Reform – what's next?

Let’s do the shift: Kunstunterricht im Wandel

admin — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:16:39 +0000

Es handelt sich um eine Abfolge von Mikrorevolutionen und einen Paradigmenwandel des Bildungswesens, aber nicht auf eine gewaltsame und übergangslose Art und Weise. Es geht um eine schrittweise Veränderung und eine Erweichung der Systeme. Wenn alle Lehrer_innen eines Tages in ihren Klassenzimmern ankommen und beginnen, sie Stückchen für Stückchen zu verändern, könnten wir gemeinsam diese Makrorevolution hervorbringen. (María Acaso)¹

What’s Next in Art Education? Dieser Frage möchte ich mit einer Beobachtung von Bewegungen (turn und shift) und einem praktischen Beispiel aus der Lehre -begegnen. „Shift“ wird übersetzt mit „verschieben, -wegschieben, versetzen, verstellen, verändern, verlegen, wechseln […]“; „turn“ mit „drehen, wenden, kehren, wechseln, verwandeln, umwandeln, umändern, umtauschen […]“². Innerhalb aktueller Entwicklungen in den Feldern der Kunst, Pädagogik und Kunstpädagogik ist derzeit weniger ein Ablösen eines bestehenden Paradigmas (turn) zu beobachten, als vielmehr ein Abwandeln von bestehenden Mustern und Ordnungen (shift).

#turning
„turns“ werden den Geisteswissenschaften seit der Postmoderne in regelmäßigen Abständen und zu unterschiedlichsten Aspekten ausgerufen, wie der „linguistic turn“, der 1967 von dem Wissenschaftstheoretiker Gustav Bergmann in einer gleichnamigen Anthologie Richard Rortys proklamiert wurde³, oder der von W. J. T. Mitchell 1992 initiierte „pictorial turn“⁴, 1994 lenkt Gottfried Boehm mit dem „iconic turn“⁵ den Blick auf die „Wiederkehr der Bilder“, welcher auch in der deutschsprachigen Kunstpädagogik rezipiert wurde. Doch es gibt noch weitaus mehr turns: acoustic, emotional, material, spatial, tacit, performative – um nur einige Beispiele zu nennen. Seit den 90er Jahren, schreibt Nora Sternfeld, „haben wir⁶ uns als kritische KunstvermittlerInnen daran gewöhnt, dass in fast jeder neuen Saison ein neuer Trend zu einem weiteren kulturwissenschaftlichen turn ausgerufen wird“⁷. Der „educational turn“⁸ in der kuratorischen Theorie und Praxis kam 2007 mit der documenta 12 und deren Frage „Was tun?“ auf. Irit Rogoff fragt 2008 im Zuge dessen nach der Figur eines turns „[o]der sprechen wir von einer aktiven Bewegung, einem generativen Moment, in dem prozessual ein neuer Horizont hervorgebracht wird, der die bisherige Praxis, die den Ausgangspunkt bildete, hinter sich lässt?“⁹Auch Schule unterliegt derzeit vielen, sehr unterschiedlich motivierten Reformen, die als Paradigmenwechsel beschrieben werden können – sei es die Frage nach kompetenzorientierten Curricula, die sich seit -einigen Jahren auch im Fach Kunst stellt¹⁰, oder die Forderung nach der Schule als berufsvorbereitende Institution. Doch inwiefern ist der immerwährende Wandel, die Figur des turns (Wende) nicht schon Teil des Systems von Wissensgenerierung geworden?
Während Irit Rogoff die Wende des bestehenden Wissens um den von Michel Foucault aufgebrachten Begriff der „Parrhesia“ als Modell vorschlagen möchte, merkt Nora Sternfeld kritisch an, dass auch solche, scheinbar anderes Wissen ermöglichende Wendungen, die durch ihre regelmäßige Wiederkehr im kulturellen Feld schon geradezu institutionalisiert stattfinden, „gouvernementale Funktion“¹¹ haben können. Sie zeigt auf, dass der -regelmäßige Wechsel einen beständigen Zwang auf Lernende und Lehrende ausübt, die sich immer wieder dem neuen und zugleich kurzfristigen Wechsel der Perspektive adaptieren „die dazu einlädt, Bestehendes gerne zurückzulassen, Deregulierungen und Prekarisierungen zu akzeptieren und jedenfalls ständig beweglich und bereit zu sein.“¹² Sie regt an, sich weder gegen solch wiederkehrenden und zugleich immer neuen Wandel zu stellen; noch sich jeder Veränderung zu ergeben. Nora Sternfeld nimmt mit ihrem Text „Segeln“ Bezug auf Irit Rogoffs Text „Wenden“, wobei die Titel programmatisch auf die Bewegung turn referieren. Auch deshalb endet Sternfelds Text mit dem Hinweis, innerhalb des Drucks nach Wandel nach der „möglichen Richtung der Veränderung“ zu fragen – „Und wenn sich dann etwas bewegt, dann gilt es, den Wind aufzunehmen und zu segeln.“¹³

#shift
Das Bild des Segelns aufnehmend, wäre eine Wende als das Ändern der Richtung durch das Drehen des Bootes in den Wind zu beschreiben. Entweder dreht sich der Bug (Wende) oder das Heck (Halse) in den Wind. Eine Halse ist zumeist zwar rascher auszuführen, aber ungleich gefährlicher, vor allem da sich das Großsegel beim Richtungswechsel der Kontrolle entzieht. Eine -besondere Form der Halse ist die Schifte, bei der die -Stellung der Segel verändert wird, ohne den Kurs zu -verlassen. Das Boot ändert nicht die Richtung, hat aber insofern gewendet, als sich die Stellung der Segel ver-ändert hat, um den Wind besser nutzen zu können. -Dieses Manöver erfordert das Geschick der Besatzung. Solche geschickten, den Wind aufnehmenden Dreh-ungen, ohne eine „Wende“ auszurufen, sind im kunstpädagogischen Feld zu beobachten. Viele davon sind im vorliegenden Buch versammelt. Auf die Frage, was das „Nächste“ in der Kunstpädagogik sei, möchte ich deshalb nicht den nächsten „turn“ in der Vermittlung von und der pädagogisch motivierten Auseinandersetzung mit Kunst beschreiben, sondern vielmehr bemerken, dass mögliche Richtungen der Veränderung als vermeintlich kleine Bewegungen im Einzelnen bereits wahrnehmbar sind. María Acaso, die eingangs zitierte Professorin für Kunstpädagogik in Madrid, spricht von „microrrevoluciones“¹⁴, innerhalb derer ein Paradigmenwechsel innerhalb von vielen kleinen Schritten innerhalb eines bestehenden Systems statt findet. Diese Bewegung, und das halte ich für entscheidend, verortet sie bei den Kunstlehrer_innen.

#Fragen
Im Kontext von Seminaren zu Konzeptionen aktueller Kunstpädagogik¹⁵ habe ich mich gefragt, welche Fragen sich eigentlich gerade diejenigen stellen, die in einigen Jahren selbst Kunstlehrer_innen werden. Mit Irit Rogoff, die im Projekt „A.C.A.D.E.M.Y.“ eine entsprechende Frage¹⁶ aufwirft, möchte ich wissen: „Was können wir von diesem Seminar lernen über das hinaus, was es uns lehren will?“
Damit Teilnehmer_innen am Seminar potenziell auch solche Fragen stellen können, die eine Kritik am Seminar darstellen, haben die Studierenden zunächst einander befragt und in einem zweiten Schritt mehrere eigene oder gehörte Fragen auf Karteikarten notiert. So wurde eine gewisse Anonymität hergestellt. Die Fragen wurden gemeinsam thematisch sortiert. Per Abstimmung (pro Person wurden je 3 Post-its vergeben) wurden inhaltliche Schwerpunkte gebildet, die Grundlage für weiter zu bearbeitende Fragen waren. Hier einige Beispiele: Wie frei sind wir später noch? Wie kann ich Kunst vermitteln, die mir nicht gefällt? Was sollen Inhalte des Kunstunterrichts sein? Wie soll ich Kinder ermutigen, das zu machen, was sie können und was sie interessiert, wenn ich selbst nicht weiß, was ich kann? Wie hacke ich einen Lehrplan? Was interessiert eigentlich Schüler_innen am Kunstunterricht? Was ist ein ein/e schwierige/r Schüler_in? Was heißt eigentlich „kritisch“? Wer spricht wie über Kunst? Wie sieht die Zukunft des Kunstunterrichts in Bremen aus? Was hat Kunstunterricht mit science fiction zu tun? Wie entstehen Lehrpläne? Wie hinterfrage ich Kanon? Inwieweit kann ich die Wirkung meines Kunstunterrichts einschätzen? Wie werde ich eine gute Kunstlehrerin? Wann und warum wurde eigentlich Zeichnen lernen in der Schule relevant? Was sollen wir in diesem Seminar lernen?¹⁷Innerhalb des Seminars „What’s Next? Aktuelle Positionen der Kunstpädagogik“ an der Universität Bremen erarbeiteten Studierende der Kunstpädagogik und -vermittlung anhand der Inhalte von „What’s Next? Kunst nach der Krise“¹⁸ Fragen an ihr zukünftiges Berufsfeld Kunstlehrer_in oder Kunstvermittler_in, beispielsweise: Wie können Schulklassen über weite Entfernungen hinweg -zusammenarbeiten? Wie geht Kunstunterricht in anderen -Ländern, zum Beispiel in Island, der Türkei oder den Niederlanden? Wie stellen sich andere die zukünftige Kunst vor? Wem „gehören“ künstlerische Arbeiten, die sich auf die Methode der Partizipation berufen und eigentlich von anderen Leuten als der Künstlerin selbst erstellt werden? Lässt sich so etwas im Kunstunterricht wiederholen – und wer darf dann welche Ergebnisse mit nach Hause nehmen? Wie, finden Grundschulkinder, sollte Kunstunterricht zukünftig sein?¹⁹Diese und andere Fragen wurden innerhalb der Seminare thematisiert und bearbeitet, indem etwa der 52. Kunstpädagogische Kongress pre-enacted, Literatur zu Rate gezogen oder Biografisches referiert, Werkstätten inszeniert, Kolleg_innen interviewt oder im Seminar zu Themen und Materialien experimentiert wurde.²⁰ Dass es dabei zu eindeutigen Antworten kam, ist zu bezweifeln. Wohl kam es zu ernsthaften Auseinandersetzungen und Erkenntnissen. Warum das mit einem „shift“ zu tun hat, dazu möchte ich wiederum Irit Rogoff zitieren: „Nun, ich würde Ihnen antworten, der Sinn jeder Form von kritischer oder theoretischer Betätigung zielt nie in erster Linie auf die Lösung des Problems, sondern stets auf ein geschärftes Bewusstsein der betrachteten Situation.“²¹ Und aus diesem Bewusstsein heraus können erneut Antworten generiert werden, die innerhalb des jeweiligen Systems wirken können. Womöglich waren sie nur für diese eine Situation gültig und können somit nicht zum Kanon werden – und können ihn damit zugleich herausfordern.²² Zum Beispiel, indem wir (Lernende, Lehrende) uns mehr dem Fragen als dem Antworten zuwenden. Fragen, deren Antworten zukünftig gefunden werden wollen.
Schiften, gemeint als Verschiebungen in den Bedeutungsebenen und Wirklichkeiten der Beteiligten in den Institutionen, findet bereits statt. So sollte das unverfügbare Spiel der Unterschiede²³ vor dem Hintergrund eines immer wieder in die Krise geratenden Wissens vielmehr als transformatorischer Prozess aufgefasst werden, in dem nicht nur eine Wende (turn) möglich ist, – sondern in der Figur des deutlich leichtfüßigeren „shifts“, einer Verlagerung, die sich an vielen Stellen bereits bemerkbar macht – in der Pädagogik, in der Kunst, konkret im Kunstunterricht, in der Kunstvermittlung.

