( :optinuum

Contents
The Tower Building. 11 York Road, London SEI 7NX,
15 East 26th Street, New York, NY 10010
Translator's Preface VI!

The Reconfigurarion of Meaning \"11

First published in France under the title Le Partage du srnsible: Esthhique
ft politique
Tra nslator's Introduction
© La Fabrique-f:dirions, 2000
@ Gabriel Rockhill, 2004 J�lcqlle� Rancierc's Pol i tic� of [)crc{'priotl

All rights reserved, No p:l.rt of this publication may be reproduced or The DistriblItion of the Sensible
transmitted in any form or by any means, elecrronic or mechanical. Foreword
including photocopying. recording, or any information srorage or retrie\'al The Distribution of the Semibk: Po l i tic, a n d Aesthetics 12
system. withGlIt prior permission in \\'riring fmm the publishers, A r t istic Regimcs and the Shortcomings of thc Noti(ln
of Modern ity 20
British Library CHaloguillg-in-Publication Data
Mechanical Ans and the Promotion of the A n o nvmous \1
A catalogue record fl);' this book is 3\'ailable from the British Lii)rarv.
fs History a Form of Fiction? )')
Oil A r t ;llld \X/or-k

Typesct by Fakenhanl Photosetting, .'Jorfolk Interview for the E n glish Edition

Prillted and bound in Great Britain by The j;11l1lS- hce of Poliricized A rt: Jacques I\allcii'rc
MPG Rooks Lrd, Bodmin, Cornwall in Interview with Gabriel Rockhill
Historical and Hermeneutic Methodology
Universality, Historicity, Equality
Positive Contradiction
Politicized Art

A fterword by Siavo; Zizek

The Lesson of" Rancicrc

\pf'c ndix i Clmsar), nfTcchnicti Terms

;\ppendix ii Bibliograph)' of Primary ;lI1d S ccond a r \' S(lllrCCS

>-Jotcs 102
index l()1l

I
 Translators Introduction

Jacques Ranciere's Politics of Perceptimr"

CABRIEL ROCKHIll.

As Alain n:l.d i otl has aptly poi nted out, Jacques R anci cre s work '

does not belong to any particular JCademi c community but LIther

i nhabits unknown intervals ' between history and philosophy. het,veen
phi losophy and politics, and between doc ll me nr ar y ;In<1 h,:tio!1' (l')q;.�:
122) His II nique methodology, eclectic re s cHch hahiu.,1Ild
. v, 'r.l( ;'''.1'
propellSity for assimilating European intellccrllal and cultliLll hi<;!(Or"
arc comparable perhaps only to the llllCla ssifiahlc work or \1;, hel
r()\lCalllr, an a\lthor wi t h whom he 11 i fllSf'! r :], k n('wlc,l�('·<; (':rLllll

affin ities. If his voice has yet to he he.11d in fl)ll !nrcl' i n the Fnglish­
speaking world due to a bck ()f trall,,1ario']s 1 : n,1 SlIrSC;tfll s(,lomb!";
literature, it is perhaps ;lttriblluhlc to whar Rdl1cicrc hiil1selr h,I'
called the distr i bution of the sensible, or the sy,tcm of divt,inlls and
boundaries that define, among other things, wh:1I is visible �ncl alldihle
within a particular aesthetico-pnlitic:l.1 reg i me.
Although closely affiliated with the group or neo-i'vlarxists wnrk;ng
around A Ithusser in the 19()Os, Ranciere's vi I'ulenr criticisms of r he
latter a:; of 1968 served to distance him from the author with whom
he had shared the common project Lire lc Glpit(;/in 19()5. As Rancii:re
explained in the Preface to La Ler;oll dAft/'llsse]" (1974), the thcor etical
and political di stance separating his work from Althusserian )vlarxism
was partially ;1 res.tlt of the event, of 1 968 and the realization that
Althusser's school was a 'ph i 10soph;T of ordcr' whose very pri nciples
anaesthetized the revolt against the bourgeoisie. Uninspired by the
political options proposed by thin kers such as Dclcuzc ;ll1d Lyota rd,
Rancicre saw in the politics of dift��rence the risk of reversing M:HX'c
statement in the TtlPsis (1(7 FC!tCr/;f!ch: 'Wc tried t(1 tra ns for m the wnrid

2 T H E POLITICS OF AESTH ETIC S
i n diverse ways, now it is a matter of interpreting it' (]974: 14). These
criticisms of the response by certain intellectuals to the events of May
1968 eventually led him to a critical re-examination of the socia l ,
political, a n d historical forces operative i n the production of t heory.
' on Althusser,
I n the fi rst two books to follow t he collection of essavs
Ranciere explored a question that would continue to preoccupy h i m
in his later work: from what position do we speak a n d i n t h e name
of what or whom? Whereas La Nuit des proletaires (1981) proceeded
via the route of meticulous historical research to unmask the ill usions
of representation and give voice to certain mute events in the h istory
of workers' emancipation, Le Philosophe et ses pauvres (I983) provided
a conceptualization of the relationship between thought and society,
p h ilosophic representation a nd its concrete historical object. Both
of these works contributed to undermining the priv i leged p osition
usurped by phi l osophy in its various attempts to speak for others, be it
the proletariat, the poor, or anyone else who is not ' destined to think '.
However, far from advocat i ng a populist stance and claiming to fi n a l ly
bestow a specific identity on the u nderprivileged, Ranciere thwarted
the artifice at work in the discourses founded on the s ingu l ari ty of the
other by revealing the ways i n which t hey a re ult imatel y pre d i cate d on
keeping the other in i ts place.
This general criticism of social and political philosophy was counter­
balanced by a more positive account of the r el a tion ship between the
'intellectual' and the emancipation of society i n Ranciere's fourth
book, Le Maztre ignorant (987). Analysing the life and work of Joseph
Jacotet, Ranciere argued in favou r of a pedagogical methodology th at
would aboli sh any presupposed inequalities of intelligence such as
the academic hierarchy of master and disciple. For Ranciere, equa l ity
should not be thought of in terms of a goal to be attained by work ing
th rough the lessons promulgated by prom i nent social and poli t ica l
t h i n kers. On th/: contrary, it i s the very axiomatic poin t of depa rture
whose sporadic reappearance via disturb a n ce s in the set system of
social i nequalities is the very e�sence of emancipation. T h i s explains, in
part, Ranciere's general rejection of pol itical ph i losophy, understood as
the theoretical enterprise that abolishes politics proper by ident i fying
it with the 'police' (see below). It also sheds light on his own attempt
to work as an 'ignorant school master' who - rather than transmitting
'
TRANSL\TOR S INTROD UCTION
performatively contradictory lessons on the content of em;) n c i pation
- a i ms at giving a voice to those excluded from the hierarchies of
knowledge.
With the more recent publ ication of AIiX Bord, dN politiCju{' (j9<)O)
and La Mlj'entrnte (1995), Ranciere has further elaborated a politics
of democ ratic emancipation , which might best he ulldersrood in terms
of its central concepts. The po/icc, to beg i n with, is defined as an
orga n izationa l system of coordinates that establishes a distribution 01
the sensible or a la,v that divides the community into grollPS, social
positions, and functions. This law impl ici tly separates those who tak e
part from those wh o are excl ud e d , and it the re fore presupposes '1 prior
aesthetic d ivision between the visible and the invisible, the ;]ud iblc and
the inaudible, the sayable and the unsJyahle. The e s se nce of /)(}/itlcs
consists i n i nterrupting the distribution of the sensible hv su pp l e­
menti ng it with those who h;lve no part in the pcrceptll<ll C()(lrciinates
of the community, thereby modifying the vcry ;1Csthetico-politicd fi e l d
of possibility. It is partially tor this rcason that Railciere defines t!,(�
political as re l ati onal in nature, founded on t1lf' intervention of politics
i n the police order rather than on the estahlishment of ;] particular
governmental regime. Moreover, pol iti c s in its strict sense never presup­
poses a reified subject or p rede fi ned group of I I l d iv iduals such,]s the
prolctJriat, the poor, or minorities. On the contra r\', the only possible
subject of pol itics is the p{'op/{' or the diil7!os, i.e. the supplementary part
of evc ry account of the population. Those who have no name, \vho
remain invisible and inaudible, can only penetrate the p o l ice order via a
m od e of JU/;jectilJizatiol1 that transForms the ;lesthetic coordinate� of th e
commun i ty by impl emen ting the un i versa l pw;uppos ition of pol itics :
we arc all equal. D{,l7!oCfacy i tsel f is defined by the se intermittent acts
of polit ical subjectivization that reco nfig ure the communal distribution
of the sensible. However, j \lS t as {'Cj1lfdity is not a go al ro be attai ned hut
a presupposition in need of constant verification, democracy is neither ;]
for m of governmellt nor a style of social life. Democratic rmr7riClj}(ltirJrl
is a r an dom proces,� that red i strihu tes the system of sensible coordin;ltes
without being able to guarantee the ahsolute elimination of the soc ial
ine qu a l it ies inherent in the pol ice order.
The irres olv;lhle conAict between p oli t i cs and the police, most visible
perhaps in the p ere n nial persistence ofa lllrrJllgth,lt cannot be resolved
 4 T H E POLITICS OF AESTHETICS
by j uridical l itiga tion, h as led many readers to i n terpret La Mesentente
as a simple continuation of Lyotard's Le Diffirend ( 1 983) . A l though a
conceptual proximity is readily apparent, Ranciere is careful to d istin­
guish his p roject from what he considers to be the essentially discu rsive
n ature of Le diffirend. Accordi ng to his defi nition, disagreement is
neither a misunderstanding nor a general lack of comprehension. It
is a conRict over what is meant by 'to speak' and over the very distri­
bution of the sensible that delimits the horizons of the sayable and
determines the relationship between seeing, hearing, doing, making,
and t h i n k in g. I n other words, disagreement is less a clash between
heterogeneous p h rase regimens or gen res of d iscourse than a confl ict
between a given d istribution of the sensible and what remains outside
it.
B egi n ni n g with the publication of Courts Voyages au pays dtt peuple
(1990) and up to h is most recent work on film and modern a rt, Ranciere
has repeatedly foregrounded his long-standing i nterest i n aesthetics
while at the same time analysing its conjunction with both politics
and history. I n positio n i ng h imself aga inst the Sartrean preoccnpation
with engagement and the more recent hegemony of the Tel Que! group,
Ranciere presents h i s reader with a u n ique account of aesthetics as well
as an i nnovative description of its major regimes. Accordi ng to the
genealogy h e h as u ndertaken, the ethical regime of images character­
istic of Platonism is primarily concerned with the origi n and telos of
i magery in relationship to the ethos of the community. It establishes
a distribution of i mages - without, however, identifyi ng 'art' i n the
singular - that rigorously d istinguishes between artistic simulacra and
the 'true arts' used to educate the citizenry concerni n g their role in
the communal body. The representative regime is an artistic system of
A ristotelian heritage that liberates i mitation from the constra i nts of
ethical utility and isolates a nMmatively autonomous domain with its
own rules for fabrication and criteria of evaluation. The aesthetic regime
of art puts t h is enti re system of norms i nto question by abolishing the
dichotomous structure of mimesis in the n ame of a contradictory identi­
fication between Logos and pathos. It thereby provokes a t ra nsformation
in the distribution of the sensible established by the representative
regime, wh ich leads from the primacy of fiction to the pri macy of
language, from the h ierarchical organization of genres to the equal i ty
•
'
TRANSLATOR S I NTRO DUCTI()N
of rcprescnted subjecrs, from the p r inciple of approp riate discourse to
the indifference of stvle with regard to subject matter, and from the
'
�
ideal of sp e e ch as act and perf{m lanCe to the model of writing.
Ranciere has forcefully argued that the emergence of literature in the
nineteenth century as distinct from Irs iJel!es-i('ttres was a central catalYST
in the deve lopment of the aesthetic regime of art. By rej ecti n g the repre­
sentative regime'� poetics of mimesis, modern l iterature contributed to a
general reconfiguration of the sensible order linked to the contradiction
inherent in what Ranciere cal l s iitf'rarit)', i.e. the status of a written word
that freely circulates outside any system of legitimation. On the one
h and lit erarity is a necessary condition for the appearance of modern
,
literature as such and its emancipation from the rcpresentJtive regi rrw
ofa n. However, it simultaneously ;lCts as the comr;ld ic tor y I i III it at
which the s pecific i t y of literatur e itself disap pea rs dlle rn the bet thal lt
no longer has any clearly identifiahle characteristics that would distin­
guish it from any other mode of discourse. This partially explains the
o ther maj or fcmn of writ ing that has been in constant st ru gg l e with
democratic literarity throug h out the modern age: the idea of a 'tme
writing' that would incorporate language in sllch a way as to exc lude tile
f ree Ro ating, disemhodied discollfse of lireraritv. The 'positive comr;1-
-
diction' between these two f{)tms of writing, as well ;IS the parado\ til;'l
defines the unique discursive ,tatllS of liter;1tllrt' as sllch, has given risc
to numerous and v;Jried responses through the COllrse of time. In other
words, this contradiction has played a product ive role in the emergence
of modern literature, and it has also been dec i sive in setting the sta ge
for later developments i n the aesthetic regime of art. To take one
ex ampl e among m any, Ranciere has recently argued in Lfl FaM(' cinrma­
tographique (2001) that a positiv e contradiction - between elements of
the representative and aesthetic regimes of art - is also operative in film.
On the one h and, the very invention of fil m ma terial l y realized the
properly aesthetic definition of art, first elaborated in Schelling's Systnll
of Ti"flrlscOldmtai ldM/ism, as a union of conscious and unconscious
processes. On the other hand, however, film is an art of fiction that
bestows a new youth on the genres, codes, and conventions of represen­
tation that democratic literarity had put into question.
J n h is c r it ica l genealogy of art a nd pol itics, Ra nciere has also dealt
extensively with the emergence of history as a un iq u e di s ci pl i n e (res
6 T H E POLITICS OF AEST H ETICS

Noms de l'histoire, 1992) and, more recently, with psychoanalysis

(L'fnconscient esthCtique, 2000), photography, and contemporary art
(Le Destin des images, 2003). Beh i nd the i n tricate ana lyses present in
each of these studies, a central argument i s discernible: the h istorical The Distribution of the Sensible
conditions of possibility for the appearance of these practices are to be
found i n the contradictory relationship between elements of the repre­
sentative and aesthetic regimes of art. Thus continuing to work i n the
i n tervals between pol itics, philosophy, aesthetics, and h istoriography,
Jacques R a nciere will u ndoubtedly leave h i s own i ndelible mark on one
of his privileged objects of study: the distribution of the sensible.
 Foreword

The following pages respond to a twofold solicitation. At their origin

was a set of questions asked by two young philosophers, Muriel Combes
and Bernard Aspe, for their journal, AliC{', and more speciflcally for the
section entitled 'The Factory of the Sensible'. This section is concerned
with aesthetic acts as configurations of experience that create new
modes of sense perception and induce novel forms of political subjec­
tivity. It is within this framework that they interviewed me on the
consequences of my analyses-in DiJagrrcment-of the distribution of
the sensible that is at stake in politics, and thus of a certain aest hetics
of politics. Their questions, prompted as well by a novel reflection on
the major avant-garde theories and experiments concerning the fllSion
of art and life, dictate the structure of the present text. At the request
of Eric Hazan and Stephanie Cregoirc, T developed my responses ;lnd
chrified their presuppositions [8] as fH as pmsihle.'
This particular soliciration is, however, inscrihed in ;1 bro;lder
context. The proliferation of voices denouncing rhe crisis of art or irs
fatal capture by discourse, the pervasiveness of the spectacle or the
death of the image, suffi ce to indicate that a hattie fought yesterday
over the promises of emancipation and the illusions and disillu­
sions of history continues today on aesthetic terra in. The trajectory
of Situationist discourse - stemming from an avant-garde arristic
movement in the post-war period, developing into a radical critique of
pol itics in the 19(iOs, and absorhed today into the routine of the disen­
chanted discourse that acts as the 'critical' stand-in for the existing
order - is undoubtedly symptomatic of the contemporary ebb and
Row of aesthetics and politics, and of the transformations of avant­
garde thinking into nostalgia. [t is, however, the work ofJean-Fran<;:ois
Lyotard that best marks the way in which 'aesthetics' has become, in
the last twenty years, the privileged site where the tradition of critical
thinking has metamorphosed into deliberation on mourning. The
reinterpretation of the Kantian ;In:1lysis [9] of the suhlime inrroduced
10 T H E POLITICS O F AEST H ETIC S F()RFW()f{D 11

into the field of art a concept that Kant had located beyond it. r t did no t i o ns fig u r es , of course, the c oncept of mod ernity, today the source
this in order to more effectively make art a witness to an encounter of all the jumbled miscellany that arh itra ri l y sweeps [11] toge tht'r s uch
with the unpresentable that cripples all thought, and thereby a witnes� fig u res ;IS H6ldnlin, Cezanne, rvlallarmc, Malevich, nr Duchamp into
for the prosecution against the arroga nee of the grand aesthetico­ a vast whirlwind where Canesi;]n sc i enc e ge ts mixed lip with rC\'0Iu­
political endeavour to have 'thought' become 'world'. In thi� way, tiona r y parricide, the age of tilt' ma s se s vvith Romantic irrationalism,
reflection on art became the site where a mise-en-scene of the original the ban on repr ese nta t i on with the tech n iq ue s of mechanized repro­
abyss of thought and the disaster of its misrecognition continued after duction, the Kanri;]n sublime with the Freudian primal scene, the R i ght
the proclamation of the end of political utopias. A number of contem­ of the gods with the extermination of the Jews in Europ e. I ndica ti ng
porary contributions to thinking the disasters of art or the image the general lack of evidence supporting these notions obviously does
convert this Fundamental reversal into more mediocre prose. not entail adhering to the contemporary discourses on the return to
This familiar landscape of contemporary thought defines the context the simple reality of artistic pr actice s and its criteria of assessment. The
in which these questions and answers are inscribed, but it docs not connection between these 'simple practices ' and modes of di'course,
specify their objective. The following responses will not lay claim yet forms of life, c on ct'ptions of thought, and figures of the community
again, in the face of postmodern disenchantment, to the avant- gard e is not the fruit of a maleficent m isappropriat i on. On the contran', rhe
vocation of art or to the vitality of a modernity that links the conquests effort to think through thi s c onnec t io n require s forsaking the 1lIlS,lt­
of artistic innovation to the victories of emancipation. These pages do isfactorv mise-en-scene of the 'end' and the 'return' that p ersisrc lltlv
not have their origin in a desire to take a polemical stance. They arc o cc upidsthe terrain of ar t, politics, and any other o b j ect of thought.
inscribed in a long-term project that aims at re-establishing a debate's [12J
conditions of intelligibility. This means, first of all, elaborating the
very meaning of [10] what is designated by the term aesthetics, which
denotes neither art theory in general nor a theory that would consign
art to its effects on sensibility. Aesthetics refers to a specific regime (or
identifying and reflecting on the arts: a mode of articulation between
ways of doing and making, their corresponding forms of vis ibility, and
possible ways of thinking about their relationships (which presupposes
a certain idea of thought's eFfectivity). Defini ng the connections with in ".
-,J
this aesthetic regime of the arts, the possibilities that they determine,
and their modes of transFormation, such is the present objective of
my research and of a seminar held over the past few years within the
framework provided by the University of Paris-VIII and the College
!nternational de Philosophie.The results of this research will not be
found in the present work; their elaboration will follow its own proper
pace . I have nevertheless attempted to indicate a few historical and
conceptual reference points appropriate for reformulating certain
problems that have been irremediably confused by notions that pass off
conceptual prejudices as historical determinations and temporal delim­
itations as conceptual determinations. Among the foremost of these

The Distribution of the Sensible: Politics
and Aesthetics
In Disagreement, politics is examined from the perspectilJe of what you
call the 'distribution of the sensible: In your opinion, dors this expression
providr the key to the necessary junction between aesthetic practices and
political practices?
I call the distribution of the sensible the system of self-evident facts
of sense perception that simultaneously discloses the existence of
something in common and the delimitations that define the respective
parts and positions within it.5 A distribution of the sensible therefore
establishes at one and the same time something common that is shared
and exclusive parts. This apportionment of parts and positions is based
on a distribution of spaces, times, and forms of activity that deter­
mines the very manner in which something in common lends itself to
participation and in what way various individuals have a part in t hi s
distribution. Aristotle states that a citizen is someone who has (1 part
in the act of governing and being governed. However, another form of
distribution precedes this act of partaking in government: the distri­
bution that [13] determines those who have a part in the community
of citizens. A speaking being, according to Aristotle, is a political
being. If a slave understands the language of its rulers, however, he
does not 'possess' it. Plato states that artisans cannot be put in charge
of the shared or common elements of the community because they do
not have the time to devote themselves to anything other than their
work. They cannot be somewhere elsr because work will not wait. The
distribution of the sensible reveals who can have a share in what is
common to the community based on what they do and on the time
and space in which this activity is performed. Having a particular
'occupation' thereby determines the ability or inability to take charge
of what is common to the community; it defi nes what is visible or not
THE [)[STRTRlITTON OF THE SFNSIllLF
in a common space, endowed with a common langu,lge, etc. There is
thus an 'aesthetics' at the core of politics that has nothing to do with
Renj:llllin's discllssioll of the ';lCstheticizatioll of politics' specific to
the 'age of the masses'. This aesthetics should not be understood as
the perverse cOllltllandeering of politics by a will to art. by a consid­
eration of the p eop l e qU:l work of ;Ht. If the reader is r()nd of analogy,
aesthetics can be understood in a Kantian sense - re-examined perhaps
by Foucault - as the system of rt priori forms determin ing what presents
itself to sense experience. It is a delimitation of [14] sp ace s and t ime s,
of the visible and the invisible, of sp e ech and noise, that si tllul taneouslv
determine s the place and the stakes of politics as a form of experience.
Politics revolves around what is seen and what can be said abollt it.
around who has the abi l ity to see and the t;l i e m to "peal<. ummd the
properties of spaces and the possihi I ities of time.
It is on the basis of this primary aesthetics that it is possible to raise
the question of 'aesthetic practices' as r understand them, that is /<)f'I)lS
of visibility that disclose artistic practices. the pLtce they occupy, what
they 'do' or 'make' from the standpoint of what is common to t he
community. Artistic practices are 'ways of doing and making' thar
intervene in the gener al distribution of ways of doing and making as
well as in the relationships they maintain to modes ofh eing and f(m)ls
of visibi l ity. The Platonic proscription of the poets is hased on the
impossibili ty of ooing two things at once prior to heing based on the
immoral content of fables. The question of fiction is first a question
regarding the distribution of places. From th e Platonic point of view.
the stage, which is simultaneo usly a locus of public activity and the
exhibition-space for'fantasies', disrurbs the clear partition of identities,
activities, and spaces. The same is true orr15] writing. By stealing away
to wander aimlessly without knowing who to sp eak to or who not to
speak to, writing destroys every legitimate foundation for the circu­
lation of words, for th e relationship between the eFfects of language
and the positions of bodies in shared space. Plato thereby singles out
two main models, two major forms of existence and of the sensible
effectivity of langu age - writing and the t he a tre -, which are aL'io
structllre-givi ng forms for the regime of the arts in genera I. However,
these forms turn out to be prejudici ally linked from the outset to a
cert ain regime of pol ities, a regi me hased on the indetermination of
 14 T H E PO LITICS OF AESTHETICS
identities, the delegitimation of positions of speech, the deregul ation
of partitions of space and time. This aesthetic regime of politics is
strictly identical with the regime of democracy, the regime based on
the assembly of artisans, inviolable written laws, and the theatre as
institution. Plato contrasts a third, good form of art with writing and
the the�tre, the choreographic form of the community that sings and
dances Its own proper unity. In sum, Plato singles out three ways in
which discursive and bodily practices suggest forms of community:
the surface of mute signs that are, he says, [16J like paintings, and
the space of bodily movement that divides itself into two antagonistic
models (the movement of simulacra on the stage that is offered as
material for the audience's identifications and, on the other hand, the
authentic movement characteristic of communal bodies).
Here we have three ways of distributing the sensible that structure
the manner in which the arts can be perceived and thought of as Forms
of art and as forms that inscribe a sense of community: the surface
of 'depicted' signs, the split reality of the theatre, the r hythm of a
dancing chorus. These Forms define the way in which works of ;lrt or
performances are 'involved in polit ics , whatever may otherwise be the
' mated - role in the uphe;lval of the representative paradigm and of its
guiding intentions, artists' social modes of int egration, or the manner
in which artistic Forms reflect social structures or movements. When
Madame Bovary was published, or Sentimental Education, t hes e works
w �re imn edi�telY perceived as 'democracy in literature' despite Flaubert's
: '
anstocratlc SituatIOn and political conformism . His verv refusal to
entrust literature with any message whatsoever was considered to be
evidence of democratic equality. His adversaries claimed that he was [17]
democratic due to his decision to depict and portray instead of instruct.
This equality of indifference is the result of a poetic bias: the equality
of all subject matter is the negation of any relatiomhip of necessit � actu al flet, however, this surface does not have any distinctive feature.
between a determined Form and a determined content. Yet what is th s t A 'wrface' is not simply a geometric composition of lines. It is a certain
indifference after all if not the very equality of everything that comes to
pass on a written pag�, available as it is to everyone's eyes? This equality
destroys all of the hierarchies of representation and also establishes a
community of readers as a community without legitimacy, a community
formed only by the random circulation of the written word.
I n this way, a sensible politicity exists that is immediatelv attributed
�
to the major forms of aesthetic distri bution sllch as the heatre, the
THE mSTR IFlUTlON OF THE SENSlHLE 1')
page, or the chorus. These 'politics' ohev their own proper logic, ;ll1cl
thev offer their service, in \,er\, different contexts and time pl'l'iods.
;
CO lsider the wav these p<na �1igms functioned in the con necrion
betwecn art and politics at the end of the nineteenth century and the
begi nnin g of the twentieth. Consi der ror example, the role taken on
,
by the paradigm of the page in all its different forms, which exceed
the materiality of a written sheet of paper. Novelistic democracy, on
the one hand, is the indifferent democracy of writing sllch as [1 8] it is
symbolized by the novel and its re ade rsh ip. There is also, however. the
knowledge concerning typography and iconography, the intertwining
of gra phi c and pictorial capabilities, that played such an important
role in the Renaissa nce and vvas revived by Roma ntic t y pography
through its me of vignettes, cllis-de-lampe, and variolls innovations.
This model disturbs the clear-cut rules of representative logic that
establish a relationship of correspondence at ;1 dista nce between the
sayable and the v i si bl e. It also disturhs the clear partition between
works of pure art and the Orn;lll1ent� made by the dccorative arts.
This is why it played such an important - and gener;ll1y underesti·
political implications. I am thinking in parricuhr of its role in the ,\n,
and Crafts movement and all of its deriv;Hives (;\rr Dcco, Bauh:l1IS,
Constructivism). These movcments developed an idea of furniture - in
the hro;ld sense of the terlll - for a new com Tllll n ity, wh ich also i nspi red
a new idea of pictorial surface as a surf;!ce of shared writing.
Modernist discourse presents the revolution of pictorial abstraction
as painting's discovery of its own proper 'medium': two-dimensional
surface . By revoking the perspectivist illusion of the third dimension,
painting was to regain (19] the mastery of it, own proper slld�lce. [ n
distribution of the sensible. For Piato, writing and painting were cquiv­
alent surflees of mute signs, deprived of the hreath that animatcs and
tramports living speech. Flat surface" in this logic, arc not opposcd
to de pth in the sense of three-dimensional surfaces. They are opposed
to the l iving' . The mllte surface of depicted signs stands in opposition
'
to the ;lCt of 'livi ng speech, which is guided hy the speaker towards
'
its a ppr opriate addressee. Moreover, p<linting's adoption of the third
16 THE POLITICS O F A E S T HETICS THE DISTRlRUTfON Of' THE SENSlBLF 17

logic
dimension was also a response to this distribution. The reproduction political in th at it revokes the twofold politics inherent in the
l og ic separated rhe world
of optical depth was linked to the privilege accorded to the story. In the of representation On . the on c hanel, this
Renaissance, the reproduction ofthree-dimensional space was involved of arti st ic imitations from the world of vital concern" and p
ol l tlco­

T at ion - in
in the valorization of painting and the assertion of its ability to capture social grandeur. 011 the other hand, it!; hierarchi cal or gan i
an act of living speech, the decisive moment of action and meaning. In particular the primacy of living speech/ac tion ov e r dep i c ted Images
-,

ph of
opposition to the Platonic degradation of mimi's;s. the classical poetics formed an analogy with the socio-political order. With the triu m
the theatrica l stage, the egalitaria n i nr e rt w ining
of representation wanted to endow the 'Bat surface' with speech or with the novel's page over
a 'scene' of life, with a specific depth such as the manifestation of an of images and signs on pictorial or typographic surfaces, the c\ev;ltion
�
action, the expression of an interiority, or the transmission of meaning. of artisans' ar t to the staniS of great art, and the new cbim to bring art
[20] ion
Classical poetics established a relationship of correspondence at into the dt(cor of each and every life, an entire well-ordered dim'ibllt
a distance between speech and painting, between the sayable and the of sensory experience was over tur n e d .
visible, which gave 'imitation' its own specific space. [22] Th is is how the 'planarity' of the surface of depicted sig m, the
It is this relationship that is at stake in the supposed distinction form of egalitarian distribution of the sensible stigmatiTed hy Plato,
between two-dimensional and three-dimensional space as 'specific' d
intervene ,1S the principle hehind an art's 'formal' revolution at the
to a particular form of art. To a large extent, the ground was laid for same time as the principle behind the political redistribution of shared
painting's 'anti-representative revolution' by the flat surface of the ex perience. The other m.1jor forms, among which there are those of the
chorus and the theatre that I ment ioned earlier, could he cOllSidere
page, in the change in how literature's 'images' function or the change d ill
in the discourse on painting, but also in the ways in which typog­ historv of aesthcric politic" I1llcit'rsto oc! ill th is
much the samc wav. '
1\
raphy, posters, and the decorative arts became interlaced. The type sense, has to take into accOl ; nt the wav in which these m;ljor t�)fIllS

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

of painting that is poorly named abstract, and which is supposedly "
of the s u r fa c e of
brought back to its own proper medium, is implicated in an overall f()f e x ample , of the wav in which thi� paradigm
vision of a new human being lodged in new structur es, surrounded by �
signs/forms entered into conflict or joined f )rc es with tb e theatrical
,
different objects. Its flatness is linked to the Batness of pages, posters, paradigm of presence, and with the diverse forms that tll1.'; paradigm
and tapestries. It is the flarness of an interface. Moreover, its a nti-repre ­ itself has taken on, from the Sy mbolist figuration ()f a collective legend
olit
sentative 'purity' is inscribed in a context where pure art and decorative to the actualized chorus of a new humanity. Politics plavs itself
art are intertwined, a context that straight away gives it a political m as the relationship hetween the stage and
in the theatrical paradig
signification. This context is not the surrounding revolutionary fever the audience, as meaning prod\lced by the actor's hody, ;IS g;lllll'S
of
that made Malevich at once the artist who painted Bi{ld� Square and \ uitical prost' writings stage. in ;111
proximity or distance. Mallarmc
the revolutionary eulogist of [21] 'new forms of life'. Furthermore, exemph ry manncr, the play of c ross- rd e ren c es, oppositiol:s or ass! III
i­
this is not some theatrical ideal of the new human being that seals lations between these forms, from the int im a te theatre 01 th e page or
the momentary alliance between revolutionary artists and politics. calligraphic choreography to tbe new 'service' performed by concerts,
It is initially in the interface created between different 'mediums' [23J In one respect, these forms therefore appear to bring fo rt h ,

- in the connections forged hetween poems and their typography or
their illustrations, between the theatre and its set designers or poster
designers, between decorative objects and poems - that this 'newness'
is formed that Ii nks the artist who abolishes figurative representation
to the revolutionary who invents a new form of life. This interface is
in very different contexts, figures of c ommunity eq u al to themselves.
However, they are sLlsceptible to being assi gned to contradictory political
paradigms. Let us take the e xampl e of the tragic stage. Itsillluitan­
eouslv carries with it, according to Plato, the svndromt' of democracy
and h e power of illusion. By is )lati l1 g rnimt'sis in irs own proper SP;1Cl'
( � '
18 THE POLITICS OF AESTHETICS
THE DISTRlRUTION O F TIlE SENSIBLE

and by enclosing tragedy within a logic of genres, Aristotle -- even if perspective , it is possible to challenge a good many Imaginary stc:ries
this was not his intention - redefined its politiciry. Furthermore, in about artistic 'modernity' and vain debates over the autonomy of an
or its submission to politic.�. The ;Hts only ever lend to project"
or
the classical system of representation, the tragic stage would become
domination or emancipation what they are ahle to lend to them, th;lt
the stage of visibility for an orderly world governed by a hierarchy
of subject matter and the adaptation of situations and manners of is to say, quite simply, what they have in common with them: bO�1ily
speaking to this hierarchy. The democratic paradigm would become a positions and movements, functions of speech, the parcelling Ollt of the
monarchical paradigm. Let us also consider the long and contradictory visible and the invisible. Furthermore, the autonomy thev can enjoy or
history of rhetoric and the model of the 'good orator'. Throughout the the subversion they can claim credit for rest on the same foundatIon.
monarchical age, democratic eloquence ala Demosthenes denoted an
excellence in speaking, which was itself established as the imaginary
attribute of the sllpreme power. It was also always receptive, however,
to the recovery of its democratic function by lending its [24] canonical
forms and its consecrated images to the transgressive appearance of
unauthorized speakers on the public stage. Let us consider as well the
contradictory destinies of the choreographic model. Recent research
has evoked the metamorphoses undergone by Laban's notation of
movement. It was developed in a context favouring the liberation
of bodies and became the model for the large Nazi demonstrations
before regaining, in the anti-establishment context of perf(Jrma nee
art, a new subversive virginity. Benjamin's explanation via the t:ltal
aestheticization of politics in the 'era of the masses' overlooks, perhaps,
the long-standing connection between the unanimolls consensus of
the citizenry and the exaltation of the free movement of bod ies. In
a city hostile to the theatre and to written law, Plato recommended
constantly cradling unweaned infants.
I have evoked these three forms because Plato conceptually charred
them out and because they maintain a historical constancy. They
obviously do not define all of the ways that figures of community
are aesthetically designed. The important thing is that the question
of the relationship between aesthetics and politics be raised at til is
level, the level of the sensible delimitation of what is common to
the community, the forms of its visibility and of its organization .
[25J It is from this perspective that it is possible to reflect on artists'
political interventions, starting with the Romantic literary forms that
a imed at deciphering society, the Symbolist poetics of dreams or the
Dadaist or Constructivist elimination of art, and continuing up to
the contemporary modes of performance and installation. From this

