama.Translatedby
JohnOsborne.London:Verso,2009.Benjamin,Walter,‘ÜberdenBegriffderGeschichte’inIlluminationen.
251-261.EditedbySiegfriedUnseld.FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,2002.
Benjamin,Walter,‘ÜberdieSpracheüberhauptundüberdieSprachedes
Menschen’inGesammelteSchriftenBandII,140-157.EditedbyRolfTiedermannundHermannSchweppenhäuserFrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,1977.
301
Benjamin,Walter.UrsprungdesdeutschenTrauerspiel.FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,1978.
Benjamin,Walter.‘WasistdasepischeTheater(1)’inGesammelteSchriftenBandII,519-531.EditedbyRolfTiedermannundHermannSchweppenhäuser.FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,1977.
Benjamin,Walter.‘WasistdasepischeTheater?(2)’inVersucheüberBrecht,22-30.EditedbyRolfTiedermann.FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,1966.
Benjamin,Walter.VersucheüberBrecht.EditedbyRolfTiedermann.
FrankfurtamMaim:SuhrkampVerlag,1966.Benjamin,Walter.‘Zentralpark’inGesammelteSchriftenBandI,655-690.
EditedbyRolfTiedermannundHermannSchweppenhäuser.FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,1977.
Bennington,Geoffrey.Derridabase.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,
1993.Bernstein,Charles.‘CharlesReznikoff’s“Amelia”:AcasestudybyRichard
Hyland’,Jacket2.AccessedonlineApril2015http://jacket2.org/commentary/charles-reznikoffs-amelia-case-study-richard-hyland
Blocker,Jane.(2013)‘QueerFailuresofHistory:StupidityandTemporal
DissidenceinTheLastmaker’inParallax,19:3,5-23.Bottoms,Stephen&Goulish,Matthewedited.SmallActsOfRepair.
Performance,EcologyandGoatIsland.London&NewYork:Routledge,2007.
Butler,Judith.‘PerformativeActsandGenderConstitution:AnEssayin
PhenomenologyandFeministTheory’inTheatreJournal,Vol.40,No.4.(Dec.,1988),519-531.
Campany,David.‘Posing,Acting,Photographing’inStillnessandTime.
PhotographyandtheMovingImageeditedbyDavidGreen&JoannaLowry,97-113.London:Photoworks,2005.
Caygill,Howard‘WalterBenjamin’sConceptofCulturalHistory’inTheCambridgeCompaniontoWalterBenjamineditedbyDavidFerris73-96.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006.
Cooper,Rosie&Yedgar,Ariella.IntheBellyoftheWhale(ActIII)
[exhibitioninformationleaflet],Vitoria:Montehermoso2012.
302
Cixous,Helen.‘GraceandInnocence:HeinrichvonKleist’inReadings.The
PoeticsofBlanchot,Joyce,Kafka,Kleist,LispectorandTsvetayeva.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinessotaPress,1991.
Connor,Steven.‘ShiftingGround’inSamuelBeckett,BruceNauman.EditedbyMichaelGlasmeier,80-7(Vienna:KunsthalleWien,2000).AccessedNovember2011http://www.bbk.ac.uk/english/skc/beckettnauman/
DeMan,Paul.‘TheConceptofIrony’inAestheticIdeology,163-184.Edited
byAndrzejWarminski.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1996.
DeMan,Paul.‘TheRhetoricofTemporality’inBlindnessandInsight.
EssaysintheRhetoricofContemporaryCriticism,187-228.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1983.
DeArmitt,Plashette.TheRighttoNarcissism.ACaseforanImpossibleSelf
Love.NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress,2014.Derrida,Jacques.ArchiveFever.AFreudianImpression,translatedbyEric
Prenowitz.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1996.Derrida,Jacques.Dissemination.TranslatedbyBarbaraJohnson.London:
TheAthlonePress,1981.Derrida,Jacques&Stiegler,Bernard.EchographiesofTelevision:Filmed
Interviews.Cambridge:PolityPress,2002.Derrida,Jacques.Fischus.FrankfurterRede.TranslatedbyStefan
Lorenzer.Wien:PassagenVerlag,2003.Derrida,Jacques.‘ForceofLaw:TheMysticalFoundationofAuthority’in
CardozoLawReview11(1989-1990),translatedbyMaryQuaintance,920-104.