1.) Übersetzung aus dem Spanischen G. K., zitiert nach einem Interview in „El Tiempo“ am 4.10.2014. www.eltiempo.com/estilo-de-vida/educacion/la-educadora-espanola-maria-acaso-en-entrevista-con-el-tiempo/14640255 [22.11.2014]
2.) Cassells Wörterbuch Deutsch – Englisch, Englisch – Deutsch, München 1957 (1976), o. S..
3.) Richard Rorty (Ed.), The linguistic turn: essays in philosophical method. Chicago/London 1967/1992 und Gustav Bergmann, „Two Types of Linguistic Philosophy“, in: Ders., The Metaphysics of Logical Positivism, New York u. a. 1952.
4.) W. J. T. Mitchell, „The Pictorial Turn“, Artforum 30 (März), 1992, S. 89–94.
5.) Gottfried Boehm, „Die Wiederkehr der Bilder“, in: Ders. (Hg.), Was ist ein Bild? München 1994, S. 11–38.
6.) Im Originaltext ist hier eine Fußnote, in der Nora Sternfeld die in ihrem Text folgende Nutzung des Begriffs „wir“ weiter ausführt.
7.) Nora Sternfeld, „Segeln“, in: Beatrice Jaschke, Nora Sternfeld (Hg.), educational turn. Handlungsräume in der Kunst- und Kulturvermittlung. Wien 2012, S. 117–130, hier S. 117.
8.) Vgl. 16 Beaver Group (Hg.), Curating and the Educational Turn, Amsterdam/London 2010 und Jaschke/Sternfeld (Hg.), educational turn, Wien 2012.
9.) Irit Rogoff: „Wenden“. In: Beatrice Jaschke / Nora Sternfeld (Hg.), educational turn. Handlungsräume in der Kunst – und Kulturvermittlung. Wien 2012, S. 27–53, S. 28.
10.) Vgl. hierzu ENVIL (European Network of Visual Literacy), http://envil.eu [22.12.2014]
11.) Sternfeld 2012, a. a. O., S. 119.
12.) Ebd., S. 124.
13.) Ebd., S. 127.
14.) Vgl. María Acaso, rEDUvolution. Hacer la revolución en la educación. Barcelona 2013.
15.) Vgl. http://aligblok.de/lehre [22.12.2014].
16.) Original: „Was können wir von dem Museum lernen, jenseits von dem, was es uns intendiert zu lehren?“ In: Irit Rogoff, „Wenden“, in: Jaschke/Sternfeld 2012, S. 27–53, hier S. 33.
17.) Vgl. http://aligblok.de/fragen [22.12.2014]
18.) Johannes M. Hedinger, Torsten Meyer (Hg.), What’s Next? Kunst nach der Krise. Berlin 2013.
19.) Vgl. Alia, Elisa, Jale, Linda, Ronny, Safraz, Zakiya mit Nicola Tesch, „Manifest für den Kunstunterricht der Zukunft“, in diesem Band.
20.) Ergebnisse: http://aligblok.de/lehre/ [22.12.2014]
21.) Irit Rogoff, „‚SCHMUGGELN‘ eine verkörperte Kritikalität“, in: Silke Boerma, Kunstverein Hannover (Hg.), Mise en Scène. Innenansichten aus dem Kunstbetrieb, Hannover 2007, S. 34–44, hier S. 37.
22.) Vgl. Nora Sternfeld, Anmerkungen zu „Verlernen vermitteln“. Nora Sternfeld im öffentlichen Gespräch mit dem Seminar „What’s Next – Aktuelle Kunstpädagogik“ von Gila Kolb am Studiengang Kunst – Medien – Ästhetische Bildung, Universität Bremen im Juni 2014, in diesem Band.
23.) Vgl. Jacques Derrida, Die unbedingte Universität. Frankfurt 2001.

Lasst doch die Reichen reich sein

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:49 +0000

Die Krise hilft dem Kapitalismus, glaubt Slavoj Žižek, der «gefährlichste Philosoph des Westens». Im Gespräch erklärt der Marxist, warum er es dennoch für falsch hält, sich einzumischen.

SZ: Worüber wollen Sie überhaupt mit mir sprechen? Finanzkrise, Politik, Wirtschaft – das finde ich alles nicht interessant. Wir leben in einer Zeit, in der man sagen muss: Scheiss drauf! Die Welt wird untergehen, wir alle werden sterben, was solls? Es ist mir egal – das ist meine Einstellung. Ich glaube nicht an die Erpressung, dass sich die Theorie nicht in einem Elfenbeinturm verkriechen, sondern sich einmischen soll. Nein, das sollte sie eben nicht! Sich einzumischen, ist heute das Rezept der Mächtigen. Deshalb führen sie an den Universitäten die Bologna-Reform durch. Sie wollen uns zu Experten machen, die konkrete Probleme lösen. Aber seien wir ehrlich: Welches Problem hat Marx schon wirklich gelöst?

WOZ: Was dann? Rumsitzen und nichts tun?
Pure abstrakte Theorie! Geniesst sie. Alles Gute entstand schon immer als Kollateralschaden.

Sie sind ja richtig zynisch.
Wissen Sie, wer heute sagt, wir müssten uns engagieren und einmischen? Bill Gates! Humanitaristen sprechen so! Ihre Botschaft ist: Denke nicht zu viel, handle einfach …

Sie pfeifen jetzt also auf die Welt und machen nur noch reine Philosophie?
Jeder echte Theoretiker hat diese Einstellung, auch Marx. Mit der Bologna-Reform will man uns weismachen, Wissen müsse einen sozialen Nutzen haben, Probleme lösen und so weiter. Das ist ja der Trick der Mächtigen: Sie wollen Experten, die Probleme lösen, die sie definieren. Aber der erste Schritt der Theorie ist, selbst Probleme zu formulieren …

Nur zu, wie formulieren Sie das grösste Problem unserer Zeit?
Ich bin Marxist. Bei allen Ungewissheiten, die wir heute haben, ist das wesentliche Problem der Kapitalismus. Aber ich bin bereit, dem Teufel zu geben, was dem Teufel gehört: Der Kapitalismus ist mit Abstand das effizienteste Wirtschaftssystem, das wir kennen. Der bisherige Kommunismus hat in speziellen Momenten funktioniert, etwa während einer schnellen Industrialisierungsphase. Aber darauf folgte immer Stagnation – ausser man macht es wie China und übernimmt den Kapitalismus.

Eine schöne Ironie, finden Sie nicht? Ausgerechnet das sogenannt kommunistische China ist zum Vorbild für den kapitalistischen Westen des 21. Jahrhunderts geworden.
Marx dachte, dass die kapitalistische Ausbeutung am besten unter formaler Freiheit funktioniert. Ich muss also zum Beispiel meine Arbeitskraft in Ihrer Fabrik verkaufen, weil ich selbst keine besitze. Formal bin ich aber frei. Ich glaube, dass sich der Kapitalismus diese formale Freiheit immer weniger leisten kann. Die wahre Ironie ist: Für Marx war es beispielhafte Ausbeutung, dass man den ganzen Tag in einer dummen Fabrik arbeiten musste, regelmässige Arbeitszeiten hatte und dabei ausgebeutet wurde. Entschuldigung, aber heute ist es ein Privileg, regelmässige Arbeitszeiten zu haben. In den südeuropäischen Ländern gibt es eine junge Generation, die studiert und schon im Voraus weiss, dass sie keinen Job finden wird. Die haben nicht einmal die Chance, ausgebeutet zu werden.
Wissen Sie, dass die britische Regierung unter David Cameron von nun an in offiziellen Dokumenten nicht mehr das Wort «unemployed» (nicht angestellt) verwendet, sondern «workless» (arbeitslos)? Wunderbar, nicht? «Unemployed» heisst ja: Ich will arbeiten, aber niemand stellt mich an. «Workless» hingegen tönt sehr ähnlich wie «worthless» (wertlos) und heisst eben: Ich arbeite nicht.

Wie definieren Sie überhaupt «Kapitalismus»?
Kapitalismus ist für mich ein System, in dem der ganze Sinn des ökonomischen Kreislaufs dem Profit dient – der Kapitalbesitzer kann aber auch der Staat sein. Derzeit passiert etwas Interessantes: Es gibt einen Trend vom Profit – der Ausbeutung der Arbeit – zur Rente, also etwa dem Verdienst am Boden: China kauft das beste Land in Afrika. Dabei geht es China nicht mal mehr darum, die lokale Bevölkerung auszubeuten. In Sambia gab es eine Rebellion in einer Mine, die von Chinesen gekauft wurde. Die Chinesen hatten versprochen, der lokalen Bevölkerung Jobs zu geben. Dann verabschiedete die sambische Regierung ein Gesetz, wonach der Mindestlohn umgerechnet rund 240 Euro im Monat betragen sollte. Die Chinesen sagten: Fuck you, wir bringen unsere eigenen Arbeiter aus dem chinesischen Hinterland. Die machen das für 150.
Noch ein Beispiel: wieder Bill Gates. Wen beutet er aus? Seine Arbeiter? Nein, er hat die intellektuellen Gemeingüter monopolisiert. Wenn wir kommunizieren, zahlen wir ihm Miete. Das ist der Punkt: Wir müssen den Marxismus auf die heutigen Bedingungen übertragen. Was hat sich geändert? Das ist die Frage.