Artistic Regimes and the Shortcomings of
the Notion ofModernity
Certain ofthe mostfundamentrtf categories usedfor thin/"ing (zbout (Irtistic
creation in the twentieth century, namely the cf1 te,<o ri('s olmodernitv, the
avant-garde and, for som(' time now, postmodern ity, als; !lappn! t(; /i{we
a politiral meaning. Do these Cfltegories seem to 'VOIf to have tI,(' sli,<htcst
interest for conceiving, in precise terms, wh{lt tics acsthetirs ' to 'politics '?
I do not thi n k that the notions of modern ity and the avant-garde have
b �e n very enlighteni n g when it comes to thinking about the new forms
of art that have emerged si nce the last century or the relations between
aesthetics and politics. They actual ly confuse two very di ffercnt
thi ngs: the h istoricity specific to a regime of the arts in gcneral and
the decisions to break with the past o r a nt i cipate the fllt ure that take
place withi n this regime. The notion of acsth e t i c modern itv conceals ­
without conceptualizing i t i n the least - the si ngularity o (a p a r t i cu l a r
regime o f the arts, that is [27J to say of a specific type o f connection
between ways of producing works of art or developing practices, forms
of visibility that d isclose them, and ways of conceptualizing the former
and the latter.
A detour is necessary here in order to c1arifv this notion and situate
the problem. With regard to what we call {; rt, it is i n fact po ssi b l e
to distinguish, within the Western trad i tion, t h ree m aj o r regimes o f
identification . There is fi rst o f a l l what I propose t o ca l l a n eth ical
regime of images. [n this regime, 'art' is not identi fied as such b u t i s
subsumed under the question of images. As a speci fie type o f c n t i tv,
i m ages are the object of a twofold questio n : the question of their o r i g {n
(and consequently thei r truth content) and the question of thei r end
or p urpose, the uses they a re put to and the effects they result in. The
question of images of the d ivine and the r i g h t to produce sLlch i m ages
or the ban placed on them falls with i n this regi me, as wel l :lS t h e
T H E Dl S T R l I HJT I O N OF T I ll' S E N S I B LE 21
question of the status a n d sign i fi c a t ion of the i m a ges prod u ce d . T h e
e n t i re Platonic pol e m i c a ga i n s t t h e s i m u l a cr a o f pa i n t i n g , p o e m s , a nd
t h e s t a ge a l s o [;l l l s w i th i n t h i s r egi m e . l, rLlto does n o t , :lS i t is o ftcn
cl a i me d , p l a ce an u n der t h e yoke o f p o l i t ic s . T h i s very d i s t i n c t i o n
wou l d have m a de no sense for P l a to s i n ce :Ht d i d n o t e x i s t for [ 2 R I h l l 1 1
hut o n l y a rts, ways of d o i n g :l n d 1ll :l k i ng. A nd i t i s a m o n g t h ese t h ,l t
he t ra ces t h e d iv i d i n g l i n e : t h ere a rc true a rt s , t h a t i s t o say fo r m s of
k nowledge based on t h e i m i t a t i o n o f a model w i t h p recise c n d s , ,1 11c!
:nt i s t i c s i m u l a c r a t h a t i m i t a te s i m p l e appcarances. These i m i ta r i o m .
d i ffe r e nt i a t ed h y t h e i r o ri g i n , a rc t h e n d i .') ti ng u i s hcd h y t h e i r c n d n !
p u rpose, hy t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e poem's i m af:.';es p ro v id e the S peCLl tnrs,
hoth ch i l d re n and ad u lt c i t i 7 c ll S . w i t h a ccrLl i n e d u cl I l o n ,1 1 l d fit ; 11
w i t h t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e c i t y ,", oCCl lp;n i o 11 .\ . I t i .s I n t h i s S C I l ." .· 1 11 .1 1
1 s p c :d < of' :1 11 c r h i C l l re g i m c o f i 11 l ;l ge s . I n t h i s rC"l.; i nl t:". it IS ,1 m ;l t tcr
of k n o w i n g i n \l'h ;l t \\,;l �' i m ages ' Ill(� d c o f bei n g ;l hccts t h e I't/'Ol , t h e
mode o f b ; i n g of i n d i v i (l u a I s and comlllun ities. T h is q u e s t i o n preye tw,
' a r t' from i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g i t se l F as slIch .-
The poetic - or representative - re g i m e o f the a rts hrea ks away from
the ethical regi me of i m a ges. It i d c n t i flcs t h e suhs ta n c e of a rt - o r
rather of t h e a rt s - i n t h e cou ple poihslminll�,i;s. T h e m i m e t i c pr i n c i p l e
i s not a t i ts core a nor m at i v e p r i n c i p l e s t a t i n g t h a t an m u s t m a ke
c op ies rese m b l ing t h c i r m o d e l s . I t i s fi rst of ;d l a p ra g m a t ic p r i n c i p le
t h a t i .s obtes, w i t h i n t h e gencr;d d o m a i n of the ;lr ts (wa\'s o f dOl ll " a n d
'
m a k i n g ) , cert a i n p a r t i c l� LH fo r m s o f a rt t h a t prod uce s p ec i fi c el � i t i l>s
[2()] ca l l e d i m i t a t i o n s . These i m i t a t i o m a rc e x t r i cltnL :J t one a n d t h e
s a m e t i me, from t h e ord i nary c o nr ro l of a rt i s t i c p roducts b y t he i r u s c
a n d fro m t h e leg i s l at i ve reign or t r u t h oyer d i scourses a n d i m :1 ges .
S u c h i s t h e V;l s t o pe r a t io ll ca rr i ed o u t hy t h e :\ r i s ro tcl i a n ebhoration of
InimeJsis a nd by t h e p r i v i l e ge a ccord e d ro traf:.'; i c a c t io n . I t is t h e wbstf/III'I'
;
of the poem, t h e Elb r i c a t i o n of a p l o t l rr a n f:.'; i n g :lctions t h :l t reprcc;ent
the ;1 Ctiv i t i es o f m e n , wh i c h i s t h e fo remost i ssue, to the d e t r i m c n t o f
t h e cssol(c of r h c i m a ge. a copv exa m i n cd with re g a rd to i ts Ill o d e l . Such
i s rhl" p r i n c i p l e gu i d i n g t h e (u n c t i o n :1 1 c h a n <'c i � t h e t h c;l t r i c ;J ! lll o d e l
I wa s speak i n g (� r ea rl i � r. The p r i n c i p l e rq!,u rl t i n g rill" e, te r n a l del i m i ,
ta t i o n of ;l wc l l - fo u n de d d o m a i n of i m i t a t ion s i� t h u s ar t h e s a me t i llle
a n o rm a t i v e p r i n ci ple of i n c l us i o n . It deve l o ps i n t o for m s of ll Orl11 ;]­
t iv i ty that d e fi ne t h e c o n d it i o n s a c cord i n g to w h ich i m i t a t i o n s c;l n h e
22 T H E POLITICS O F AESTH ETICS
recognized as exclusively belongin g to an art and assessed, with i n this
framework, as good or bad, adequate or i nadequate: partitions between
the representable and the u nrepresentable; the d i st inction between
genres accord i ng to what is represented; principles for adapti ng forms
of express ion to genres a nd thus to the subject m atter represented; the
d istribution of resemblances [30] accordi ng to pri nciples of verisi m i l ­
itude, appropriateness, o r correspondence; criteria for distinguishi ng
between and comparing the arts; etc.
I call t h is regime poetic i n the sense that it identifies the arts - what
the Classical Age woul d later call the 'fine arts' - within a classification
of ways of doi n g and making, and it consequently defi nes proper ways
of doi ng and m a k i ng as well as means of assessing i mitations. I cal l
i t representative i nsofar as i t i s t he notion of representation o r mimesis
that organ izes these ways of doi ng, making, seeing, and j udging. Once
aga i n, however, mimesis is not the l aw that brings the arts under the
yoke of resemblance. It is first of a l l a fold i n the distribution of ways of
doing and m a k i ng as wel l as in social occupations, a fold that renders
the arts visible. It is not an artistic p rocess but a regime of visibi l i ty
regarding the arts. A regime of visibility is at once w h a t ren d e rs t h e
arts autonomous and a lso what l i n ks this autonomy to a general o r d e r
of occupations and ways of doing a nd maki ng. This is w h a t J evoked
earlier concerni n g the logic of representation, which e nters i nt o a
relationship of global analogy with a n overa l l h ierarchy of pol itical
a nd socia l occupations. The representative pri macy of action over
characters or of narration over [3 1 ] description, the h ierarchy of gen res
accordi n g to the d ignity of thei r subject matter, and the very pri macy
of the art of spea k ing, of speech i n actual ity, a l l of these clemenrs figure
i nto a n ana logy with a fu l ly hierarch ical vision of thc commun ity.
The aesthetic regi me of the a rts stands i n contrast with the repre­
sentative regime. I call t h is regi me aesthetic because the identification
of art no longer occurs via a division with i n ways of doi ng and maki ng,
but it is based on distinguishing a sensible mode of being speci fi c to
artistic products. The word aesthetics does not refer to a theory of
sensibility, taste, and pleasure for art amateurs. It strictly refers to the
specific mode of being of whatever Lll l s wit h i n the domain of art, to
the mode of being of the objects of art. I n the aesthetic regime, artistic
phenomena are identified by their adherence to a spec i fic regime of
T H E DIST R I B U T I O N O F T H E SENS I B L E
the sensible, wh ich is extricated from its ord i na rv con nections a n d i s
a h e tero ge n e ou s power, t h e pO'Ner � f a form o f thought
i n h ab i te d b y
that has becom e fo r ei gn to i tsel f: a product identical with someth i Ilg
nor p roduced, k n owle d ge tra n s formed i ll to Iloll-k nowl edge, /ogos
i d e n t i c a l w i t h p;l thos , t h e i nte n t i on oC t lw \ 1 n i '1te nt i o n a l , etc. Th i s idea
o f a reg i me of the s e n s i b l e that h a s hecome (�)rei gll to i t sel f the locus
for a f;rm of t h oug ht that has hecome �(Jreign to � se l r: i s the inv;1fiable
core i n the [32 ] ide n t i fi c a t i on s of a rt t h at h ave con fi gured t h e a es t h e t i c
mode of tho u gh t from the outset: Vico's d is c ove ry of t h e 'true I- lomer'
as a poet in spite of h i m s e l f; K a n t i a n 'ge n i\1 s' that i s u n aw a re of t he Ll\v
it p ro du c e s , Sch i ller's 'aesthetic state' t h a t s us p en d s both t h e a c t i v i t y of
t h e u nderstandi ng an d sensible p a ss i v i ty, S c h e l l i n g's d e fi n i t i o n or a rt a s
the identity between a conscious p rocess a n d a n \1 nconscio\1s p rocess,
etc. The aesthetic m od e o f t hough t l i k ew is e ru n s t h ro u gh the speci fi c
d efi n it ions t h at t h e a rt s have given to t h em selves i n t h e Modern Age:
P roust's i d e a of a book that wou l d he ent i r e l y p l a n n ed out a n d ful ly
removed from the rea l m of the wi l l ; M a l l a rllle's idea o f a pocm by t h e
spectato r-poet, written ' w i t h out t h e scribe's a p p a ratm' b v t h e steps
of an i l l i te r ate d a ncer; the S u rreal i s t p rac t i ce of p ro d u c i n g work t h a r
expresses t h e :Ht i,s t\ u nconscio\1s w i t h r h e olltd a ted i l lustrations i n
cata l ogues o r newspaper ser i a l s from t h e prcvious ce n tu ry ; B n'sson's
idea of fi l m :tS t h e fi l m-ma ker" t h o\ 1 gh r w i t h d r;twn frolll t h e hodv ()r
t h e ' mo d els' wh o , hv l l nt h i n k i n gIv repea t i tw t h e words a n d <Yl'S tli rcs
he lays down fo r t h d m, m a n i fc s r r il e i r
' prope � truth wi thout ei;hcr tl1('
fi l m - m a ker or t h e models k now i ng i t ; etc.
It i s po i n t l e ss to go o n with d e fi n i t i o n s and ex a mp l e s , We need
to indicate, on t h e contra ry, t h e heart of t h e probl e m . T h e aes t h e t i c
reg i m e [.1 3] of t h e arts is the reg i m e t h a t strictly i d c nt i fi es a r t i n t h e
s i n g ll i a r a nd f-rees it from ;1I1�,' speci fi c ru le, from any h iera rclw o f
the arts, subject m at ter, a n d ge nre s . Yet i t d o c s so h y destroy i ng t h e
m i me t i c h a r r i e r t h a t d i s t i ngu i shed ways o f d o i n g a n d m a k i n g a ffi l ia ted
with a r t from o t h e r ways o f doi n g a n d m a k i n g , a ba rr i er t h a t sepa r;ltcd
its rules from t h e ord e r o f s o c ia l o c cu pati o n s . The aesthetic r egi m e
asserts the absolute sin g ulari ty of art and, at t he s a m e ti me, destroys
a ny pragmatic criterion for i s ol a t i ng this singularity. It si multaneously
estab lishes the autonomy of art and the identity o f its forms with the
forms that l i fe uses to s h a p e i ts e l f. Sch i l ler's aest/;rtic strltl', wh ich is t h is
24 THE POLITICS OF A ESTHETICS
regime's fi rst m a nifesto (and rem a i ns, in a sense, u nsurpassablc), clearl.Y
indicates this fundam e ntal identity of opposites. The aesthetic state IS
a pure i nstance of suspension, a moment when form is experienced for
itself. Moreover, it is the moment of the formation and education of a
specific type of humanity. . reinterpret wh at m a kes a rt or what a rt m a kes: Vico discovering the
From this perspective, it is possible to u nderstand the tunctlons
.
served by the notion of modernity. The aesthetic regi me of the arts, it
can be said, is the true n a me for what is designated by the incoherent
label ' modernity'. H owever, ' modernity' is more than a n i ncoherent
label. It is, in its different versions, the concept that d i ligently works
at [34] m asking the specificity of this regime of the arts and the very
mea n i ng of the specificity of regimes of a rt. It traces, in order either
to exalt or deplore it, a sim ple l i ne of transition or rupture between
the old and the new, the representative and the non-representative or
the anti-representativ e. The basis for this simplistic h i storical account
was the transition to non-figurative representation i n painting. This
transition was theorized by being cursorily ass i milated i n to artIstiC
' modernity's' overal l anti-mi metic destiny. When the eulogists of this
for m of modernity saw the exhibition-spaces for the wel l-behaved
desti ny of modern ity i nvaded by all kinds of objects, mach i nes, and
u nidentified devices, they began denouncing the 'trad ition of the new',
a desire for i nnovation that would reduce a rtistic modern ity to the
e mptiness of its self-declaration. However, it is the starti ng poi:1t t ha t .
is erroneous. The leap outside of mimesis is by no mea ns the refusal ot
figurative representation. Furthermore, its i naugural moment h a � of:en
been called realism, whi ch does not in a ny way mean the valoflzatlon
of resemblance but rather the destruction of the structu res with in
which it functioned. Thus, novelistic realism is fi rst of all the reversal
of the h ierarchies of representation (the primacy of the n arrative over
the descriptive [35] or the h ierarchy of subject m atter) and the adoption
of a fragmented or proximate mode of focalization, wh ich i mposes raw
presence to the detriment of the rational sequences of �he story. The
aesthetic regime of the arts does not contrast the old WIth the new. It
contrasts, more profoundly, two regimes of h istoricity. It is within the
m imetic regime that the old stands in contrast with the new. In the
aesthetic reg i me of art, the future of art, its separation from the present
of non-art, i ncessantly restages the past.
TH E O I ST R I R UTr O N O F TI l E S E NS I B L E 2')
Those who exa lt or denou nce the ' t rad i tion of the new actu;] I ! \,
forget that th is t rad i t i o n h a s as its str ict complement t h e 'ncwnc<s
of the trad i t i o n'. The aesthetic regime of the arts did not begin wit h
decisions to initiate an a rtistic ruptu re. It bega n with decisions to
'true Homer', that is to say not an i nventor of fables and c h a racters but
a witness to the i m age-laden l a nguage and t hought of a ncient t i mes;
H egel i n d icat i ng the true subject matter of Dutch ge nre p a i nt i n g : not
in stories or descriptions of i nteriors but a nation's freedom d isplaycd i n
reA ections o f l ight; Hold.erli n rei nventi ng Greek tr:lgedy; B a l zac [.)(i]
contrasti n g t h e poetry o f t h e ge o l ogi s t who reconstructs worlds o1lt
of t racks and. fossi ls with the poetry that makes do with reprod u c i n g
a bit of agitation i n the sou l ; M endelssoh n replayi ng the St. Mflft/}('1{ '
Passion; etc. The aestheti c reg i me of the a rts is fi rst of a l l a new regi me
for relati ng to the past. It a ct u a l l y sets lip as the very pri nciple of
artisticity t h e expressive relations h ip i n h e re n t in a t i me and a state
of civi l ization, a rel ationship t h a t was previously considered to he t he
'non-a r t i s t i c' pa rt of works oLl I·t ( t h e p a r t t h a t was excused bv i nvok i n g
the crudeness o f the ti mes when t he author l ived) . The aesth � t i c regi m�
of t h e a rt s i n vents its revo lut i o m on the h a s i s of t h e same i dea t h a t
callsed it t o i nven t the museu m a nd a rt h i sto rv, t h e notion of classicism
and new f()rms of reproduction . . . A nd it dcv(� tes itsel f to the i nvention
of new forms of l i fe on the bas i s of a n idea of what a r t was, an idea of
what art would ham: heen. \XT hen the Futu rists or t h e Constru c t i v i sts
decla red the end of art a nd the i d e n t i fi c a t i o n of i ts p ractices w i t h the
practices that c o n s t r u c t , decorate, or gi ve a certa i n rhyth m to t h e t i mes
and SfXl ees of com ll1u n:l l l i fe, they propmcd ;]n end of a rt e q u iva l e n t to
the identification of art with the l i fe of t he co m m u n i t y. Th i s proposal
i s d i recdy dependent o n t h e Seh i I Icri a n ; J nd Roma ntic rei ntcrprna t i o n
of Creek a rt as a com mu n i ty's mode of l i fe, wh i le also cOllllll u n i ca t i n (>,
'
[37] in other respects, with the new s t yl e s i ntroduced by th e i nvento�s
of adve rt i sing who, for their part, d id not propose a revolution but
only a new way of l iving a mongst words, i mages, and commodities.
The idea of modernity is a questionable notion that tries to make clea r­
cut d istinctions i n the complex con figuration of the aes t h e t i c regime
of the a rts. Tt tries to retai n the forms of rupture, the iconoclastic
gestures, etc., by separating them from the col1text that al lows for t h e i r
26 T H E POLITICS OF AESTHETICS
existence: h istory, i nterpretation, patrimony, t he museum , the perva­
s iveness of reproduction . . . The idea of modernity would l ike t h e re to
be o n ly one mea n i n g and di rection i n h istory, whereas t h e te.m pora l l ty
specific to the aesthetic regime of the arts is a co-presence of h e t eroge-
neous temporalities.
.
The notion of moder n ity t hus seems to have been del iberately
i nvented to prevent a clear understand i ng of the transformations of
art and its relationships with the other spheres of collective experience.
The confusion i nt roduced by this notion has, it seems to me, two
m ajor forms. Both of them, without a nalysi ng it, rely o � the contra­
d iction constitutive of the aesthetic regime of the arts, wh Ich makes art
i nto an autonomous form of Lift and t hereby sets down, at one a nd the
same t ime, the autonomy of art and its identification with a moment
i n l i fe's process of self-formation. The two [38J m ajor variants of the
discourse on 'modernity' derive from this contradiction. The fi rst
variant would h ave modernity identified simply with the autonomy
of art, an 'anti-mi metic' revolution i n art identical with the conquest
of the pure for m of art fin a l ly l a id bare. Each i ndividual art would
thus assert the pure potential of art by exploring the capabil ities of
its specific medium. Poetic or l iterary modernity would explore the
capab i l ities of a language d iverted from its com mu n icational uses.
P ictorial modernity would bring painti ng back to its d isti nctive feature:
coloured pigment and a two-dimensional surface. Musical m.adel�n ity
would be identi fied with the l anguage of twelve sounds, set free hom
a ny analogy with expressive l anguage, etc. Furthermore, these speci fic
forms of modernity would be i n a relationship of distant analogy WIth
a political modernity susceptible to being identified, depending Ol� the
t i me period, with revolutionary rad icality or with the sober and d Isen­
chanted modernity of good republ ican government. The m a i n feature
of what is called the 'crisis of art' is the overwh e l m i n g defeat of t h is
simple modernist paradigm, which i s forever more d istant ftom the
mixtures of genres and mediums as well as from the numerous political
possibilities i nherent in the a rts' contemporary forms. [39J
This overwhelming defeat is obviously overdeterm i ned by the
modern ist paradigm's second m ajor form, which m ight �e called
modernatism. I mean by t h i s the identification of forms from the
aesthetic regime of the arts with for m s that accompl ish a task or flll fi I
T H E f) I ST R T R U T I O N O F T H E S F N S I I\ L F
to modern i ty. At t h e root 0 (' t h i s i d en t i fl c a t i o n
a d cs t i n y spec i fi c rhere
i s a spcci fic i nterpretar i o n of t h c s t ructu ra I a nd ge n er a t i ve con tra­
.
d ic t i o n o f aesthetic ' fo rm'. It i s , i n t h i s CJse. t h e dcterrn i n a t i oll of
a rt q u a for m a nd sel f-form at i o n o f l i fe t h a t i s va lori ze d . The s t a r t i n g
p o i nr , S c h i l lcr's n o t i o n of t h e (Icsthctic a/lItrltirill of m a n , consti tutes
an un s u rpassable reference point. It is t h i s n o t i o n that csta b l i s hed thc
i d e<l t h a t d om i n at i o n and servitude <He, in the fi rst p la ce , pa r r of an
o n to l og ical d is t r i bu t io n (the a c t i v i ty o f thought versllS the passiv i t y of
s e n s i b l e m a tter) . It i s a l so t h is n o t i o n t h at d efi ncd ;l n c u t r a l s t;1 tc, a s t ;l t c
of dual canccl l ation, w h e re t h e ac tivit y of t h o u g h t a n d s e n s i ble rec e p ­
tivity become a s i ngle real ity. Thcy con st i tute a s o rt o f new reg i o n of
bei n g - the region of free play and appcaranc e - that makes i t p o ss i bl e
to conceive of the equal ity whose d i rect mate r i a l i za t i o n , accord i ng to
Sch i l ler, was shown to be i mpossible by t h e French Revolutio n. I t i s r h i ,
spec i fl c mode or I iving i n the s e n s i b l e wo r l d that mllSt h e d eveloped
by
'aesthetic education ' [40] i n ord e r to t ra i n m e n suscept i h l e to l ive i n
a fre e pol i ti ca l c om m u n i ty. The idea o f mod ern i t y ;lS a t i me devotcd
to the m ateri;l l rca l i z;1 ti o n o f a h U l11 a n i t v s t i l l brent i n m a n k i nd
wa s constru cted on th is fou ndation . It G� n he s a i d , reg a rd i n g t h i s
poi n t , t h at t h e 'aes t h e t i c revo l u ti o n ' p roduced a new i d e ;� o f p(�l i t ica I
revolutio n: the matcrial real ization of a com mon h u m a n i tv s t i l l o n l y
existi ng as an idea. T h i s i s h ow S c h i l l er's 'aes t h e t i c s t ;l �(, ' heG1 \l1'c
t h e ' a est h et i c pro gra m m e' or Germ a n R o m a n t i c i s m , t h e progr;l
ll1 mc
s u m m a r i zed i n the rough d ra ft written together by Hege l , Holderl
i n,
a nd S c h e l l i ng: th e material rea l i za t i o n of u n con d i t i on a l freed o m
. and
p u r e t h o u g h t i n com m o n r()rms o r l i fe a n d hel i e f I t i s t h is p;H ;l d i
(� m o f
acs t h e t i c a u to n o m y t h a t beca me t h e ncw pa r a d i g m kl\' 1'C\'ol u t i o n , J
nd
i t su hselj u e n t l y a l lowe d f�)r t h e h r i e f h u t decisi\'(' e n c o u n t er hetween
the a rt i s a n s o f the M a rx i st revol u t i o n a n d the a rt i s a n s o f fo r m s fo r a
ncw way of l i fe. T h e fa i l ur e o f th i s revo l u t i o n determ i ned t h e d es ti ny
- i n tw � pha ses - of l11oderna tism. At fi rst, artistic modern a t i s m , i �
its authenti c revohltio nJ ry po te n t i a l r<)r [4 1 ] hope and defla nce. wa <;
set aga i nst the degenera tion o r pol iticl 1 revoilltio n. Surreal i s m a nd
the Fran kfurt School were the princip:d veh icles for t h is co u lltc r­
mo d e rn ity. T h e fa i l ure of po l i t i c a l revo l u t i o n was l a ter cOl1 ceived of ;lS
the fa i lure or i ts o ll tologico- ;1 Csth e t i c model . M o d ern i t v thus
heca me
somet h i n g l i k e a fa tal dcst i n v hased on a fu n d ;l lll e n t a l fO I"(rctt
t- / i n <' : 0 ;-.
28 THE POLITICS O F AESTHETICS
the essence of technology accord i ng to Heidegger, the revolutionary
severing of the k i ng's head as a severi ng of tradition in the h i story of
humanity, and fi n al ly the original s i n of human beings, forgetfu l of
their debt to the Other and of their submission to the heterogeneous
powers of the sensible.
What is called postmodernism is real ly the process of this reversal. A t
fi rst, postmodernism brought t o l ight everything i n the recent evolution
of the arts and possible ways of t h i n k i ng the arts t h at destroyed modern­
ism's theoretical edi fice: the crossing-over and m ixtu re between the
arts that destroyed Lessi ng's conventional set of principles co n ce rn i ng
the separation of the arts; the collapse of the parad igm of fu nctional ist
architecture and the return of the curved line and embel l ish ment; the
breakdown of the p ictorialltwo-dimensionallabstract model through
the return of figurative representation and [42) signi fication as wel l as
the slow i nvasion of painting's exhibition-space by th ree-di mensional
and narrative forms, from Pop Art to i nstallation art and 'rooms' for
video art;R the new combinat ions of paint i ng a nd language as well as
of monumental sculpture and the projection of shadows and l ights; the
break-up of the serial tradition through new m ixtures between musical
systems, gen res, a nd epochs. The teleological model of modernity
became untenable at the same time as its d iv isions between the
'distinctive features' of the d ifferent arts, or the separation of a pure
domain of art. Postmodernism, i n a sense, was simply the n a me under
whose guise certain artists a nd thi n kers realized what modernism had
been: a desperate attempt to establish a 'distinctive feature of art' by
linking it to a si mple teleology of historical evolution and rupture.
There was not really a need, moreover. to make this late recogn ition
of a fundamental fact of the aesthetic regi me of the arts i nto an actual
temporal break, the real end of a historical period .
However, it was p recisely the next episode that showed that postmod­
ernism was more than this. The joyful, postmodern artistic I icense. i ts
[4 3) exaltation of the carnival of simulacra. all sorts of i n terbreedi ng
and hybridization, transformed very quickly and came to cha llenge
the freedom or autonomy that the modernatist principle con ferred - or
would have conferred - upon art t he m i ssion of accompli shi ng. There
was thus a return from the carn ival to the p ri ma l scene. H oweve r. the
primal scene can be taken i n two senses, e i t h e r as the sta r t i n g poi n t o fa
T H E DlST R IB U T T O "l O F T i l E S E NS I B L E
p rocess o r as a n ori gi n a l sepa LH i o n . Modern i s t b i th h a d l atched 011 to
t h c i d e a of t h e ';l e s t h e t i c cduca t ion of m :l n ' t h a t S ch i l ler h a d e x t r: 1 c ted
from t h e K a n t i a n a n a l y t i c of riw hea u t i fu l . T h e pnstl110dern revers;l l
h a d as i ts t h eore t i c a l r(ll l n d a t i o n Lvota rd 's a n a l ys i s of t h e K a n t i �l n
'
�
subli me. wh ich was rei nterpreted a s t h e scene of fO l l n d i n g dis ta nce
s ep a ra ting the idea from any sensible presentation. From t h is moment
onward, postmodernism came i n to h a rmony w i t h the mOllrn i n g a nd
repenting of lllodern a t i s t t h o u g h t . a n d t h e scene of s u b l i me d is t a nce
came to e p i tom ize a l l sons of scenes o f origi n a l d i s t a n ce or o r w i n a l
'
S i l l : t h e H e ideggcri a n fl ig h t o r t h e gmk t h e i rred u c i b l e aspe��r
of
the l I f1 S:'lll hol i z;1 h l e ohject ;1 11<1 t h e c1earh d r i \ T ;l S ;) 11 ; I i vsed h\' [ ITI I ( ! ,
t h e vo i cl' of t h e A hsolutelv (J r h e r d ec l a r i n g ; 1 h:1 11 on reprl''C'll t ;l l ! n / l ,
t h e ren) l lI t i o n a ry mu rder o f t he f :a t h c r. Pm t T1lndnn i s lll t ll l l ' hl'Cl ll1l'
thc gra nd r h renod)' ofthe u n reprc s e l l t a hie Ii n t racra hie [;fl; 1 Ii r r ede e m ; hk, l
d e n ou n c i ng t h e modern m ;l d ness of the idea o f a s e l r�e m a n c i p a t i () n of
m a n k i nc\ \ h u m a n i ty a n d i ts i n e v i t a h l e a nd i n term i n a b l e cu l m i n at i o n
in t he
death c amp s .
The notion of the ava nt-ga rde d c fi n es t h c t y p e o f s u b j e ct su i ta h l e
to the modern ist vision and appropriate, accord i n g t o t h i s v i s i o n ,
for con n e ct i n g t h e aes t h e t i c t o t h e pol i t ica l . I ts ,s u ccess i s d u e: l ess to
the conve n i e nt con n ection it proposes between the a rt is t i c idea of
i n novat i o n a n d t h e idea of pol i t ica l l y-gu i d e d c h a n ge, t h a n to t h e m ore
covert C()n necti o n i t estahl i s h es between two ideas of the ' ava n t-ga rd e '.
L
O n the o n e h a n e! , t here is the topograph i c a l a n d m i l i t a r y n o t i o n o f r h e
f()I"Ce t h at marches i n t h e l e a d , t h a t h a� a c l e a r u nd e rs ta n d i n u o f r h e
o
move m e n t, emhod ies i rs forccs , dete r m i nes t h e d i rection of h i s to rt c a l
e vo l u t i o n , a n d c hooses s u bj ec t i ve pol i ti c a l orientat ion s . ' I n shor t , t h ere
is t h e idea t h at l i n b pol i t i ca l subject i v i t y to a cert a i n f()t'Jn: the pa m,:,
;1 I la d v a n ced d eL1C h lllem t h a t deri ves its ;l hi l i rv to k;lll from i ts �l h i l i n '
t o rCHI a nd i nte r p rc r the ., iglls o f h i ston'. O n t he o t h er h a n d , t iJ ne
I S ;1 t1o t h c r idea of the ; , v a n t- g a rd e t h a t , i n ;l C (( l rlh I l C C w i t h \ c h i l l cr',
m o d e l , i, rooted I II t h e a e s t h c r i c ;l llti c i p a t i on o f t h e {'l1 l l1re. I I' I h e
concept o f t h e a\'a nr-ga rd c h a s ;1 111/ 1lll';l 11 l n g i n t h t' ;1C'it Ilt'tic rC(, l m e o f
i : � i�
t h e a rts, i t i s on t h i s s d e o r- t h i n g,, n o r O il r 1 e s i ck o f f hl' H'5 i ;\( ';l I 1 ccd
d e tac h m e n ts of a rt i s tiC i n novation h u t Oil t h e s id e of the i l Wc' 11Iioll o f
s e n s i b l e r()rms a n d m ;l tcr i a l s t rt l c t l.I ITS ri ll' a ! i k to co me. T i l l S i s wiLl f
t h e 'aes t he t i c ' a v a l l t-g;nde hrou g h t 10 r h e 'poi i t i Cl i ' ; 1 V;] tH- f', a n ic, or
30 THE POLITICS O F AESTHETICS
what it wanted to bri ng to it - and what it beli eved to have brought to
it - by transformi ng politics i nto a total l i fe progra m me. T h e h istory of
the relations between political parties and aesthetic move m e nts is fi rst
of a l l the h istory of a confusion, someti mes complacently mai ntai ned,
at other t imes violently denounced, between these two ideas of the
avant-garde, which are in fact two different ideas of political s u h je c , ­
t ivity: the a rchi-political idea of a party, that is to say the idea of a
for m of political i ntell igence that sums up the essential conditions for
change, and the meta-po litica l idea of global pol itic;].1 subjectivity, t h e
idea of the potential ity i nherent in the i nnovative s e n s i b l e modes of
experience that anticipate a com mu n ity to come. There is, however,
not h i ng accidental about this confusion. It is not the case, as today's
doxa would h ave us believe, that artists' ambitious claims to a tota l
revolution of the sensible paved the way for tota l itarianism. I t is rather
that the very idea of a political avant-garde is d ivided between the
strategic concepti o n and the aesthetic conception of the avant-garde.
[46]
Mechanical A rts and the ProJ11 otion o.f
the A nonym ous
111 011(' of)'our t('xts, )'ou ('sta!J!ish (I cormcrtion /Jct/I'cer! tI,(, d(,l'r'/(;pmcnt o(
photogr�phy {/J1d f/;n rlJ 'mcr/wnim/ ' {Irt' {lI1d thc hi!'t/; 0("J70U j,i(tr;}'l" , " ,
Cart YOIl explain this COIII/('rtI0J1 ? noes it m rrn/, o nd to RCl1j!lln in :' i(:(r'(1
tiJrlt t/J(' n7(I.UCS (1.1 SIIr/' flrq llirer/ lliribi!it), fit tl,c 17c,r;il1l7 il/g o(tll ( { ('II / l i l T
'
witl, thc help o/thr' 'mecj,{lI7icrli ' (Irt.r?
Perhaps first r shOll Id cle;Jr lip a m iSll ndnsta nd i ng COil cern i ng the notion
of 'mec ha n ical co n nec ti on r established was between ;1 sciell­
a rts'. The
t i fi c paradigm and a n fl('rth('tir pa rad ig m . B enj a m i n s thesis presupposes
'
so mer h i ng d i fferent, which seems q uest i on abl e to me: the deduction of
the aesthetic a nd pol it i ca l properties of a form of a rt fro m irs tech n ica l
properties. M ech a n ical a rts, qua medifln;ca! arts, wou ld res u l t i n a cha nge
of a rtistic para d i g m and a new rela tionsh i p between art a nd [47J i ts
subject matter, Th is proposition refers hack to one of modern ism's m;l i n
theses: t h e d i fference between the a rt s is l i n ked to the d i fference between
thei r tech nnlogiCl I con d itiol1S or t h e i r speci fi c med i u lll or m ater i a l .
T h i s assi m i l a t ion c a n b e u nderstood either i n t h e si mple modern ist
m od e, or i n accord ance with modernatist hyperbole. The persistent
success of Benja m i n's theses on J rt in the a ge of mecha n ical repro -­
d uction is, moreover, u ndoubted ly due to the crossi n g-over they a l lo'",
for between the ca tegories of ivfarxist materia l ist expb n ;ltion a n d those
of I--Ieideggeri;lll ontology, wh ich ascribe the age of mod e rn ity to t h e
u n fu rl i ng of the essence o f tech nolo g v. T h i s l i n k hetween the aesthetic
a n d the onro--t ech nological h ;ls, 111 fact, heen slIhjectcd to the general f:l te
of modern ist categories. Tn Benja m i n , Duch a m p, or Rodchen ko's t i m e .
it c oex is ted with t h e El ith i n the clpabi l i ties of electricity a nd m a c h i nes,
i ron, gla ss , and concrete. With the so-cal l ed 'postmodern' reversal , it has
kept pace with the return to the icon, wh ich presents the ve i l of Veron ic;]
as the essence of p a i n ti n g , fi l m , or photography.
32 T H E POLITICS OF A ES T H E T I C S
It is thus necessary, in my opinion, to take t h ings the o t h e r way
around. I n order for the mechanical arts to be able to confer v i s i bi l i t y
o n t h e masses, o r rather on anonymous i n d ividuals, t hey [48] fi rs t
need to be recogni zed as arts. That i s to say that they fi rs t n e e d to he
put i nto practice and recognized as something o t h e r t h a n tech n i ques
of reproduction or tra nsmission. It i s thus the same p ri nci p l e that
confers visibility on absolutely anyone a nd a l l ows for p h o tography a nd
fil m to become arts. We can even reverse t h e for m u l a : i t is because the
anonymous became the subject matter of art that the act of record i ng
such a subject m atter can be an art. The fact that what is anonymous
is not only susceptible to becoming the subject matter of art but also
conveys a specific beauty is an exclusive characteristic of the aesthetic
regime of the arts. Not only d id the aesthetic regime begi n wel l before
the arts of mechanical reproduction, but it is actually t h is regime that
m ade them possible by its new way of thin k i ng art and its subject
matter.
The aesthetic regime of the arts was i nitially the breakdown of the
system of representation, that is to say of a system where the dignity
of the subject matter d ictated the d ign ity of genres of representation
(tragedy for the nobles, comedy for the people of meagre mea ns;
h istorical painting versus genre painting; etc.) . A long with genres,
the system of representation defin ed the situations and forms of
expression that were appropriate for the lowliness or loft iness of the
subject matter. The aesthetic regime [49] of the arts d i s m a ntled t h is
correlation between subject matter and mode of representation. This
revolution first took place i n l iterature: an epoch and a society were
deciphered through the features, clothes, or gestures of an ord inary
i n d ividual (Balzac) ; the sewer revealed a civi l i zation ( Hugo) ; the
daughter of a farmer and the d aughter of a banker were caught in the
equal force of style as an 'absolute manner of seeing t h i ngs (Flaubert) .
'
A l l of these forms of cancellation or reversal of the opposition between
h igh and low not only a ntedate the powers of mechan ical repro­
duction, they made it possible for this reproduction to be more than
mecha n ical reproduction. I n order for a technological mode o f action
and production, i.e. a way of doing and mak i ng, to be q ua l ifi ed as
falling withi n the domain of art - be it a certai n lISe of words or of
a camera -, i t is first necessary for its subject matter to b e d e fi n ed as
T H E D IS T R T I H J T l O N O F T H E S EN S lH L E
suc h . Photography was not establ i s h ed as a n a r t on t h e grou nds of iu;
tec h nologicl l n a ture. T h e d iscollrsl" 011 t h e o rigi n a l ity o f p hotogr3 plw
as an ' i ndexica l ' art is very recent. a n d i t is less a part of the h is to r y of
photography t h a n of the h i story of the post modern revers;l l touc h ed
upon above. 1 1 F u r t h e r m o re, photography d id not become a n a rt hy
i mi t atin g t h e m a n n er i s ms of a rt. B e n ja m i n accu rately d e m o n s t rated
t h i s re g a rdin g [50] David O ctavius H i l l : i t i s with t h e l it t l e a n onymous
fi s h w i fe from New H aven , not wit h h is grand pictori a l com positio n s .
t h a t he h rought photogLl phy into t h e world of a rt. Likewise. ir is not
t h e e t hereal s uhject m a tter ;lTld soft foclls o f picto r i a l is m that secured
the status o f photogra ph i c art, i t is rather t h e appropriation of the
c o m monplace: t h e emigra n ts in S tiegl i tz's The St('('rtlge, the fron t a l
portraits b y Pau l S tr a n d or Wa l ker Evans.1 2 On the one ha nd, the
tech n ol og i ca l revolut i o n comes a fter the aesthetic revo l u t i o n . On t h e
other hand, h owever, t h e aesth e t i c revo l ut io n is fi rst of all t h e h on o u r
acquired by the com monplace, w h i c h i s p ictori a l and l i terary b e fore
bei ng photographic or ci nematic.
We s h o u l d add that the h o n o u r con fe rred on t h e com m o np b ce
is p a r t of t h e science of l i teratu re hefore b e i n g p a r t of t h e science of
h i sto ry. Fil m and ph otography d i d not d eterm ine t h e suhject m ;l t tcr
a nd modes o f foc a l izat i o n o f ' new h istory'. O n t h e con tr;lf\'. the new
�
s c i e n c e o f h i story a n d t h e a rts of mech a n i� a l reproduction a r i n scribed
in the s a m e logic o f aesthetic revo l u t i o n . T h i s p rogra m me is l itera ry
before b e i n g scienti fic: it s h i fts t h e foc u s from great n a mes a n d eve nts
to the l i fe of the a n o ny mo u s; it fi nd s symp tom s of a n epoch, a s o c i ety ,
or a civi l iza t i o n i n t h e m i n u te deta i l s of ord i n a r y l i fe [5 1 ] ; it explains
t he s u r face lw subterra nean lavers; and i t recon s t ructs worlds from
t h e i r ve s t iges . T h i s does not si ;llp l y mean t h a t t h e science of h i story
'
has a l itera r y pre h istory. L i teratu re itsel f was constituted as a kind of
sym ptomato l ogy of society, and it set th is sym ptomato logr in cOll t rast
with t h e c 1 a mou r a nd i m a gi n a t ion oj' the pub I i c stage. In h is preface to
Cr071I 7{1('//. Hugo ca l led for a l i teratu re hased on t h l" story o f the cll s to m s
of everyd ay l i fe t h a t woul d b e opposed t o t h e s t o r y of events p racti s ed
by h is tori a n s . I n War and P('ace, Tol s tov con trasted t h e d o c u m e n ts o f
l iteratu re, t a ken from n a rrat i ves and tes � i mo n i a l acco u n ts o f t h e action
o f i n nu merable a nonvmous actors, with the docu ments o f h is toria ns.
taken fro m t h e a rc h i�es - a nd fro m t h e i m agin a tion - o f t h ose wll(l
 34 T H E P O L I T I C S OF A E S T H E T I C S
believe to h ave been i n charge of battles and to have made h istory.
S cholarly h istory took over this opposition when i t contrasted the
h istory of the l i festyles of the masses and the cycles of materia l l i fe
based on reading and interpreting 'mute witnesses' with the Former
history of princes, battles, and treaties based on cou rts' ch ronicles and
diplomatic reports. The appearance of the masses [52] on the scene of
h istory or i n 'new' images is not to be confused with the l i n k between
the age of the masses and the age of science and tech nology. It is
first a nd foremost rooted i n the aesthetic logic of a mode of visibi l i ty
that, on the one hand, revokes the representative tradition's scales
of grandeur and, on the other hand, revokes the oratorical model of
speech i n favour of the i nterpretation of signs on the body of people,
t h i ngs, and civi lizations . I '
This is what scholarly h istory i n herited. However, its i n tention was
to separate the condition of i ts new object (the l i fe of t he anonymous)
from its literary origi n and from the politics of l iterature in which it
is i nscribed. What i t cast aside - which was reappropriated by fil m
a nd photography - was t h e logic revealed b y the tradition of t h e novel
(from Balzac to Proust and Surrealism) and the reBection on the true
.:: I i that Marx, Freud, Benjamin, and the trad ition of 'crit ical thought'
i nherited: the ordinary becomes beauti fu l as a trace of the true. And
the ordinary becomes a t race of the true if it is torn from i ts obviousness
i n order to become a hieroglyph, a mythological or phantasmagoric
figure. This phantasmagoric d i mension of the true, which belongs to
the aesthetic regime of t he arts, played an essential role i n the formation
of the critical paradigm of the human and social sciences. [53 J T h e
M arxist theory of fetishism is the most strik i ng testimony to t h i s fact:
commodities must be torn out of their trivial appearances, m ade i nto
phantasmagoric objects in order to be i n terpreted as the expression of
society's contradictions. Scholarly history tried to separate out various
features withi n the aesthetico-political con figuration that gave it its
object. It Battened this phantasmagoria of the true i nto the positivist
sociological concepts of mentality/expression and bclieFlignora nce.
[54]
Is History a Form ofFiction?4
You reffr to the idca offiction flS ('ss('!l tia lly /;e/ongi71g to tiJe dormlin of
empiric{z/ rM!it)'. [-fOil ' ('xact0' is this to !J(' um/('rstoor/? V(!hat ar(' tl,(,
(()}JrIr'ctions /;('t1lJ(,(,11 the fIis/o)")' UN' ar(' ' illlJo/lII'r/ ' in (/lid tI,(, s/orin told
(o r d('co n5trllcted) by the l1arrfitil!(' m·ts? /I nri /'()IIJ ar(' 1 1 '(, to IiIf{/" (' I,(,IISC or
th efit'! tb(1I poeti!" or Ii/am)' /omtions '111/.:(, SI'(fPI" , l'rI!'I' (('tTl ('Ikets, mt/'l,)"
than b eing reji('ctio r!s of' th e rca!; A )"(' the (()r!CI'/,ts 1If' !)(}!/tiCfl! boriies ' or
(/ 'com muna! !Jod i mor(' thlli! l1/etrlpj,on? {JOI'S this ref/atiou inno!!,!, (I
redefinition of'utopill ?
There a re two p roblems h e re t h a t c e r t a i n people con fuse i n ord e r to
con s t ru c t the phantom of a h i s to r i c a l rea l i t y t h a t wou l d s o l e l y he m ;l d e
up of 'fictions'. The fi rst p robl em c o n c e rn s the reLn i o mh i p h e tween
h i story and h i s t ori c it y, that is to say the r e la t i o n s h i p of the h i s to rica l
agent to t h e s p e a k i ng b e i n g . T h e second p rohl em concerns t h e i d ea
of fiction and the rel a t i o n s h i p hetween [ 5 ') ] fi c t i o n a l Ll t i o n :l l i ty ;Ind
the modes of expl anation used for h i storical and social rea l i t y, t h e
r e l a t i o n s h ip between t h e l o gi c o f fi c t ion and t h e l o g i c o f flc ts.
It is preferable to begi n w i t h the s e c o n d p ro h l e m , t h e \l c t l l a l i t y ' of
fiction ana lvsed by the text V O l l re fer ro. I S T h i s actu a l i tv' i tsel F ra i ses
a t wo fold � u e s t i o � : t h e gen � r a l q u es ti on o f fl c t i on 's ra tional i t \" i .e.
the d is t i n c t ion henveen fi ct i o n and b l s i ty, ;l I1el t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e
d is t i n c t i o n - or t h e i n d i s r i n ct ioTl - hetwecn t h e modes o f i nr e l l i g i hi l i t v
spec i fi c to t h e co n s t r u c t i o n of s to ries ;1I1 et t h e lllodes of i me l l i g i h i l i t \'
med for u n d e rs ta n d i n fl: h is t o r i c a l p h c n o m c n ;l . let's s t a r t frolll t h e
b eg i n n i n g. The spec i fi �ity of t h e represen t a tive reg i m e of t h e ;Hts i s
cha racterized b y the se p a ra t i o n he tween t h e idea o f fi c t i o n a n d t h a t of
l ies. It is this regi m e that con fers a u to nomy on t h e a ns' va r ious t(l r m S i n
re lat i on s h ip to the economy o f com m u n a l occ\ Jpatlons a nd t h e c O ll nter­
economv) of simulacra speci fi c to t h e e t h i c a l reg i me of i m a ges. T h i s is
wh a t i s esse n t i a I lv ;It s;ake in ;\ ri sto t l e's Poctics, wh i c h sa f�gua rd s t h e
fo r m s o f poet i c �lim(is is from t h e P l a to n i c smpicion conCCfn i n g w h a t
 36 T H E P O L ITICS O F AESTHETICS
i m ages consist of and their end or purpose. The Poetics declares that
the arrangement of a poem's actions is not equ ivalent to the fabrication
of a simulacrumY; It is a play of [56] k nowledge that is carried out i n
a determined space-ti me. To pretend i s not to put forth i l l us ions but
to elaborate i ntel l igible structures. Poetry owes no explanation for the
'trut h ' of what it says because, in its very principle, it is not made u p of
images or statements, but fictions, that is to say arrangements between
actions. The other consequence that Aristotle derives from th is is the
superiority of poetry, which confers a causal logic on the arrangement
: of events, over h istory, condemned to presenti ng events according
to their empirical disorder. I n other words - and this is obviomly
something that h istorians do not l i ke to examine too closely - the clear
division between real ity and fiction makes a ratioml logic o f h isto r y
i mpossible as well as a science of h istory.
The aesthetic revolution rearranges the rules of the game by ma k i n g
two t h ings i n terdependent: the blurring o f the borders between the
logic of facts and the logic of fictions and the new mode of rational ity
that characterizes the science of h istory. By declaring that the principle
of poetry is not to be fou nd in fi ction but in a certai n arra ngement of
the signs of language, the Romantic Age blurred the dividi ng l i ne that
isolated art from the j urisdiction of statements or images, as well as
the d ividi ng l i ne that separated the [57J logic of facts from the logic of
stories. It is not t he case, as is sometimes said, that it consecrated the
'autotelism' of language, separated fro m reality. It is the exact opposite.
The Romantic Age actually plunged language i nto the m ateriality of
I the traits by which the h istorical and social world becomes visible to
I itself, be it in the form of the silent l a nguage of things or t he coded
language of i m ages. Circulation within this landscape of signs defines,
moreover, the new fictional ity, the new way of telli ng stories, which
I is fi rst of all a way of assigning meani ng to the 'empi rical' world of
lowly actions and commonplace objects. Fictional arra ngement is
: no longer identified with the Aristoteli a n causal sequence of actions
'accordi ng to necessity and plausibility'. It is an arrangement of s i g ns .
However, this l i terary arrangement of signs is by no means the sol itary
I self-referentiality of language. It is the identification of modes of
fi ct ional construction with means of deciphering the signs i nscribed
i n the general aspect of a place, a group, a wall , an article of clothing,
' I ' ll I'. DIST R I B U T I O N OF T H E S F N S TH L E
a face. It i s t h e association betwe en , on t h e one hand, a c c e l e rat i o n s o r
decelerations of l a n g u a ge, i ts shu fH i n g of i m a ges o r s u d d e n c h a n ges of
tone, all i ts d i fferen ces of potential hetween the i n sign i llca n t a n d t h e
ove r l y s i gn i fi ca n t o r overly me ;l n i n g fu l [5 8 ] , ,md on t h e other h ;1 nd , r h e
mod a l i t i es of a t r i p t h rough the l a n d scape of s i gn i fica n t t ra i ts deposired
i n the topography of spaces, rhe p hy s i ol o gy of soc i a l c i rcles, the s i l e n t
ex pressi on of bod i es . T h e ' Il c t i o tu l i ty' spec i fi c r o the aesthet i c a g e i s
c o nseq u e n t l y d i s t r i buted hetvvee n two poles: t h e pote n t i a I of m e a n i n g
i n h erent i n everyth i n g si l e n t a nd t h e pro l i fera tion o f modes o f speech
and levels o f m e a n i n g.
The aesthetic s()verei 'gntv of I iteratlt rc docs not rherefore ; 1 mou nt ro
the reign of Il c r i o l 1 . On th � comra rv, i t i s a regi me in wh ich t h e l og i c
of d e s c r i p t ive a nd n a rrative a rr a n ge m e n t s i n fi c t i o n hecomes fu nda­
m e n ta l l y i nd i s t i nct from the a rr:1 I1gements lIsed in the d escri p t i o n :1 nd
i n te r p reta t i o n of the p h e n o m e n a of t h e soc i a l a nd h i storica l worl d .
\X! h e n R a I zac p l aces h is read e r before t h e elltwi ned h i eroglyph i c s o n
t he totte r i n g a nd heterocl ite fj <;ade o f t he hOllse i n I1 t tf,(' Sip,n oj'tf,(' Cat
and Rrlc/?('t, or h a s h i s reader e n te r a n a n t iq u e d ea le r s s ho p w i t h the' ,
h ero o f The Magic Skin,l- w h e re ju mbled u p to ge ther arc objects hoth
profane a n d sacred, uncivil ized and cu l tured , antique a n d modern,
that each sum u p a world , when he m a kes euvier t h e true poet recon ­
structi n g a world from a fo ss i l , he establ ishes a reg i m e of e qu i va l e n c e
between t h e s i g n s of the new novel a n d t hose of the d e s c r ipti o n or ['59J
i n te r p retat i on of t he p h e n o m e n a of a c iv i l izat i o n . He fc)!'ges this new
ration a l it y of the obvious and the obscure t h a t goes a ga i n s t the gra n d
A r istotel i a n a rr:1 l1 gements a n d t h a t wou ld beco m e the n ew rat i o n a l i t y
for the h i s to r y o f m ateri a l l i fe (wh i c h sta n d s i n oppos i t i o n t o the
histories of great n a mes a nd events) .
T h e A r i <; co r e l i a n d ivid i n g l i ne between two 'stori es' o r ' h i s to ries'
,
- poets' stories a n d the h istory of h istor i a n s - i s t hereby revoked ,
t h e d i vidi n g l ine t h a t nor o n l y sepa rated re a l i t y a n d fic t i o n but a l s o
e m p i rica I succession a nd const ru cted neces s i t y. A r is totl e establ i s h cd
t h e su perior i t y of poet ry, recou n t i n g 'wh a t cou l d h appen' accord i n s;
to t h e n e c e s s i ty o r pl au s ib i l i t y o f t h e poeti c a rr a n ge m e n t o f a c t i o n s ,
over h i story, c o n c e i ved of as t h e e m p i r i c a l success i o n or eve nts, of'
'wh a t h a pp e n e d '. T h e aes t h e t i c revo l u t i o n d rastfca I ly d is rupts th i ng s :
tes t i mony a n d h c t i o n come u nd e r t h e s a m e r e g i m e of m e a n i n g O n .
38 T H E POLITICS O F A ES T H ET I C S
the one h an d , the 'empirical ' bears the marks of the true in the f()rm
of traces and i mprints. 'What happened' thus comes cl i rectly u nder a
regime of truth, a regime that demonstrates the necessity heh i nd what
happened. On the other h a nd, 'what could h appen' no longer has the
autonomous and l i near form [60] of the arrangement of actions. The
poetic 'story' or ' h istory' henceforth l inks the rea l ism that shows us
the poetic traces i n scribed d i rectly in reality with the artificialism that
assembles complex machi nes of u nderstanding.
This connection was transferred from literature to the new art
of n arrative, fi l m, which brought to its h ighest potential the double
resource of the silent i mprint that speaks and the montage that calcu­
lates the val ues of truth and the potential for producin g mea n i ng.
Documentary film, fi l m devoted to the 'real ', is in t h is sense c a p a bl e
of greater fictional i nvention than 'fiction' fi lm, readily devoted to a
certai n stereotype of actions and characters. Chris Marker's Le Tombeau
d'Alexandre (The Last Bolshevik), the object of the article you refer to,
fictionalizes the h istory of Russia fro m the time of the czars to the post­
communist period through the desti ny of a fi l m-ma ker, A lexa nder
Medvedk i n . Marker does not make h i m i nto a fictional character; he
does not tell fabricated stories about the USSR. He plays off of the
combination of d i fferent types of traces (interviews, sign ificant faces,
archival documents, extracts from documentary and fictional fi l ms,
etc.) i n order to suggest possibilities for thi nking [61] t h is story or
h istory. The rea l must be fictiona lized i n order to be thought. This
proposition should be distinguished from any d iscourse - positive or
negative - accord i n g to which everyth ing is 'narrative', with alterna­
tions between 'grand' n arratives and ' m inor' n a rratives. The notion
of 'narrative' locks us i nto oppositions between the real and arti fice
where both the positivists and the deconstructionists are lost. It is not
a matter of claiming that everyt h i n g is fiction . It is a matter of stating
that the fiction of the aesthetic age defi ned models for con necting
the presentation of facts and forms of i ntelligibility that blu rred tlte
border between the logic of facts and the logic of fiction. Moreover,
these models were taken up by h istorians and analysts of social real ity.
Writing h istory and writi ng stories come under the sa me regime of
truth. This h as noth i ng whatsoever to do with a thesis on the reality
or u nreality of th i ngs. O n the contrary, it is clea r that a model for the
T H E D I S T R I B UT I O N O F T H E S E N S I B LE j()
fabrication of stories is l i nked ro a c e rt a i n idea of h i s to ry as com mon
d es t i n y, with an idea of those who ' m a ke h i s to ry' . a nd that t h i s i l l t er­
p e n e tra t i o n of t h e logic of fa cts a n d t h e log i c of storics is speci fi c ( 1 :I n
a ge when a nyone a n d everyon e i s c o n s ide r e d to he pa r t i c i pa t i n g i n the
task of ' maki n g' h istory. T h u s . i t i s not a m aner of c l a i m i n g t h ;H [ (,21
'H istory' is only m a d e up o f s to r i es t h a t we tel l ou rselves. but s i m p ! :'
that the 'logic of stories' and the ability to act as h istoric a l a gents go
together. Pol itics a nd art. like forms of k nowled ge, con s truct ' fi ct i o n s '.
that is to say Inrltrrir;/ re a rr a n gem ent s of s i g n s a n d i mages. re ! a t i o I 1 s h i ps
between what is seen a n d w h a t is said, hetween what i s d o n e a n d what
can be done.
It is h ere t h ;H we enco u n ter the o t h e r qu e st i o n t h ;H you asked . wh ich
concer n s the r e LH i o n s h i p hetwecn l i te LH i t v ;l n d h i s [( l I" 1 c i t y. Pol i t icli
-;(:ltclll e rHS a n d l i tera ry locutions produce e ffe c ts I n rea l i t y. T h e \'
d e fl n e models of s peech or action b u t a l s o regi mes of sensible i ntemi tv.
They d ra ft m a ps of the v i s i b l e , trajectories b e twee n t h e visible a n d t he
sayable, relationsh ips between modes of bei ng, modes of s ayi n g , and
modes of doing and maki ng. They denne va riations of sensible illten­
sities, perceptions, and the abi I ities of bod ies. I X Thev t h e rdw ra kc h old
of uns pe cified groups of people. they w i d e n gaps. open up space f(lr
deviations, mod i fy the speeds. the trajectories. and the ways i n which
groups of people a d here to a cond ition. react to s i t u a t i o n s . reco g n iz e
t h e i r i mages. T h ey reco n fi gu re t h e m a p of the s e n s ib l e by i nt e rf(:ri ng
with the f'u n c tio na l i t y of g e st u re s :1 n d r hy t h m s [ (,31 ad ap te d t o t h e
n a tu ra l c ycl es of production, rep ro d u ct i on , a n d sllh m ission . M a n i s
a pol itical an imal because he is a l i terary a n i mal who lets h i mself b e
d ive r te d from h is 'natura l ' pu r p o s e by t he power of words. T il i s litrr­
rlrity is at once the cond ition and the effect of fhe c i rc u l a t i o n of ' a c t l l a l '
literary locutions. However. these locut i o n s t ak e hold of hod i e s a n d
d i verr t h e m fro m t h e i r e n d or pu rpose i n s o fa r a s th e y a r e n o t ho (I i L' s i n
t h e seme o f orga n i s m s . h u t q ll a s i-hoel ies. hl ocl�s o f s peech c i rcu h t i n ��
w i t h o l l t a l e g i t i m a te b t h er to ;l C c o m p a n y t h e m w\V:trd t h e i r allthori 7.ed
acid ressee. Theref()rc. they d o not p roduce col l ectlw hod i e " . [ n s tC:H l .
th ey i n t rod l l ce l i n es or fracture a n d d i s i n corpora t i o n i ll to i m agi n a ry
col lec t ive hod i es . Th i s h a s :l l wav s hee n , :IS is wel l k n owll , t h e p h o b i ;l of
th ose i n power a n d the theo retici a n s o f good go\'t'rn lll c n t . worr icd t h :l t
the c i rc u la t io n o f w r i t i n g wou ld pro d l lce ' d i s ord e r i n t h e e s t: l hl i s h c d
40 T H E P O LI T I C S O F A ES T H ET I C S T H E D 1 ST R J R U T I O N OF T H E S E N S I B L E 41

