Gesture, Haltung, Ethos: The Politics of Rehearsaletheses.whiterose.ac.uk/16142/1/PhD Steinhauser 21...

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


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


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.

308

Weber,Thomas.‘Erfahrung’inBenjaminsBegriffe.EditedbyMichaelOpitz&ErdmutWizisla,230-259.FrankfurtamMain:SuhrkampVerlag,2000.

Weigel,Sigrid.DieKreatur,dasHeilige,dieBilder.Berlin:Fischer2008.Weigel,Sigrid.BodyandImageSpace.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,

1996.

Gesture, Haltung, Ethos: The Politics of Rehearsaletheses.whiterose.ac.uk/16142/1/PhD Steinhauser 21...

Documents

Transcript of Gesture, Haltung, Ethos: The Politics of Rehearsaletheses.whiterose.ac.uk/16142/1/PhD Steinhauser 21...