Als Philosoph definieren Sie all diese Probleme, schön. Doch was damit tun?
Ich kann nur sagen: Wir können nicht einfach rumsitzen und auf die grosse Revolution warten. Vor kurzem haben mich ein paar idiotische Linke als Prokapitalisten beschimpft, weil ich gesagt hatte, dass Barack Obama etwas ganz Grosses geleistet hat – trotz meiner Enttäuschung über ihn. Mit der Gesundheitsreform hat er eine entscheidende Debatte ausgelöst. Denn sie störte den Kern der amerikanischen Ideologie: diese falsche Vorstellung von Wahlfreiheit. Wahlfreiheit ist etwas Tolles. Aber damit sie funktioniert, braucht es ein komplexes System eines Staatsapparats, das einen Rahmen vorgibt. Deshalb war die Reaktion auf die Gesundheitsreform ja auch so panisch. Obama hat etwas vorgeschlagen, was in vielen anderen Staaten funktioniert. Man konnte ihn also nicht ernsthaft beschuldigen, er propagiere eine irre linke Idee.

Wir sind etwas erstaunt: In einem Ihrer Bücher kritisieren Sie den Philosophen John Caputo, weil er sagt, man könne innerhalb des Kapitalismus Reformen anstreben. Sie schreiben, Reformen seien innerhalb dieses Systems gar nicht möglich.
Ah, wer weiss? Freunde haben mich überzeugt, dass der Widerspruch zwischen bescheidener Reform und grosser Revolution bis zu einem gewissen Punkt gar keiner ist.

Aber genau das haben Sie dort geschrieben.
Ah, ah, ah, … vorsichtig, vorsichtig! Ich habe nie gesagt, jede Reform sei unnütz. Wenn Sie sich mit erfolgreichen Revolutionen befassen, sehen Sie, dass diese nie von Beginn weg als totaler Wandel daherkamen. Es geht immer um etwas ganz Spezifisches, und erst dann bemerkt man, dass es dafür viel mehr braucht: noch eine Änderung und noch eine und so weiter.
Ich erinnere mich an meine Zeit als gemässigter Dissident im kommunistischen Slowenien. Es war kein Problem zu sagen, der Kommunismus lege den Grundstein für den Nationalsozialismus. Ein Problem kriegte man, wenn man hier und da eine Änderung im Strafgesetz wollte. Verstehen Sie, was ich meine? Eine kleine präzise Änderung kann manchmal viel gefährlicher sein als der grosse metaphysische Umsturz.
Meine Antwort auf John Caputo ist ganz einfach: Wenn Reformen wirklich möglich sind, warum passieren sie dann nicht? Diese Krise wird dem Kapitalismus helfen! Das habe ich immer gesagt. Die Publizistin Naomi Klein würde sagen: «Die Krise wird als Schocktherapie gebraucht.» In vielen Ländern wird der Wohlfahrtsstaat derzeit zurückgedrängt. Und sogar die Linke akzeptiert die Agenda, nach der wir Sparprogramme brauchen.

Sie glauben nicht an eine soziale Demokratie?
Lassen Sie es uns versuchen! Ich bin nur pessimistisch, dass wir es schaffen können. Aber verstehen Sie mich nicht falsch. Ich bin kein linker Masochist, der sagt: Je schlimmer es uns geht, desto besser geht es unserer Sache. Nein, nein. Ich ziehe den brasilianischen Weg von Lula da Silva und jetzt Dilma Rousseff dem von Hugo Chávez in Venezuela vor.

Tatsächlich?
Ja, natürlich. Wissen Sie, ich habe meinen privaten KGB, der mir gewisse Informationen liefert (lacht). Chávez ist fürchterlich. Das Problem ist, dass er zu viel Geld hat. Und anstatt Probleme zu lösen, wirft er den Menschen Geld zu. Wenn Sie denken, ich sei ein irrer Totalitärer, wird Sie folgende Geschichte überraschen: Als ich in Griechenland Alexis Tsipras von der Syriza besuchte …

… warum unterstützen Sie als Kommunist eigentlich die linke Partei Syriza und nicht die griechischen Kommunisten?
Weil das Idioten sind. Die warten auf die grosse Revolution! Ihr Hauptfeind ist die Sozialdemokratie. Das sind Hardliner-Kommunisten. Und trotz meiner eigenen Exzentrizität sind sie mir ein bisschen zu verrückt. Es ist die einzige kommunistische Partei, die in ihrer eigenen Druckerei noch immer regelmässig Stalins komplettes Werk druckt und veröffentlicht.
Aber zurück zur Syriza: Tsipras erzählte mir eine tragische Geschichte, die ich bisher nicht publik gemacht habe, weil ich befürchtete, der Syriza zu schaden. Ich fragte ihn, ob er vor den Wahlen von Russland oder China kontaktiert worden sei. Von China habe er nichts gehört, sagte er, aber die Chinesen hätten den Hafen von Piräus gekauft, alle Angestellten gefeuert, Gewerkschaften verhindert und so weiter. Die Russen hingegen kamen – und Tsipras zitterte fast, als er mir das erzählte – und sagten: Wir sind bereit, euch zu retten. Und dann gaben sie ihm eine Liste mit all den profitablen staatlichen Telekommunikationsfirmen, die sie übernehmen wollten, plus – und hier kommt der grosse Clou – eine Insel, die sie für hundert Jahre als Militärbasis nutzen wollten. Tsipras sagte mir, er habe alle Illusionen verloren.
Was ich an der Syriza bewundere: Die sind nicht so wie andere Linke, die Angst vor der Macht haben. Die zwar von aussen Druck auf den Staat aufsetzen, sich aber die Hände nicht schmutzig machen wollen. Die Syriza wusste vor der Wahl, dass die Partei nach einem Sieg tief in der Scheisse stecken würde. Sie hätte den ganzen Staatsapparat gegen sich gehabt. Ich mag diesen authentischen Heroismus, auch wenn alles verloren ist. Und da zitiere ich sehr gerne Samuel Beckett: «Okay, wir werden scheitern, aber das nächste Mal scheitern wir besser.»

Sie schwanken zwischen Pessimismus und Optimismus …
Ich bin kein völliger Pessimist. Nehmen wir zum Beispiel 1968. Gut, ich mache mich oft lustig darüber: Die Achtundsechziger waren gegen unterdrückende Staatsbildung, gegen Serienarbeit und gegen familiäre Unterdrückung; heute haben wir stattdessen privatisierte Bildung, Kurzarbeitsverträge und billigen Hedonismus. Aber ein Ergebnis der sechziger Jahre ist auch, dass man heute nicht mehr so verächtlich über Frauen reden darf wie früher, auch dass man sich nicht mehr rassistisch äussern kann. In dieser Frage bin ich ein hegelianischer Idealist: Jaja, die Wirtschaft ist schon wichtig. Aber ebenso wichtig ist, was Hegel die «sittliche Substanz» nannte – diese ungeschriebenen Regeln.

Was meinen Sie damit?
In Europa sollte das Motto der Linken «Mehr Dogmatismus» sein. Als ich das kürzlich an einer Debatte sagte, dachten die Leute, ich werde langsam ein verrückter Stalinist. Aber mit Dogmen meine ich nicht, dass ein Zentralkomitee alles vorschreibt. Ich meine, dass gewisse Haltungen selbstverständlich sein müssen. 1968 hat uns einen neuen Dogmatismus gebracht. Danach konnte man nicht mehr öffentlich sagen: Vielleicht mögen es Frauen ja, vergewaltigt zu werden. Wenn man das heute sagt, erreicht man nicht einmal mehr eine Kontroverse, man steht nur als kompletter Idiot da. In diesem Sinn brauchen wir Dogmen. Ich mag nicht in einer Gesellschaft leben, in der man ständig darüber diskutieren muss, warum Frauen nicht vergewaltigt werden dürfen. Dasselbe gilt für Rassismus …

Gerade da gibt es heute aber gewisse Rückschritte.
Ja, und das bereitet mir Sorgen. Hier bin ich mit Jean-Marie Le Pen einig, dem Gründer des rechtsextremen Front National. Nachdem er zum ersten Mal die Wahlen verloren hatte, sagte er: «Ich habe verloren, weil ich gewonnen habe – meine Themen sind jetzt von allen akzeptiert.»
Die Linke ist in solchen Fragen sehr scheinheilig, gerade in Frankreich: Wie gross war die Aufregung, als Nicolas Sarkozy ein paar Roma ausschaffte. Aber François Hollande macht heute genau dasselbe, sogar noch viel systematischer. Das ist der Erfolg von Le Pen! In ähnlicher Weise antwortete Margaret Thatcher einmal, als sie gefragt wurde, was ihre grösste Errungenschaft gewesen sei: «New Labour!»

Umgekehrt werden heute selbst in grossen konservativen Zeitungen Debatten über den Kapitalismus geführt.
Ja, nehmen wir zum Beispiel den Philosophen Peter Sloterdijk. Er sagt: Im 20. Jahrhundert dachten wir, nur die vereinten Armen könnten uns retten – heute wissen wir, nur die Ultrareichen können uns retten. Okay, Sloterdijk ist etwas verrückt, aber das bin ich auch. Er kämpft allerdings mit den gleichen Problemen wie ich: Wie können wir die sozialdemokratischen Werte beibehalten? Wie die Reichen richtig besteuern? Nur, dann wird Sloterdijk völlig verrückt und macht einen Vorschlag, der natürlich nicht funktioniert: dass wir den Reichen mehr soziale Anerkennung schenken und ihre Erfolge nicht kritisieren sollen.

Was wäre denn Ihre Antwort: Was soll man mit den Reichen tun?
Keine Ahnung, das ist mir egal. Lassen wir sie doch reich sein.

Ist Ungleichheit für Sie kein Problem?
Selbstverständlich. Aber vergessen Sie nicht, ich bin Marxist. Marx betont, dass Gleichheit ein bourgeoiser Slogan ist. Das Problem ist nicht die Ungleichheit, sondern die marktorientierte kapitalistische Reproduktion. Kann dieses System weiter funktionieren, oder werden ihre Folgen zu seiner Selbstzerstörung führen?

Selbstzerstörung? Das behauptet die Linke schon seit über hundert Jahren, aber der Kapitalismus funktioniert wunderbar.
Ich weiss. Ich mache mich ja auch darüber lustig …

Aber eben haben Sie doch von Selbstzerstörung gesprochen.
Lassen Sie mich meinen Kronzeugen anführen: Francis Fukuyama.

Fukuyama? Der in den neunziger Jahren behauptete, die Heirat von Kapitalismus und Demokratie bedeute das Ende der Geschichte?
Genau. Aber Fukuyama ist kein Idiot, der sagte, alles sei vorüber. Er meinte nur: Das ultimative System ist eine sozial verantwortliche kapitalistische Demokratie, also sollten wir nicht mehr länger die grossen Fragen über den Kapitalismus und den Staat stellen. Wir sollten ihn in diesem Rahmen effizienter machen. Das letzte Mal, als ich Fukuyama traf, kam die Überraschung: Er ist kein Fukuyamaist mehr. Es sagte sogar, dass wir stärkere soziale Regulierungen bräuchten, einen radikalen Wandel.