system of classi fication'. It was also, in the n ineteenth century, the body f()r the commun ity where the water and rail routes ma rked out
phobia of 'actual' writers who wrote in order to denounce the l iterarity on the grou nd wou ld take the p lace of paper d rea1l1� and the ilillsioll�
that overflows the i nstitution of l i terature and leads its products astray. of �peech . The workers, for thei r pa rr, did not set practice in contrast
It is true t hat the circulation of t hese q uasi-bodies causes modi fica­ with utopia; they con ferred upon the latter the cha r:lCteristic of hei ng
tions i n the sensory perception of what is common to the com mun ity, 'unreal', of being a montage of words and i m ages appropriate for recon­
i n the relationship [641 between what is common to language and the figuri ng the territory of the visible, the t h i n kable, and the possihle.
sensible d istribution of spaces and occupations. They form, i n th is way, The ' fictions' of art and pol itics a re therefore heterotopias rather than
u n certai n com mu n ities that contribute to the fonnation of enu nciative utopias. [66]
collectives that call i n to q uestion the d istribution of roles, territories,
and languages. In short, they contribute to the formation of pol itical
subjects that challenge the given distribution of the sensible. A pol itica I
collective is not, i n actual fact, a n organ ism or a com munal hody.
The chan nels for political subjectivization are not those of i magi n a ry
identification but t hose of ' literary' disincorporation. I '>
I a m not sure that the notion of u topia takes t h is into accou nt. I r is
a word whose defin itional capabil ities have been completely devoured
by its connotative properties. Somet i m es it refers to the m ad dellisions
t hat lead to totalitarian catastrophe; someti mes it refers, conversely, to
the i n fi nite expansion of the field of possibility that resists all forms of
totalizing closu re. From t he poin t of view t hat concerns us here, i .e. the
point of view of the recon figurations of the shared sensible order, the
word utopia h a rbours two contradictory mean ings. Utopia is, in one
respect, the u n acceptable, a no-place, the ext reme point of a polemical
recon figuration of the sensible, which breaks down the categories
that defin e what is considered to be obvious. However, it is also the
con figuration of a proper place, a [65] non-pole mical d istribution of
the sensible u niverse where what one sees, what one says, a nd what one
m a kes or does are rigorously adapted to one another. Utopias and forms
of utopian socialism functioned based on this ambiguity. On the one
hand, they dismissed the obviolls sensible facts in wh ich the normal ity
of domination is rooted . O n the other hand, t hey proposed a state
of affa irs where the idea of the com m u n ity would h ave i ts adequate
forms of i ncorporation, a state of affairs that would therefore abol ish
the disp ute concerning the relations of words to t h ings t h at m a kes
up the heart of pol itics. I n The Nights of LfltJOr, I ana lysed from this
perspective the complex encounter between workers a nd the engi neers
of utopia. What the Sai nt-Simonian engi neers proposed was a new, rea l