Derrida,Jacques.‘Laparolesouffleé’inWritingandDifference,212-245.
London:Routledge2001.Derrida,JacquesLearningtoLiveFinally:TheLastInterview.Editedand
translatedbyPascale-AnneBrault&MichaelNaas.Hoboken,NJ:MelvilleHousePublishing,2010.
Derrida,Jacques.LimitedInc.Illinois:NorthwesternUniversityPress,
1990.
303
Derrida,Jacques.Negotiations.InterventionsandInterviews1971-2001.Edited&translatedbyElisabethRottenberg.StanfordCalifornia:StandfordUniversityPress,2002.
Derrida,Jacques.OfHospitality.AnneDufourmantelleinvitesJacques
DerridatoRespond.TranslatedbyRachelBowlby.StanfordCalifornia:StanfordUniversityPress,2000.
Derrida,Jacques.OfGrammatology.TranslatedbyGayatriChakravorty
Spivak.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1998.Derrida,Jacques.Rogues:TwoEssaysonReason.StanfordCalifornia:
StanfordUniversityPress,2005.Derrida,Jacques.‘ShibbolethforPaulCelan’inDerrida,Sovereigntiesin
Question.ThePoeticsofPaulCelan.EditedbyThomasDutoitandOutiPasanen,1-64.Fordham:FordhamUniversityPress2005.
Derrida,Jacques.‘Signature,Event,Context’inLimitedInc,1-23.Illinois:
NorthwesternUniversityPress,1990.Derrida,Jacques.SpectersofMarx.TranslatedbyPeggyKamuf.London:
Routledge,2006.
Derrida,Jacques.TheBeastandtheSovereignVolume1.EditedbyMichel
Lise,Marie-LouiseMalletandGinetteMichand,translatedbyGeoffreyBennington.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress2009.
Derrida,Jacques.TheEarOfTheOther.EditedbyChristieV.McDonald,
translatedbyPeggyKamuf&AvitalRonell.NewYork:SchockenBooks,1985.
Derrida,Jacques.TheOtherHeading.ReflectionsonToday’sEurope.
TranslatedbyPascale-AnneBraultandMichaelNaas.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1992.
Derrida,Jacques.‘TheUniversityWithoutCondition’inWithoutAlibi.
EditedandtranslatedbyPeggyKamuf,202-237.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,2002.
Derrida,Jacques&Maurizio,Ferraris.ATastefortheSecret.Translated
byGiacomoDonis.Cambridge:PolityPress,2001.
Foucault,Michel.‘Self-Writing’inEthics.TheEssentialWorksofFoucault1954-1984,207-222.EditedbyPaulRabinow,translatedbyRobertHurley.London:PenguinBooks,2000.
304
Foucault,Michel.‘WhatisEnlightenment’inEthics.TheEssentialWorksofFoucault1954-1984,303-320.EditedbyPaulRabinow,translatedbyRobertHurley,
Fritsch,Matthias.ThePromiseofMemory.HistoryandPoliticsinMarx,
BenjaminandDerrida.NewYork:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2005.
Gershom,Scholem.WalterBenjamin–dieGeschichteeinerFreundschaft.
FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,1975.Goulish,Matthew(2010).‘First,Second,Third’inPerformanceResearch:
AJournalofthePerformingArts,15:2,pp.34-38.Goulish,Matthew(2000).‘Memoryisthis’inPerformanceResearch:A
JournalofthePerformingArts,5:3,6-17.Goulish,Matthew&Hixon,Lin.‘Poetry,DocumentandObjectivity’,
transcriptoflectureheldatLICA,LancasterUniversity,November 2014.Haddad,Samir.DerridaAndTheInheritanceofDemocracy.Bloomington
&Indianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress,2013.Haddad,Samir.(2006)‘DerridaReadingDerrida:DeconstructionasSelf-
Inheritance’inInternationalJournalofPhilosophicalStudies,14:4,505-520.
Hägglund,Martin.RadicalAtheism.DerridaandtheTimeofLife.Stanford
California:StanfordUniversityPress,2008.Hamacher,Werner.‘AfformativeStrike:Benjamin’s‘CritiqueofViolence’
inDestruction&Experience.EditedbyAndrewBenjaminandPeterOsborne,108-136.Manchester:ClinamenPress,2000.
Hamacher,Werner.‘DieGesteimNamen’inEntferntes
Verstehen,280-324.FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,1998.Hamacher,Werner.‘TheGestureintheName:OnBenjaminandKafka’in
Premises,294-336.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1999.Hansen,Miriam.CinemaandExperience:SiegfriedKracauer,Walter
Benjamin,andTheodorW.Adorno.Berkley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2012.
Heathfield,Adrian.edited.LiveArtandPerformance.London:Tate
Publishing,2004.
305
Heathfield,AdrianandJones,Amelia.edited.Perform.Repeat.Record.LiveArtinHistory.Bristol:Intellect,2012.
Hixon,Lin.‘WhenwilltheSeptemberrosesbloom?Lastnightwasonlya
comedy:ReflectionsontheProcess’inFrakcijaPerformingArtsMagazine,No.32(Summer),nopagination.
Köhn,Eckhardt.‘Sammler’inBenjaminsBegriffe.EditedbyMichaelOpitz&ErdmutWizisla,695-724.FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,2000.
Jay,Martin.‘AgainstConsolation:WalterBenjaminandtheRefusalto
Mourn’inWarandRemembranceintheTwentiethCentury.EditedbyJayWinter&EmmanuelSivan,221-239.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1999.
Jennings,MichaelW,Doherty,BrigidandLevinY.Thomasedited.Walter
Benjamin,TheWorkofArtintheAgeofItsTechnologicalReproducibilityandOtherWritingsonMedia.TranslatedbyEdmundJephcott,RodneyLivingstone&HowardEiland.CambridgeMassachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress,2008.
Jones,Amelia.‘“PresenceinAbsentia:ExperiencingPerformanceas
Documentation’inArtJournal,Vol.56,No4,PerformanceArt:(Some)Theoryand(Selected)PracticeattheEndofThisCentury(Winter,1997),11-18.
Jones,Amelia.‘“TheArtistisPresent”:ArtisticRe-enactmentsandthe
ImpossibilityofPresence’inTDR:TheDramaReview,Volume55,Number1,Spring2011,15-45.
Kafka,Franz.DasSchloß.FrankfurtamMain:Fischer,1998.
KartsakiEiriniedited.OnRepetition:Writing,Performance,Art.London:
Intellect2016.Kelleher,Joe.‘TheirHandsFullofGhosts:GoatIslandattheLast’PAJ:A
JournalofPerformanceandArt(2009),31:3,98-107.
Köhn,Eckhardt.‘Sammler’in.BenjaminsBegriffe.EditedbyMichaelOpitz&ErdmutWizisla,695-725.FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,2000.
Lambert-Beatty,Carrie.BeingWatched-YvonneRainerandthe1960s.
CambridgeMassachusetts:TheMITPress,2008.Lavery,Carl&Hassall,Lee.‘AFutureforHashima’inPerformance
Research:AJournalofthePerformingArts(2015),20:3,112-125.