Fukuyama glaubte, Kapitalismus und Demokratie gingen Hand in Hand, stattdessen höhlt der Kapitalismus die Demokratie aus.
Heute zweifelt er an seiner These. Wir mussten lachen, als ich Fukuyama sagte: «Okay, du hast recht, der Kommunismus hat verloren. Aber der Kommunismus hat seine Rache, die effizientesten Manager des Kapitalismus sind Exkommunisten!»
Ich mache mich nicht lustig über den Kapitalismus. Denn es ist wahr, dass die einzige stabile Demokratie, auch wenn sie eingeschränkt war, im Kapitalismus existierte. Der Kapitalismus tolerierte hie und da Diktaturen für ein Jahrzehnt oder so. Aber wenn die Dinge wirklich anfingen zu laufen, dann gab es eine explodierende Nachfrage nach Demokratie. Das war in Südkorea so, in Chile und so weiter. Doch nun gibt es eine beängstigende Entwicklung: Vielleicht erleben wir im Fernen Osten derzeit eine Scheidung dieser ewigen Hochzeit zwischen Kapitalismus und Demokratie. Peter Sloterdijk glaubt, in hundert Jahren würde ein Monument für Lee Kuan Yew errichtet werden, den Vater des autoritären Kapitalismus von Singapur.
Verstehen Sie mich nicht falsch. Ich glaube nicht, dass es morgen keine Demokratie mehr geben wird, aber sie wird immer mehr ihrer Substanz beraubt. Ich hasse linke Liberale, die nur alte Klischees hervorkramen und sagen: Oh, da entsteht ein neuer Faschismus. Das stimmt nicht! Es ist ein neues autoritäres System, in dem sich nicht alles um einen Führer dreht, eine Art permissiver Autoritarismus. Da zieht etwas wirklich Neues auf. Und wir haben keine überzeugende Theorie dafür. «Wissensgesellschaft», «Risikogesellschaft», «postmoderne Gesellschaft» – das sind nur Schlagwörter von Journalisten. Was ist China heute? Hat dort der Kapitalismus triumphiert? Oder ist China irgendein Hybrid?

Stört es Sie überhaupt, dass die Demokratie erodiert? In einem Dokumentarfilm entschuldigen Sie sich für eines Ihrer frühen Bücher mit den Worten: «O Gott, damals befürwortete ich die Demokratie.»
Gut, da spielte ich ein doppeltes Spiel. Mein Argument ist Folgendes: Die Journalistin Anne Applebaum machte sich nach Occupy Wallstreet zuerst lustig über die Bewegung, weil sie nur protestierte und sich nicht im parlamentarischen Prozess engagierte. Aber sie sagte auch, die heutige institutionelle nationalstaatliche Demokratie sei durch den globalen Kapitalismus gefährdet, weil immer mehr ausserhalb ihrer Kontrolle geschehe. In ihrer Schlussfolgerung kehrte Applebaum jedoch wieder zum ersten Argument zurück und sagte, der einzige Weg sei, geduldig in den Institutionen weiterzuarbeiten.
Logische Konsequenz wäre aber: Entweder akzeptieren wir, dass wir den globalen Kapitalismus nicht kontrollieren können, oder wir müssen die Demokratie neu erfinden.

Für welchen Weg sind Sie?
Wir sollten uns mit aller Kraft engagieren, wir müssen uns aber gleichzeitig darüber im Klaren sein, dass langfristig ein radikalerer Wandel nötig ist.

Aber Sie glauben nicht, dass der Wandel innerhalb der Demokratie erfolgen kann …
Nicht in dieser Demokratie, nein.

Haben wir nicht im 20. Jahrhundert gelernt, dass man schnell im Totalitarismus landet, wenn man sich nicht klar zur Demokratie bekennt?
Da bin ich skeptisch. Die Lehre aus dem 20. Jahrhundert ist, dass der Totalitarismus aus der Demokratie hervorging. Wie sieht die typische Geburt eines totalitären Systems aus? Normalerweise hat man zuerst eine Demokratie. Doch dann kommt eine Krise oder was auch immer, und die Demokratie kann diese Krise nicht kontrollieren. Österreich und Deutschland waren Demokratien, die sich in den Totalitarismus entwickelten.
Es geht also um die Frage, was man unter Demokratie versteht. Wenn man damit eine Art von Souveränität des Volks meint, bin ich absolut ein Demokrat. In dem Sinn, wie es der Philosoph Claude Lefort formuliert hat: Demokratie bedeutet, dass niemand a priori ein Recht hat, den Platz der Macht einzunehmen. Der Ort der Macht ist leer. Wir haben nur das Recht, den Ort für kurze Zeit zu besetzen.

Kommen wir auf Ihre spezifische Rolle als Philosoph zu sprechen …
Meine Rolle ist sehr komplex.

In einem Buch kritisieren Sie die Proteste gegen den Angriff der USA auf den Irak, weil die Protestierenden damit paradoxerweise den Krieg legitimierten. Sie zitieren dafür George Bush, der sagte: «Sehen Sie, genau dafür kämpfen wir: dass das, was Sie hier tun – gegen die Politik Ihrer Regierung zu protestieren –, auch im Irak möglich wird!»
Und Sie wollen sagen, dass ich dasselbe tue, oder wie?

Sagen Sie es uns.
Nein, das tue ich nicht! Schauen Sie doch nur einmal, welchen Anfeindungen ich ausgesetzt bin.

Trotz Ihrer radikalen Rhetorik werden Sie ja niemals wirklich gefährlich.
Warum greifen mich die Leute dann so an?! Ich werde nicht mehr länger als Clown angesehen: John Gray hat in der «New York Review of Books» behauptet, dass ich die Legitimation für einen neuen Holocaust liefere! Das ging wirklich zu weit. Das ist nicht lustig: In Ungarn beispielsweise kehrt der alte Antisemitismus ja gerade wirklich zurück. Neulich hatte ich einen Zusammenstoss mit dem französischen Philosophen Bernard Henri-Lévy, der die stupide Behauptung aufstellt, der neue Antisemitismus komme entweder von links, oder er verschwinde vollständig. Er griff gar das marxistische Argument auf, dass Antisemitismus eine primitive Form des Antikapitalismus ist.

Stimmt das etwa nicht?
Doch, damit bin ich einverstanden. Aber er kehrte es um: Er behauptete, heute sei der Antikapitalismus in Wahrheit ein verkappter Antisemitismus! Woher kommt dieser Drang, mich so zu porträtieren? Und Sie, Sie tun ja dasselbe, mein Gott! Jetzt sagen Sie, man halte mich für einen Clown. Aber vorhin sagten Sie noch: Äh, sind Sie nicht ein wenig antidemokratisch?

Das tun wir nicht. Wir haben lediglich gefragt, ob die grosse intellektuelle Kritik jemals gefährlich werden kann.
Versuchen Sie nicht, mir diesen linksliberalen Bullshit zu verkaufen, es habe im 20. Jahrhundert eine Art goldene Ära gegeben, in der die Menschen auf öffentliche Intellektuelle gehört hätten. Diese Ära gab es nicht, niemals. Nochmals: Ich werde ja oft von verschiedenen Seiten angegriffen. Eine israelische Zeitung hat mein Buch «Willkommen in der Wüste des Realen» als brutalsten offenen Antisemitismus verrissen. Oh, oh, oh! Aber die Beilage der ägyptischen Zeitung «Al-Ahram» bezeichnete das Buch als perfideste zionistische Propaganda!

Sie werden ja aber nicht nur angegriffen, sondern auch gelobt.
Wo? Das sind so wenige!

Wo immer Sie auftreten, erscheinen viele Leute, Sie füllen Hallen. Manchmal hat man den Eindruck, Sie seien so etwas wie der Jesus der Linken.
Und dennoch: Wenn sie sich dann ernsthaft mit meiner Theorie auseinandersetzen müssen, sagen die Leute: Okay, Zizek ist vielleicht unterhaltsam, aber da gibt es etwas Gefährliches an ihm.

Ärgert Sie das?
Nein, ich bin ein guter Psychotiker: Es ist mir egal. Das sieht man mir auch an. Schauen Sie sich mein Sweatshirt an. Sehen Sie, was das ist? Erhält man, wenn man in der Lufthansa in die erste Klasse heraufgestuft wird. Und meine Socken: Die habe ich von der Swiss. Die Hose habe ich für acht Dollar in Seoul gekauft, damit habe ich chinesische Gulags unterstützt …

Eher Kinderarbeit …
Ja, Kinderarbeit! Aber die einzige Möglichkeit zu überleben ist, sich nicht um die Kritik zu kümmern.

Sehen Sie Widersprüche zwischen Ihrem Denken und Ihrem Handeln?
Ja, vielleicht. Wenn es einen Widerspruch gibt zwischen meinem Denken und meinem Handeln, nimmt das dem Handeln nicht automatisch seinen Wert. Nehmen Sie Marx: Er war unmöglich arrogant, bürgerlich und so weiter. Aber das spielt keine Rolle.

Wenn man also das grosse Universale propagiert, darf man im Einzelnen tun, was man will? Ferien in Singapur zum Beispiel, so wie Sie?
Das ist typisch! Sie sind so ein bürgerlicher … Sind Sie sich eigentlich bewusst, dass dies ein typischer Vorwurf der mittelständischen Bourgeoisie ist?

Warum das?
Die armen Leute sagen dir: Du hast Geld? Geniess es! Nur Mittelstandsleute fühlen sich schuldig und glauben, wenn sie bescheiden leben, würden sie sich solidarisch mit den Armen zeigen.

Sie sehen darin also keinen Widerspruch?
Nein, nicht auf diesem tiefen Niveau. Nehmen Sie das Recycling als Beispiel. Natürlich mache ich Recycling, aber ich finde es scheinheilig. Es ist eine wundervolle Strategie grosser Unternehmen: Sie bringen dich dazu, dass du dich schuldig fühlst. Was hast du heute für Mutter Erde getan? Es funktioniert als Gutfühlstrategie. Man soll ein paar kleine Dinge tun, die sehr wenig nützen, damit man im Grossen nichts ändert. Okay, ich habe diese Hosen gekauft – und vielleicht unterstütze ich damit chinesische Gulags, wer weiss? Aber glauben Sie ernsthaft, dass ich die chinesischen Gulags bekämpfe, indem ich die Hose nicht kaufe? Ich bezweifle es.