On Art and Worklo
The link between f1rtistic prf1ctice mzd itJ rlpparent outJide, i. ('. work, is
essentif11 to the hypothesis ofa 'foctory of the sensible '. How do you yourself
conceive ofsuch a link (exclusion, distinction, indifference. . .)? Is it possible
to spef1k of 'humrln activity' in general f1nd include artistic prrlctices with; n
it, or are these exceptions when compared to other practices?
The first possible mean i ng of the notion of a ' factory of the sensible'
is the formation of a shared sensible world, a com mon habitat, by the
weav i ng together of a p l ura l i ty of h u m a n activities. However, the i dea
of a ' distribution of the sensible' i mplies someth i ng more. A 'c om m on'
world is never simpl y a n ethos, a shared abode, that results from the
sedimentation of a certai n n umber of i ntertwi ned acts. It i s a l ways a
polemical d istribution of modes of being and 'occupations' i n [671 a
space of possibilities. It is from t h is perspective that it is possible to
raise the questi o n of the relationship between the 'ord i nari ness' of work
and artistic 'exceptional ity'. Here agai n referen c i ng P lato can help l ay
down the terms of the problem. I n the th i rd book of the Republic,
the m i metician i s no longer condemned s i mply for the falsity and the
per n icious nature of the i mages he presents, but he is condemned i n
accordance with a principle o f division o f l abour that was a l ready used
to exclude artisans from a ny shared pol itical space: the m i metician i s ,
by defi nition, a double being. H e does two things at once, whereas the
p r inciple of a wel l-organized commu n ity i s that each person o n ly docs
the one t h i ng that they were destined to do by their ' nature'. In one
sense, this statement says everything: the idea of work is not i n it i a l ly
the idea of a determined activity, a process of material transformation,
It is the idea of a d istribution of the sensible: a n i m poss i b i l ity of doing
'someth ing else' based on a n 'absence of ti me'. This ' i m possib i lity' is
part of t he i ncorporated conception of the commu n i ty. It establ ishes
work as the necessary relegation of the worker to the p r i vate space-ti me
of h i s occupation, h i s exclusion from pa rticipation i n what i s c o m m o n
T H E I l T S T R l B l l T I O CJ O F T H E S F N S I B I . E
to t h e com m u n i tv. " T h e m i me t i c i a n b r i n gs co n fllS i o n to r() � ] this
d istribution: he i s ;1 ma n o f d u p l i c a t i o n , ;1 worker w h o docs two th i n hs
at once. Perhaps the correlate to t h i s pr i n c i p le is the m o s t i m po rt;l ;'l l
t h i ng: the m i m e t i c i a n p rov i d es a p uhl i c stage for t h e pr iv ate prinCiple
' '
of work. H e s e t s lip a stage f()r w h a t i s com m o n t o the com m u n i t \'
w i t h what should d e t erm i � e t h e con fi n e m e n t of each person to h i s (;r
her p l a c e. Tt i s t h i s red istr ibution of the sensible that c o n s t i tut es h i s
n o x i o ll s ness even more t h a n the d a n ger of s i m u la cra wea ke n i n g sou ls .
,
H e n ce, ;l r t i s t i c p ractice i s n o t the outside of work hur i ts d i s pl aced
for m o f v i s i h i l i t y. T h e d e m o cra t i c d i s t r i bu t i o n of t h e s e n s i b l e m a kes
the w o r ke r i n to a double bei n g. It r e m ove s the a r t i s a n (rolll h i s place, ' '
t h e domestic space of work , a nd g ives h i m ' t i me' t o o c c u p y the 'p;lce
o f publ ic d i scussions a nd ta ke o n the identi t\' of a del iberative citizen.
The m i metic act of spl itting in two, wh i cl� i s a t work in theatrical
space, consecrates this d u a l i ty and m a k e s it v i s i b l e . T h e exclus i o n of
the m i m e t i c i ;l I1 , from the PL; ton ic poi n t o f vi ew, goes h a nd i ll In nd
with t h e fClI"Tll a t i o n o f a com m u n i t v where wo r k i s i ll i t s piau. ' '
T h e p r i n ci p l e of flction that gove rn s the represl'llt;l t i " e rq.',imc o f , n T
is ; 1 wav o f sta h i l i z i n g the a rt i s t i c c X Cl' p t i o n , of a s s i g l 1 l T1 g it to a t('(I,1U�,
wh i c h mea n s r wo t h i n gs : t h e a rt of i m i t a r i o n s is ;; recl� ll i q u (' a n d Ilot
a l ie, It ceases to b e [69J a simu lacr u m , but at the same t i me it ce a s es
to be the d isplaced visibi l ity of work. as a d i s t ri b ut i o n of' the sens ihle.
The i m i tator is no longer the double bei n g agai nst whom it is necessary
to posit the city where each person only does a s i n g l e t h i ng. The a rt of
i m itations is able to i nscribe its spe c i fi c h ierarch ies and exclllSions I n
the m ajor d istribution o f the l iberal arts a n d the m e c h a n i cal a rt s .
The ;lesthetic regi me of t h e a rts di s r u p ts th is apportion mellt of
spaces. It docs not s i m pl y ca l l i nto q u e s t i o n m i me t i c d iv i s i o n - i . e . t h e
m i m etic act of s pl i t t i ng i n two - i n favou r o f a n i m m ;l n e n ce o r t h O U G h t
i n sens i b l e matter. It ,� lso calls i n to q uestion the n e u t r a l i z ed statll�"() f
tec/me, the idea of tech n ique as the i m posit i o n of a form o f thought
on i nert matter. That is to sav t h at i t bri ngs to l ight o n ce ,wa i ll � h e
d istriburion of OcclIpf1tions tba� upholds the apportioll �letlt of:l()n� a i ns
of activity. This t heoretical and pol itical operation is at the hea rt
of S c h i l ler's On the A nt/wtic EduCflliol/ 0/ !'vian. Beh i nd the
K a n t i a n d e fl n i t io n of a e s t h et i c judgement as a j u d g e m e n t w i t h o u t
concepts - w i t h OUT t h e s u b m i s s i o n o f t h e i ll t u i r- ivt' g i v e n to conceptua l
44 T H E POLITI C S O F A ES T H E T I C S
determ ination , Schi ller i nd icates the pol itical d istribution that is
the matter at stake: the d ivision between those who act and those
who are acted upon, between the cultivated classes [70] that h ave
access to a total ization of l ived experience and the uncivil ized classes
i mmersed i n the parcelli ng out of work and of sensory experience.
Schi ller's 'aesthetic' state, by suspendi n g t he opposition between active
understandi n g and passive sensib i l ity, a i ms at breaki ng down - with
a n idea of art - a n idea of society based on the opposition between
those who t h i n k and decide and those who are doomed to materi a l
tasks.
I n the n ineteenth century, t h is suspension of work's negative value
became the asserti o n of its positive value as the very form of the shared
effectivity of thought and community. This mutation occurred via
the transformat ion of the suspension i n herent i n the 'aesthetic state'
i nto the positive assertion of the aesthetic will. Romanticism declared
that the beco m ing-sensible of a l l thought and the beco m i n g-thought
of a l l sensible materiality was the very goal of t he activity of thought
i n general . In t h is way, art once aga i n became a symbol of work. It
anticipates the end - the e l i m in ation of oppositions - that work is not
yet in a position to attai n by and for itsel f. However, it does this insofar
as i t is a production, the identi fication of a process of material execution
with a comm u nity's sel f-presentation of its mean i ng. P roduction
asserts itself [7 1] as the principle behi nd a new d istribution of the
sensible i n sofar as it u n ites, i n one and the same concept, terms that
are traditional ly opposed: the activity of manufacturi ng and visibil ity.
Manufacturi ng meant i n habiting the private and lowly space-time
of l abour for sustenance. Produci n g u nites the act of manufactu ri ng
with the act of bringing to l ight, the act of defi n i ng a new rel ationship
between making and seeing. A rt a nticipates work because it carries out
its principle: the transformation of sensible matter into the com mu­
nity's self-presentation. The texts written by the young M a rx that
confer upon work the status of the generic essence of m a n k i nd were
only possible on the basis of German Idea l ism's aesthetic progra m me,
i.e. art as the t ransformation of thought i nto the sensory experience of
the community. It is t h is i n itial programme, moreover, that laid the
fou ndation for the thought and practice of the 'avant-ga rdes' in the
1920s: abol ish a rt as a separate activity, put it back to work. that is t o
TTI E DI ST R I B U TI O N O F T il E S EN S I B L E
say, give i t back to l i fe a n d its activ i ty of work i n g Ollt i ts own proper
mea n r ng.
I d o not mea n by t h is that t h e modern v a l or i za t i o n o f work i s onl y
t he res u l t of the n ew way for t h i n k ing ahout a r t . O n the one h ;l n d ,
t h e t7{'sthf'tir mode o f t h o u g h t i s m u c h more t h a n a wav o f t h i n k i n g
'
'o
about a rt . I t i s a n i d e a o f th ught, l i n ked to a n idea o f th c d is t r i b u t i o �
[72J of t h e sensi b le. On the other h a n d , it i s a l so n ecessa ry to t h i n k
about t h e way i n wh ich a rt i sts' a rt fou nd itsel f d e fi ned o n the b:1 s i , o f
a twofold pr�motiol1 o f work : the econom i c p ro m ot i o n of work a s t h e
name for the fu n dame nta l h u ma n a c t i v ity, hut a l so the struggles of t h e
proletariat to bri ng labour ou t o f t he n ight s u r rou n d i n g i t , out ( ) f i t s
ex c l us i o n from shared v i s i b i l i ty a n d speec h . I t i s neces s a n' to a h a n d o n
t h e l azv a n d absu rd schema t h a t con trasts t h e a e s t h e t i c cu l t of ;Ht f� ) r
L
a rt 's s a " w i t h the r i s i n g power o f i n d u stri a l l ahou r. A rt e m " h ow ': igm
o f hc i n g an exc l u s i ve a c t i v i ty i n s o b r ; 1 5 i t i s work . Better i n f()rmnl r- 11 ;1 T1
t h e d c mysti fi ers of t h e twentieth cent u ry, the c r i t i c s i n F l a u he rt \ t i m e
i n d i c a ted w h a t l i n ks t h e c u l t o f t h e sentencc t o t h e va l o r i zati oT1 o f work,
s a i d to be word l ess: t h e F l a u bert i a n ;l esthctc i s a pebhle brea ker. At t h e
t i m e o f the Russ i a n Revol u ti o n , a r t a n d p roductiol1 wou l d be i cle n t i f-i e d
b e cau s e t h e y ca me u nder one a nd t h e s a m e p r i n c i p l e concern i n g t h e
red istribution o f the s e n s i h l e , they c a m e u nder o n e a n d the s a rn c
v i rtue o f action th at opens u p a fo�m of v i s ih i l ity a t the s a m e t i m e a s
it m a n u Elctures obj ects. The c u l t o f a r t p resu pposes a reva l o ri zation o f
t h e abi l i t i es a ttac he d to t h e very idea o f work. However, t h i s idea i s l ess
t h e d i scm'Cry of t h e essence of h u m a n a c t i v i ty t h a n a rccompos i t i o n
of t h e l a n dscape of the vi s i h l e , a recom po s i t i o n o f t h e [751 relat i o n s h i p
between d oi n g , m ak i n g , b e i ng , see i ng, a n d s ay i ng. \X! h a tever m i g h t he
the speci fic type o f econom ic c i rcu i ts they l ie w i th i n , a rt i s t i c practi ces
are not 'exccptions' to other pra c t i ces. They repres e n t a n d reco n fi gu re
the d istribution of t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s .
 The Janus-Face o.fPoliticized Art:22
Jacques Ranciere in Interview lDith Gabriel
Rockhill

H ISTORICAL A N D H ER M EN EU TIC
M ETHODOLOGY

- 1 71'(11I!'/ /il:1' t () h(Xin u'itl, (l f/I/f'st/()J/ ('() u ral/ in,'!. J)/(,thor/o!o/!,l'. n , ;

s(,7Jrrfr / rlSi() fls , ),()JI m!! into q llestioN tilt .1)'JIljJt0 17lrl/n/o,r(l' ti,/it ff!l('I?l,/Jtr
()((

t() lImll'i! thc trllth hirldtn h('hind tl,(' ()/;.'olrr' slllI/e(' o( fljJpmrtlll(CS,
w/,/'th rr it is A lthuss('r :, sci l'r! ((" Froid 's cfio/()KJI, or tiJ(' socia! sr/I'r!(('s
in g('ncral. fn ),ou r ()wn rcscf/rci; ()n tile distri/mlions or tf,C '(,II.,ih/c !I'm
und('r/i(' hist() ri((!/ ('()nf�l!,lIrations offll't {/nd politirs, how do VOII (woid tim
logic of thc hidd('rI rl11d th(' app(zrcnt? HOI/i IU(llIlri V()1I r!f'SITi!,(' yrm r IIII'll

hist()rirr;! and hrrmen('1{tir l11 ('t/J()do!()Kl' if 'th('rl' is 7/11 SOI'r!C(, /. . . ; /m! o!

the J,ir/dm ':2 \
- ' T h ere i s n o science r . . . 1 but of t h e h id d e n' i s a ph rase hv 8;l C h c l a I'd
t h a t h a d heen t a k e n up hy t h e A l t h u sscri a n s . Th u s , i t W;l \ a n i ro n i c
C] u o t ;1 tio n agtlimt the v i s i o n t h a t presu pposes the n ecessi ty of fi n d i n g
or c o n s t r uc t i n g t h e h id d e n . I t was ;1 11 i ro n ic q u o t a t i o n d i rectcd ;H

A l thusser's p h i l o s o ph y as wel l as at BOlll'd i eu's soci o l ogy or the h i .\ to ry

of t h e Annrt/('s School. I by n o m ea ns th i n k, ro r m y p a r r , t h a t thne i s flO

science b u t o f the h id d e n . r a l w:\vs t r v t o t h i n k i n terllls of hori70nt;l l

d i s t r i b u t i o n s , com b i n a t i o n s hetween system s of possib i l i t ies, n o r i n
terms of s u r face a nd s l Ibsrra tl i m . W h e re o n e sea rches for t h e h id d c ll
heneath the a p p a rent, ;1 pos i t i o n or m a stery i s es ta b l i s h e d . I h ave t ried

to c o n c e i ve of a topogra p h y that d oes not p resuppose t h i s p o s i t i o n of

maste ry. It i s possible, from a ny given p o i n t , [() t r y to recon s t r u c t the
c o n ceptu a l n etwork that m akes it possib l e to cOllceive of a state l i l C" ll1 .
t h a t causes a pa i nt i ng or a p i ece of m u s i c to m a k e 3 11 i m preSS i o n , t h ; i t
c a u ses r e a l ity t o appea r tra n s fo r m a b l e o r i n ;l i te r;lb l c . f h i , i s t i l ; ! \v .l '
50 T il E PO LITIC S O r A ESTH E TI C S
the mai n theme of my research. I do not mean b y that t h a t i r is ;1
principle or a starting poi nt. I bega n , myself as wel l , from the stereo­
typed vision of science as a search for the h idden. Then I constructed ,
l ittle by l ittle, an egal itarian or ana rch ist theoretical position that does
not presuppose this vertical relations h ip of top to bottom.
- Does that mean that the regimes ofart are not trrlnsc('nd('ntal ((Indi­
tions ofpossibility for history in the sense ofFOUCflult, but rather conditiolls
ofprobability that ar(' immanent in history?
- I try not to t hi n k about this i n terms of t he philosophy of
h istory. As for the term transcendental, it is necessary to see what this
word can mean. The transcendental is somet h i ng l ike a reduction
of the transcendent that can either bring the transcendent back i nt o
t h e i mmanent or, on the contrary, m a ke t h e i m m a nent take fl ight
once aga i n into the transcendent. I wou ld say that my approach is
a bit similar to Foucault's. I t retai ns the pri nciple from the Kant ian
transcendental that replaces the dogmatism of truth with the search
for conditions of possibi l ity. At the same time, these conditions are
not cond itions for thought i n general , bur rather conditions i m m a nenr
in a particular system of thought, a particul a r system of expression. [
d i ffer from Foucault i nsofar as his a rchaeology seems to me to j'()l low
a schema of h istorical necessity according to wh ich, beyond a certai n
chasm, somet h i ng i s no longer thinkable, can no longer be formulated.
The visibility of a form of expression as an artistic form depends on
a h i storically constituted regime of perception and i ntel l igibil ity. This
does not mean that it becomes invisible with the emergence of a new
regime. I thus try at one and the same to h istoricize the transcen­
dental and to de-historicize these systems of conditions of possibil ity.
Statements or forms of expression u ndoubtedly depend on h istorica lly
constituted systems of possibi lities t hat determine forms of visibil ity or
criteria of eval uation, but this does not mean that we j ump from one
system to another in such a way that the possibil i ty of the new system
coincides with the i m possib i lity of the former system. I n t h is way, the
aestheti c regime of art, for example, is a system of possibil ities that is
h istorical ly constituted but that does not abolish the representative
regi me, which was previously domi nant. At a given point in t i me,
several regimes coexist and i nter m i ngle i n the works themselves.
T NT F HV I EW FOH Tl I L F N C U S l l E n I T l ( ) � 51
U N I V E RS,A, Ll T Y, H I S TClR I CT T Y, EQLA Ll T Y
- ) (! llr drlim ((I1I(('ming tfl(' IInil '('rSi/! slrltils of/)()lillull ((/II(I/I l )" -'1"1'111.<
to ((I1l/mrlia Ihe f!,('J !('mlizeri histoJ'i('isJlI that c/Jrlrrlclcrizc.l your 1"('(le("/ ion
on rl('sthetics. fJo wl'ver, the 'on{v IIni1J(,J�ial ' is not /Jrl.l"l'ri ;m r/ll ;� p r i o r i
j07lndation, and i t is pmper{y sperd:ing rl polemiml ullil!ersal that is o n ly
actualized in spaces o/dispute. Is u)Jlversrilitv therejYlJ"e (dways riepl'Jlrin;r
on rJ historical implementation ! fl' it, so to speak historicized in tl l rn : 01'
is there f1 trrlnsccndentlll point t/lrlt C\wpcs his/o}')'?
- There a re two quest i o n s i n vou r q u est i o n . Fi rst of a l l , is i t a c o m !";1'
diction to emphasize, on r h e o n e h a neL a po l i t i c a l I l n i n'rsa l ;1 n d , on r 1 w
o t h e r h a n e! , r h e h i st o r i city of r eg i m es for t h e i d e n r i fl c a t i o Tl of a n ? I do
n o t t h i n k so. B o t h of t h es e a p p ro a c h e s refer hack t o t h e S;l ll l C r;l t i ot];1 !
co re, wh ich is the critique of those forms of discourse that i n bet play
a double game by using general ah istorica l concepts of a rt a nd pol itics,
wh ile at the sallle ti me l i n k i n g h o t h of" them to h isto r ical destinies Iw
d e c l a ring our epoch to be the age of t h e 'e n d ' o f art or p o l i tics. \X' h :lt
I i n t e n d to show i n both cases i s t h at a r t a n d /Jo/itin a re con t i n getH
n ot i o n s . T'he f1c t t h a t th ere a re :l lways ffll' m s of power docs nO[ m e a 1 1
that t h e re i s ;t 1 w;lYS such ;1 t h i n i� ;l S pol i t i c s , and t h t' L1c t t h ;1 I r h l' IT i s
music or scu lpture i n : 1 s o c i e t y d ocs n o r Ill C;1 l 1 t h a t ;nt is c o n s t i t u t('d ;l S
a n i nd ep e nd e n t clfegory. F rom t h i s p ers p e c t i ve , I c h ose nNO d i ff ere l l t
forms of a rgu mentation . F o r t h e fo r m e r, I showed t h a t p o l i t i c s was not
tied to a determ i ned h istorical p roj ec t . as i t is declared to b e by ' those
who identi fy its end with the end of the project of em;] ncipation begu n
by the French Revol u ti o n . Pol itics exists when the flgme of a s p ec i fi c
su bject is constituted, a supernu merary s u b j e c t i n rel a t ion to t he
calculated n u m b e r of groups, places, and fu n c t i on s i n a so c i e t y. T h i,s
i s sum med up i n t h e concept of t h e rlh1711S. Of C o t 1 rSe, t h i .s does n ot
pt"c\TIlf there from bei n g h isto r i ca l for m s o f p o l i t i c s , a n d i t d oes Tlot
exclude the fa c t that the forms of pol i t i c a l s u h j ec t i v i zat i o n : h a t 1 m ke
up modern democracy are o f a n e n t i rel y d i fferent complex ity t h a n l h t'
people i n Greek democratic cities.
Conce rn i ng art, it seemed necess; ny to me to emphasize rhe
existence of h istorical regimes of iden t i flcation i n order to d i s m i , s , ;If
one and the same ti me, the false o b v i ous n ess of a rt's C'fernal ex i s te n c e
a nd the con fused i m a ges o f artistic ' m o d e rn i ty' i n t e r m s o f a ' c r i t i q u e