306
Mowitt,John.Radio.EssaysinBadReception.Berkeley&LosAngeles:
UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2011.Mowitt,John.TEXT.TheGenealogyofanAntidisciplinaryObject.Durham
andLondon:DukeUniversityPress,1992.Naas,Michael.DerridaFromNowOn.Fordham:FordhamUniversity
Press,2008.Naas,Michael,MiracleandMachine:JacquesDerridaandtheTwoSources
ofReligion,Science,andtheMedia.Fordham:FordhamUniversityPress,2011.
Nietzsche,Friedrich,DieFröhlicheWissenschaft.Köln:AnacondaVerlag,
2009.Noland,Kerry,AgencyandEmbodiment.PerformingGestures/Producing
Cultures.Harvard:HarvardUniversityPress,2009.Rainer,Yvonne.‘SomeRetrospectiveNotesonaDancefor10Peopleand
12MattressesCalled“PartsofSomeSextets.”’TheTulaneDramaReview(1965),10/2,168-178.
Ranciere,Jacques.TheEmancipatedSpectator.TranslatedbyGregory
Elliot.LondonandNewYork:Verso,2009.Ranciere,Jacques.TheIgnorantSchoolmaster.FiveLessonsinIntellectual
Emancipation.TranslatedbyKristinRoss.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1991.
Ranciere,Jacques.ThePoliticsofAesthetics.TranslatedbyGabriel
Rockhill.London:Continuum,2005.Reznikoff,Charles.BytheWaterofManhatten.NewYork:CharlesBoni
Press,1930.Ridout,Nicholas.Theatre&Ethics.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,
2009.Ronell,Avital.TheTestDrive.UrbanaandChicago:UniversityofIllinois
Press,2005.
Rothe,Katja.‘Nicht-Machen.Lassen!ZuWalterBenjamin’spädagogischemTheater’inÖkonomienderZurückhaltung:KulturellesHandelnzwischenAskeseundRestriktion,331-349.EditedbyBarbaraGronauandAliceLagaay.Bielefeld:Transcriptverlag,2010.
307
Schneider,Rebecca.PerformingRemains.ArtandWarinTimesofTheatricalReenactment.London&NewYork:Routledge,2011.
Schneider,Rebecca.‘SoloSoloSolo’inAfterCriticism.NewResponsesto
ArtandPerformance.EditedbyGavinButt.MaldenandOxford:BlackwellPublishing,2005.
Stiegler,Bernard.‘AnamnesisandHypomnesis.Platoasthefirstthinkerofproletarianisation’,ArsIndustrialis.AccessedonlineMay2014http://arsindustrialis.org/anamnesis-and-hypomnesis
Stiegler,Bernard.‘SuffocatedDesire,OrHowTheCulturalIndustry
DestroysTheIndividual:ContributionToATheoryOfMassConsumption’inParrhesia13,2013,52-61.TranslatedbyJohannRossouw.
Stiegler,Bernard.SymbolicMysery.Volume2:Thekatastropheofthe
sensible.TranslatedbyBarnabyNorman.Cambridge:PolityPress,2015.
Taussig,Michael.WalterBenjamin’sGrave.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2006.
Voigts,Manfred.‘Zitat’inBenjamin’sBegriffe,826-850.EditedbyMichael
OpitzandErdmutWizisla.FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag2000.
Weber,Samuel.Benjamin’s–abilities.CambridgeMassachusetts:Harvard
UniversityPress,2008.Weber,Samuel.InstitutionandInterpretation.Stanford:Stanford
UniversityPress,2001.
Weber,Samuel.MassMediauras:Form,Technics,Media.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1996.
Weber,Samuel.TheatricalityasMedium.NewYork:FordhamUniversity
Press,2004.Weber,Samuel.‘TheFeelof“Today”’TranscriptofpresentationatThe
LondonGraduateSchoolSummerAcademyintheCriticalHumanities,26thofJune,2014.
Weber,Samuel.‘UppingtheAnte:DeconstructionasParodicPractice’in
Deconstructionis/inAmerica,60-78.EditedbyAnselmHaverkamp.NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress1995.