Also doch ein Widerspruch.
Klar gibt es immer Widersprüche. Aber ich gehöre de facto nicht zur Oberschicht, dafür verdiene ich zu wenig. Aber wenn man sich so anzieht wie ich, dann kann man es sich leisten, ein- oder zweimal im Jahr nach Singapur zu gehen oder – oh, das wird Ihnen gefallen: Ich war sogar im Luxushotel Burdsch al-Arab in Dubai. Aber wissen Sie was? Ich habe auch dort meine marxistische Pflicht getan. Ich habe mich sofort mit einem Taxifahrer angefreundet. Er gab mir einen Schnellkurs: «In jenem Gebäude sind die Lichter aus, die Leute sind bankrott; siehst du die Arbeiter dort auf dem Hochhaus? Die sind nicht gesichert, arbeiten bei fünfzig Grad in der Sonne» und so weiter. Er führte mich ein in diese Halbsklavengesellschaft.

Ganz zu Beginn des Gesprächs sagten Sie, Politik interessiere Sie nicht mehr …
… gut, ich habe übertrieben. Was mich stört, ist dieses pseudohumanitäre Engagement von Leuten wie Bill Gates, die sagen: Wir haben unsere ideologischen Kämpfe gekämpft, wer schert sich heute darum? Kinder verhungern in Somalia, wir müssen etwas tun.
Nein, das ist falsch! «Lasst uns etwas tun» bedeutet «lasst uns nicht nachdenken».

Und wie soll sich etwas ändern, wenn niemand handelt?
Wunder geschehen! Nehmen Sie den Tahrirplatz in Kairo. Wer hätte vor drei Jahren geglaubt, dass es eine breite Bewegung in einem arabischen Land geben würde, die grundsätzlich säkular ist, nicht antisemitisch, nicht fundamentalistisch? Jeder hätte gesagt: Fuck off, das ist nicht möglich.

Was ist wirklich wichtig im Leben?
Denkarbeit. Wir haben in diesem Gespräch viele Probleme angesprochen: Was tun? Wie den Kapitalismus verändern? Aber wir befinden uns in der tragischen Situation, dass wir kein Rezept haben. Wir wissen es ganz einfach nicht. Als Philosoph kann ich nur zeigen, welche Fragen falsch gestellt werden. Ich habe keine Antworten, ich bluffe nur. Aber manchmal ist es wichtig, die richtigen Fragen zu stellen.
Bisher lautete die marxistische These: Philosophen haben die Welt nur interpretiert, wir müssen sie ändern. Vielleicht sollte unser Motto im 21. Jahrhundert sein: Wir haben zu oft versucht, die Welt zu ändern. Jetzt ist es Zeit, sie zu interpretieren.

Aus dem Englischen übersetzt.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschein zuerst in WOZ – Die Wochenzeitung Nr. 48/2012 vom 29.11.2012 unter http://www.woz.ch/1248/slavoj-zizek/lasst-doch-die-reichen-reich-sein [19.2.2013].

ART/SCIENCE and EDUCATION. we have to know what we want to know before we can start looking for it

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:47 +0000

There has been an ongoing discussion for several years now on the relationship of art and science in educational and professional contexts. Is this just another attempt to put an old fashion into new clothes? I do not think so, because this time the arguments do not constitute an attempt to make a qualitative distinction between universities or higher institutions of art, design and media. Nor is there a fundamental dispute involved whether the artistic singularity of an artefact or scientific objectivity claims to have more epistemic value. In search of significant sources nourishing the current discourse, paradigmatic changes in the process of renewing and preserving the conditions of cultural self-organization are key to a major shift in how we construct knowledge, technology and cultural memory. It concerns institutional forms as well as the individual.
One of the standpoints is to consider a revival of the „Leonardo principle“. A second standpoint might close the chapter of the relationship between art and science for the benefit of scientific-economic prosperity, whereas a third engages with the question of how cultural, intellectual and spiritual fields are prerequisite to evolutions in art, science and technology. My affinity is with the third one, although some of the issues relating to this area are similar to other positions.
Many questions derive from the context of audiovisual restructuring of knowledge and communication areas in interrelated and cooperative fields moulding into novel forms of interdisciplinary design, such as BANG design, whose acronym stands for the basic modules of our world (B=Bits, A=Atoms, N=Neurons, G=Genes).¹ This field will be extended by neurophysiological research into cognition and perception, not to be confused with the ontological and philosophical terminology of cognition and perception.
In conjunction with media- and biotechnological industrialization of codes, concepts and design in the educational context of art and science have been renewed.
Can both art and science learn from each other, and, if so, at what and for what? Do both act in the same framework of design and conceptualization, as some of the new generation of media artists suggest in their explorative approach? Would it make sense to exchange curricular modules between specific study programmes?
Narrowing down the thematic frame, one crucial question remains: Which of the teaching and learning fields between art (in terms of audiovisual media design and media use) and science (in terms of research of audiovisual cognition, development of formalized models containing complex mediality and prototyping of media structures) can be formulated? The paradigmatic closeness of art, science, the economy and politics might suggest a consistent media evolution based on media convergence, yet this does not give us a satisfying answer.
The point is if, and if so, to what extent does it become meaningful to reformulate the very densely organized media evolutionary areas to make plausible and distinct the differences between artistic and scientific education. In that respect it will not make sense to reactivate old habits to distinguish between art and sciences. Current developments in media and biotechnology, neuroscience and cognition research, but also in humanity and cultural science, demonstrate the interrelatedness of knowledge creation and knowledge representation. These developments cope with the complexity of design and research thus being of a transferable structure. This principle similarly applies to art and science.
In fact, novel theoretical delineations of model, game and communication knowledge in different contexts has changed the theoretical architecture if we consider the impact of second-order cybernetic and radical constructivism (von Foerster), positions in Endophysics (Rössler),² concepts of neuronal networks and fuzzy logic and boundary management concepts mediating between disciplines and product developments. However, these radical changes in cognition and design architecture have had less impact on learning and knowledge organization thus far. A conceptual lag can be identified in both teachings and research.
We know, for example, that not only knowledge and media technology is changing rapidly, but learning attitudes and styles are also changing fluidly across different technologies, interfaces and modes of interaction. As a consequence institutions react with a stronger emphasis on project and praxis orientation. It is not so much about how specific themes relate to a subject or university-specific didactics. The crucial issue concerns the way and to what extent the changing organization of perception and cognition, designing, processing and selection is teachable, and if it is teachable, how it can be conducted.
If we accept one of the prevailing concepts in 20^th century theory, art would predominantly be created by its viewer and users; based on the economy of attentiveness and the market, a serious discussion on curricular changes would be useless. In other words art cannot be taught if it is to “potential” art producers. Would education then solely be a privilege for curators, patrons, visitors of museums and galleries, cultural managers who create, reflect and provide affirmative market behaviour? Obviously there is still a dichotomy between institutional education and self-education.
The educational landscape and discourse relating to art has long since evolved to cover a much wider range of important issues to be explored such as media and popular culture. „Takeover – who is doing the art of tomorrow“, the topics of Ars Electronica 2001³, strove for a much broader discussion on new manifestations of art and fluid learning arrangements driven by the dynamics of digital revolution. The dynamism of „Takeover“ does not originate from traditional art practice and mediation, but rather from largely heterogeneous, rhizome-like structures and networks of remotely connected individuals and online communities. The common goal of these activities pertaining to evolving culture are not merely a distant-reflective kind of reaction to techno-social changes; in fact, they constitute and develop further this genuine field.
Digital network culture has not only been changing the modes of media production and distribution: it coevally conveys emerging models of cooperation, communication and interaction by accumulating various ideas, talents and capabilities. Hence, the tasks of tomorrow’s artist is that of an intermediary, a catalyst between diverse fields of knowledge, ways of thinking, social models and solution strategies. The protagonists of this development, hackers, software artists, media and knowledge designers who are irrespectively showing strong commitment in the face of considerable risk, are opening up new territories in which their role and their scope of action have not yet been fully explored. This alludes to critical inquiry, research and development in socio-political and scientific (biotechnology and genetic engineering) contexts.
Interestingly yet not surprisingly, the conventional artistic discourse has been cultivating and maintaining a self-referential and affirmative practice among galleries, magazines, investors, dealers and critics. The corporate image of the artwork has long since replaced the artwork itself. A good example is the “Institutional Critique“, an art practice in which often only advanced artists, theorists, historians, and critics can participate. Due to its highly sophisticated understanding of modern art and society, as part of a privileged discourse like that of any other specialized form of knowledge, it has predominantly yielded alienated and marginalized viewers. Net art in contrast has explored the field in a much broader context by exemplifying the work of art as a process, as opposed to a conception of art as object making. Since net art is “immaterial”, commodity value is replaced by utility value: i. e., the principles of the net economy are based on an economy of scale where there is no scarcity of goods. Thus the added value is not generated by a thousand copies of the same “product” but instead by the “exchange value” that is based on each different source of information and not on each individual copy (cf. Ghosh 1998).⁴In his lecture „Science as an Open Source Process“, Friedrich Kittler⁵ argues that the liberty of science rises and falls in parallel with source code liberation. Only now will science become a university. In that sense, the definition of university implies, differently from in closed or secret research centers, that the knowledge must circulate and be accessible without the protection of patents and copyright issues. Media convergence gives us the opportunity to dissolve the media-technical boundaries between natural scientific, technical and cultural knowledge.