52 THE P O L I T I C S OF A E S T H ET I C S
of representation'. I evoked the fact that art in the singular has o n ly
existed for two centuries and that this existence i n the singular meant
the upheaval of the coord i nates t h rough wh ich the 'fine arts' had been
located up to then as wel l as the d isruption of the norms of fabrication
and assessment that these coordi nates presupposed . I showed that
if the properties of each one of these regi mes of identification was
studied, it was possible to d issipate quite a lot of the h aze surrounding
the idea of a 'modern project' of art and its completion or fa i lure.
This was done, for example, by showing t hat phenomena considered
to be part of a postmodern rupt u re (such as the m ixture of the arts
or the combination of mediums) actually fal l withi n the possibil ities
i n herent i n the aesthetic regime of art. I n both cases, it is a matter of
setting a s ingular ized u niversal against an undeterm i ned u n iversal and
contrasting one form of h istoricizing ( i n terms of conti ngent regimes
orga nizi ng a field of possibil ities) with another form of h istoricizi ng (in
terms of teleology).
The second question concerns t h e u n iversal and its historicity. My
thesis is i ndeed that the political unive rsal o n ly takes effect in a s i n gu­
larized form. It is distinguished, in this way, from the State un iversal
conceived of as what m a kes a commu nity out of a multiplicity of
i nd ividuals. Equality is what I have called a presupposition. It is not, let
it be understood, a founding o ntological principle but a cond ition that
only functions when it is put i nto action. Consequently, pol itics is not
based on equal ity i n the sense that others try to base it on some gen e ral
h u ma n predisposition such as l anguage or fear. Equal ity is actua l ly
the condition required for bei ng able to t h i n k politics. However,
equality is not, to begin with, political i n itself. It takes effect in lots
of circumstances that have not h i ng political about them (in the si mple
fact, for example, that two i nterlocutors can u nderstand one another) .
Secondly, equality o n ly generates politics when it is implemented i n the
specific for m of a particular case of d issensus.
- Is this actualization of equali�y also to be found in aesthetics, find
more specifically in what you call democratic writing? f, it the samc
universal presupposition that is at work?
- I do not set down equal i ty as a kind of transcendental govern i ng
every sphere of activity, and thus art i n particular. That s;lid, art as
we k now it in the aesthetic regime is the i m p le m e nt at io n of a cert a i n
FOR EnnlON
I " T F I<V I FW TI I F F N C I . IS I I
eq u a l i ty. I t i s h a s e d o n t h e d es r ru c r i o Jl of t h e h i e Ll rc h i ca l S l ' s t e lll n f'
'
t h e fi ne a ns. T h i � docs n o t m e a n , however, t h a t e q u a l i t y i n g c n e ra l ,
po l i t i c a l e,] u a l i t)" a n d aes t h e t i c e q u a l i ty a re a l l e ql l i v a l e n t . L i rc r a t ll re s
general condition as a modern fo rm of t h e a r t of w r i t i n g i s w h a t I
have ca l led, by rerouting the Platon ic cr i t i q u e , the d e m ocracy of thc
written word. However, the democr;lcv of t h e writ te n word is nor vet
d emo c r a cy a s a p o l it ica l form, A nd l i t� r a r y equal it)' I S nor s i mph' ; h e
equal ity o f the w r i tten word; i t is a certa i n vvay i n wh i c h e q u a l i t y em
fu n c t i o n t h a t Cl n tend to d i st a n c e it fro lll ;l nv fo rm of p o l i t i c a l eq lLd i t v,
To s t a te i t v e rv crud ely, l itcraru re was fo rmed i n t h e n i n e te e n th c e nt u r y
hy e sta bl i s h i l� g i ts o\;' n proper eq u a l i t v. F l a ube rt 's e q u a l i t v or S t \ ' l c i ,
thus a t o n c e an i m p l e me n ta t i on of t h e d emocracy of t h e w r i r re n word
and its refutation. Moreovcr, t h i s e q u a l i t y of st ), l e a i ms ar re v e a l i n g
an i m maTwnt equal ity, a passive e q u a l i ty o f a l l thi ngs t h a t s ra nd s i n
� bv i o u s contrast w i t h t h e p o l i t i ca l s l lhject i v i za t i o n of equa l i ty i n ;\ ! I i rs
forms.
- \'(//If1 t thclI fl rl' thc hC li r is tic flril'flnttlgCI' oj' tiJe IIO/ioll 0/ <'f/I 'd/I i ]
/0, 1' cXjJ/(lillin,,< /he lIItljoJ' e/Jang!'s /;('/7(1('('11 'c/rIIsim/ III'! ' find 'ilWri(l'il
(11'/ '? W"/n, do )'01f propose the /lotioll oj'cqllfl/itl' for thi7ll:ing f f, m llg!} t/li'
-'jll'lI/7eit11 oj' thl' flcst/Jetil' regillll' OJ' t/I(' lirts 1I1stl'l!d 0/ {!((,I'/, f i ilg (1 // 1) (
t/;c prcCOI!CCiUN/ opiliiorlS 0 1 1 thc (/cstllll' II/ I i/ o r/e r n fir!: the trllJ/Jlri{l1l
fi'OIJ1 t!l e I'cpres('JltfuilJl' to t!lc lI(1 fl - r('jJ/,; '.I I'I; til ti i'C, tll{' i'1'f/ /iz.f!tio / l oj'
. llli'
autonotrlV o/t/le dcsthetic sphcre, art :,' iliti'tlllsitil'C fifnl, etc, ?
- O n ce aga i n , T a m not p ro pos i l1 g (, <] LT �\ l i t v as �l cOl1 c e p tll a l C1tC"OIT
'
to r art, b u t c1 th i n k that thc notion of a e s r l � c t i c e ll u a l i t v a l l ows l � t�
re t h i l1 k certa i n i ncohere n t cHcgo r i cs i n tegra l to wiLl! i s ca l l ed a rt i st I C
' m o d e rn i t) "
. L e t 's ta k e i n t ra n'" i t i \' i t v fo� e x a m p l e , I mf;l ll\i t i l' i r y i ,
s u p p os ed t o m e a n t h a t w r i ters wi l l h e l1cd() r t h d e a l w i t h l anguage
i n s tea d of tel l i ng a story, or t h a r p a i n t ers wi l l d i s t r i hute ti ekb of � o l () : l r
i n s t e ad o f p a i nt i ng w ;lr h or se s or n a ked women ( M au r i ce D c n i s ) .
H owe ve r, th is s u p p o s ed d is m i ssa l o f s l T hien m a t te r fi rst p resu p pos es
the estahl i s h m c n t o f a re g i m e o f eq u a l ity regard i n g subj ect m atter.
This is w h a t 'represen t a t i o n ' was i n the fi rs t p l a ce, not resemhlance
as some a p p e a r to hel ieve, bur t h e e x i s te nce o f n ecessan' con TWC ­
·
t i ons hc cween a tnJe o f s u b j e c t m a r re r a n d a form o f ex p rcs s i o n . Th i ,
i s h ow r h e h i e ra rchy o f g e n re s fu n c t i oned i n poe t rv o r p:l i n t i n g, "
' I ntra n s i r i vc' I i tcr:1 t l l rc o r p :, i n T i n g I1K, I 11 S fi r , t o r a l l ;j 1 ( ) 1'111 o f l i t cr: l t l l rC
54 T H E P O L I T I C S O F AESTH E T I C S
or painting freed from the systems of expression that m a ke a particu la r
sort of l anguage, a particular k i nd of composition, or possibly a
particular type of colour appropriate for the nobi l ity or banal ity of a
specific subject matter. The concept of i ntransitivity does not al low
us to understand th is. It is clear that this concept does not work in
literature. I n a way, l i terature always says so meth i ng. I t s i m p l y says i t i n
modes that are set off from a certa i n standard idea of a message. Some
have attempted to contrast l iterary i ntransitivity with com m u nication,
but the language of l i terature can be as transparent as the language
of commun ication. What functions d i fferently is the relationship
between saying and mean ing. This is where a dividi ng l i ne becomes
visible, wh ich coincides with the i mplementation of another form of
equality, not the equality of com m u n icators but the equa l i ty of the
communicated. L ikewise, for abstract painting to appear, it is h rst
necessary that the subject matter of pai nting be consid e red a matte r of
i n d i fference. This began with the idea that pai nti ng a cook with her
k i tchen utensils was as noble as pai nting a general on a battlehel d . J n
l i terature, it began with the idea that it was not necessary to adopt a
particular style to write about nobles, bou rgeois, peasants, pri nces, or
valets. The equality of subject m atter and the i nd ifference regard i ng
modes of expression is prior to the possibil ity of a b a n d o n i ng a II subject
matter for abstraction. The former is the condition of the latter.
I am not looking to establ ish a way of th i n k ing modern a r t on the
basis of equality. I try to show that there are se ve r al k i n d s o f e q u a l i ty at
play, that literary equality is not the same thing as democra t i c equ a l i t y
or the universal exchangeabili ty of commodities.
- Regarding the d�fftrent forms of equality, how do you distinguish
writing, criticized by Plato as an orphan letter thatfreely cirCiliates without
knowing who it should {lddress, and the indiffi'rCn t flow of Ctlpit{z/? More
specijic{dly, how do you distinguish, in the nineteenth century, hetUJeen
the litertlry equality that you pinpoint in an allthor like F/fn/hcrt {mel the
equality ofexchange?
- The equality of the written word is not the same t h i ng as the
equality of exchange . The democracy of thc written word does not
come down to the arbitrary natu re of signs. \'V'hen Plato criticizes
the ava i l abil ity of the written word , he cal l s i nto question a for m of
u nsupervised appropriation of language that leads to the corr uption o r
I NT F. RV I FW r O R TT T F. E :"J ( ; U S I I EDITION
l e g i t i m a c y T h e ci rcu l ation of the wri t te n word destroys t h e pri n c i p l e
.
of legiti macy t ha t wou lei h avc t h e ci rcu ! a t ion of !a n guage he <;uch t h a t
i t leaves the proper tra n s m i t ter a n d goe s ro t h e proper receiver b y the
proper c h a n n e l . ' Proper' l a n guage i s gua ra meed by a pro p e r d i s t r i h u t i o n
of bodies. The written word ope n s up a s p a c e of ra ndom a pp ropri a t i o n ,
e s t ab l i sh cs a p ri n c i p l e of u nt a med d i ffere n ce t h ,H i s a l together u n l i ke
the u n i versa l exch a n geab i l i ty of cO Tll ll1od i t ies. To put it vny crudel \',
you c a n n o t l a y you r h a n d s on capiLl i l i ke you u n l av you r h a nd s n n
the wri tten word . T h e p l av o f h n gu a ge w i t h o u t h i era rchy t h a r vioh rcs
an order hased on the h iera rchy of l a ng u age i s somet h i n g cornpicteh'
d i fferent t h a n the s i mple fact that a e u ro i s worth a eum and t h a t two
co m m od ities that arc worth a eu rn arc eq u iv a l e n t to one a n other. It is
a matter of k now i ng if a bsolutely anyone c a n ta ke over a nd red i rect
the power i n ves t ed in l ang ua ge . T h i s presupposes a rnod i fi u t i o n i ll
the rel a t i o n s h i p between the c i rcu l a t i o n of l a n gu a ge a n d the s(l e i ;l l
d is t ri h ut i o n o f hod ies, w h i c h i s not a t ;1 1 1 a t p lay i n s i m p l e m o n e LHV
exch a n ge.
An i d ea of democrac;' h ;lS been constructed accord i n g ro vvh i ch
d ell10cracv wou ld be t h e s i m p l e s \'stelll of' i n d i ffe rence wh ere olle
vote i s eq u a l to a not her just as a cent i s wort h a cent, a nd where rhe
'eq u a l i t y of con d i t i om' wOl l l d he equ a l to mon eta ry eq u i va l ence. r rorn
this perspective, i t i s possi b l e to posit l i tera ry i nd i fference, F h l l hert's
i nel i ffere nce of style for example, as a n ;l l ogoll s to democr a t i c :l n d
com merci;l l i nd i fference. However, I t h i n k t h a t i t i s prec i se l y ;H t h i s
po i nt th;!t i t i s n ecess a ry to hri n g t h e d i ffere n ces hack i mo pia\'. Th ere
i s not an a n a l ogy hut a confl i ct hcrween f�)rll1s of equ ;l l i ty, wh ich i t sel f
h l Tl c t io n s ;l t severa l l cw' l s i n l i tc Ll tl l lT. Let':.. r;l ke ;'v/(lr/f!lIII' RfJ 1J(lrl' as ;I n
ex a m pl e . On the olle h ;1 n d , the ;lbso l u t i z;l t l o ll of st;,ic correspond, to ;1
p r i n c i p l e of del1lOcra r i c eq u a l ity. T h e ad u l terv cOll1 m i t t ed h;' ;l h rll1cr\
d au g h ter i s ;l S i nt e res t i n g a s the heroic actions of great m e n . ivl o reover,
at a t i m e when n e a rl y everyon e k n ows how to re;l(L a l most ;l Iwo nc h a .s
access, as a res u l t of the ega l i ta r i a n c i rc u i :J t i o n of writ i n g, to t h e fl u i ··
tioLl s l i fe of E m m a Bov;l ry a n d c a n m a ke i t t h e i r own . Con sequ e n t l y,
t here i s a veri table h a rm o n y hetween the ra nd oll1 ci rc u l at i o n of the
w r i t te n word ;l ll d a certa i n l i terarv ahsolute. O n the other h a n c! .
h owever, F h u hert const ructs h i s l i tcLHY eql l a l i t v i n oppos i t i o ll t o the
ra ndom c i rc u l a t io n of the wri tten word a n d to the type o f 'aes thet ic'
56 T H E P O LITICS O F A ESTH ETI C S
equality it produces, A t the hea rt of Madame B01/ary there i s a struggle
between two forms of equal ity. 1 11 one s e n s e , Em ma B ovar y is t he
heroine of a certai n aesthetic d em o c ra cy, She wa nts to b r i n g a r t i nr o
her l i fe, both i nto her love l ife a n d i nto the decor o f her h ome. T h e
novel is constructed as a constant polem ic against a farm g i rl \ d e� i re
to bring a r t i nto life. It contrasts 'art i n l i fe' (th is will l a te r be ca l led
the aestheticization of daily l i fe) with a form of art that i s in hooks a nd
only i n books.
Nonetheless, neither a rt i n books nor art in l i fe is synonymous with
democracy as a form for constructing d i ssensus over 'the g ive n ' of
publi c l i fe, Neither the former nor the latter, moreover, is equ i valent
to the i n d i fference i n herent in the reign of com m od ities a nd the reign
of money. F laubert constructs a l iterary i n d i fference that m a i nt a i n s
a d istance from any poli t ical subjectivizatioll. He asserts a molec u l a r
equality of affects that stands i n opposition to the molar equality of
subjects constructing a democratic political scene, This is s u m med up
in the phrase where he says he is less interested in someone d ressed in
rags than in the lice that are feed i ng o n h i m, less i nterested i n social
i nequ a l it y than i n molecular equality. He constructs h is book as an
i mplementation of the m icroscopic equ a l ity t h a t m a ke� each sentence
equal to a nother - not i n length but in i n te n s i t y - a nd that m a ke�
each sentence, i n the end, equal to the entire h oo le He c o n s t ru c ts this
equality in opposition to several other k i nds of equ a l i ty : commercial
equality, democratic political equal ity, or equal ity a s a l i festyle such as
the equality his heroine tries to put i nto practice,
POSITIVE CONTR A DICTION
- What is the historical status of the contradiction between incorporation
and disincorporation - the struggle between body find spirit - thflt you find
at work in Haubert as well as in Balzac, Mallarme, and Proust? l'(lhy hilS
this contradiction been (1 crucial determiningfactor for modern literr;turc,
as weLL as for egaLitilriiln democrilCY?
- I ncorporation and disincorporation do not mean body a nd spirit.
In the Christian tradition, body a n d spi rit go together a n d sta n d i n
opposition to the ' dead letter', Language i s i n co rp o rated when i t i s
I N T E RV I EW F O R TH E LN C U S H U)IT I ( ) ]\; ') 7
gu ara ntee d by a body or <l m a t e r i a l state: it is d is i ncorporaTed when
the o n l y m a te r i : d i t y t int supports i t i s if:., own . The con fl ict hcrwecn
these two sCltes of la ngu age is ; H the h e a rt or l i t cr ;l t u re ., uch a s it
W;lS dew'loped i ll the n i netee nth cc n t t l f\' ,1S a ll ;ll's r h e t i c regi m e of
writi ng. I n one respect. ! i ter,! t l l re rn l';l I l S d isi nC(lrpor;l t ioJl. The r r;1 < 1 i­
tion:l l express i ve relationsh i ps hetween word s, ItT l i n gs . a nd positions
co l l a p se d a t the S ;l me t i me as the ' s oc i ;J ! ' h ier;J rch ie.' they c or res pond e d
roo There were no l o nger noble word s a n d ignoble wo rds, J u st a, there
was n o longer noble subject m atter a n d i gn ob l e subject m a t ter. The
a rrange m e nt of words was n o l o n g er gu a ra n te ed b y an ordered system
of appropriateness between words a nd hod ies. Th ere was, on the one
h a n d , a vast egal i t a ria n surElce of free word s that cou l d u l t i m a te l y
a moullt to the l i m i t l ess i n d i fferent c h a tter of the worl d . O n the o t h e r
h a n d , ho\,vever, there w a s the des i re t o repL1ce the old ex press ive C01l\'C ' l ­
tions with a d i rect relat i onsh ip between the potenti,l i of words a n d t h t
po te n t i a l of bod i es, where l a n g u age wou l d he the d i rect ex p ress ioll o(
a pote n t i a l for bei n g t h at was i m m a n e n t i n hei ngs. This i s wb t is ;It
wo rk i n Ba l zac, as r h ave attempted to show i n [fl Paro/c m l!ctte �l nd
The Flesh of lXiord,. I n his work, i t is the th i n gs themselves that speak.
The cou rse of d es t i n y i s a l rea dy wri tten on t h e EH;;H I c of a house o r Oil
the c l o t h i n g worn by a n i n d ivid u a l . A n 'everyth i ng s p e a ks ' ( Nova l i s)
is i m ma n e nt in t h i ngs, a nd l i teratll re co nceives o r i t se l f ;l S a rev i va l .
;1 11 u n fu rl i ng, a d e c i pher i n g of t h is 'even·th i n g spea ks'. I t d re:J lll s n f
con;;trllc t i n g a new hod:' for vv riti ng o n th is fou ndatioll. T h i s wi l l later
heco m e R i mhaud's p roje c t in d eve l o p i n g a n 'A lchemy of t h e \V'ord ' or
M <l l l a r rn (( \ d rea Tll of a p o e m choreograph i n g the movem ents of the
Idea, before heco m i n g the Fut u rist l a n g u a ge of n e w e nergies or the
S u rrea l ist d re:J m o f a l a ngu <l ge of d es i re that can he read i n g ra ffi t i ,
shop s i g m , or ca t a l ogue s of o m- o r- d a te m erc h a n d i s e.
The n i ne tee nth centu ry was h au nte d - n e g a t ivel y - by t he Plato n i c
pa ra d ig m of t h e d emocratic d i ssolution o f the soc i a l h od y, by the
h n c i fu l co rrela t i o n between democracv/i nd ividu;l l ism/Protestan tism!
revol ut i on ! t h e d i s i n tegra ti o n of the soc ia 1 bond. Th i s C1 n be expressed
in more or l ess poet i c or sci e n t i fi c terms ( s oci ology as a s c i e n c e W;lS
h o rn fro m th is ohsessi o n with the l ost soci a l hon d ) , m o re or less
re a ct i o n a r y or p rogressive terms, hut the en t i re cent u ry was h a u nted
by the i m m i n e n r d a n ger that a n i n d i fferent eq u a l ity wou l d come to
58 T H E P O L I T I C S O f A ESTH ET I C S
rei gn and by the idea that it was n e c e s s a ry to oppose it with a n e w
meani ng of the commLlnal body. Literatu re was a p r i v i l eged site where
this became visible. It was at one and the same time a way o f e x h ih i t i n g
the reign of i ndifferent language and, conversely, a way of rem a k i n g
bodies with words and even a way of lead i n g words toward thei r
cancell ation i n material states. I stud ied this tension i n B alzac's The
Village Rector. The novel is the story of a crime caused by a book that
i n tervenes in the worki n g-class l i fe of a young girl n o t d e s ti ned to read
it. I n contrast with the fatal words written on pa pe r, t here is a good
form of writing, one that does not circulate but is i nscribed i n thi ngs
themselves. However, this form of writi n g can o n l y mean, i n the end,
the self-cancellation of l iterature: the daughter of the people, l o s t by
a book, 'writes her repentance' i n the form of canals that will enrich
a village. This i s the precise equivalent of the Saint-Simon ian theory
that opposes the paths of com munication opened up in the e a r t h to the
chatter of democratic newspapers.
This tension is expressed i n a completely d i fferent manner in the
work of Mallarme or R i mbaud. Mallarme attempted to identify the
poetic function with a symbo l ic economy that would supplement
the s i mple equal ity of coi ns , words i n t he newspaper, and votes in a
ballot box. He opposes the vertical celebration of the COlll m u n i t y to
the horizontality of the ' democratic terreplei n ' (Pl ato's a ri t h m e t i c a l
equality) . R imbaud attempts, for h is part, to elaborate a n e w song for
the community, expressed i n a new word that would be accessible to
all the senses.2) This is, however, where the contrad iction appears. The
'alchemy of the word' that is supposed to construct a new body oll l y
has a t its d isposition a bric-a-brac o f various forms o f orphaned writing:
books i n school-taught Latin, silly refrains, s m a l l e ro t i c books w i t h
spel l i n g errors . . .
- Are there authors who escape this logic that dominates the nineteenth
century? How would you react to the criticism that co mists in accusingyou
ofprivileging a certain negative dialectic of history, a dialectic with01lt a
definitive resolution between incorporation and disincorporruion, at thc
expense of the social dynamic of history or the plurality of literruy and
artistic practices?
- It all depends on what one calls a ' negative dialectic'. What I
have attempted to t h i n k through is not a n egat i ve d i a l e c t i c b u t rat h e r
I NT E RV I EW F O R TI l L E N C L] S T-I F D I T I ( ) ;\:
a positive contrad ictio n . LitC'rattI re 11 : 1 S heen con s t rl l c t ed :15 :1 t e n s i o n
hetween two opposin g rati()n:1 I i ries: : 1 l o g i c o f d isin corpor:u ion a lld
d i ssol u rion, who.s e IT sl i l t i s t h :l I wo rd s 1 1 0 l o n ger h ave .1 I l V g U :U:l Il tCC,
a nd :1 Il l' r m e ne u t i c logic that a i 111 s at e s t ah lish i n g :1 new' hod\' ror
writi ng. Th is ten si o n i s , for me, a ga l va n i l i ng tension, a pri n c i p l e of
work a nd not by any mea n s a pri n c i pl e of ' i ne r t i a' or ' n o n -work '. Ch
A re t h e re a u t h ors who escape t h i s tem i o n ? U ndoubted l y. I h av e nor
soug h t to p r i v i l e ge :1 pa rticu b r type of a u t h or. I h av e obviously c ho<;('n
a u t h o rs t h a t b e l o n g to a h omogenolls 1 1 I1 iverse - F ra n ce i n t h e C e n tl l r y
'a fter the Revollltion' -, wh ich very forcefu l l y l ays down t h e pnl iticli
stakes of w r i t i n g. A n identical te nsion is s ti l l h owever to h e fou nd i ll
nOJ]- f're n c h a u t h ors from t h e twe n t i e t h centurv. 'r:1 I<e V i rgi n ia \Vool r:
for i n s t a n ce, ane! \'ou wi l l sec t h a t s h e strives (11 rhe S:I 111C\V:1\; tow:ucl
:1 l a n g u a ge t h a t �I i m i na tes i ts c o n ti n gen cy, ;I t the risk of l ) r u s h i n [T
s h o u l d e rs w i t h t h e l a n g u a ge o f t h e m a d . Ta'ke Joyc e , :l n d VOli w i l l fi n d
a vast expa n s e of s tereotypes w i t h o u t end a t t h e s a m e t i me as the a s cent
toward l a nguage's neces s i t y, w h i c h wou l d a l s o he the n ec es si t v of myth .
Take, fo r i n s t an ce , a n I ta l i a n com mu n i s I' a u t h o r l i ke Pavese. I n h i.,
work , there is a paratactic st\'ie a n d a rea l i s t l a n gu age t h a t is h i t h fu l
to t h e W:lyS o f med iocre a ncl co m m o n p l ace ch:l 1�aet�rs, work i ng-ciass
or m i dd le- c l a ss c h a racters w i th out dept h . T here is that
a 1 l 10 d e 1'1l i , m
ho rd e rs on m i n i m:l l i s m . A t t h e sa me e n t i re Ilw thn­
t i m e , t h er e i s :1 11
logi c:t 1 d i m e n s i o n t h a t. l i k e in Jovee's work, r e fers h a c k to V ic(): a :ks i re
to red i scover, w i t h i n 'modern' t r i v i ;l l i ty, t h e powers of m y t h e n ve l ope d
in l a n g u a ge. I a m t h i n k i ng , i n p a r t i c u l a r. of t h e Dialogllf'.l with ifflCO
t h a t he wrote a s t h ou g h i n t h e m a r gi n of h i s ' re a l i s t ' narr a tives, :IS ;1
way o f m i n i ng heneat'h thei r horizo�lta l l a n g u a ge . T h e s a m e k i nd of
ten s i o n s a re to be fc) u n d in a l l of modern l i t e ratl l re .
- !( no/ this I'1J(,f! the ('[/sc with the Scriptures ? YOII finrl therr' to /)('
rlt least [J p roximity between Srriptllr(' and thc cont radictllm Ii(' mor/rrn
literat1l re.
- I a m not :It a l l a speci a l i s t i n S c r i p t u re. You a rc u n do u hted l "
a l l u d i n g to The Flesh ofW/ords a n d to th e rem a rks I made in A uerbach 's
m a rgi n s . I t is A u erbach who sets the ver t i ca l i t ,v of the eva n(�el Co
ical
na rrative aga i n s t t h e h o r i zo n ta l i t y of Homeric desc r i p t i o n . I n the
episode o f Pe t e r 's denial, he s t resses th e l ittle p ic t u r e sq u e indicatioJlS
that convey the d ra m a of a com 1l1on m a n t:l ken h o l d or by the gra nd
60 TH E P O L I T I C S OF A E S T H ETI C S
mystery. He sees in this the origin a l model of nove listic realism. I
oppose this idea by m a intain i ng t h at these l ittle picturesque i ndica­
t ions i n fact amount to a writing mac h i ne. It is less a matter of
conveying the i ntimate drama of the common man than l i n k i ng the
episodes of the New Testament to t he episodes of the Old Testament i n
order t o show t hat Peter's denial, l ike t h e other episodes i n t h e GospeL
h ad already been foretold in the Old Testament. T h i s means that
it i s possible to derive two antagonistic models of i ncarnation itself.
According to one model, writing conceals itself i n the flesh . Accord ing
to the other, writing open ly reveals itse l f as the d isembodied condition
of any glorious flesh. I have attempted to show how it was possible to
derive from t hese models two opposed ideas of novelistic real ity and
how the two paradigms coul d become i ntermi ngled.
POLITICIZED A RT
- Barring a jew exceptions, you az;oid the concept ofcommitment. Do you
reject this notion because of the folse dichotorrzy it presupposes betwcen art
for art's sake and social reality? Are its inadequacies as a concept due to the
foct that it is based on simplistic distinctions between the z;oluntary and the
inz;oluntary, between the individual and society?
- It is an i n-between notion that i s vacuous as an aesthetic notion
and also as a political notion. It can be said that an artist is com m itted
as a person , and possibly that he is com m itted hy h is w ri ti n gs, h i s
paintings, h is fi l ms, which contribute to a certa i n type o f p olit ic al
struggle. An artist can be committed, bur w h a t d o c s i t mea n ro say
that h i s art is committed ? Com mitment is not a category of a r t. T h i s
does not mean that art i s apo l itical. I t means that aesthetics h a s i t s
own politics, or i ts own meta-politics. That is what I was saying earl ier
regardi ng F l aubert and m icroscopic equ a l ity. T here arc polit i c s of
aesthet ics, forms of commun ity laid out by the very regi me of ident i­
fication i n which we perceive art ( hence pure art as wel l as com m itted
art) . Moreover, a 'co m m itted' work of art is always made as a k i nd
of combi nation between these objective pol itics that are i mcribed i n
the field o f possib i l ity for writing, objective pol i t i c s that are inscribed
as plastic or n arrative possibil ities.27 The hct that someone w r i tcs
I N T E RV1 EW F O R T H E F N G U S H F D lT I O N G1
ro s c r ve a cause or t h a t someone d i scllsses workers or the com m O i l
people I ll stCld of ;ni s tocrats , wh a t exactly i s this goi ng to ch;l Tlge
re g a rd i n g thc p recise cond i r i o n s f<1 r the e l ahoration a nd reception of
a �vork o'r a rt ? Cert a i n mea n s a rc goi n g t o he chosen i n s tead of o th ers
a ccord I n g to a p r i n c i p l e of adapta t i o n . The pro b l e m , however, is t h a t
the adaptation o f express ion t o subj ect mat ter i s a p r i n c i p l c of the
re pres e n t ;lt i ve tra d i t i on t h a t the aesthetic reg i me o f an has cal l ed i n to
q uest i o n . T h a t mea n s t h a t t h ere is n o criterion f<)r establ i s h i n g a corre­
spondcnce hetwec n aest h e t i c v i rtue ; 1 nel pol i t i u l vi rruc. There ;lrC on I v
choices. A prog re s s i ve or revolution;n y pa i nrer or 11<1\'el i s t i n the 1 () 2(};
a n d 1 9.) Os w i l l gcner a l lv choosc a c h aotic f<lrlll i n order to sh ow th;lf
the re i g n i n g ord e r i s j u s t a s much a d isorder. L i ke Dos Passos, h e w i l l
represe n t a s h attered rea l itv: fragm ented stories o f errat i c i ncl i v i d u :d
'
desti n ies that translate. by t h e i r i l l og i ca l i tv, the l og i c o f t h e capi t a l ist
ord er. Pa i n tc rs l i ke D i x or e rosz in G er m a ny, on the other hand, wi l l
represent a h u m a n / i n h u m a n u n i verse, ;1 u n ive rse where h u m a n h e i n g s
d r i ft hetween m a rion ettes, masks, a n d skeletons. They thereby plav
hetvveen two types of i n h l l fll a n i r v : the i n h l l m :l n i t y of the m a s ks ;] Il d
;lllWlTlatOll S o f t h e soci a l paLl d e a nd rhe i n h u m a n i t \! o f the d c a cl k
mach i n e t h ;l t upholds t h i s p a raele. These p l a s t i c o r n ;nra t i ve devices
ca n be i d e nt i fied wi t h an exe m p l a ry pol i t ical awa reness of the conrr ; l ­
d i c t i o n s i n he rent in a soci a l a n d econom i c ord e r. They can, however,
j u s t as wel l be dcnou nced as reac tionary n i h i l i s m or even cons id ered
to be p u re for m a l m ach i n es w i t h o u t pol i t ica l content. Nov e l i s t i c
fragme nt a t i o n or p i c to r i a l ca rn i va l i z;H i o n l e n d themselves j l l S t a s
wel l t o descri h i n g the ch;los of t h e capita l i s t world from the poi n t o f
v i ew o f c la s s s tTU ggle as t o descr i h i n g, ('rom :l n i h i l i s t i c poi n t of VI CW,
�
t h e Ch:l05 of a w(� I l d where c l a ss s t r : l gg l c i s i rs l· l f hur o n t' clement I II
the D i OIl\'si ;1 1l ch aos. "]";l k(', f() r I n SC1 IlCc, :1 ci n e rn :l t i c equ i v a l e n t: t h e
A m e r i u l l fi l ms from the ] 'rlOs ,1 1lc1 l ') S O s Oil \ ' i Cr l1 ;l l11 . l i k e C i m i n Cl's
The /)ar /-/1111/('1", where I I l l' wa r s c e l l e s ; I re esscll t i ;l l l " scenes nF R 1 1 5 S i :1 1l
ro u let te . I t c a ll he sa i d r h :n the m ess;l g" i s t h e dni sory naw re of rhe
war. It c a n j u s t a s wel l he sa id t h a t the mcssage i s the der isory I l a t ure
of the s t ruggle a ga i ns t the war.
Th ere are no cri teri a . There a rc f()rlll u b s t h a t a rc e q u :d l y ;l\'a i l ablc
whose m ea n i n g is oftcn in Let decided upon hv a �ra(e or con A icr
t h ;H is ex teri or to them. ror eX:l m p l c , t h er e i s rhe s o c i ;l l n ;l rn rivc I II
62 T H E POLI T I C S OF A E S T HE T I C S
the for m of a modern epic that confers a mythological di mension on
its characters. Les Miserables is the prototype of this k i nd of narrative.
D ependi n g on the times, it has been seen as a catech ism with socia l i � t
leanings, ignorant bourgeois senti mentalism over class struggle, or a
first-rate poem whose democratic meaning is not to be found i n the
din of the revolutionary barricades h ut i ll the i nd ividual and quasi­
subterranean obsti n acy of Jean Valjea n . The core of the p r oble m is
that there is no criterion for establ ishi ng a n appropriate correlation
between the politics of aesthe t ics and the aesthetics of pol itics. Th is
has nothi ng to do with the c la i m m ade by some people t h at a rt and
politics should not be m i xed. They i ntermix i n any case; po l i tics has its
aesthetics, and aesthetics has its politics. But there is no formula for an
appropriate correlation. It is the state of pol itics that decides that D ix's
paintin gs i n the 1920s, 'popul ist' fi l ms by Reno i r, Duvivier, or Carne
i n the 19305, or fil m s by C i m i no or Scorsese in the 1 9 8 0 5 appear to
h arbour a political critique or appear, on the contrary, to be suited to
a n apolitical outlook on the i rreducible c haos of human a Ffa i rs or the
picturesque poetry of soci a l d i fferences.
- Does this mean that the act o/judging the political import o/wor/,s 0/
art is always anchored in a precise socio-historical situation? In that case,
just as there is no point of view outside history, as you SlIggested earlier,
there is no general formula that est(lblishes (I constant Iiflk between fin
artisticform and a political meaning?
- There a re pol itics of art that are perfectly iden t i fiable. It is
thoroughly possible, therefore, to si ngle out the form o f p ol i t i c i ­
zation at work in a novel, a fil m , a pai nt i ng, or an i nsta l l ation. I F
this politics coincides with a n act o f constructing political dissensus,
this is something that the art in question does not control. B recht's
theatre, the archetypal form of , politic i zed' art, is built on an extremely
complex and cun n i ng equ i l ibrium between forms of pol i t ical pedagogy
and forms of a rt istic modernism . He constantly plays between mea m
of coming to political awareness and means of ll nderm i n i ng the
legi t i m acy of great a rt, which found expression in the theatre by
admixtures with the ' m inor' perform i ng arts : ma rionette shows,
panto m i me performances, the circus, the music h a l l or cabaret, not
to mention boxing. H is 'epic theatre' is a combination between a
pedagogical logic legitimated by the M arxist corpus and, on the other
T N T F RV T FW F O R TT-T F, F N (; U S H E ll I T I O N
h a n d , te c h n i qu e s o f fr a g m e n t a r i o n a nd the m i xtllre of o p pos i te \ t h :, {
a rc s p e c i fl c to til<.' h i s to r y o f ' th C :l t re a n d p ro d u c t i o n i n t h e 1 9 1 0 s and
1 920s. The p oliti c a l formula i s i d e n t i fl :lhk. Nev('!"{ h e b s - hcrwCt'll
B re ch t 's ex i l e i n Den m:uk or t h e U n i ted S t a res, r il l' o ff-l e i :l l p os i r i o n i n
t h e C cr m a n D e mocra t i c Repll h i i c . a nd h i s a d o p t i o ll h;' t h e E11rOpe:l l1
i n te l l e ctu a l c l i tes i n the 1 9 ,) O s - t h e c n COl1 nrcr hcr\\,(,Cll r h i s p a r t i ll l i :1r
fo rm of po l i t i c s ;l nd i ts s u p p os e d :l 1 1 d i c l l C C (work e r s c ( ) n s c i (l l l.\ of the:
ca p i u l i s t sysre m ) n eve r took pi:Jce, wh i c h I1l C:l I l S r h a t i ts ' l 1 i L l h i l i t \, to
i ts m i l i u lH rerc rcnr was n e v e r rl'a l l v tested.
- \V!;al Is ti,t /'Ole plal'l't:! 17)1 /llh(/t pm mil ' /Jl'ltrology ' II/ polltiriz('(/ flJ'f)
J am thin/::ing in prlrtlcu!flr ofo n t oj)lollr f/JlaZYSes o/Rosscllilli 'r Fli rop" ' c; 1
where you estrlblish (I connectioll hetwccli the main (hrlrr/cte)" :,' Cllr01mtl'1'
with the lmcrlrl1�)' - the m0711 e nt wl'I'1l JrOlt lerl1fts ,/it fi'(II17('1/107i' 0/
her immediate surroundings in order to go and lool:' clsewhere, therd�y
con/blinding the cstah!i.,hed aesthetico-political C!ltl'goril's - rllld fhl' fl(lllfl!­
izatiorl ofequa/lty ?2S
- T h is means that an aesthetic p o l i t i c s alwavs defi nes i t s e l f Iw a
certa i n recas t i n g of rhe d i srri htH ion of t he se n s i hl c , a rcco n fi gll r:1 t i p n ()j
p
t h e given perce wa I fo r m s . T h e n o t i o n o f ' h ete rol ogy' re fe rs' t o the wa;'
i n wh i ch the lTlea n l Ilgfu l fa b r i c o f the s en s i h lc is d i sr u rhed : ; 1 s p eu;l c i c
docs n ot f i t with in the sens i b l e framework d e fi n ed hI' :1 n e two r k o r
mea n i ngs, an expression docs not fi nd its p l a c e in the s yste m o f v i s i h l e
coord i n ates where it appears. The d rea m o f a su i ta h l e p o l i t i c a l work
o f art is in fact the d r e a m of d is r u p t i n g t h e rehtio n s h i p hctwcen the
visi hle, the s ay a h l e , ;l nd the th i n kahle w i t h o u t h a\' i n g to usc rhe te r m ,
o f a message a s a veh ic l e . I t i , the d re a m o f a n a n t h :n would rL1 J1S111 i r
11lt':1 l1 i ngs i n t h e f()rm o f a m p r u rc w i t h t he verv l o g i c or me a n i n g fu l
s i t u a t i o n s . As a m a t ter of (lct, p o l i t i c a l :1 1"t c a n n o r wo rk I II t h e s i m ple
fo r m of a Il l e a n i n gr'u l spectacle that vvould I c:ld to an 'awa re ness' or
the state o f the world. Suitable pol i t i Cl l a rt wo u l d ellsu re, a t one a n d
t h e sallle ti me, t h e production o f a double effeer: t h e rCl d a h i l i t v of
a pol itical s i gnific a t i on and a s ens i b l e o r p erc e p ttl a l shock callsed,
conversely, by the 11 ncan ny, by that wh ich resists sign i fication. 1 n r;' ct.
th is idea I effe ct is always the oh j e c t of a nego t i a t i on between opposi tes,
between the readab i l i ty of the message that th reatens to destrov rhe
se n s i bl e r()rm o f a rt and the r;l d i cl i u n c1 11 n i ncss t h ar t h reaten s ro
d c s t rov a l l p o l i r i c a l mea n i n g.
64 T H E POLIT I C S OF A E STH ET I C S
Europa '51 is, i n poi nt of fact, bui lt on a serie� of ruptures, o f
d isplacements out of frame (i n the strongest �ense of t h e word and
not the tech n ical sense) . The fi rst sem i b l e or p e rceptu a l world o f
t h e bourgeois housewi fe, for whom t h e workers are those u n k nown
people who go on strike and d istu rb urban traffic and transportation,
is challenged by a second world: t he visit organ ized by her com mun ist
cous i n to t he cheap apartment build ings where the workers l ive.
However, this structured working-class world where the sett i ng a n d
i t s mea ni ng coincide is i n t u rn chal lenged i n favou r of an open
world without coord i n ates, a world of vague stretc h es of l a nd , s h a n t y
towns, and sub-proletaria n wandering, where noth i ng coincides a n y
longer. T h e outcome is t h a t the heroine fi nds hersel f m o re a n d more
diverted fro m a ny system of correspondences between mea n i ngs and
the visible. Her own specific question (what words her son, who threw
h imself down the stairwell, said or would have sa id) coi ncides w i t h
the discovery o f a world progressively loosing i ts structure where the
only a nswer is charity, accord i ng to her, and i nsan i ty, according to the
representatives of society.
A system of heterologies is i ndeed put i n to play here. Furthermore, I
h ad emphasized the way i n which this system th rows off the pre-consti­
tuted poli t ical modes of fra m ing. That said, it is clear that refusi ng
to frame the situation i n accordance with the com mun ist schema
also authorizes fram i ng it accord i ng to the Ch risti a n schema, wh ich
actually h as the advantage of fra m i ng without wal ls: the h eroi ne's
wanderi n g that I had previously i dentified with Socratic ato p i a i s , a frer
all, a wanderi n g oriented toward the grace of Spirit, wh ich l ike t h e
w i nd ' blows where i t wills' (even i f it is Rossell i ni who is play i ng a b i t
the role of God t h e Father) . 2')
This means that the play of heterologies always has an undecidahle
aspect to it. It undoes the sensible fabric - a given order of relations
between mean ings and the visible - and establishes other networks o f
the sensible, wh ich can possibly corroborate the action u nelertaken by
political subjects to recon figure what are given to be facts. There are
aesthetic formulas a nd transformations of these formulas that a lways � i nduci ng mea n i ngs a nd causal sch e m a t,1 , that construct the s r a mh I'd
defi ne a certain 'politics'. There is not, however, a rule establish ing a
concordance, nor are there criteria for distingu ishing good political
fi l ms from bad poli tical fi lms. In fact, we should avoid aski n g the
I N T E RV I EW F O R TH E E N C L l S H E D l TT ( ) �,
q ue st i o n i n terms of c r i ter i a fl)r t h e p o l i t i c a l eva l u a t i o n of works of a n .
The pol itics of works of art p l ays i u;el f o u t t o a l a rger extent - i n a gloha I
a nd d i ffuse m a n n e r - i n t h e rcco n fi g u ration of world s of ex perie n c e
ba sed on wh ich pol icc consens u s or pol i tica I d i ssellSus a re d c fi ned . I t
pl ays i tscl f cl I l t i n tlw way i ll wh ich modes ( ) f na rra t i n n o r !l C W for m s o r
v i s i b i l i t y estab l i s h ed h y a rt i s t i c practice; e n ter i n to pol i t ics' own hcld
of ;l cstheric possihi l i ties. I t is n ecess a r y to reverse t h l' W;lY in \vh i ch the
p rohlem i s geneLl l l y formu h te d . I t i s u p to t h e v;l rious h)rms o f pol i r i o
t o appro p riate, for t h e i r own p roper u s e . t h e Ill ode s o f p resell t a t i o l1 or
the m e a n s o f establ i sh i n g expl a n atory sequences produced hy a r t i s tic
pra c t i ces rather t h a n t h e other vvay a ro u n d .
Thl' Nt/mes of History. t h a t
It is i n t h i s sense that I sa i d , at the e n d o f
for t h i n k i n<T
'"
a n d w r i t i n g democratic h istorv,
' ,
i t i s neces s a rv
.
t o I nok
toward V i rg i n i a Woo l f more so t h a n toward E m i l e 1. o l a . T h i s d o l' S
n o r m e a n t h a t Vi rgi n i a Woo l f w rote goo d soc i a l novek I t mC1 Jl S d u t
h e r way o f wor k i ng on t h e contrac t i o n o r d i ste n s i o n o f tempor;t 1 i t i es ,
o n their coll te mpora neous ness or thei r d i sta n c e , o r her w a y of s i tu at i ng
events at a m u c h more m i n ut e leve l , a l l o f t h i s estab l i s h es a g r i d t h a r
makes i t possible to t h i n k t h rough t h e forms o f pol i t i ca l d i sse n s u a l ity
more e ffectively t h a n the ' s oc i a l epic's' various for m s . There i s a l i m i t ;H
wh i c h t h e forms of novelistic m icrology esta b l i s h a mode of i nd i v i d u ­
a t i o n t h a t comes to c h a l l enge pol i ticd suhjecr i v i z a t i o n . There i s a lso,
h owever, an entire held of p l ay where t h e i r m odes o f i nd i v i d u a t i o n
a n d t h e i r m e a ns of l i n k i n g sequences contr ibute to l i h er at i n g p o l i t i c a l
possi b i l i t i es hy u n d o i n g t h e fo r m a t t i n g of rea l i t y produced hy statl'­
control l ed med i a , by u n d o i n g the rel a t i o n s hetween the v i s ihle, t h e
savahl e , a nd t h e t h i n kable .
.
- Is this whrlt you try to rio )'OIII"SI'//ill )'our II')"itll!,('} Oil the IJisto)"), ora!'!
and poiitics?
- 1 do i ndeed atte m p t to p r i v i l ege \Vavs of w r i t i n g h i s tonl, p rl"., cnr i n g
s i t u a t ion.s a nd a rra n g i n g statements. ways or c o n s t r u c t i n g rcl a t i o l l S
between cau�e a n d e ffect o r hetwcen a n tecede nt a nd (onsc q u cll f t h ;n
co n fou nd t h e trad i t i o n a l Ia nel ma rks, the m e a ns or prcsenr i ng nbjecrs.
i ntel l i g i b i l i ty of h i s to ry. [ th i n k t h at a theore t i ca l d i scmm;c is ;dwavs
s i mu lta neousl v a n aesthetic fo rm, a sen s i b l e recon fi gu ration of t h e
;
facts i t i s a rgt i ng about. C l a i m i n g t h ;lt a n y theore t i c a l statement h a s
66 T H E P O L I T I C S O F AESTHETICS

a poetic nature is equivalent to breaking down the horders a nd h ierar­

chies between levels of d iscourse. Here we have come back to our
starting point.
Afterword by Slavoj Zizek
 The Lesson of Ranciere
F.W.} . Schel l i n g's state m t' n t, ' T h e beg i n n i n g is t h e nega t ion o( t h a t
wh i c h begi n s w i t h i t', perfectly fl t s t h e i t i n e Ll!'Y O r J �1 C q ll cs R a ll c i lTC' wll()
fl rst a p p e a red 011 the ph i losoph ical q'l'l1c i ll rht' c a rly 1 9()()s as �1 Y"ll ll g
A l t h mseri a n , OIlC of t h c conrr i i J l l t ors ( ro g e r l w r w i r l , ( r i c l 1 l l e B:l l i h'lr.
Roger Escl hkt a n d Pi CTTe i\tl c h c rc\') Tn I' he p;1 t h - h rc;1 k i n g cnl lcct 1 \ ,
volu mc rirr· /r (�ll'it(7/ f'rol11 I f) ({i , wh i ch . w i t h /\ I r h m , c r \ ('0111' '\,1(1 1 '.'\,
d c fl l1ed r h e fi e l d of 'S!Tl l ctll r;l l i , 1 '\LHx i s rn , I 1 ()wC\'cr, o ll e d id ! lO t

h a ve to wa i t I O l1 g fo r R a l 1 C 1 ere's u n i q u e voicc to explode in ;1 r h l l n d er

w h i c h rocked t h e A l t h l l sser i a n sce n e : i n 1 974. he publ i s hed IJI Lrum
d'A lthllSser ( Thr Lrsson ofA itll1lsscr) , a tero c i o u s c r i t i c a l cxa m i n at i o n of
A l t h usseri a n s t r u c t u ra l i s t M a r x i s m with its rigid d is t i n c t i o n be tween
scie n t i fi c t heory a nd ideology a n d i ts d i strust towa rds a ny form of
s p o n t a n e o u s popu l a r move m e n t wll i c h was i m m ed i a tely d ecried a s ;1