Transitory processes
In my reflection on transitory processes in art, science and education, I would like to stress the material, logical and cultural practical use and developments of media. Art and science are dependent on these morphic surroundings by inventing, developing and generating new ones. Relating to this dimension of mediamorphic events, I would like to add the following quotation:
Cyberspace … enables its audience not merely to observe a reality, but to enter it and experience it as if it were real …. Whereas film is used to show a reality to an audience, cyberspace is used to give a virtual body, and a role, to everyone in the audience. Print and radio tell; stage and film show; cyberspace embodies.⁶Questions arising in this specific context relate to teachable contiguity in media production and design, the ratio between subject and media specific teachings, and how both can be applied in a dynamic, reciprocal mode.
Media evolutionhas been taking place over many centuries as specialization and fragmentation of sensual perception, communication and concepts of truth. It has been a long history of segregation of multisensoric options in human self-organization. The effects of this process of specialization and disjuncture have generated particularly strong systems such as paintings, scripture, sciences, aesthetics and so on. This has led to a material and mental disparity to which can be assigned the same texture and facture and distinctive canonic differences as with institutions, iconoclastic and iconophilic cultures. Some of the distinctive systems that arose out of this process, such as the privileged status of reading over vision, have come under pressure by multimodal and multicodal forms of production, perception and reception. Alongside the media’s evolutionary “agenda”, post-modernist and post-structuralist concepts (Derrida, Foucault, Lévinas) and tendencies of individualization as for socio-cultural changes and use of the new media are frequently being conceptualized as a dichotomy of unleashing (“deboundarisation“). However, in the current media discourse there are tendencies to discover media practice from another perspective, which means that a connection between persistence and recombination of social structuring and social practices can be seen as a model for social change. This model is based on the hypothesis that the use of new media is based on given social structures and social practices. With respect to tendencies like individualization and globalization, the social potential of new media such as weblogs⁷ offers distinct forms of media use within different social practices, including the strengthening of the latter as well as doing without them.
With regard to media-related functions and their proliferation, the extension of computer technology is irreversibly encoded in delocalised media and electronic networks as part of culture and society as distributed and diversified systems. A constituent factor in this process is media convergence or integration. Alongside the media synthetic approach to merge different media into one, we can identify another important attempt towards multisensory perception. The visual sense, the faculty of vision, gets back its vast cultural spectrum and in parallel the interface changes into a multisensory one. This epoch-making electronic and fibre-optic based media convergence has ceased the history of media divergence. From now on, the point is how different media functions, whether in a pure or crossover mode, come into play.
Screenager, a term first coined by Douglas Rushkoff in his 1997 book Playing the Future, is a technologically savvy young person, living next door with audiovisual gadgets and interfaces, where he/she interacts in a mediated setting of learning, entertainment, peer bonding and play. Is the interconnected “mediaspace a co-operative dream, made up of the combined projections of everyone who takes part“,⁸ or do these trade-offs speak to a wider set of socio-cultural implications and consequences in light of an education “close to reality“?
Taking into account the next generation of students there is now a way to cope with hybrid digital learning cultures. What was with all those demands for change in higher education institutional settings? Although several educational outreach activities have been undertaken since then, the mediation paradigm (“blended/hybrid modes of teaching and learning“) often fails on the basics.
If we interpret art and science as two dimensions relating to (post)modernist and interface culture, the prerequisites in defining a new curriculum changes significantly. It would thus demand another structure of design capabilities corresponding with an all-encompassing model of knowledge design. Thus, many of the practices and alternative viewpoints these theories claim, as for adaptive, flexible and transgressive forms of learning and developing new contextual abilities, would likewise change artistic and scientific educational processes.
The most fundamental macro-question in communication, media theory, and cultural theory is the nature of mediation, which means that we have always been in language, in symbolic systems, and we know our lived-in world by language, discourse, and signs, not by immediate access to “things in themselves“ (Kant). The primacy of mediation in any theoretical model is milieu, medium, structure and system of mediation. Hence artistic practice significantly changes into mediation between the viewer and the subject, between “art“ and “life“, media, technique and expression, art and institutions, copyright and art work …
Over the last two decades, we have learned to know about dissipative structures in biology, fractal and chaos theory, network and self-organization theory, yet with little impact on the academic institutional teaching and learning culture. With the notion of social technologies, the accompanying current transformation process from single authorship to co-authorship, public versus person-to-person communication, contributions versus display, has become virulent in the net activism of the 1990s that links in many ways with the social or socially critical processes of the 1960s and 70s (e. g. U. Eco’s “open“ works of art and J. Beuys’s concept of “social sculpture“ relating plastic creativity to socio-political activities, K. Galloway and S. Rabinowitz’s “Hole-In-Space“ as for telematics and telepresence). Current social software developments are merging the socio-political and media-technological towards a democratizing and participatory media approach.
By applying this to learning processes in a digital age, one of the main questions is how the increased recognition of interconnections in differing fields of knowledge, systems and ecology theories is perceived in light of learning tasks. Alternative theories deriving from chaos, self-organization and social network theories suggest that we can no longer personally experience and acquire the learning that we need to act. We derive our competence from forming connections. Chaos, as a science, recognizes the connection of everything to everything.⁹ The butterfly analogy highlights the challenge of how we deal with sensitive dependence on initial conditions that profoundly impact what we learn and how we act based on our learning. As for social-network theories, Albert-László Barabási states that “nodes always compete for connections because links represent survival in an interconnected world”.¹⁰ This competition is largely dulled within a personal learning network, but the placing of value on certain nodes over others is a reality. Connections between disparate ideas and fields can create new innovations. This amplification of learning, knowledge and understanding through the extension of a personal network is the epitome of a new learning culture.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text ist eine gekürzte Version der Originalfassung, die in Educating Artists for the Future: Learning at the Intersections of Art, Science, Technology, and Culture (2008), The University of Chicago Press, S. 103–114, erschienen ist.

1.)Bolz, Norbert (2006): bang design – design manifesto of the 21st century. Hamburg: Trendbüro.
2.)Interview with Otto E. Rössler (in German): Vom Chaos, der Virtuellen Realität und der Endophysik. http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/5/5004/1.html (15.11.2006).
3.)Stocker, G./ Schöpf, C. (ed.) 2001: Ars Electronica 2001. Wien, New York: Springer.
4.)Ghosh, R. A.: „In an environment where it costs next to nothing to duplicate a product, exactly what is scarce? A Ferrari F40 would presumably be cheaper if it cost under a dollar to make a perfect copy.“ firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/580 (01/05/2013).
5.)Kittler, F.: „Wissenschaft als Open-Source-Prozeß“, http://hydra.humanities.uci.edu/kittler/os.html (1.6.2013).
6.)Walser, R: „Elements of a Cyberspace Playhouse“ (1990), cited in Howard Rheingold, Virtual Reality (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1992), p. 192.
7.)See also Herring, S. C., Scheidt, L. A., Wright, E., and Bonus, S. (2005): Weblogs as a Bridging Genre. Information, Technology, & People, 18 (22), pp. 142–171.
8.)Rushkoff: 1999, p. 269.
9.)cf. Gleick’s “Butterfly Effect“. In: Gleick, J., (1987). Chaos: The Making of a New Science. New York, NY, Penguin Books.
10.)Barabási, A. L., (2002): p. 106.

Literatur
Barabási, A.-L. 2003. Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life. NY: Plume Books.
Bolz, N. 2006. bang design. design manifest des 21. Jahrhunderts. Hamburg: Trend Büro
Galison, P. In: Latour, B., Weibel, P. 2002. Iconoclash: Beyond the Image Wars in Science, Religion and Art. Boston: MIT Press.
Gleick, J. 1987. Chaos: The Making of a New Science. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Rushkoff, D. 1999. Playing the Future: What We Can Learn from Digital Kids. New York: Riverhead Books.
Stocker, G./ Schöpf, C. (ed.) 2001. Ars Electronica 2001. Wien, New York: Springer.
Walser, R. 1990. Elements of a Cyberspace Playhouse, cited in Howard Rheingold, Virtual Reality. NY: Simon & Schuster.
Waldrop, M. 1992. Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. NY: Touchstone.

FREE

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:45 +0000

– Who wants to know? – I want to know.
– What do you want to know? – I don’t know!

At some point last year I proposed within my institution, Goldsmiths, University of London, that we develop a free academy adjacent to our institution and call it “Goldsmiths Free.” The reactions to this proposal, when not amused smirks at the apparently adolescent nature of the proposal, were largely either puzzled – “What would we get out of it? Why would we want to do it?” – or horrified – “How would it finance itself?” No one asked what might be taught or discussed within it and how that might differ from the intellectual work that is done within our conventional fee-charging, degree-giving, research-driven institution. And that of course was the point, that it would be different, not just in terms of redefining the point of entry into the structure (free of fees and previous qualifications) or the modus operandi of the work (not degree-based, unexamined, not subject to the state’s mechanisms of monitoring and assessment), but also that the actual knowledge would be differently situated within it. And that is what I want to think about here, about the difference in the knowledge itself, its nature, its status, and its affect.
The kind of knowledge that interested me in this proposal to the university was one that was not framed by disciplinary and thematic orders, a knowledge that would instead be presented in relation to an urgent issue, and not an issue as defined by knowledge conventions, but by the pressures and struggles of contemporaneity. When knowledge is unframed, it is less grounded genealogically and can navigate forwards rather than backwards. This kind of “unframed” knowledge obviously had a great deal to do with what I had acquired during my experiences in the art world, largely a set of permissions with regard to knowledge and a recognition of its performative faculties – that knowledge does rather than is. But the permissions I encountered in the art world came with their own set of limitations, a tendency to reduce the complex operations of speculation to either illustration or to a genre that would visually exemplify “study” or “research.” Could there be, I wondered, another mode in which knowledge might be set free without having to perform such generic mannerisms, without becoming an aesthetic trope in the hands of curators hungry for the latest “turn”?
Heads will surely be shaken! The notion of “free” is currently so degraded in terms of the free market, the dubious proposals of the new “free” economy of the internet, and the historically false promises of individual freedom, that it may be difficult to see what it might have to offer beyond all these hollow slogans. Nevertheless, the possibility of producing some interrogative proximity between “knowledge” and “free” seems both unavoidable and irresistible, particularly in view of the present struggles over the structures of education in Europe.
The actual drive towards knowledge and therefore towards some form of expansion and transformation seems far more important than simply a discussion of the categories it operates within. In order to attempt such a transition I need to think about several relevant questions:
1. First and foremost, what is knowledge when it is “free“?
2. Whether there are sites, such as the spaces of art, in which knowledge might be more “free” than in others?
3. What are the institutional implications of housing knowledge that is “free”?
4. What are the economies of “free” that might prove an alternative to the market- and outcome-based and comparison-driven economies of institutionally structured knowledge at present?
Evidently, en route I need to think about the struggles over education, its alternative sitings, the types of emergent economies that might have some purchase on its rethinking, and, finally, how “education” might be perceived as an alternative organizational mode, not of information, of formal knowledges and their concomitant marketing, but as other forms of coming together not predetermined by outcomes but by directions. Here I have in mind some process of “knowledge singularization,” which I will discuss further below.
Obviously it is not the romance of liberation that I have in mind here in relation to “free.” Knowledge cannot be “liberated,” it is endlessly embedded in long lines of transformations that link in inexplicable ways to produce new conjunctions. Nor do I have in mind the romance of “avant-garde” knowledge, with its oppositional modes of “innovation” as departure and breach. Nor am I particularly interested in what has been termed “interdisciplinarity,” which, with its intimations of movement and “sharing” between disciplines, de facto leaves intact those membranes of division and logics of separation and containment. Nor, finally, and I say this with some qualification, is my main aim here to undo the disciplinary and professional categories that have divided and isolated bodies of knowledge from one another in order to promote a heterogeneous field populated by “bodies” of knowledge akin to the marketing strategies that ensure choice and multiplicity and dignify the practices of epistemological segregation by producing endless new subcategories for inherited bodies of named and contained knowledge.
There is a vexed relation between freedom, individuality, and sovereignty that has a particular relevance for the arena being discussed here, as knowledge and education have a foothold both in processes of individuation and in processes of socialization. Hannah Arendt expressed this succinctly when she warned that
Politically, this identification of freedom with sovereignty is perhaps the most pernicious and dangerous consequence of the philosophical equation of freedom and free will. For it leads either to a denial of human freedom – namely, if it is realized that whatever men may be, they are never sovereign – or to the insight that the freedom of one man, or a group, or a body politic, can only be purchased at the price of the freedom, i. e. the sovereignty, of all others. Within the conceptual framework of traditional philosophy, it is indeed very difficult to understand how freedom and non-sovereignty can exist together or, to put it another way, how freedom could have been given to men under the conditions of non-sovereignty.¹
And in the final analysis it is my interest to get around both concepts, freedom and sovereignty, through the operations of “singularization.” Perhaps it is knowledge de-individuated, de-radicalized in the conventional sense of the radical as breach, and yet operating within the circuits of singularity – of “the new relational mode of the subject” – that is preoccupying me in this instance.
And so, the task at hand seems to me to be not one of liberation from confinement, but rather one of undoing the very possibilities of containment.
While an unbounded circulation of capital, goods, information, hegemonic alliances, populist fears, newly globalized uniform standards of excellence, and so forth, are some of the hallmarks of the late neoliberal phase of capitalism, we nevertheless can not simply equate every form of the unbounded and judge them all as equally insidious. “Free“ in relation to knowledge, it seems to me, has its power less in its expansion than in an ultimately centripetal movement, less in a process of penetrating and colonizing everywhere and everything in the relentless mode of capital, than in reaching unexpected entities and then drawing them back, mapping them onto the field of perception.