form o f b o u rgeoi s h u m a n i s m . Aga i n s t t h i s t h eore t i c i s t el i t i s m . t h i s

i ns i s te n ce o n t h t' g a p w h i ch forever sepa rates t h e u n iverse or scien­
ti fl c cogn ition from that of i d t'ologic a l (Ill i s) recogn i ti o n in wh ich
t h t' com m o n m a s ses a re i m mersed , a ga i n s t this sta n ce, wh i ch a l l ows
t h eo re t i ci a n s to 'speak tor' t h e m asses, to k nO\\' t h e truth abou t t h e m ,
R a n c i e re e ndeavo u rs a ga i n a nd a ga i n t o e i abor;1te t h e conto u rs o f
t h ose m ag i c , v i o l e n t ly poe t i c m o m e n ts o f p o l i t i c a l sllhj e c t i v i z a t i o n i n
w h i c h t h e excluded C l ower cl asses ' ) p m forwa rd thei r c l a i m to spcl k
for t h em selve s , t o e ffectuate a c h a n ge i n t h e globa l percepti o n o f soc i a l
space, so r h a t r h e i r cl a i ms wou l d h aw a Ieg i t i m a tc place i n i t .
J -fow, for R a nc i c re, d i d pol i tics proper Iwg i n ? \Xl i t h t h e emergcnce
o f the d{"mos a s an acrive a ge n t w i t h i n t h e C reek po/is, w i t h r h e
e m e rgenct' o f ;l g ro u p wh i c h . a l though w i thout a ny fl xed p l a c e i n t h e
soc i a l ed i hce ( o r, a t b es t , occupy i n g a subord i n ate p l a ce ) , d e m a n ded
to be i n c l u d ed i n the publ i c sphere, to he h e a rd o n equ a l too t i n g
w i t h t h e r u l i n g o l i ga rchy or a ri s tocracy, i .t'. recogn i zed a s a p a rt ner i n
pol i t i c a l d i a logue a n d t h e exercise of' power. A s R a n c i erT em piJ ;l s i zes
;l ga i ns t H ab e r m a s , pol i t i c a l s t n t gglc proper is therefore not a r a t i o n a l
70 T H E POLITICS OF AESTHETICS
debate between m ultiple i n terests, but, s i m ultaneously, the s t ruggle
for one's voice to be heard and recogn i zed as the voice of a legiti m ate
partner: when the 'excluded', from the G reek demos to Pol is h workers,
protested against the r u l i n g e l i te (the a ristocracy o r the nomrnk!atltrrl ) ,
the true stakes were not on ly t h e i r expl i c i t d e m a n d s (for h igher wages,
work conditions, etc . ) , but t h e i r very right to be h e a rd a nd recog­
n ized as a n equal partner in t h e debate ( i n Pol a n d , the nomrnidatura
lost the moment it had to accept Sol idar ity as an equal partner) .
Furthermore, i n protesting the wrong (lr tort) they s u ffered, t h ey a l so
presented themselves as the i m m e d i ate embod i ment of society as such,
as the stand-in for the Whole of Society i n irs u niversa l i rv, af!:;l i n st
(
the particular power- i n terests of t h e a r istocracy or ol i garchy 'we�- the
"not h ing", not cou nted in the orde r - a re t h e people, we ;He A l l aga i nst
others who sta nd o n ly for thei r particular privi l eged i nterests' ) .
Pol itics proper t h u s a lways i Ilvolves a k i n d o f s hort-c i rcu i t between
the U n iversal and the Pa rticular: the pa radox of a s i ngu la r which
appears as a stand-i n for the Un i versal, destabi l i z i n g the ' n a t ur a l '
functional order o f relations i n t h e social body. The pol i t i c a l co n fl ic t
resides i n the tension between the structured soc i al body where each
part has its place - wh at R anciere calls pol i tics as police in the most
elementary sense of m a i n tain i ng social order - and 'the part with n o
part' which u nsettles t h i s order on accou nt o f the e mpty p r i n ciple of
u niversality, of what Etie n n e Balibar calls ega!ibcrte, the principled
equality-in-freedom of all m e n qua speak i n g bei n gs . T h i s ident i fi ­
cation of t h e n o n-part with t h e Whole, of t h e p a r t of society with no
properly defined place within it (or resist i n g the a l l ocated su bord i n a te
place wit h i n it) with the U niversal, is the elementary gestu re of pol i r i ­
cization, d iscer n i bl e i n a l l great democratic events, from t h e f re n c h
Revolution ( i n w h i c h !e troisieme hat p roclaimed i tsel f identical t o the
Nation as such again s t the a ristocracy a nd the c l e rgy) to the d e m i se of
ex-European Socia l i sm ( i n wh i c h the d issident Forum proc l a i med itsel f
representative of the entire society aga i nst the Pa rty J10mcnl.:ffltum). In
this precise sense, p o l it ics a n d democracy are synonymous: t h e basic
a i m of antidemocratic p o l i ti cs always - and by defi n it ion - i s a nd was
depoliticization, i.e. the u ncond i t i o n a l d e m a n d that ' t h i ngs shou l d
return t o norma l ', with each i ndividu a l d o i n g h is or h e r pa rt i cu l a r job.
R a nciere, of course, e mphasizes how the I i nc of sep a ration be tween t h e
A f T E RWO R D ll Y S LAVO] 7,1 /. E I< '1
pol ice a nd p o l i t i c s proper i s ;l lw:IYs h l u rred a n d co nt e s t ed � ,qy, i n the
M a rx ist trad i t i o n , ' proleta ri a t' c a n he read as t h e s u bject i v i zation of t h e
'part of no part' eleva t i n g i ts i n j us t i ce to the u l t i m ate t e s t o f u n i ver­
sa l i ty, a nd , s i m u l ta neously, as th e operator w h i c h w i l l h r i n g a hout
.
the estab l i s h m ent of a post-pol i t i c a l r a t i o n a l s oc i e t y Our E u ro p c :l l 1
trad i tion conta i n s a series of d isavowa l s of t h i s pol i tical moment, of
the p roper logic of pol i t i ca l confl i c c Ra n c i e re d e v e l op ed t h e m i n lJI
Mesf'J1tcnt(' ( 1 99')), t h e m a ste r pi e c e of h i s po l i t i c a l t h o u g h t :
a rch i -pol i ti cs : t h e 'com m u n i ta r i : l n ' :l t t e m pt,s to clefi nc :1 t n d i r i Ol l :l 1
c l ose, orga n i ca I I )' s t r u c tu red h o mogeneous soc i a I sp:lCe w h i c h :Ji l ows
for n o voi d in w h i ch the pol i t i c a l m o m e nt-event can e m erge ;
p a ra-pol i t i cs : t h e attempt to d epol i t i c i ze po l i t i c s (to tr:l 11 s l a tc it I I HO
t h e pol i ce-l og i c) : one accepts the pol i t i ca l con fl ic t , hur rcf<' r m u i :J t('s
.
i t i 1 1 to a compet i t ion, w i t h i n t h e rep rcs <:' nt a t i o n a I s p a c e het "' C t' I I
a c k n ow l e d ge d pa rt i es /a ge n t s, for the ( te m p o r a r y ) occlI p;n i ()n or
the p la c e of execlItive power. H ab c r m a s i :l n or R .l wl s l ;} n n h i c s :I W
perhaps t h e l ast ph i i o s oph i cl i ves t i ges of t h i s :l ttitllde: t h e a t tcTll f ) [
to d e-;l ntago n i ze pol i tics h y W:ly o f rl)J"Jl1U b t i n g t h e clea r r \ l lc� W h e
o b e y ed s o t h a t t he ;l g o n i c procedu re o f l i t i g a t i on d ocs n o t c x p l od e
i nto p o l i t i cs proper�
M a r x i s t (or Utop i a n Social ist) meta-pol i ti c s : t h e pol i tical con fl ict
is ful ly asserted , as a s hadow-theatre in wh ich processes - whose
proper p l ace is on A nother S cene (the scene o f econo m ic i n fra­
structure) - a re played out; the u l ti m a te goa l or ' t rue' po l i t i cs i s
t h u s i ts s c i f-cancel l a t i o n , t h e t ra nsr()J'ma tiol1 of t h e ' a d m i n i s t rat I o n
o f people' i nto t h e 'ad m i n istration of th i ngs' w i th i n a fu l ly s e l f�
tra nspa rent ra t i o n ;l l ord er o f col l ective W i l l ;
a n d , o ll e i s te m p t e d to s u p p l e m e n t R a n c ie re , t h e m o s t cI I ll n i n g
a n d rad ic a l vers i o n o f t h i s d i savowal i s u l t r a - p ol i t i c s , t h e ;1 t t <:' Tll p t
t o d e po l i t i c i ze c o n n i ct b y w a y of h r i n g i n g i t t o a n e x t re m e \' I a t h e
d i re c t m i l i t a r i z a t i o n o f p o l i t i c s : r h e ' forecl osed ' po l i t i C:l i re t l l rn s
i n t h e rea l , i n t h e g u i se o f t h e :l t t e m p t to resolve t h e <l e : l (l I o c l<
of pol i t i c a l con A ic t , of mescntmtc, hy i t s fa l s e rad ica l i z a t i o n , i . e .
b y way o f r e fo r m u l a t i n g i t a s a w a r hetween ' U: ; a n d ' T h em',
,
O l l r E n e m y w h e re t h ere is n o C 0 11l 1ll 0 n gro u n d fo r .W lll h n l i c
co n fl i c t .
72 T H E P O L I T I C S O F A E S T H ET I C S
What we have i n all four cases - a rchi-, para-, meta- and u ltra-pol itics
- is thus an attempt to gentrify the properly traumatic d i mension of
the pol itical: somethi ng emerged in ancient Greece under the name
of polis demand ing i ts r i ghts, and, from the very beginn i n g (i.e, from
P lato's Republic) to the recent revival of liberal p ol i t i cal thoug h t ,
'political p h ilosophy' h as been an attempt to suspend the destabi l iz i ng
potential of the political, to d isavow and/or regul ate it i n one way or
another: bringing about a return to a pre-political social body, fixing
the rules of political competition, etc. ' Pol itical ph i losophy' is t h m , i ll
all its d i fferent shapes, a k i nd of ' defence-formation', and, perhaps, its
typology could be establ ished via reference to the d i fferent modal ities
of defence against some t raumatic experience in p sych o a n alys i s , In
contrast to these fou r versions, tod ay's ' pos t m od e r n ' post-pol i t i cs
opens up a new field which i nvolves a stronger negation of p ol i t i c s : i t
n o longer merely 'represses' i t , trying to contain i t a n d t o paci fy t h e
'returns of the repressed ', but much more effectively ' for ec los e s ' i t , so
that the postmodern forms of ethnic violence, with their ' i rrationa l '
excessive character, are no longer si mple 'retu rns o f t h e r e p re ssed', but
rather p resent the case of the foreclosed (from the S ymbo l i c) wh i c h , as
we k now from Lacan, returns in the Rea l .
In post-politics, t h e confl ict o f global ideological visions embod ied i n
different parties who compete for power is replaced b y a collaboration
of enlightened technocrats (econom ists, public opinion special ists . . . )
and liberal multiculturalists; via the process of negotiation of i nterests,
a compromise is reached in the guise of a more or less universal
consensus. The political (the space of litigation in wh ich the excluded
can protest the wrong/injustice done to them) , foreclosed from the
symbolic then ret urns in the real, in the form of racism. It is crucia l to
perceive how 'postmodern racism' emerges as the ultimate consequence
of the post-political s uspension of the political in the reduction of t h e
state to a mere police agent servicing the (co n s e ns u a l l y established)
needs of the m arket forces and multiculturalist tolerant human itar­
ianism: the ' foreigner', whose status is n eve r properly regu lated , i s t h e
indivisible remainder of the transformation of democratic p ol i t i c a l
struggle into the post-pol itical procedure of negotiation and fllu l t i ­
culturalist policing. I nstead of the political subject ' wo rk i n g c l a ss'
demanding i ts universal rights, we get, on the one hand, t h e fl l u l t i -
A FT E RWO R D [ W S LAV()J 7.f ;l,EK
pl icity of particu lar social strata or groups, e ac h w i t h i ts problems
( t h e dwind l i n g need tor manual wor k e r s , etc . ) , a nd , o n t h e other
hand, the i l11 � i g r a n r , more a n d Illore p rev e n t ed from po l i t i cizi n g h is
p re d ica menr o f e x c lusi o n .
R a n c iere i s right to e m p h a s i ze how i t i s a g a i n s t t h i s b a c k g ro u n d
t h a t o n e s h o u l d i nterpret the f�lsc i n a tion of 'puh l i c o p i n i o n ' w i t l l t h e
u n i q ue e ve n t of the I-j o l oc a u s r : t h e refe re nce to t he HoloCl ll s t as t he
u l t i m a te , u nt h i n kab l e , apol i t i c a l c r i m e , as t h e Evi l so Ll d ical t h �ll i t
c a n n o t be p o l i t i ci zed (accou nted for hy a p o l i t i c a l d;'n a m ic) . serve' :1.<;
the o p e r a t o r wh i c h a l lows us to d e po l it i c i z e t h e soci a l s p h e re . to wa rn
agai nst t h e presu lll p t i o n o f pol i ti c i za t i o n . The Holocaust is t h e n:Ul1e
fo r the u n th i n ka h l e a p ol i t i c a l excess of p o l i ti cs i t se l f: it compels m to
s u bord i n a t e p o l i t i c s to sOl11 e more f'u n d a m e n t a l eth ic<;. The O t herness
e x cl l l d e d fro m the c o n se ns u :1 1 do m a i n of toiera n t / rJt i oll a l post-pol i t i c : d
n e g o ti a t i o n a n d ad ll1 i n i str:1tion retu rns i n t h e g l l l St· of i n cx pi i c l h l e
p l l fe Ev i l . W h :1 t defl n es p os t ll1 o d e rn 'post-po l i tics' i s th m rill' secret
s ol i d a r i t y he twee n i t s two opposed J a n u s f�l ces: 0 11 the onc h :l !ld , the
re p l a c e m e ll t of pol i tics proper hy cl e pol i t i ci zcd ' h u m a n i Ll ria n' opna­
tiom, on t h e other h a nd , the violen t outbu rsts o f d c p ol i ti c i ze d ' pllre
Evi l ' i n the g u i s e of 'exces s i ve' crh n ic or rel igi ous fu n d :l l11e n ta l i s r
violence. I n short, w h a t R a n c i e re p roposes h ere i s :1 n e w version o f t h e
old H e ge l i an motto ' Evil resides in t h e gaze itscl f wh i c h perceives t h e
object as Evi l ': t h e contempor a ry fi gure o f Ev i L too 'strong' to he acces­
s i b l e to pol i tical a n a l y� i s (the Holocau st. e t c . ) , a p p e a rs as S I K h OIl ] V to
t h e g:lZe w h i c h c o n s t i tlltes it as sli c h (as d e p ol i t i c i z ed ) .
I n R a ll c i ere's d i a g n o s i s , tod ay's h cgem o n i c t e n den c y towa rds post­
pol i t i cs thus co m pe l s us to rcasse r t tile p o l i t i u l i ll its key d i m e n sl < l f1 ;
i n t h is, h e b e l o n gs to the field o n e i s te m pted to defi n e a s 'pnsr­
A lt h u ss c r i an ' : authors l i ke Bal iba r, A b i n Badiou, lip to E rn e st o
Lacl au, whose starting p os i t ion was c 1 m c to A l t h u sser. T h e fi rs t
t h i ng to note h e re i s h ow t h e y a rc a l l opposed t o t h e m os t elabor:Hed
' for ma l ' thcorv of d e m oc rac y i n contemporary French t ho u g h t , t h a t
of Claude Le fo r t . T n a n e x p l i c i t refe rence t o LIC1 n i a n t h eory, lcfort
conceptua l i zcd the d e mocratic space :I S s l l.s t a i nnl hy t he' �;l P hcrween
t h e R C 1 1 and t h e Svmho l i c : i n a dC JTlon:lcv, t i,(' plflO' O(!'O II'1T i.e "t nll'­
tum/I)! Ol7pt)', nohodv h :1 5 t he 'n a t l l r �l l ' r it: h t to O C Cl l fW I t. th ose \\' ! w
e x e rt p ow e r cm d o so o l l i v telllpor:l 1'i k �I n d ,h()ldcl n o t ( ' \ ' ( ' r co�i 1nct'
74 T H E POLITICS OF A E S T H ET I C S
with its place. The elegance of this theory is that, in the sa me way
that Kant rejected the opposition between the t rad itional eth ics of a
transcendent substantial Good a nd the utilita rian groundi ng of eth ics
i n the individual 's contingent e mp i r ical i nterests by way of p ropos i n g a
p u rely formal notion of ethical duty, Lefort overcomes the opposition
between the Rousseau i a n 'substantia l ist' notion of democracy as
expressi ng la volonte generale a nd the l iberal notion of democracy as
the space of negotiated settlement between the plural ity of i nd ividual
i n terests, by way of proposing a purely 'formal' notion of d e m oc ra c y.
So while Lefort proposes a Kantia n t r ans ce n d e n t a l n o t i o n of" pol i t i cal
democracy, the 'post-A Ithusserians' i nsist that, with i n t h e m u l t i rude
of real political agents, there is a privileged O n e, the 'su pe rn u merary'
wh ich occupies the place of the 'symptomal torsion' of t h e whole and
t h us a llows us access to its t ruth - the pure u n i ver s a l form i s l i n ked hv
a k i nd of umbil ical cord to a 'pathological' element which do c s nor fi t
i nto the social Whole.
However, even with i n t h i s 'post-Althusserian' field, t h ere a rc
considerable d i fferences. While Ra ncicre rema i ns t�l ithft1 1 to the
pop u l ist-democratic i mpulse, A la i n Badiou (whose n o t i o n of the
'supernumerary' as the site of the political i s very close to Rancicre's
notion of the 'part with no part' ) opts for a more ' Platon ic' form
of politics grounded in the u niversal form-of-thought. While a l l
democratic Left ists venerate Rosa Luxembourg's fa mo u s ' Freedom i s
freedom for t hose who t h i n k differently', Badiou provokes us t o shift
the accen t from 'differently' to 'th i n k ': 'Freedom is freedom for those
who thin k d i fferently' - ON LY for those who R E ALLY THIN K, even
if differently, not for those who j ust b l i ndly (unth i n ki ngly) act out
their opin ions . . . In his famous short poem 'The Solution' from 1 9 53
(published i n 1 956), B recht mocks the arrogance of the Comm u n ist
nomenklaturrl when faced with the workers' revolt: 'Would it not he
easier for the govern ment to dissolve the people and elect anot her? '
However, this poem is not only political ly opportunistic, the ohverse
of h is letter of solidarity with the East German Comm u n i st regi m e
published i n Neues Deutschland - t o p u t i t brutally, B recht wa nted to
cover both h i s fl a n ks, to profess his s upport for the regime as wel l a s to
h i n t at his sol idarity w i t h the workers, so that w h oever won , he wou l d
b e o n the win n i ng s ide - , bur a lso si mply wrong i n t h e t henret ico-
A F T E RWO R D flY S LAVO J 7,L.l:EK 7')
po l i t ic al sense: on e should bravely a d m it that i t effee r ive l y 1:-; a dmv
- T H E d u t y even - of a r e vol m i ona r y p a rt y to ' d i ssolve the people
and e l e e r a ,; o th e r ' , i . e. to b r i n g about t h e rra n s u h<; ( ;) lltiarioll of t h e
'ol d ' o p p o r t u n i s t i c people ( t h e i n e rt 'crowd ' ) i nto ;l revo l u t i() n a r:' hody
awa re of i t s h i sto r i cal task. Far from hei n g an CI S Y ta s k , to ' d i ssolvc the
peopl e and e l e ct a nother' i s t h e rn m t d i ffic u l t of a l l . . .
I n s pi te of t h ese d i fferences, t h e re i s a fe;ltll re t h a r u n i tes a l l t h e
post -A Ithusserian p a r t i s a n s o f ' p u re pol i t ics ': w h a t t h ey oppose to
rocl a y's post-pol i t ics is m o re .heoh i n t h a ll M a rx ist, i . e . i t s h a res w i t h i ts
gre a t oppo n e n t , ;\ n glo-:-;a xoll C u l t u r;l l :-; tt ld i cs a ll d t h e I r foeu.s O i l dl l"
stnw<T!cs
bh '
for l"Cco"n h
i ti o l l ' t h e d c<rra
�
d ;l r i o n 0 1 ' t h e ' ll h e re n f ,'CO I H l l l l .':.
T h ;l t is to \;1\', w h ;l t ;1 1 1 t h e n c w h'c n c h (or " rc n c h nr i e nt(·d) t h e nr i e s
'
of I hL' Pnl i t i c ;] 1 , from B:l l i h a r t h rou 'g h R ;I I l C i (�'I"' ;l lld 1�;1 ( l i ( ) 1 1 1 ( 1 i . . l l I .1 1 1
; l nd i'vfou flc. a i m at i s - t o p l l t i r i ll t r;l d i t i ol1 ;J i ph i lo.s oph i Cl I t er m '
- t h e re d uc t i o n o f t h e s p here o r eCO I l O I1l\' (of m ;l (n i ;d p ro <i l l C t i n n ' I n
an 'ontic' sp h e re d e p r i ved o f ' o n tologi ca l ' d i g n i t y. \\l i t h l l l t h i , Iw r i zo ll .
t here i s si m p l y n o place for t h e M a r x i a n ' c r i t i q u e o f p o l i t ic a l ecollom y ':
t h e s t r u c t u re o f t h e u n iverse of cotll mod i r ies and c a p i Ll i i n Iv1 :1 r ,, ·.,
Crlp i trr! i s NOT j us t t h a t of a l i m i ted em pi r i Cl I sphere, h u t ;1 k i n d of
socio-tr a n scend e n t a l I I priori, t h e m ar r i x wh ich generates t h e (()u l i tv
of soc i a l a n d pol it i c a l rela t i o n s .
The rel ationsh ip between economy a nd p o l i tics i s \ t 1 t i m ;l t el ; , I h :l t n f
t h e wel l - k nown v i su a l p a ra d o x of t h e 'two faces or a va s e ' : n il e e i th er
sees t h e two faces or a vase, n ever h o t h of them - one h as to make a
c h o ice. I II t h c s a m e way, o ne e i t h e r focuses on t h e p o l it i c a l , a nd rhe
d oma i n of economy is red uced to the empirical 'servi c i n g of goo d s ' , or
o n e focllses on economy, an d po l i t i cs is reduced to a t h ea t re o f a ppCH­
ances, to a passi ng p h e n o m e non w h ic h w i l l d i s a ppea r w i t h t h e a rri v;l l
of t h e d eveloped Com m u n i s t (or technocrat i c) society, i n wh i c h , ;l S
E n ge l s a l re ady put it, t h e 'ad m i n i s t ra t i o n of peop l e ' w i l l va n i s h i n t h t"
'ad m i n i s t rat i o n of th i ngs'. T h e ' p o l i t i c a l ' c r i t i q u e of ivh r x i s !l1 ( t h e
claim th at, when o n e reduces pol i t ics to a ' fo r m a l ' e x p re s s i o n p i snnw
'
11 n d c r l y i n g ' o b jec t ive socio-eeo n o l11 ic p rocess, one l oses t h e opell ness
and comingency cOll 5 t i ru t i vc of t h e p o l i t i c a l fie l d proper) shou l d t h l l S
b e s u p p le m e nt ed by i ts ohverse: t h e fi e l d o f eco llol1lY i .s I N I T S V E RY
- t h i s l evel of the r O R Jvl o f t"con o t1l\
F O R M i rred u c i h l e to pol i t i cs
(of economy as t h e d e ter m i n i n g F O R M of t h e s(l e i ;l l ) is w h a t F r e n c h
76 T H E POLITICS OF A E STH ETI C S
'political post-Marxists' m iss when they reduce economy to one of t h e
positive social spheres.
I n spite of t h is critical poi nt, Ranciere's theory provides the clearest
articulation of the motto which appeared at the demonstrations of the
French j obless movement in the m id-90s: we 're not a surplus, 1/!e 're a
plus. Those who, i n the eyes of t he ad m i n istrative power, arc perceived
as 'a surplus' (laid off, redundant, reduced to silence in a society that
subtracted the j obless from the pub l ic accou nts, that m ade them i nto
a k i nd of residue - i nvisible, i nconceivable except as a statistic under
a negative sign) , should i mpose themselves as the embod i ment of
society as such - how? It is here that we encoll nter the second great
breakthrough of R a nciere articulated in Le Partage du sensible: the
aestheticization of politics, the assertion of the aesthetic d i mension
as I N H E RENT in any rad ical emancipatory pol itics. T h is choice,
although grounded in the long F rench tradi t ion of rad ical po l itic a l
spectacle, goes against the grain of the p redom inant notion w h i c h sees
the mai n root of Fascism i n the elevation of the s o ci a l body i nt o a n
aesthetic-organ ic Whole.
It is not only that, apart from bei ng a pol itical theorist, Ra ncicre
wrote a series of outstandi ng texts on art, especially on ci nema - the
shi ft from the political to the aesthetic is i n herent in the pol itical itself.
The aesthetic metaphor i n which a particular element stands for the
Universal, is enacted in the properly political short-circuit in which a
particular demand stands for the u niversal gesture of reject i ng the power
that be. Say, when people strike against a particular measure (new tax
regulation, etc.), the true a i m of the strike is never just this particular
measure - which i s why, i f those i n power give way too fast a n d repeal
t h is measure, people feel frustrated, s ince, although their demand was
met, they were deprived of what they were really a i m in g at. J\ n d what
about the ideological stru ggle in which a u niversal conceptu a l position
is always 'schematized' in the Kantian sense of the term, translated i nto
a specific impressive set of i m ages? Recall how, a decade ago, i n the
UK, the figure of the unemployed single mother was elevated by the
conservative medi a i nto the cause of all social evil s : there is a budget
deficit because too much money is spent on supporti ng single mothers;
there is j uvenile deli nquency because si ngle mothers d o not properly
educate their offspring. . . Or recall how the a nti-abortion ca mpaigns
A 1' T E RWO R D BY S l ,AVOJ ZIZLK
as ;1 r t I l c p u r f()rwa rd t h e i m ;l ge o f :1 r i c h CHeer wom a n n eg le c t i n g
h e r m a t e rn a I 111 i ss i o n - i n hht:l I1 t c o n tr:1 st to t h e r:l lT t h :H m :l llV n w rc
a h o rt i o n s a rc pc rfc)rlllcd on work i n g-class women who a I rC1d;, h :l vc
m a ny c h i l d re n . T h e s e poc t i c d i s p L� c e m c n ts a n d co n d e ns :nio J1'> a rc
n o t j us r sec on d a r y i 1 l mt ra t i o n s of a n u nd e rl y i n g i d co l og i ca l s trug gl e,
h u r t h e verv terra i n of t h i s st ru ggle I f w h a t R a nc i i.:rc refers to as t h e
.
pol ice-aspe� r of t h e p o l it i c a l , t h e\�lt i o n a l ad m i n istra t i o n a n d con t rol of
social processes, focuses o n t h e c l e a r ca te gor i z at i o n o f every i n d i v i d u a l ,
o f every v i s i bl e soci a l u n ir, r h e n d i stur h i n g s u c h order, of r h e v i s i h l e
' '
a n d p roposi n g d i ffere n t l at e ra I l i n ks o f t h e v i s i hle, II nex pecred , h n r t ­
c i rcu i t s , e t c . , i s t h e e l e m c n t a r v for m of rcs ist;1 I1ce.
O n :1 m or e genera l leve l , t h e I csson of lb ll c i ere i s t h a t nile ,d l Oi d d
h e ca refu l n o t t o succll m h t o t h e l i bera l tcmpt:l t i o ll o f condem n i n g a l l
col l ective a rt i s t i c p nfo r m a nces a s i n h ere n t l y ' to ta l i ta ri a n'. B or h t h e
T h i n gsp i e l in r h e early N a z i yea rs a n d B e r ro l t B rech t's le a rn i n g p I a :·s /
'
le/JrYlIl(c/.:('/ ' i n vo l ved ;1 mass i d eo l og i co-aes r h e t ic e x p c r i cll cc (of' S O il g'; .
sp ee c h es a nd acts) i n wh i c h ,peer :lf o rs riwmsekn ,e rvcd a s ;l er{)r�
- d o cs r h i s mea n t h ;l t the I ,eft in r h e :) o s p:l rt i c i p:Hed I n rhe \;l nK
' proro- F:l � c i � t' total i ta r i a n e x p e r i e n c e o f rhe 'rq;rc,s\vc' i III m n s j O]l
i n to p re-i n d i v id u a l N ;l'Ij�dn ( t h e t h es i s o r :l I l l O ll t�
cOll l lll u n i ry a s
o t h er s , S ieg fri ed I< r:1 cl u er ) ? I f n o t , d ocs t h e d i ffe rence l"Cs l d c i n t h e
fa c t r h �l t t h e N az i T h i n g s pi e l s t a ged a pat h e t i c em o t i o n a l i m m er s i oll ,
-
w h i l e Brecht a i m ed a t a d ista nced, sel f.obsel"\· i n g , ref1ccred proce�s of
l ea rn i n g ? However, i � t h i s s ta n d a rd Brech t i a n opposi t i o n of emotional
i m mersion and reflexive d istance sufficient? Let us reca l l r h e staged
performance of 'Storm ing the \X1i nter Palace' i n Pe trog ra d , on � hc
t h i rd anniversary of rhe O c tober R evol u t i o n , o n t h e 7 t h of N ovem ber,
1 9 20. Tens o f t h o u s a n d s o f wo rkers, sold iers, s t u d e n t s , a nd a rt i sts
worked rou n d the clock, l iv i n g on hsha (the t;l�teless w h e a t porridge),
rca, a n d frozen a p p le s , a nd p repa r i n g t h e p e r fo r m :l n cc a t the ver y p h ce
wh ere t h e ('vem ' re a l l y took p l ace' t h ree yea rs ea rl i er; t h e i r work was
coord i n �l ted hy t h e A rmy o ffic er s , as wel l a s by the aV3 nt-ga rd e �l r t i � t s ,
m u s i c i a m , ;l nd d i re c to rs from M a l e v i c h to Me ye r h o ld J\ lt hough
, .
this w as act i n g a nd n ot 'real ity', the sol d i ers a n d s a i l ors were p l ay i l-l g
themselves - many of t h e m n o t o n l v aerll a l l \' p a r t i C i pa ted I n t h e eve n ts
of 1 9 1 7, but were a l so s i mll i ta neousi:' i n volved i n t h e rea l b a t tles of
the C i v i l Wa r t h a t were ra g i n s in the n e a r v i ci n i r\' of Pcrro g rad , ;, Ci t\'
78 T H E P O L I T I C S OF A E S T H ET I C S
under siege and suffering from severe food shortages. A contemporary
commented on the performance: 'The future h istorian w i l l rccord
how, throughout o ne of the bloodiest and most brutal revolutions, a l l
o f Russi a was acting'; a nd the for ma list theoretician Viktor Sh klovski
noted that 'some k i nd of elemental p rocess is taki ng place where the
l iving fabric of l ife is being transformed i nto the theatrical '.
A nother popular topic of t h is kind of analysis is the alleged ly 'proto­
Fascist' c haracter of the mass choreography displaying d iscip l i ned
movements of thousands of bodies (parades, mass performances in
stadiums, etc. ) ; if one also fi nds this i n Social ism, one i m mediately
draws the conclusion about a 'deeper sol ida r ity' between the two
' totalitarian isms'. S uch a procedure, the very prototype of i d e ologic a l
l ibera lism, m isses the point: not only are such mass performances
not i nherently Fascist; they are not even 'neutra l ', wa iting to be
appropriated by Left or R ight - it was Nazism that stoic them and
appropriated them from the workers' movement, the i r original s i te of
birth. None of the 'proto-Fascist' elements is per s e Fascist, what makes
them 'Fascist' is only their specifi c articulation o r, to p u t it i n S teph en
- h e i n g u r h a n poetr)" w i t h IlO re;1 1 pu rpose. N o r ro 111 e n t i o n , o f C O U Ls t: ,
Jay Gould's terms, all t hese elements a rc 'ex-apted' by F as c i s m I n
other words, there is n o 'Fascism avant la lettre', because it is the letter
itself(the nomination) which malees out o.{the bundle o/e/ements r��lSmm
proper.
A long the same l ines, one should radically reject t h e notion t h a t
discip line (from sel f-control to bodi ly tra i n i ng) is a 'proto-Fa scist'
feature - the very predicate 'proto-Fascist' should be abandoned: it
is the exemplary case of a pseudo-concept whose fu nction is to block
conceptual analysis. When we say t hat the organ i zed spectacle of
thousands of bodies (or, say, the admiration of sports which demand
h igh effort and sel f-control l i ke mountai n climbi ng) i s 'proto-Fascist',
we say strictly not h ing, we j ust express a vague association wh ich
masks our ignorance. So when, th ree decades ago, Kung Fu fi l ms were
popular (Bruce Lee, etc.), was it not obvious that we were dea l i n g with
a gen u i ne worki n g class ideology of youngsters whose only meam of
Sllccess was the discipli nary training o f the i r only possession, t h e i r
bodies ? Sponta neity a n d t h e ' let it go' attitude o f i ndulging i n excessive
freedoms belong to those who have the means to a Hord it - t hose who
have noth i ng h ave only their d iscipl i ne. The ' had ' bod ily d iscip l i ne, i f
,HT E RWO !{ D BY S LAVO J !: l !: F K
t h e re i s o n e , is not collective tra i n i n g, bur, rather, jogg i n g a nd hod\'­
bu i ld i ng as part of t h e New Age my� h of t h e rea l i z;l�i�)n :If t h e Self'\'
i n ner p ote n t ials - no wonder t h a t t h e obsession w i t h o n e \ hod" is a n
a l most obI igatory part o f the passage o f ex- L eft i s t rad ica I s i t�ro the
'maturity' of pragmatic pol itics: from Jane ronda to J os c h k a F i sc h er,
the 'period of latency' between t h e two ph ase s was m:uked bv the foc ll s
on one's own hody.
I t is often c l a i m e d that, in h is pass i o n a te a d voc acv of t h e ;lCsthetic
d i m e n s i o n a s i n herent in t h e pol i t i c a l , R :l n c i c' rc tloSLI l g i Cl l ly l o n gs
for t h e n i n e tee n t h -c e n tu r y popu l i s t rehel l i o m wh ose era is ddl n i t c l"
gone - h owever, i s i t r ea l l y ? Is n o t p recisely t h e 'pos f illOdern' pol i t i cs of
resist:l n ce permea ted with aesthetic p h e n o m e n a, from bodv-picrci n g ;I nc!
c ro s s d ress i n g to publ ic spectacles ? Does not the c u ri o u s p h ell o m e no ll
-
of 'Rash mohs' s t a n d fo r t h e ae �;t h e t ic o p o l i t i c a l protest at i ts p u rc.s t.
-
reduced to its m i n i ma l fra m e ? Peo p l e s how u p at an a s s i gn e d pla c e at
a c e r t a i n t i me, pe r fo r m some h r i e f (and u s u a l l y t r i v i :d or r i d i c u l o l l s )
a c t s , a n d t h e n d i sperse aga i n - n o wo n d er fl ash m o h s a re d escr ihed ;IS
. cyhCrS p;1Cc wh i c h abou n d s with po.s s i h i l i t ies of' pL1;" i n g w i t h lll l t i t i pic
(d i s ) i d ell t i fi Cl t i o n s and l a tera l cOll nect i o n s su hvcrt i n g t h c e S l :l h l i shcd
soc i a l n e tworks . . . So, (1 1' from SLI n d i llg for a nosta Igic ;H [;l ch Ill C l l t to
;1 popu l is t past l m t by ou r e n t ry i n to t h e g l oba l pos t i n d us tr i a l society,
-
R a n c i cre's t h o u g h t is to d a y more a c t t l :! 1 t h a n ever: i ll o u r t i me of t h e
disorientation of the Left, h is w r i t i n gs ofler one o f t h e few CO I l S l s tClH
concepru;1 i i zations o f /701(1 I ( J{' fire to CO III illll{' to rl'sist.
 ( ; LO S S ,\ f( Y O F T F C I I 0J 1 C \ 1 , T F R \IS 01