STRUGGLES
In spring and autumn of 2009 a series of prolonged strikes erupted across Austria and Germany, the two European countries whose indigenous education systems have been hardest hit by the reorganization of the Bologna Accord; smaller strikes also took place in France, Italy, and Belgium.² At the center of the students’ protests were the massive cuts in education budgets across the board and the revision of state budgets within the current economic climate, which made youth and the working class bear the burden of support for failing financial institutions.
The strikes were unified by common stands on three issues:
1. against fees for higher education
2. against the increasing limitation of access to selection in higher education
3. for re-democratization of the universities and re-inclusion of students in decision-making processes
Not only were these the largest and most organized strikes to have been held by school and university students since the 1980s, but they also included teachers, whose pay had been reduced and whose working hours had been extended, which, after considerable pressure from below, eventually moved the trade unions to take a position.
The concerns here were largely structural and procedural, and considering all that is at stake in these reorganizations of the education system, it is difficult to know what to privilege in our concern: the reformulation of institutions into regimented factories for packaged knowledge that can easily be placed within the marketplace; the processes of knowledge acquisition that are reduced to the management of formulaic outcomes that are comparable across cultures and contexts; “training“ replacing “speculating“; the dictation of such shifts from above and without any substantive consultation or debate. All of these are significant steps away from criticality in spaces of education and towards the goal that all knowledge have immediate, transparent, predictable, and pragmatic application.
The long, substantive lines that connect these struggles to their predecessors over the past forty years or so, and which constitute “education” as both an ongoing political platform and the heart of many radical artistic practices, are extremely well articulated in a conversation between Marion von Osten and Eva Egermann, in which von Osten says of her projects such as “reformpause”:
Firstly, I tried to create a space to pause, to hold on for a moment, to take a breath and to think – to think about what kinds of change might be possible; about how and what we might wish to learn; and why that which we wished to learn might be needed. I guess, in this way, both Manoa Free University and “reformpause” shared similar goals – not simply to critique the ongoing educational reforms and thereby legitimize established structures, but rather to actively engage in thinking about alternate concepts and possible change.
Secondly, there is a long history of student struggles and the question arises as to whether or not these are still relevant today and, if they are, how and why? The recent student struggles did not simply originate with the Bologna Declaration. The genealogy of various school and university protests and struggles over the past forty years demonstrates that we live in an era of educational reforms which, since the 1960s, have led to the construction of a new political subjectivity, the “knowledge worker.” This is not just a phenomenon of the new millennium; furthermore, many artistic practices from the 1960s and 1970s relate to this re-ordering of knowledge within Western societies. This is one of the many reasons why we so readily relate to these practices, as exemplified by conceptualism and the various ways in which conceptual artists engaged with contemporary changes in the concepts of information and communication.³
All of this identifies hugely problematic and very urgent issues, but we cannot lose sight of the status of actual knowledge formations within these. When knowledge is not geared towards “production,” it has the possibility of posing questions that combine the known and the imagined, the analytical and the experiential, and which keep stretching the terrain of knowledge so that it is always just beyond the border of what can be conceptualized.
These are questions in which the conditions of knowledge are always internal to the concepts it is entertaining, not as a context but as a limit to be tested. The entire critical epistemology developed by Foucault and by Derrida rested on questions that always contain a perception of their own impossibility, a consciousness of thinking as a process of unthinking something that is fully aware of its own status. The structural, the techniques, and the apparatuses, could never be separated from the critical interrogation of concepts. As Giorgio Agamben says of Foucault’s concept of the apparatus:
The proximity of this term to the theological dispositio, as well as to Foucault’s apparatuses, is evident. What is common to all these terms is that they refer back to this oikonomia, that is, to a set of practices, bodies of knowledge, measures, and institutions that aim to manage, govern, control, and orient – in a way that purports to be useful – the behaviors, gestures, and thoughts of human beings.⁴
So the struggle facing education is precisely that of separating thought from its structures, a struggle constantly informed by tensions between thought management and subjectification – the frictions by which we turn ourselves into subjects. As Foucault argued, this is the difference between the production of subjects in “power/knowledge” and those processes of self-formation in which the person is active. It would seem then that the struggle in education arises from tensions between conscious inscription into processes of self-formation and what Foucault, speaking of his concerns with scientific classification, articulated as the subsequent and necessary “insurrection of subjugated knowledges,” in which constant new voices appear claiming themselves not as “identities,” but as events within knowledge.⁵ The argument that Isabelle Stengers makes about her own political formation has convinced me that this is a productive direction to follow in trying to map out knowledge as struggle:
My own intellectual and political life has been marked by what I learned from the appearance of drugs users’ groups claiming that they were “citizens like everyone else,“ and fighting against laws that were officially meant to “protect“ them. The efficacy of this new collective voice, relegating to the past what had been the authorized, consensual expertise legitimating the “war on drugs,“ convinced me that such events were “political events“ par excellence, producing – as, I discovered afterwards, Dewey had already emphasized – both new political struggle and new important knowledge. I even proposed that what we call democracy could be evaluated by its relation to those disrupting collective productions. A “true“ democracy would demand the acceptance of the ongoing challenge of such disruptions – would not only accept them but also acknowledge those events as something it depended upon.⁶
Knowledge as disruption, knowledge as counter-subjugation, knowledge as constant exhortation to its own, often uncomfortable implications, are at the heart of “struggle.” The battle over education as we are experiencing it now does not find its origin in the desire to suppress these but rather in efforts to regulate them so that they work in tandem with the economies of cognitive capitalism.

ECONOMIES
The economies of the world of knowledge have shifted quite dramatically over the past ten to fifteen years. What had been a fairly simple subsidy model, with states covering the basic expenses of teaching, subsidizing home schooling on a per capita basis (along with private entities incorporated in “not -for-profit” structures); research councils and foundations covering the support of research in the humanities and pure sciences; and industry supporting applied research, has changed quite dramatically, as have the traditional outlets for such knowledge: scholarly journals and books, exhibitions, science-based industry, the military, and public services such as agriculture and food production. Knowledge, at present, is not only enjoined to be “transferable” (to move easily between paradigms so that its potential impact will be transparent from the outset) and to invent new and ever expanding outlets for itself, it must also contend with the prevalent belief that it should be obliged not only to seek out alternative sources of funding but actually to produce these. By producing the need for a particular type of knowledge one is also setting up the means of its excavation or invention – this is therefore a “need-based” culture of knowledge that produces the support and the market through itself.
So, when I speak of a “free” academy, the question has to be posed: if it is to meet all the above requirements, namely, that it not be fee-charging, not produce applied research, not function within given fields of expertise, and not consider itself in terms of applied “outcomes,” how would it be funded?
In terms of the internet, the economic model of “free“ that has emerged over the past decade initially seemed to be an intensification or a contemporary perpetuation of what had been called by economists, the “cross-subsidy“ model: you’d get one thing free if you bought another, or you’d get a product free only if you paid for a service. This primary model was then expanded by the possibilities of ever increasing access to the internet, married to constantly lowered costs in the realm of digital technologies.
A second trend is simply that anything that touches digital networks quickly feels the effect of falling costs. And so it goes, too, for everything from banking to gambling, check it out! The moment a company’s primary expenses become things based in silicon, free becomes not just an option but also the inevitable destination.⁷ The cost of actually circulating something within these economies becomes lower and lower, until cost is no longer the primary index of its value.
A third aspect of this emergent economic model is perhaps the one most relevant to this discussion of education. Here the emphasis is on a shift from an exclusive focus on buyers and sellers, producers and consumers, to a tripartite model, in which the third element that enters does so based on its interest in the exchange taking place between the first two elements – an interest to which it contributes financially. In the traditional media model, a publisher provides a product free (or nearly free) to consumers, and advertisers pay to ride along. Radio is “free to air,” and so is much of television. Likewise, newspaper and magazine publishers don’t charge readers anything close to the actual cost of creating, printing, and distributing their products. They’re not selling papers and magazines to readers, they’re selling readers to advertisers. It’s a three-way market.
In a sense, what the Web represents is the extension of the media business model to industries of all sorts. This is not simply the notion that advertising will pay for everything. There are dozens of ways that media companies make money around free content, from selling information about consumers to brand licensing, “value-added“ subscriptions, and direct e-commerce. Now an entire ecosystem of Web companies is growing up around the same set of models.⁸
The question is whether this model of a “free” economy is relevant to my proposal for a free “academy,” given that in an economic model the actual thing in circulation is not subject to much attention except as it appeals to a large public and their ostensible needs. Does this model have any potential for criticality or for an exchange that goes beyond consumption? Novelist, activist, and technology commentator Cory Doctorow claims that there’s a pretty strong case to be made that “free” has some inherent antipathy to capitalism. That is, information that can be freely reproduced at no marginal cost may not want, need or benefit from markets as a way of organizing them. . . . Indeed, there’s something eerily Marxist in this phenomenon, in that it mirrors Marx’s prediction of capitalism’s ability to create a surplus of capacity that can subsequently be freely shared without market forces’ brutality.⁹
The appealing part of the economy of “free” for debates about education is its unpredictability in throwing up new spheres of interest and new congregations around them. It has some small potential for shifting the present fixation on the direct relation between fees, training, applied research, organization-as-management, predictable outputs and outcomes, and the immediate consumption of knowledge. This however seems a very narrow notion of criticality as it is limited to the production of a surplus within knowledge and fails to take on the problems of subjectification. And it is the agency of subjectification and its contradictory multiplicity that is at the heart of a preoccupation with knowledge in education, giving it its traction as it were, what Foucault called “the lived multiplicity of positionings.” The internet-based model of “free” does break the direct relation between buyers and sellers, which in the current climate of debates about education, in the context of what Nick Dyer-Witheford has called “Academia Inc.,” is certainly welcome. But it does not expand the trajectory of participation substantively, merely reducing the act of taking part in this economy of use and exchange. The need to think of a “market” for the disruption of paradigms emerges as an exercise in futility and as politically debilitating. To think again with Agamben:
Contemporary societies therefore present themselves as inert bodies going through massive processes of desubjectification without acknowledging any real subjectification. Hence the eclipse of politics, which used to presuppose the existence of subjects and real identities (the workers’ movement, the bourgeoisie, etc.), and the triumph of the oikonomia, that is to say, of a pure activity of government that aims at nothing other than its own replication.¹⁰
What then would be the sites of conscious subjectification within this amalgam of education and creative practices?