H A5 'H istory a nd the a rt s y s tem'

IE L '1l7(Onsc1ent esthhiquc
IS The 19nrml71t Sc/Joo!mrlst('1"
Appendix I LA La Lev'on d'Althll.ucr
L PA 'Literature, pol itics, aesthetics'
M 1\1a!!arm/: La Po!itirfllc de fa sirh1C
Glossary of Technical Terms ML 'Le malentendu l i rtcra i re'
NH Thc IVarncs olHistO lJI
PA The Politics o(acstficlin
'
Nota bene
P;l A ' Pol itics and aesthetics'
The fol lowing defi n itions a i m less at establ i s h i n g a systematic lex icon
PhP T/;c Philosopher (/nr/ His 1'001'
for Ranciere's work than at p rovidi ng pragm atic i nd icati o ns to help
PIS ' Po l i tics, ident i fication, a nd s ll b j ecri\' i za t i o n '
orient the reader i n a un ique conceptual and termi n ologi � al fra mework.
PM Lrl Paro!e 117 1(ctll'
For this reason, each defi n ition is accompan icd bv references to key
5 '1,e 11 septemhre et a p ri.' s '
passages i n R a nciere's corpus in order �o encour�: ge the reader to
. 51' On Ihl' Shor('s o(1'o/itics
resituate these techn ical terms J t1 the precise t heoretical nctworks rhat
1 '1' 1' 'Ten theses on po l i tics'
e ndow them with specific mean i ngs.
. ., , \X!;\ ' \,\/ h at aesthetics ca n mea n'
S i nce the m ajority of the terms defi ned are speCIfic to RanClere s
most recen t publications, most of t he references are to the body nt
Aesthetic Regi me of A rt ( fJc Regim e csthhiq uc de I'a rt)
_

work he h as produced s i nee approxi mately 1 99 0 . H()wevc �-, some r �'k �­

A lthough traces of t h i s re gi me arc al ready to h e t() l I n d i n s\lch a ur h o r:;
e nces a re made to i mportant conceptual developments 1 11 Ra n C l e re s
as Vico and Cervantes, i t has onlv co me to play a dOTnlna nr role
work that do not use the exact same tec h n ical vocabu l ary. A m a rked
i n the last two cen tu ries . The aestj l ctic regi me a b o l i shes the h i eLl l­
privilege was given to texts ava i l able i n E ng� ish : although references
ch ical d istribution of the sensib k cha ractcristic of the representative
to certain key publications i n French were 1 l1d lspensable. Complete
regi m e of art, i n c l u di n g the p r i v i l ege o f s p ee ch over v is i h i l i ty as wel l
b ibliograph ical i n formation w i l l be found i n Append ix 2 . - Trans.
a s t h c h ierarchv ' o f the ;1 I"ts, th e i r s u b j e c t matter, and t h e i r genres. Bv
p ro m o t i n g t h e equality of re p r es e n t e d s u h j ects, the i n �i i th:. r(' n ce o f
Abbreviations
sty l e w i th regard to content, and the i m 11l:1nence of m e an i n g In t h l tl gs
AT 'Thc archaeomodern turn'
themselves, the aesth etic regime destroys the system of ge nres and
BP Aux Bards du po/itique ( 1 9 9 R ed ition)
isol ates carr' in t h e s i n g u l a r, which it identi ties with t h e pa rado � ical
eM La Chair des mots
u n i ty of opposites: logos and pat h o s . H owever, t h e s i ngu l a r i ty of :l r t
CO 'The cause of the other'
en ters i n to an i n term i n able con trad iction due to t h e hct th ;l t t h e
D Disagreement: Politics (/rid Phi!osop/�)'
aesthetic regimc also cal l s i n to (l ues ti o n t h e very d i sti n cti o n b e tween
DA 'Is there a Deleuzia n aesthetics? '
ar t and oth ; r activi ties. Strictly speaki ng, the egal i ta r i a n regime of the
Dr Le Destin des images
sensible can only isolate art's speci ficity a t t h e expense of l os i n g i t .
DME ' D emocracy means equal i t y'
DJ 2 1 , R R , 1 20 - 1, 1 2')-,)3 : FC 1 4 - 1 R : H A S ; I F 2 5 -3 2 ; L Pf\ ; PA 2 2 --'),
OW ' Dissenting words'
4.) - 4 ; P M 1 7-3 0 , 43-52, R C; -') ; \\/;\ .
FC La Fable cinematographique
 82 G L O S S A RY O F T E C H N I CAL T E R M S
Aesthetic Revolution (La Revolution esthhique)
By calling i nto question the representative regim e of art i n the
n ame of the aesthetic regime around the begi n ning of the n i neteenth
century, this 'silent revolution' tra nsformed an organ ized set of relation­
ships between the visible and the i nv isible, the perceptible and the
i mperceptible, k nowledge and action, activity and pa s s i v i t y. The
aesthetic revolution i n the sensible order d id not, however, lead to the
death of the representative regime. O n the contrary, it introduced
a n i rresolvable contradiction between diverse elements of the repre­
sentative and aesthetic regimes of art.
DI 84-5, 1 18-22, 1 3 5 ; H A S ; IE 25-33 ; LPA; PA 26-8, 30-7; PaA
205-6 ; PM 5-30.
Aesthetic Unconscious (L'Inconscient esthhique)
I
I Coextensive with the aesthetic regime of art, the aesthetic u nc o n ­
scious is paradoxically polarized between the two extremes that
characterize silent speech. On the one hand, mea n i n g is i ns cribed
l i ke h ieroglyphics on the body of t h ings and waits to be d e c i p h e red.
O n the other h and, an u n fathomable si lence that no vo i c e ca n
adequately render acts as an i nsurmountable obstacle to s i gnificat io n
and m ea n ing. This contradictory conjunction between s pee ch a n d
silence, logos and pathos, i s not equivalent to the F reud ian unconscious
or other later i n terpretations. It is, in tact, the h i storical terra i n upon
I whi ch competing conceptions of the u nconscious h ave emerged .
I E 4 1-2, 70-1 , 76-7; LPA 20.
I
Aesthetics (L'Esthetique)
I n its restricted sense, aesthetics refers n e ither to art theory in general
nor to the discipli ne that takes art as its object of study. Aesthetics is
properly speaking a speci fic regi me for identi fying and thin king the
arts that R a nciere n ames the aesthetic regim e of art. I n its broad
sense, however, aesthetics refers to the distribution of the sensible
that determines a mode of articulation between forms of action,
production, perception, and thought. T h is general defi n ition cnemis
aesthetics beyond the strict realm of art to i nclude the conceptual
coord i nates and modes of visibil ity operative i n the pol itical dom a i n .
D 57-9; D A ; I E 1 2- 1 4 ; LPA 9-1 2 ; M 53 ; PA 1 0, 1 3 ; WA.
C LO S S A RY OF T FC l I N I CA L T E RM S
A rchi-Politics (L'Archi-politique)
T h e p rototype o f a rch i - po l i t i c s , o n e of t h e t h ree m a j or rypes (,f
political p h i l osophy. is to be t(ll i llcl i ll P l a to 's ;me m p t to e s r a h l i s h a
co m mu n i t y hased on t h e i nt e g r;d m a ll i Cc s Ll r ioll of i rs !ogo" i ll lll a te r i ;1 i
for m . The a c t i vi t i es of i n d i v i d l tal ci t i zc n s a rc regu l a red i n rcb r i oll rn
rheir ro le i n r he o rg ;l n i za r ioll of the cOlll m u n a l bod :' i ll s u c h ;1 wa\" t lu l
cveryone h a s a de s ig n a ted place a nd a n a s s i g n e d [ok, T h e d cm o cr,l t i l
con fi g u r at i o n of politics i s t h ereby rep la c e d b y t h e police order of a
l iving nomos that s a tu rates the entire c o m m u n i ty a nd precludes any
breaks in the social ed i fi ce.
0 61 -93; OW; PhP; TTP.
Com m u n ity of Equals (La C0l111111111/11Ife des egaux)
A com m u n i ty of eq u a l s i s not a go:! 1 to he ;l t t;l i n cd hm rat h e r a p resup-'
po s i r i o n t h a t is i n co m t a n t n eed nf ver i fi c a t i o n . a p r c s u p posi t i o n r h ;H
c a n ncver i n flct l ead to t h e e s t a h l i s h m e n t of a ll q.; a l i ta r i ; \ n s(lc i ;\ i
�
fo r m a t i o n s i n c e t h e lo g i c o f i n eC]u a l i ty i s i n h er e l l t i n th > so c i a l ho n d o /\
c o m m u n i t y o f e q ual s is t herefore a p r eca r i o u s c o m mu n i r y t h a t i m p le ­
ments e q u a l it y i n i n t er m i t te n t acts of' ema ncipation .
H A S ; IS 7 1 -.1 ; SP 63-92 .
Consensus ( L e Consensus)
Prior to bei n g ;1 p h t for m t()r ra t i o n a l d ehar'c, cOll s e n s m is ;\ spec i fi c
reg i m e o f t h e s e n s i h l e , a pa r t i cu l a r W;\y o r pos i t i n g r t g ht� ,IS ;1
co m m u n i t y 's rlrrl7l;. More s p c c i fl c a l l y, conse n su s is the presuppos i t i o n
accord ing to wh i c h every p a r t o f a popu b t i o n , al o ll g with a l l of its
speci fic p ro ble m s , can he i ncorporated i n to a pol i t i c a l order a nd raken
i nto accou nt. By abol ish i ng d issensus a n d placi ng a han on po l i t i c a l
subjectivization, consenSllS reduces politics to t h e police.
BP 1 37-8 ; 0 9 5 - 1 4 0 ; OW 1 1 7-26 ; S ; TTP.
Democracy ( La Democratie)
Neither a for m of gove rn m e n t n or a s t v l e of soc i a l l i fe , d e m oc racv i s
L '
properly spcaki n g a n act or pol i t i ca l subjectivization t h a t d i stu r b s t h e
police order by pole m i c a l lv ca l l i ng i n to q u es t io n t h e a e s t h e t i c coord i ­
or perception. t h ou gh t , a n d a c t i o n , Democracy i s t h u s f:J i�cly
n a re s
identified w h e n i t i s a s s ocia t ed with t h e c o n s e n s u a l sel t�reg u la t ion o r
84 G L O S S A RY O F TECH N I C A L T E R M S (; L O S S A RY Of' TEC II N ICAL T F R � I S R 'i

the multitude or with the reign of a sovereign collectivity based on D i spute (Le Litige)
subordin ating the particular to the u n iversal. It is, i n tlCt, less a state i\ poiitical dispute concerns the very e x i ,rell cc of pnl itics ;\s d i s r i ll C f
of being than an act of contention that i mplements variolls forms of from rhe police. U n l i ke juridicai d isp u res , w h ic h t a k e p l a c e w i t h i n t h e
dissensus, It can be said to exist o n ly when those who h ave no title police ord er, ie litigc poiitiqlll' bri n gs politics proper i n to ex i sre n ce b y
to power, the dim os, i n tervene as t he d ivid ing force that d i s rupts the i n t ro d u c i n g
a verit;1ble d issensns that spl i ts i n t wo t h e s h a red wOI"ld
ochios, I f a community can be referred to as democratic, it is only of t he co m m u n i t v.
i n sofar as i t i s a 'commu nity of sharing' (communaute du partagr) i n BP 1 2R-47; TTP.
which membership i n a common world - not to b e confused with a
commu nitarian soci a l formation - is expressed i n adversarial terms and D issen sus ( Le Dissensus)
coal it ion o n ly occurs i n con A ict. A d i ss en s u s i s n o r ;J q U ; H re l o \' er p e rso n a l i n rerests or 0p111 10ns. ft i s
B P 7-1 5 ; CM 1 26-7; D 61-5, 95-1 2 1 ; D M E ; DW 1 23-6; LPA; M L; a pol i t i c a l process r h ar res i s rs j \ 1 r i di cI I l i r i garion :1 I1d crea res : 1 h s s ll re
N H 88-103; PA 14- 1 5, 53-8 ; PM 8 1 -9 ; S P 20-3, 3 1 -6, 39- 1 07; TTP. i n r h e sen s i b l e order hv c on from i n g t h e esta h l i s h nl fra mework of
perception, t h o \ 1g h t , :I n d :I c t i o n w i t h t h e ' i n ad m i ss i hle', i . e. a p o l i t i c a l
Demos (Le Dimos) subject.
Ranciere uses t h is G reek term - mea ni n g 'the commons', 'plebeians', or BP 1 2 8 -47; DW 1 23-6; TT P.
'citizens' - i nterchangeably with 'the people' to refer to those who have
no share i n t he communal distribution of the sensible. T h e demos is D i stribution of the Sen sible ( Le Partage rlu sensible)
thus simultaneously the name of a commu n ity and the title sign i Fying O c c a s i o n a l l y t r ans l a t e d as t h e ' p a rr i r i o n of t h e s c n s i h l e ' , II' jif/r/flg('
the d ivision of a com mun ity due to a wrong. It is the u n i que power dl! scmibie r e fe r s to r h e i m p l i c i r law gover n i n g t h e s e n s i h l e o rci n
of assembli n g and d ivid i ng that exceeds all of the arrangements made r h a r p :nc e l s O l l r p l a c e s a n d fo r m s o f p a r r i c i p :l t i o n i n ,I C 0 1ll ll H l i l

by legisl ators; it is the force of commu nal d ivision that cont ravenes the
ochlos' obsession with u n i fication.
CM 1 26-7; D 6 1-2; D M E 3 1-2 ; DW 1 23-6 ; PIS ; SP 3 1 - 6 ; T T P.
Disagreement (La Mesentente)
Prior to l inguistic or cultural m isunderstanding, Ranciere i so l a tes a
fundamental d iscord t h at results from con A icts over the d istribution
of the sensible. Whereas la meconnaissance ( lack of comprehension)
and Ie mafentendu (misunderstanding) produce obstacles to l itigation
that are - at least i n theory - surmountable, fa mesentcnte is a conA ict
over what is meant by 'to speak' and 'to u nderstand' as well as over rhe
horizons of percept ion that distinguish the audible from t he i naudible,
the comprehensible from the i ncomprehensible, the visible from the
i nvisible. A case of d isagreement arises when the pere n n ia l persistence
of a wrong enters i nto conBict with the establ ished police order a n d
resists the forms of juridical l it igation t h at are i mposed on it.
D vii-xii i , 43-60 ; DME 35; DW 1 1 3- 1 6 ; M L.
worl d Iw fi r s t c S Ll h l i s h i n g r h e m o d e s o f l'lTc c p r i n n w i r h i n w h i c h
t h e s e :1 I"e i ns cr i lw c\ . T h e cl i , r r i hur i o t1 ( I f t h e s c m i hl c r h m p ro c\ I I C l"S :1
s v.<; t c m of s e l f- n' i d e n r f:1 C r s o f p ncq) r i o n h:1e;cd on r h e s cr h o r i zo l 1 s
:l n cl m o cb l i t i e s o f wh :l r i s v i s i h l e :I n < l :1\ 1 d i h k :1<; \\T I I :1 5 w h ,n C1 n
he s:l id , r h o\1 g h r , 111 :)( \ e , or d o n e . S r r i c t l v s p ea k i n g , ' d i s t r l b \ 1 t l o n '
t h e re fo re refers h o r h t o fo r m s o f i n c l \1 s i o n a n d t o fo r m e; o f e xc l u s i o n .
T h e ' s e nsih l e ' , o f ((11 1 r s e , d o e s n o r re F er to what s h ow, good s e n se o r
j u d ge m e n r b u t t o whar i, rlistlii'torJ o r c:t p a h l c o f b e i n g ;l p p r e h c n d c d
h y t h e s e n s es .
I n r h e real m o f aesthetics, R a n c i crc h :1 s a n a l\'sed , h rec d i fferc n t
prlrtrlgcs d1l 5cmiblc: t he eth i cal regi m e o f i m a ges , r h e representative
regi m e of a rt, :1 11<1 the aesthetic regi m e of a rt. I n t h e lwl i t i c :d
d o m a i n , h e h :1 s s tu di e d rhe re l a t i on s h i p between rhe pol i ce, :1 rocI I ·
i z i n g acco u n t o f r h e pop u la r i o n , :I n d politics, th e d i st u rb a n ce o f t h e
police d is t r i b u r i o n o r th e semible h y r h e subjectivization of r h o s t"
who h ave n o p a rt i n i t .
D 57- ()(), 1 24 -5 ; H i\ S ; PA 1 2- U , 4 2-'i ; TTP; \'VA .
 0-
rFC H N I C A \ r'FR M S (' (
86 GLOSSARY O F T E C H NICAL T E RM S
C LO S S A R Y O F

Emancipation (L'Emancipation) Litera rity (Ln Utthnritei

Neither the teleological e nd of a political project nor a state of social L i tcLn i n' IS n n t ;l ter m w;cd to q u ;d i h' t h e e t c I' ll ;] ! (' \ ' C l l ll' nf l i tcl'atll re
o r :1 p u r e l v su b j e c t i n' c1tq�o r\' t h ;l t i .'> ;nhi t Ll 1' i h, ;1l'l' l icd rn
l iberation, the process of emancipation consists i n the po le m i c a l veri fi ­ v.n ; ( 1 \ 1 .\

cation of equality. Si nce this verifi cation is necessarily interm i r tent
and precarious, the logic of emancipation is i n fact a heterology, i.e. the
introduction of a 'proper-improper' that chal lenges the police order.
AT; 0 82-3 ; IS 1 0 1 -39; P I S ; SP 45-52 .
Equality (L'Egalitel
A lthough it is the o n ly u niversal axiom of p o l i t i c s , e q u a l ity
n o netheless rema i ns u ndetermined i n its content a nd lacks an a priori
fou ndation . It i s , strictly spea k i n g , the presupposit ion d iscernible
wo rk s of a rt based on i n d i v i c\ u ;1 1 s e ns i hi l i t ies, I t i s a u n i q u c l o g i C o f
the se n s i h l e , w h i ch m i gh t be refe rred to :IS t l l C democra t i c reg i m e of
the 'orphan letter', wl �ere writ i n g freely c i rcu btes w i t h o ut � l e g i t i ­
m a t i ng system and t he re by u ndcrm incs the sensihle coord i n a te.'> of the
representative re i m e of art. L i t erar i t y i s t h u s at onc a n d the s a nw
g
t i m e literatu re's con d i t i o n of p oss i h il i t y a nd t h e pa r:ldox i c a l l i m i t ;H
wh ich l i te ra t u re as such is no l o n 'ger d i scern i h l e from a n .y o t h e r f(1r111
of d i scou rsc.
e M 1 1 5-')() ; D\X/ 1 1 "i ; LPA; N H 5 2 ; I)A Y J - 4 0 ; PM "i - I ii , ii l - 9 , % .

in the polem i c a l recon figurations of the p o l i ce d i s tribu tion of t h e

s ensible. In other word s, Rancie re's conception of equal i t y must Literat u re ( Ln Litthtlture)
not be confused with t h e a r i t hmetical d istribution of r i g h ts an d A s a s pe c i fi c fl1rlll o f a r r i s t i c p rod u c t i oll d i , t i nc t from les /}('//n-/f'ttJ'I '(,
representation. The essence of equa l i ty is not to be fo u n d i n a n l i teratu re e m e rged a ro u nd the hl'gi n n i n <' o f the n i nCl"ce n t h l e tl t\ I I' I '
�l nd W ;) s c oe x te n s i v e w i t h t h e aestll etic ;:vo i u tion r ! u r h ro l i giH i !' I ll
equitable u n i fication o f i n te rests but i n t h e acts o f subjectivization
that undo the supposedl y natural order of the sensible. B y t re a t i ng a ex i s te n cc t h e aest h et i c re i m e of :l rt . I I {)\\'('\'('r, i i t n;lt l l re i:, Ill t l c h
g
wrong, political subj ects t ransfo r m the aesthetic coord i n ;1 tes o f t h e Illn rL' r l Ll 11 ;1 s i m pl e m o d e o f ;nr i s t i c p rod l l c t i n n : i t i , ; 1 ","stenl I ) f 1' ( 1S'I­
commu nity i n o rder t o i m plement t h e o n l y u n iversal i n pol i t i cs : we h i I i t i cs t 1 1 ;] ( a h : l n d o ns t h e fr:l fllC\vork o f recogn i t i o n ;l n c! ;1 , \ l' \ '; I l H' ! H

are a l l equ a l . a s wel l as the cod l's a ll d h i er ;l rc h i ('s o f t h e representat i ve re i m e o f

g
a rt. Bv <' :l I' d to co n te nt a n d
nt o s i t i n g tilt' i nd i flerencc o f fo rm w i t h re b
BP 1 4 1 -2 ; eM 1 94-5 ; 0 3 1 -5 ; OME; ow; I S 45 -73 ; L PA; PA 5 1 -8 ; . L

PIS; S P 3 1-6, 80-9 1 ; TTP. replacing r h e m i me t i c pri n c i p l e of fi c t io n w i t h r h e ex p rcss ive power

Ethical Regime of Images (Le Regime hhique des images)
A lthough t h e eth ical regi me p red ates t h e representative and
aesthetic regimes of art, i t h as by no means disappea red in modern
times. Its paradigmatic formu l ation was provided by Plato. who
established a rigorous d istribution of i mages - not to be con fused
of I ;)ngllage, l iter a t u re reje c ts t h c p oe t i c , of Illill!i'I'is :lt t he e x p e n se o f
e n t er ing i nto i t s own i nr e r m i l1 a h 1c cont rad i c t i o n he t\\'cell t w o fl) r m S o f
wri t i n : the ' o r pha n l e t t e r ' o f d e m o c ra t i c I iter:l rity a n d t h e g l o ri o l l ,'
g
i nca r n a t i o n of t r ut h i n the word m ad e fl es h .
B P 1 2 8-47; eM 14 , l J11 -J() , 1 79-2()3 ; LPA ; tv! 1 0,) - 8 : :-\ I!
4 2 - () O . 99- 1 03 ; P A 52-4. ,1 (J-40. 5 (J -() ; P M 5 - l /f , ii 9 , 1 4 1 - 5 /+ ,

with 'art' - in relationship to the ethos of t h e co m mu n i ty. By 1 (i(i-7(i.

arranging i mages accord i ng to t h e i r origin (the model copied) and
their end or purpose (the uses they a re put to and the effects t hey
p roduce) , the e t h ical regime separates a rtistic s i m u lacra from the
true a r ts, i.e. i mitations model led on the ' t ru t h ' whose fin a l aim i s to
educate the citizenry in accord a nce with the d istribution of occu pa­
tions in the com m u n i ty.
Dr 1 27-8 ; PA 20-1. 42-3 ; PhP; P M 8 1 -5.
Meta-Politics (La Mha-politiqlle)
Meta-pol itics, one of the t il ree pri n c ipa l for m s of pol itical ph i losophy,
em e rges out of 1'v'1arx's c r i t i que of the distance se p a ra t i n g t h e dllh i (ll l s
pretences of rights a n d repres e n t a t ion from the h a rd t nI t h of soci a l
r eali t y. I t t h ereby mci l 1 ates h etweel1 tvvo e x t remes: t h e COn d C Ill I1 :l t i O Il
of t h e id e o l og i c a l i l l us i o n s or pa ra-politic.� :l n d t h e a p pe a l tn ,1
88 GLOS S A RY O F T E C H NI C A L T E R M S
G L O S SARY OF TECHNICAL TFRMS 89

com munal i ncarnation of soci a l t ruth that i s strictly h omologou s w i t h in the n i n e t ee n t h c e n tu r y, with sociol ogy, h i s tory, and po l it i c a l
archi-politics. s c i e n ce) .
BP 90- 1 ; 0 6 1 -93 ; OW 1 17-20 ; LA; PhP. OW 1 1 ')- 1 6 ; N H 8-9, 2 3 , 9 8 -9 .

Ochlos (L'Okhlos) Police or Police Order ( LI1 Police or L'Ordre policier)

Ranciere uses t h i s G reek term mea n i n g 'a t h rong of people' o r ' t h e
mult itude' to refe r to a com m u n ity ohsessed with its own u n i fi ca t i o n ,
a t the expense of excludi n g t h e demos.
S P 3 1 -6.
Para-Politics (La Para-politique)
One of the t h ree k i nds of political philosophy, para-pol i tics is
the result of Aristotle's attemp t to square the c i rcle by i n tegrati n g
t h e egalitar i a n a n archy of t h e demos i n to t h e cOl1 s t i tutional order
of the police. T h i s m i metic transformation o f t h e demos i nto one
of the p arties of political l itigation, as n atural as i t may see m to
modern theories of sovereignty a nd the para-pol i t i c a l t rad i tion of
social contract theory, masks the fac t that the equality of the demos
c a n never be adequately accou nted for w it h i n t h e police order.
D 6 1 -93 ; OW; PhP.
Partition of the Sensible (Le Pl1rtage du sensible)
sec Distribution of the Sensible
People (Le Peuple)
T h i s term i s n o t used as a soc i a l , econom i c , pol i t ical. or ontologica l
As th e gen er a l law that determ i nes the d istrihution or parts a n d role.,
i n a com mu n ity as wel l as i rs forms of exclusion, the police is fi rst ;1 1 l cl
g
forcmost a n or a n ization of ' hod ies' h ;1 s ed Oil a com m u n a l d istrihution
of the sensible, i.e. a system or co oni i m tes dcfi n i n g modes of bei ng,
doi ng, making, and comm u n icat i ng that establ ishes the borders between
the visible and the invisible, the aud ible and the i n au d i ble, t h e sayable
and the unsayable. This term should not be confused with La bassf po/irf
or the low-level police force that the word com monly refers to i n both
French and English. La bassc police is only one particu lar i nstantiation
of an overa l l d istribution of the sensible t h a t purports to provide a
tota l i z i ng accou n t of the popu lation b y assign i n g everyonc a t i t l e a n d ;1
role with i n t h e socia l ed ifice. The essence of the pol ice, thereic)re, is not
repression hut rather a cert a i n distribution of the sensible t h a t p re cl ude'.
the emergence of politics. T h i s b ei ng the case. t here a re nonetheless
better and worse forms of pol ice, depend i n g on the extent to wh ich the
establ ished order rema i n s open to breaches in its 'natura l ' logic.
BP 7- 1 5 ; C O ; 0 2 1 -4 2 , 6 1 -5 ; OW; ML 40-1 ; PIS ; S 4 0 - 1 ; TTP.
The Political ( Le Politique)
l
A l though R a n c i i.' IT does n o t m :l i n ta i n :1 strict t e r m i n o l o gica d is t i n c t i o n
�
betwee l politics (117 po/itiqllc) :l Ild t h e pol i tical (/(' po;;tiqllr), he oft e l l

category refe r r i n g to a n i d en t i fi able group or a pre-co n s t i tuted col lec­ ro

d is t i n gu i s h cs t h e I :Htcr as the m ecl i n g g u n d hctweell politics ;1 n<l t h e
t ivity. The 'people' a re the political subjects of democracy that police. T n th is ,ell S e , the pol i t i ca l i s t h e terr:l i n upon w h i ch the wri fi ­
supplement the police accou n t of the popu l a t i o n a nd d i splace" the ca t i o n of equ ality confronts t h e es u b l i s h c d ord er o f i d e n t i f-i ca t i o n ;l I1d
establi s h e d categories of identi fi cation . They a re the u n accou nted for cl assi fi cH i o n .
w i t h i n t he police order, t h e political subjects t h a t d isclose a wro n g BP 7-1 5 ; PIS.
a n d demand a red istribution of the sensible order.
Political Dispute (Le Litige politique)
eM 1 26-7; D 22-3, 6 1 -2 ; PIS ; SP 3 1 -6 ; TTP.
ser D ispute

Poetics of Knowledge (La Poetique du savoir) Political Philosophy (LI1 Philosophie politique)
The s tu d y o f the l it e r a r y p rocedures b y wh i ch a p a r t i c u l a r fo rm o f l
R a n c i cre h as outl i ned t h ree fo r m s of po l i t i c a p h i l osophy t h a t e s tah l i s h
k nowledge e s t ab l i s hes i ts el f a s a scient i fic d iscourse (as w a s t h e c a s e , a proper mode of pol i r ical a cti i v ty :l n d I l l c rc lw d i s s ol v e , i ll v;uio\ls
90 GLOS SARY O F T E C H N ICAL T E R M S C J .OSSARY O f ' TFC T l N I C;\ L T F R M S

ways, the con flict between pol itics and the police: arch i-politics, Regimes of A rt ( Les Regim es de tart)
para-politics, and meta-pol itics. I n b ro a d term s , a re g i me of a r t is a m o d e of art icu b t i o n hetween
o vii-x i i i , 6 1 -93; OW 1 1 7-20 ; TTP. t h ree t h i ngs : ways o f d o i n g and m a k i n g , t h e i r correspo n d i n g for m s of
v i s i h i l i t y, a n d ways of conceptu a l i z i n g both the fo r m e r a n d t h e Lurer.
Political Subject (Le Sujet politique) R;l t1 c i e re h a s p rov i d ed deta i l ed accou n r s of t h e eth ical regi m e of
A political subject is neither a political lobby nor an i ndividual who i m ages, the representative regi me of art, a nd the aesthetic regi m e
seeks adequate representation for his or her i nterests and ideas. It is an of a r t . I n h is m o st recent work, h e h a s i mrod u c e d t h e t e r m r<rz,irlle
empty operator that produces cases of political dispute by ch a l len g i ng d 'irnaght({ ( , i m age regi me' or ' i magi n g regi me') to re fe r to the speci fic
the establ ished framework of identification and classification. Thro u g h m o d e o f a r t i c u l atioll he tween r h e v i s i hle a n d the s ayab l e w it h i n ;l g iven
the process of subjectivization, political subjects bring politics proper regi me of art.
i n to existence and con front the police order with the h eterology of DI C)-YJ ; WA 1 6- 1 7.
emancipation. However, the man i festation of politics only occurs via
specific acts of i m plementation, and pol itical subjects forever remain Representative Regi me of A rt (Le Regim e rep risentat�f de lin·t)
precarious figures that hesitate at the borders of silence m a i n tained by I\ lso referred to as the 'poetic reg i me of a rt , t h e reprcsen tat J" c rq�l Jl1t'
'

the police. em erged Ollt of A ri stotle's c r i t i qu e of Phro a n d es t a b l i s he d a s e r i e s

o 35-42, 5 8 -9, 1 26-7; D M E 3 1-3 ; OW 1 1 5-16; NH 88-9 5
(democratic subject); PIS ; TTP.
Politics (La Politique)
I f politics has no proper place or predefined subjects for Ranciere, this
does not mean that everyth i ng is political. I n its s t r i c t s e ns e, p o l itics
o f a x i o m s t h a t vvere evcn t u ; d l v cod i fied i n t h e C l a s s i c a l t\ gc. T h e
'
represen t a t i ve regime l i bcr;l tecl t h e ;l rts from t h e mora l , rel i gir; u s , a n d
soc i a l c r i te r i a of t h e ethical regi m e of i m ages a nd sep;l Lned t h e l-i ne
arts, q u a i m i t a t i o n s , fro m o t h er tec h n i q ues and mocks of pro d u c t i on .
By d e fi n i n g the essence of POi/iSis as t h e fI ction a l i m i t a t io n of a c t i o n s
a nel isolati ng a s p ec i fic d o m ;] i n f o r fI ct i o n t h e representa t ive regi m e
,

only exists i n i ntermittent acts of i m pl eme nt a ti o n t h a t l a ck a ny overall d id n o t , howeve r, es t ;l bli sh ;1 ,i m pl e regi me o f rcse mbh n e c . Rather
principle or law, and whose only common characteristic is a n e m p t y t h a n r C ll
t
u rea l i tv, works w i t h i n rhe re fllTSenLl t i ve reg i m c nhc\'
rod u ci n b
operator: dissensus. T h e essence of politics thus re s i d e s i n acts of
.I � •

a s e r i es of a x io m s th ;l t d e fi ll e t h e a rt s ' proper f'o r m s : t h e h ie r;nchv o f

subjectivization that separate society from itsel f by c h a l l e n g i n g the
'natural order of bodies' in the name of equality and polemically
reconfiguring the distribution o f t h e sensible. Pol itics is a n a n a rch i ca l
process of emancipation that opposes the logic of disagreement to t h e
logic o f the police.
BP 7-1 5 ; 0 v i i-x i i i, 2 1 -4 2 , 61 -5, 1 23 ; D M E ; OW; P a A ; PIS; 5 4 0- 1 ;
TTP.
Post-Democracy (La Post-democratie)
l�en re, :l n d s u h j e c t m a t tn, the pr i n c i p le of a p p n ) p ri a tc il ess r h ;l t ;Hb prs
fo rm s of exprcss ion a nd ; l c t i o l l t o t h c s u h j ec t , rep resc n t e d ;l lld to the
pro p n gen re. the i d e a l of speech ;1 5 :lCt t h a t p r i v i l e ges I a n gl L1 ge over t he
vi s i h l e i m agery t h a t s u p p l e m e l l ts i t .
C M 1 1'0-1 ; DI 20-1 , 56, W i - S , 1 2(), 1 2 5 -5.) : F C 1 4 - 1 1' : I- I ;\ S : IF
2 1 -5, 4()-5 0 ; LP;\; PA 2 1 --2, 35-- () , 4 .3 : PI\1 1 7-50, if 5 -5 2 ; \VA .
Sensible, The (Le SensiMe)
.1'('(' D istrihuti o n of t h e S e n s i hle

The paradoxical identification of democracy with a consensual practice

t h at suppresses political subjectivization. S i l ent Speech ( La Parole murtte)
0 95-140; SP 3 1-6. A s o n e of t h e cemLl l fea t ure s of t h e aesth etic regi m e of art, si lenr
s pe e c h is t h e c o n t r :H l i cto r y con j u n c r i o n he tweell t wo e l e m e llts or
92 G L O S S A RY O F T E C H N I C A L T E R M S

this regime. On the one hand, mean i n g is taken to be i m manent in
things themselves and, thus, everythi ng - from a bu i l d i ng's fac,:ade
to a wom a n's face - takes on a voice of its own. On the other h a n d ,
however, t h e mute t h ings of t h e world o n ly begi n t o speak i f s o m eo n e
deciphers their latent meani n g and speaks for them (otherwise they
rem a i n completely s ilent). This contradiction has given b i r t h to at least
�1I1d s p e a k s to a n yone a n d nTr Y O Il C prcC l s c l v be Cl u s C' it h :1 s flO l i \' i n )2
logos to d i recr it. A t t h e s a lll l' t i lll c , h o\\','\ t'!, w r i t i n g l c n d '; i t s e l f tn t h e
:l t t c l l l p t t o e.s t a b l i s h ; t n ' c m hod ied d i sco l l rse' a s t h e' i !l CH l l .H i o n n i t h e
t r u t h o f a c O lll tll u n i ty, \Xlr i t l n )2 i s conseq u e n th' c :l l I g h t i n :1 c()rH i n ll �1 1
con fl ict b e tween democr a t i c litera rity :lTld t il e d es i re r ( l e s t a hl i s h :1 , n i l'
w r i t i n g of t h e word m :l d c Ae.s h.

two m ajor forms of silent speech: t he latent mea n i ng beneath the h iero­ eM 1 15-%: I E Y1-It 2 : N H 'i () - C1O : Pi\ 'i2- ()O : P a ;\ 2() ') - 'i : PM 1 /1 ,
glyphic surface of written signs and the brute presence or punctum that 7 1 -2, R I - I OO.
remains a deaf and silent obstacle to all forms of signi fication.
D I 2 1-2 ; IE 4 2 ; PM. Wrong (Le Tort)
A wrong i s form of e q u a lity that estab l i s hes t h e 'on k
a speci fic
Subject u n ive rs a l ' of politics as a polem i c a l p o i nt of ,tmgt-Ie by re h t i ll t­
see Political Subject the m a n i fe s ta t i o n of political subjects to t h e police order. U n l i ke
j u ri d i c a l l it i g a t i o n , a w ro n g d ocs nor, t h er efore, occu r h e tween d e t e r ,
Subjectivization (La Subjectivation) m i ned p :l rt i e s a n d c a n n o t he resolved by j u r i d ic a l proced u res. ;\ \\TOtl f'­
A lternately translated as 'subject i fication' or 'subjectivation', fa subjec­ c a n o n l y he t re:Hed b y modes or p o l i t i c a l su bj ectivization t h a t r econ ­
tivation is the process by which a political subject extracts itself from fi g u re t h e fi e l d of experience.
the domi nant categories of identification and classi fication. By treati ng D 3-6, 1 3, 2 1 -4 2 , 6 1 -.), 7ii-RO, U ii --() : PI S .
a wrong a nd attempting to i m plement equality, pol itical s lI bj e c t iv i ­
zation creates a common locus of d ispute over those who have no pa rt
i n the established order. However, the very act of ident i fying these
political subjects necessarily has recourse to m isnomers, i.e . na mes
that i nadequately refer to the a no nymous multitude that has no tirle
in the police order. The logic of subjectivization is therefore based
on the i mpossi ble ident i fication of pol itical subjects, that is to say
subjects who remain u nidentifiable i n the given field of experi e n ce
and necessitate ' in audible' modes of enunciation such as: 'We a rc a l l
German Jews ! '.
D 35 - 4 2 , 5 8 -9, 1 26-7; D M E 3 1 -3 ; DW 1 1 5 - 1 6 ; PIS ; TTP.

Writing (L'Ecriture)
Wri t i ng is not s i mply a sequence of typographic signs whose printed
for m is d istinct from oral communication. It is a specific distribution
of the sensible that replaces the representative regime's ideal of
living speech with a paradoxical form of expression that u ndermi nes
the legitimate order of d iscourse. In one respect, writing i s the silent
speech of democratic literarity whose 'orphan letter' freely ci rcu iares
 H m U O G R A P H Y O F P R I M A RY A N D S EC O N D A RY S O U R C E S 95

Gm rts Voyages all pays du p co/I/c. P a r is : L � i t i o n s d l l -"eu i ! , 1 ()() 0 . Slw!I

VO)'fwes
- �
to 1/'1' l.and o. ( t/'c Pcoplc. .j :l m es n. Swe m o n , rra n :-. S r a n ford :
Appendix II Sta n fo rd U n i vers i t v Press, 2 () 0 3 .
A IIX Borris ,iii p (Jlitifjl�c. P a r i s : I:: d i t io n s O s i r i s , 1 99 2 . O n thc S/J07'I'S r.{
Politics. L i z H eron , t ra n s . Lon do n : Verso, 1 99 5 .
rcs A10ts dc l 'histoi7'c: Euai dc pohiiJllC d1l savoir. Pa r i s : Ed i t i o m el u
Bibliography ofPrimary (md Secondary Sources-iO
S eu i ! , 1 99 2 [ s u h s e q u e n r ed i r i o n s : rcs /\101171' dc ( ';'IStOI,.('1 . TIlt /Vf/l IJ("
o( flistor),: O n tj,c /)octirs or f(1I0 !{J/er(r:.I', H aSS:l n rv1 elcfw, [ 1';1 ns.
Books r:nrcword h y H ayden \V h i t c , M i n n C :l !, ol i s :l n d l .o n d o n : U n i \ c L, i n
La Le(on d'A lthusser, Paris: E ditions Ga l l i m ard , 1 974 , A n E ng l i sh o f i'v1 i n nesot:l P ress, 1 9() 4 .
translation of the original critical essay, ' Pour memoi re: s u r h t h co r i e ra M/s('1!tl'J1tl': Po /itiqlll' 1'1 phi/o (()pl'IC, Pa r i s : t d i t i o n s C a l i kc, 1 ()'l "i .
de l ' ideologie ( 1969)', appeared as ' O n the theory of i d eolo gy (the D isrlgra1l1cn t: PO/ltics allfl fJ;' IIOJop /�v. Jil l i c Rose, t r a i l s . 1\1 i n Ilt',l p f l l i ,
politics of Althusser)', a long with a t ranslation of t h c 'A fte rwo rd ' a n d L o ndon : U n i versity of M i n nesota Press, 1 99').
from February 1 973, i n Radical Philosophy 7 (Spr i n g 1 9 74 ) : 2-1 5 . Mril/arrne: l.a Politiq u e de If! sirh1 e. Pa r i s : H ac h e t re Livre, 1 ')96.
'On t h e theory of ideology' was repri nted i n two works: Rrldiml histoire (wi t h Jea n-Lo u i s Comol l i) . Par i s : E d i t i o n s du Centre
A rret W I'
Philosophy Reader. Eds Roy Edgley a n d R ic hard Osborne, Lond o n : Po mp i d o u , 1 997. .
Verso, 1985. 1 0 1-3 6 ; Ideology. E d . Tcrry E a gl e ton . London : A uX' Bords dll po/itiqlll'. Pa r i s : La Fabrique E d i ti o n s , 1 99 8 , T h is
Longman Group U K Ltd , 1994. 1 4 1 - 6 1 . rev i sed a n d expa nded cd i t i o n of t h e work t h a t h ad o r i g i n a l l y heen
La Nuit des p rolhaircs: A rchives du rClJe oUlJricr. Pa r i s : Lihra i ri e p u b l i s h ed in 1 99 2 i n cludcs a n u mbcr o f a d d i t i o n a l essa)'s , , n nw or
A rt h eme Fayard, 1 98 1 . The Nights of Labor: The Wor/:zen ' Drcrm! w h ieh a rc aV:l i hhle i 11 Engl i s h : ' Pol i t i es , i de n t i fi ea t i o l1 , a nd s l I h j c c
'
in Nineteenth-Century Frrlnce. John D rury, trans. I ntroduc t i o n b y t i v i z:l t ion' a n d ' D i s e l l s s i o n'. O([o/Ja 0 1 ( S u m m e r 1 () ()2) : S 8 - ()Ij ,
Donald Reid. Phi ladelphia: Temple University Press, 1 9 89. The 78-82: rp t , in Thr !r:Iel1li�)' in Ql!tstion. E d . Joh n Raleh m a n .
introductory chapter to The Nights of Labor was prcvious l y p ri n ted New Yo rk a nd London : Ro utl ed ge , 1()9'). ()1-72; ' T h e CHISC of
with a ' Preface' by Jonathan Ree as ' P roletarian n i gh t s ', Noel Pa rker. t h e o t her'. D av i d M acey, t r a n s , Przrrd/flx 4 : 2 (Apri l 1(9 8 ) : 2 S -.33 :
t rans. Radiml Philosophy 31 (Sum mer 1 982) : 1 0 - 1 3 . 'Ten t heses o n pol i t i cs'. D :lVi d e P a n a g i a , t r a n s . Thcory flJ1ri /:'lJl'7!1
Le Philosophe et se" prlulJres. Paris: Librairie A rt h c-rn e Faya rd, 1 98 1 . 5 : 3 (200 1 ) . < h t t p : // m u s c . j h u .ed u /jOlI rna I s l t h co r y_ a n d _cvc n t/rnc/
The Philosopher fmd His Poor. J o h n D r u r y, Cori n ne O s tcr, a nd a rch ive . h t m l # 5 . 3 >
Andrew Parker, trans, I ntroduction bv A n d rew Parker. D ur h a m , r a ('J,air ril'S r!lots: Po/ilirf/lts (/(' ( 'laili/re. P;n i s : C. d it i o l l S C a l i l e e , 1 () <) R .
NC: D u ke Un iversity P ress, 2004. Thc fi rs t chapter o f t h i s work The Fltsh ol'Xlorris: 7/1(' Po Iii ir's ol'l'(/ril ing. Ch:l rlotrc M a n d e l l , (LlI1S,
has been published as 'The order of the city', J o h n D r u ry, C or i n ne S Ll ll fnrd : S r;l Tl f; lrll U n ivcrsit \, Press. 2() 0 4 .
Oster, A ndrew Parker, trans. Critical Inquiry 3 0 : 2 ( \Xii mer 20(4 ) : Lr l)rlro/c nl llettf': FSSfli s u r In'" crJlltradicliom ric Iii /itt//'rl 1 1 1 7 '(', P,l l'i , :
267-9 1 . Hae hc tte Lirrerattlres, 1 99 8 ,
Le Maitre ignorant: Cinq Let;ons sur I 'emartcipation intellcctllcl/e, Pa r i s : L e Prl rtrlFJ' d1l semi/;/e: Esth hiq !i f' i't jJ o/i ti qll e. Pa r i s : La Ll b r i q l l e
Libra irie A rtheme Fayard, 1 9 8 7. The Ignorant Scho o/master: Fille E d i t i o ns, 2 0 0 0 . Thc Politics of A l'sthetics: The Distril mtlO rt of
Lessons in Intellectual Emflilcipation. Kristin Ross, t r a n s , [ n r roduetion t/;f' S c ns i/;/e. C a b r i c l R o ck h i l l , t r a ll S . J n tr o d u e t i o n hv C :l h n c l
by Kristin Ross. Stanford: S t a n fo r d Un ivers i t y P ress, 1 99 1 . R o c k h i l l . A fte r wo rd by S l avoj Z i ;;, e k . L o nd o n : Co n t i ll l l l; 1Tl B o o k s ,
2004.
 l H ll U O C RA P H Y OF P R I M A RY A � n S Ef: O N D A R Y S O U RC F �
B I B LI O G R A P H Y OF P R I MARY A N D S EC O N DARY S O U R C E S

La FabLe cinematographique. Paris: E d itions du Seuil, 200 1 . Film Fah/es. History 24 (Fall 1 983): 1 - 1 6 : rpc i n \(,/nri< i n France: Reprcse71flltiof7.',

Emiliano Battista, trans. Oxford: Berg Publ ishers, f() rth com in g . Meall ing, O rga nizatio n , lind Practice. Eds. Steven Laurence K a p l a n

L1nconscient esthhique. Pa ris: E ditions G a l i l ee , 200 1 . a n d Cy nth i a J. Koepp. Ithaca: C o rne l l U n i v. Press, 1 9 R 6 . 3 1 7-.)/1.
Le Destin des images. Paris: La F ab ri q u e E d i t i o ns, 2003. ' La representa t i o n de I 'ollvrier ou Ia c l a sse i m possi hl e'. LI' Retrait
rlu politique: tra1!aux du Cen t re de rccllcrchn phi/osophiq!{I's W I" Ie
Les Scenes du peuple: Les Rez;oLtes /ogiq u es, 1975/1985. Pa r i s : H o rl i ell
,
E ditions, 2 0 03. p o litiq ue. Paris: f� d it i o n s G :l l i l e l', 1 983. R 9 - 1 1 1 .
'Rcponse a A l a i n Bad i o u : I 'c'tre et I ' evenement.' (ilhil'rs till Collegl'
Edited Works il1ternatiol1a/ de 1lh i /osoph ic 8 (Octoher 1 <) 8 <) ) : 2 1 1 - 2 " .
La Parole oUlJriere, 1830-1851 (with A la i n F a u re) . Paris: Union ' D i scoveri n g n e w worl d s : p ol i t i cs o f travel ;lI1d m c r ap l lO r's o f S P:1Cl" .
generale d' editions, 1976. TrrllJ('!/crs ' I;/Ies: NrnT{/tilJes of' ! lome rind Di!jl/l/ccl1I('// /. Ed:; . ( ; ('o)'f:"
Le Philosophe pUbben/Gabriel Gauny. Paris: Maspero/La Decou ve rte : Rohertson et :1 1 . New Yor k a nd London : Rou t l ed ge, 1 ')9/i 2'j· � �'.
Saint-Denis: Presses Un iversita i res de Vincen nes, 1 983. 'Go i n g to t h e exp o : t h e worker, h i s w i fe a n d m a c h i nes' a nd 'Good
La Politique des poetes: Pourquoi des poetes en temp., de dltresse? P a r i s : t i mes o r plea s u re at the oft/If'
b a rricades'. Joh n J\1oore, tra n s . Voices
Albin M ichel, 1992. People: The Social Life of 'Lr, Socirdr- ' at till' l:'nd of' th!' Second Empire.
E d s . Ad r i a n R i fk i n a n d Roger T h o m a s . Lond o n : R o u r l e d gc 1'{
Select Articles and Interviews l1 Kega n Paul , 1 98 8 . 23-44 : 45-94.
'Le concept de critique et la critique de l 'economie po l i t i q u e '. Lirf' /e 'A fter w h a t ? '. Ch rist i na Davis, t ra n s . V;th o Comes Af'tr'l" the SlIu/f'I'! ;' Eds.
Capital. Eds. Louis A lthusser et aI., Paris: Franyois M a s p e ro, 1 965. E d u a rdo Cad av;! , Peter Con n o r, and Jea n-Llic Na ncv. Nc\\' Y'Nk
8 1- 1 99. The concludi ng sections of th is article (pages 1 7 1 -99) were a n d Londo n : Routledge, 1 9 () 1 . 2 4 (, - 5 2 .
translated as 'The concept of "critique" and the "critique of p o l i t i c a l 'Overlcg i t i m a t ion'. K risten Ross, t r a n s . Socilll 7;·xt ) l / .n ( 1 ' j C) 2,"
economy" (from the 1844 Manuscripts to Capita l)'. Ben Brewster, 252-7.
trans. Economy and Society 5 :3 (August 1 976) : 352-76. According to ' Pmr-democracy, p o l i t ics a n d ph i l osophy: a n i nt er view w i t h hcques
the notes to this translation, 'the fi rst th ree sections were published R a n ci e re'. Kate Nash, t r a n s . A ngl'/ai<i 1 : :) ( 1 994): 1 7 1 -8 .
in the magazi ne Theoretical Practice, numbers o ne , two and six'. A ' Les mots d e I ' h i s to i re el u c i n e m a'. I n terview with A nt o i n e d e lhecqu c.
translation of the ent i re article is to be fou nd i n Ideology, Method ('ahim dll einr;ma 4 % ( F )9 5 ) : 4 8-54 .
and Marx: Efsays from Economy and Socicty. Ed. A l i R a t t a n s i . New 'The a rch aeotl1odern t u rn'. l'Vrdtcr Bl'njamin alld th(' [)('ri'lrmrl, 1If'
York and London: Routledge, 1 989. 74- 1 8 0. liisto7. Ed . M ichael P. S te i n h e rg. I rI ] ;l Cl a n d London : Cornel l
'Mode d 'emploi pour u ne reedition de Lire Ie Capital '. If'S Temps Un ivers i t v P ress, 1 9% . 2.4--40.
Modernes 328 (November 1 973) : 788-807. Ranciere adapted th is 'Scm et fi g u r e s de I ' h i s toi re'. hl(C Il / '/,istoin·. C :1 Ll l o g u e de ) 'C'xpos l t i oll
article for an Engl ish version Linder the title ' How to use Lirc Ie d u C e n t re Ceorges Pom p i cl o l l . Paris: F h m rn ;n i n n , 1 9CJ(1 . 2 0 -·7.
Capital'. Tanya Asad, trans. Economy and Society 5 : 3 (August 1 976) : ' D e m ocracy 11l C':lns equa I i t)': hcqucs Ra n cii:re i I l t c l'\· i ewcd h:' ill/ss/ltT" .
377-84; rpt. i n Ideology, Method and Mflrx. Ed. A l i Rattansi. New David M acey, t r a n s . RrlrliCtd 1)hi!o5(}pJ�1' 82 ( J\, 1a rch l/\ p r i l 1 ') 9 7 ) :
York and London: Routledge, 1 9 8 9 . 1 8 1 -9. 29-5(1 .
'Le gai savoir'. Bcrtolt Brecht, C"ahicrs dc l 'Herne no. 3 5/ 1 . Pa r i s : ' E x i ste-t- i l u ne esthc t i q ue c1 e l c l l z i en n e ? '. (,'i/les [)('/('7{ze: { 111(, Vii' philos­
E d it ions de L' Herne, 1 979. 2 1 9-37. ophique. Ed . Eric ;\ 1 1 in. 1 x P1css is- Robi nson : 1 n s r i t t It S y n r h cL1 ho,
'Th� myt!1 of �he artisan: critical reRections on a category of soci a l 1 99 8 . ') 2 5 --36. ' I s there a D e \ c l l Z i ;l t1 ;ll's r h " t l c s ? '. R ;" l m i h D j nrd i e v l c ,
h istory . DaVid H . Lake, trans. In tcrnruioI'lai L a bo r flJ1d U?or/,ing ('1m:, t Ll n s . Qlli Ptlr/f', H:2 (20()/f) .
98 B IB L I O G R A P H Y O F P R I M A RY A N D S EC O N DARY S O U R C E S
'L' historicite du cinema'. De L 'Histoire au cinema. Eds. A ntoine de
Baecque and Christian Delage. B ruxelles: E d itions Compkxe,
1998. 45-60.
' Dissenting words - a conversation with Jacques Ranciere'. Interview
with D avide Panagia. Davide Panagia, trans. Diacritics: A Review or
'
Contemporary Criticism 3 0 : 2 (2000): 1 1 3-26.
' I nterview with Jacques R anciere: cinematographic i mage, democracy,
and the "splendor of the i nsignificant'' '. I nterview with Sola nge
Guenoun . A lyson Waters, trans. Sites: The journal o/20th- Centurv
'
Contemporary French Studies 4 (20 0 0 ) : 249-5 8 .
'Jacques Ranciere : history and the a rt system'. I nt e rview with Ya n
C iret. Art Press 2 5 8 (June 2000) : 1 8-23 .
'Jacques Ranciere : l iterature, pol itics, aesthetics: ap p ro a c h es to
democratic disagreement'. I nterview with Solange Guenoun and
James H . Kavanagh. Roxanne Lapidus, trans. SuhStrlnce: A Rez1iew
o/ Theory and Literary Criticism 29 (20 0 0 ) : 3 -24.
' What aesthetics can mean'. From an Aesthetic Point o/View: Philosophy,
Art and the Senses. Ed. Peter Osborne. London: The S e r p e n t's Tai l ,
2 0 0 0 . 1 3-33.
'Le 1 1 septembre et apres: une rupture de I 'ordre symbol ique ? '. Lignes
8 (May, 2002) : 35-46.
'The aesthetic revolution and its outcomes'. New Left Rellil'w 1 4
(March/Apr i l 2002): 1 33 -5 1 .
'La communaute esthetique'. Politique de ia parole: Sinr;ultlrite et
communaute. Ed. Pierre Ouellet. Montreal: E ditions Tra i t d'u n i on ,
2002. 145-66.
'Esthetique, i n esthetique, anti-esthetique'. A lain Brldiou: Pauer /e
multiple. Ed. Charles Ramond. Paris: L'H armattan, 2002. 477-
96. 'Aesthetics, i naesthetics, a nti-aesthetics'. Rav B rassier, t r a n s .
Think Again: A lain Badiou and the Future of Ph ;!050pJ�y. E d . Peter
Hallward . London: Con tinuum, 2004. 2 1 8-3 1 .
'Metamorphosis of the muses'. Sonic Process. A c ta I' Editorial, 2003.
1 7-30.
' Politics a nd aesthetics: an i nterview'. I nterview with Peter H a ll wa rd .
Forbes Morlock, trans. A ngelaki 8 : 2 (August 2003) : 1 9 1 -2 1 1 .
'The t h i n k i ng of d issensus: politics a nd aesthetics'. Fidelity to the
Disagreement: jacques Rtlnciere and the Politiw! (co� ference
m Il U () (� R A PllY 01' P R I M A RY AND S FC O N DMty S O U R C ES
orga n i zed by t h e Po s t- S t ruc t u r a l i s m a nd Rad ica I Pol itics specia l is t
g rou p) . London : C o l d s m i t h s Col lege, 1(,-17 Septemhe r, 2003.
< h t t p : / / h o m e p ag e s .g o l d , aC I I k / P' rpsg! r:1 n c iere .doc>
'God a rd , H i tc h cock a n d the c i n e m ato g ra p h i c i m a g e', Fo r Fun (J'or/rrrrl.
E d s , M ic h a e l Te mple, J a Illes \Xl i I I i :1 ill S , ;1 n d !'vI i c h a e l \Xl i tr , l .o n d o n :
B l a c k D og P u hl i s h i n g :l n d Pha i d on P ress, 2 0 n 4 ,
' W h o i s the s u h j ec t of t h e r i g h ts of 1ll : 1 n ) '. ,';oilth A t/t/Ilt1!' Qr/(rrtn-/r
H J.) : 2 -5 ( S p r i ng/Su m mer 20(4 ) .
' h o m Ly ot:1 rd to S c h i l l e r : two r e a d i ng s o f K a n t a n d t h c l r pn i i t i c a l
s ig n i fi c a n c e ' . Ra (licd Pf, i/o(oj!/'y. for r h co m i n t;,
Further Read i n g
B a d i o u , A l a i n . ' R a n ci ere et I a c O m t11U n :l u t c d e s cga l l x ' :l n d ' R a n C l i: r c n
l 'a p o l i t i qu e ' . A fJ)'rge ric mhaj!o/itifjl/{,. P a r i s : t d i t i o n s el u S e u i l , n9 R ,
1 2 1 -3 8 .
R e n t o n , Ted . ' D i scussio n : R :l I1cii.' IT ()Il ideol ogy'. Rrrr/iur/ I)/Ji/o ro/,h)' ()
( W i n te r 1974 ) : 2 7-8 .
Cra i h, I a n . ' R a n ci i.Te a n d ;\ l t h l l Sser'. Rrrr/im/ Philosoph)! 1() ( S p r i n F
1 ()7 '5 ) : 2 8 -9 .
D e ra nty, J e a n - P h i l i ppe . 'Jacques Ib n c i ere's c o n t r i h u tion to the e t h ics
o f recognition'. !Jo/itical l /Jm)'v 31:1 ( Fe h rll :1 rv' 20 0,) ) : 1 ) h-')(, .
Du ring, E l i e. ' \Xl h a t pure ;l esr!; e t i o c a n't do'. A rt Pr('l( 2()7 ( /\ p r i l
20( 1 ) : '5(,-8.
E n g e l ih e r r , ] cl n -P:l u L ' S ur Jacques Ib n ci c rc', ljfl'mn' /(r'(('rrr,.f,/
/(cr/lcrche !ittrrrl i rc ,) 0 (b l l - \'V'i nrer 1 ()()8) : 2.) -3 2 ,
C ih s o n . A n d rew. ' Ra n c ie re a nd t h e " l i m i t" of rea l i sm', Rf'fIli'-lIT f/ll(/ its
Dismn!ei!ls. Eds. Da nuta F j e llestad a n d El i za b e t h Kel l a . K a r b k ro n a ,
Swed e n : B lel< i n ge r n s t i t ll te of Tec h nology, 2() 03. 5 () - (N
C i bso n , A nd rew. ' ''A nd t he w i n cl w h e e z i ng t h ro u g h t h a t organ once i ll
a w h i l e " : voice, n a rrative, fi l m'. New ritel'm:v Histor), :)2 : :) ( S l I m mer
20(1 ) : 639-'57.
H i rst, Pau l . 'Ra n cihc, i d e olo g v, and capita l '. On Lml' (Inri Ueo!ogl"
London a nd Ihs i l l gstoke: The lvtJcm i l l a ll Press LTD. 1 ()7<), '7'5-9'5.
Ll lwl lc. G i l les. ' Two r d<Hl n d a t i o J1 p rolects o f d e mo cracv in C O I H C l l l ­
!'OLI rv f<rcllch ph i l o s o p h y : Cornel im C a s to r i a d i s a ll d J1 CC]1Il'''
R ;1I1 c i c re '. N a n c y Re n a u l t , t r:l I 1 S . [>/li/osop/ll' (17/(/ ,,,'ocii/! C'l'it/C1' 1I1
27: 4 (J n l v, 20(1 ) : 7 '5 - 10.'3 .
100 B I B LI O G RA P H Y O F P R I M A RY A N D S E C O N DA RY S OU RC ES H lB U () ( ; R A P H Y O F P R I M A RY ,\ N Il S EC O N D A RY S O ll RC F S 101

Mehlman, Jeffrey. 'Teaching reading: the case of Marx in France'.
Diacritics: A Review o.f Contemporary Criticism 6 : 4 ( W i n t e r 1 976) :
10-1 8 .
Panagia, D avide. 'Ceci n est pas un argument: a n introduction t o t h e ten
theses'. Theory and Event 5 : 3 (200 1 ) . < http://muse.j h u.edu/jourt1:lis/
Lou i s DeNte, ' T h e d i ffe rences hetwccn R a ll c i c rc's ,Hrs('lItnill'
(pol i t i c a l d i s;l grecmcnt) a !lel Lyo ta rd 's [)if(( rm({: '[(1m Con 1cy, t\
hbk of fi l m : R a llcihe's A u tho lw M :t n ll '; M ic h l' i c G a rn e a u , ' F i l m\'
aes t h e t i c tu rn : a cont r i h u t i o ll {rom J acques R a ll c i i.· I-c·; D;wid f,
B e l l ' Wri t i n g , ITlOVe rn e l l t / s p :lCC, d e m ncr:l cv: Oil J;lCqucs R a nc ii:rc\
,

theory_and_event/toclarch ive. html #5.3> l i tera ry h isrory',

Ross, Kristin. May '68 and Its Afterlives. C h icago: University of
Chicago Press, 2003.
Ross, Kristin. ' Ranciere a nd the practice of equality'. SOcifli Text 29
(199 1 ) : 57-7 1 .
Valentine, Jeremy. 'The hegemony o f hegemony'. History o/the Human
Sciences 1 4 : 1 (February 2001 ) : 88-104.
Watts, Phi l ip. 'Le cinema entre mimesis et zone d 'ombre'. Critique
5 8 : 665 (October, 2002): 830-7.
Zizek, Slavoj . ' Political subj ectivization a nd its vicissitudes'. The Ticklish
Subject. London: Verso, 1 999. 1 7 1 -244.

Special Issues on Ranciere

Critique 5 3 : 60 1-602 (June-July 1997). Contents: Ph i lippe Roger,
'Presentation'; Yves M ichaud, 'Les pauvres et leur phi losophe: l a
philosophie d e Jacques Ranciere'; Patrick Cingolani, ' Mode rn i te ,
democratie, heresie'; A rlette Farge, Th istoi re comme aV(' n e m e n t';
P ierre Campion, 'MaJlarme it la lum iere de ]a ra ison poetique';
Jacques R anciere, 'La parole muette: notes sur " la l i r rera tu re ' '. '

Theory and Event 6:4 (2003) Contents: Jean-Philippe Deranty, 'Rancierc

and contemporary pol itical ontology'; Davide Panagia, 'Thinking with
and against the "ten theses'''; M ichael Dillon, '(De)void of poli tics?:
a response to Jacques Ranciere's "ten theses on politics'''; A:t m i r R.
Mufti, 'Reading Jacques Ranciere's "ten theses on pol itics": a fter
September 1 1 th'; Kirstie M. McClure, 'Disconnections, connections,
and questions: reflections ofjacques Ranciere's "ten theses o n pol itics''';
Jacques Ranciere, 'Comments and responses'. <http://musc.jhu.edu/
journals/theory_and_event/toclarchive.html#6.4>
SubStance: A Review o/Theory and Literary Criticism 1 03, 33: J (2004) .
Contents: Eric Mechoulan, 'I ntroduction'; Jacques R a ll cierc,
'The politics of l iterature'; Solange Gucnolln, 'Jacques R:tllc iere's
Freud ian cause'; G abriel Rock h i ll , 'The s ilent revol u ti o n '; Jea n -