SITES
Over the past two decades we have seen a proliferation of self-organized structures that take the form, with regard to both their investigations and effects, of sites of learning.¹¹ These have, more than any other initiative, collapsed the divisions between sites of formal academic education and those of creative practice, display, performance, and activism. In these spaces the previously clear boundaries between universities, academies, museums, galleries, performance spaces, NGOs, and political organizations, lost much of their visibility and efficaciousness. Of course, virtually every European city still has at least one if not several vast “entertainment machine” institutions, traditional museums that see their task as one of inviting the populace to partake of “art” in the most conventional sense and perceive “research” to be largely about themselves (to consist, that is, in the seemingly endless conferences that are held each year on “the changing role of the museum”). These institutions however no longer define the parameters of the field and serve more as indices of consumption, market proximities, and scholastic inertia.
What does knowledge do when it circulates in other sites such as the art world?
As Eva Egermann says:
Of course, the art field was seen as a place in which things could happen, a field of potential, a space of exchange between different models and concepts and, in the sense of learning and unlearning, a field of agency and transfer between different social and political fields and between different positions and subjectivities. In a way, the exhibition functioned as a pretext, a defined place for communication and action that would perhaps establish impulses for further transformations. So, the project functioned as an expanded field of practice from which to organize and network between many different groups, but also to question and experiment with methods of representation and distribution for collective artistic research. We wanted to disseminate our research for collective usage through various means, such as the study circle itself, a wiki, publications and readers and through the model of a free university.¹²
More than any other sphere, the spaces of contemporary art that open themselves to this kind of alternative activity of learning and knowledge production, and see in it not an occasional indulgence but their actual daily business, have become the sites of some of the most important redefinitions of knowledge that circulate today.
As sites, they have marked the shift from “Ivory Towers” of knowledge to spaces of interlocution, with in between a short phase as “laboratories.” As a dialogical practice based on questioning, on agitating the edges of paradigms and on raising external points of view, interlocution takes knowledge back to a Socratic method but invests its operations with acknowledged stakes and interests, rather than being a set of formal proceedings. It gives a performative dimension to the belief argued earlier through the work of Foucault and Derrida, that knowledge always has at its edges the active process of its own limits and its own invalidation.
In setting up knowledge production within the spaces and sites of art, one also takes up a set of permissions that are on offer. Recognizing who is posing questions, where they are speaking from, and from where they know what they know, becomes central rather than, as is typical, marginal qualifications often relegated to footnotes. Permission is equally granted to start in the middle without having to rehearse the telos of an argument; to start from “right here and right now” and embed issues in a variety of contexts, expanding their urgency; to bring to these arguments a host of validations, interventions, asides, and exemplifications that are not recognized as directly related or as sustaining provable knowledge. And, perhaps most importantly, “the curatorial,” not as a profession but as an organizing and assembling impulse, opens up a set of possibilities, mediations perhaps, to formulate subjects that may not be part of an agreed-upon canon of “subjects” worthy of investigation. So knowledge in the art world, through a set of permissions that do not recognize the academic conventions for how one arrives at a subject, can serve both the purposes of reframing and producing subjects in the world.
Finally, I would argue that knowledge in the art world has allowed us to come to terms with partiality – with the fact that our field of knowing is always partially comprehensible, the problems that populate it are partially visible, and our arguments are only partially inhabiting a recognizable logic. Under no illusions as to its comprehensiveness, knowledge as it is built up within the spaces of art makes relatively modest claims for plotting out the entirety of a problematic, accepting instead that it is entering in the middle and illuminating some limited aspects, all the while making clear its drives in doing so.¹³
And it is here, in these spaces, that one can ground the earlier argument that the task at hand in thinking through “free“ is not one of liberation from confinement, but rather one of undoing the very possibilities of containment. It is necessary to understand that containment is not censure but rather half acknowledges acts of framing and territorializing.

VECTORS
In conjunction with the sites described above it is also direction and circulation that help in opening up “knowledge” to new perceptions of its mobility.
How can we think of “education” as circulations of knowledge and not as the top-down or down-up dynamics in which there is always a given, dominant direction for the movement of knowledge? The direction of the knowledge determines its mode of dissemination: if it is highly elevated and canonized then it is structured in a particular, hierarchical way, involving original texts and commentaries on them; if it is experiential then it takes the form of narrative and description in a more lateral form; and if it is empirical then the production of data categories, vertical and horizontal, would dominate its argument structures even when it is speculating on the very experience of excavating and structuring that knowledge.¹⁴
While thinking about this essay I happened to hear a segment of a radio program called The Bottom Line, a weekly BBC program about business entrepreneurs I had never encountered before. In it a businessman was talking about his training; Geoff Quinn the chief executive of clothing manufacturer T. M. Lewin said he had not had much education and went into clothing retailing at the age of sixteen, “but then I discovered the stock room – putting things in boxes, making lists, ordering the totality of the operation.”¹⁵ He spoke of the stockroom, with a certain sense of wonder, as the site in which everything came together, where the bits connected and made sense, less a repository than a launch pad for a sartorial world of possibilities. The idea that the “stockroom” could be an epiphany, could be someone’s education, was intriguing and I tried to think it out a bit … part Foucauldian notion of scientific classification and part Simondon’s pragmatic transductive thought about operations rather than meanings – the “stockroom” is clearly a perspective, an early recognition of the systemic and the interconnected, and a place from which to see the “big picture.” While the “stockroom” may be a rich and pleasing metaphor, it is also a vector, along which a huge range of manufacturing technologies, marketing strategies, and advertising campaigns meet up with labor histories and those of raw materials, with print technologies and internet disseminations, with the fantasmatic investments in clothes and their potential to renew us.
Therefore what if “education” – the complex means by which knowledges are disseminated and shared – could be thought of as a vector, as a quantity (force or velocity, for example), made up of both direction and magnitude? A powerful horizontality that looks at the sites of education as convergences of drives to knowledge that are in themselves knowledge? Not in the sense of formally inherited, archived, and transmitted knowledges but in the sense that ambition “knows” and curiosity “knows” and poverty “knows” – they are modes of knowing the world and their inclusion or their recognition as events of knowledge within the sites of education make up not the context of what goes on in the classroom or in the space of cultural gathering, but the content.
Keller Easterling in her exceptionally interesting book Enduring Innocence builds on Arjun Appadurai’s notion of “imagined worlds” as “the multiple worlds that are constituted by the historically situated imaginations of persons and groups spread around the globe … these mixtures create variegated scapes described as “mediascapes and “ethnoscapes.” Which, says Easterling, by “naturalizing the migration and negotiation of traveling cultural forms allows these thinkers [such as Appadurai] to avoid impossible constructs about an authentic locality.”¹⁶ From Easterling’s work I have learned to understand such sites as located forms of “intelligence” – both information and stealth formation. To recognize the operations of “the network” in relation to structures of knowledge in which no linearity could exist and the direct relation between who is in the spaces of learning, the places to which they are connected, the technologies that close the gaps in those distances, the unexpected and unpredictable points of entry that they might have, the fantasy projections that might have brought them there – all agglomerate as sites of knowledge.
We might be able to look at these sites and spaces of education as ones in which long lines of mobility, curiosity, epistemic hegemony, colonial heritages, urban fantasies, projections of phantom professionalization, new technologies of both formal access and less formal communication, a mutual sharing of information, and modes of knowledge organization, all come together in a heady mix – that is the field of knowledge and from it we would need to go outwards to combine all of these as actual sites of knowledge and produce a vector.
Having tried to deconstruct as many discursive aspects of what “free” might mean in relation to knowledge, in relation to my hoped-for-academy, I think that what has come about is the understanding of “free” in a non-liberationist vein, away from the binaries of confinement and liberty, rather as the force and velocity by which knowledge and our imbrication in it, move along. That its comings-together are our comings-together and not points in a curriculum, rather along the lines of the operations of “singularity” that enact the relation of “the human to a specifiable horizon” through which meaning is derived, as Jean-Luc Nancy says.¹⁷ Singularity provides us with another model of thinking relationality, not as external but as loyal to a logic of its own self-organization. Self-organization links outwardly not as identity, interest, or affiliation, but as a mode of coexistence in space. To think “knowledge” as the working of singularity is actually to decouple it from the operational demands put on it, to open it up to processes of multiplication and of links to alternate and unexpected entities, to animate it through something other than critique or defiance – perhaps as “free.”

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien zuerst in: e-flux Journal, Education Actualized, #14, 03/2010 unter: http://www.e-flux.com/journal/free/ [07.06.2013].

1.) Hannah Arendt, “What is Freedom?” Chapter VI “Revolution and Preservation” in The Portable Hannah Arendt, (ed. Peter R. Baehr) (Penguin, London:, Penguin, 2000), 455.
2.) See Dietrich Lemke’s “Mourning Bologna” in this issue, http://e-flux.com/journal/view/123.
3.) Marion von Osten and Eva Egermann, “Twist and Shout,” in Curating and the Educational Turn: 2, eds. Paul O’Neill and Mick Wilson (London: Open Editions; Amsterdam: de Appel, forthcoming).
4.) Giorgio Agamben, “What is an Apparatus?” in What is an Apparatus? and Other Essays, eds. and trans. David Kishik and Stefan Pedatella (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009), 12.
5.) Michel Foucault, “Two Lectures,” in Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977, ed. Colin Gordon, trans. Colin Gordon, Leo Marshall, John Mepham, and Kate Soper (London: Harvester, 1980), 81.
6.) Isabelle Stengers, “Experimenting with Refrains: Subjectivity and the Challenge of Escaping Modern Dualism,” in Subjectivity 22 (2008): 38–59.
7.) This is Chris Anderson’s argument in Free: The Future of a Radical Price (New York: Random House, 2009).
8.) See http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-03/ff_free.
9.) See Cory Doctorow, “Chris Anderson‘s Free adds much to The Long Tail, but falls short, “ Guardian (July 28, 2009), http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jul/28/cory-doctorow-free-chris-anderson.
10.) Agamben, “What is an Apparatus?” 22.
11.) See for example: Copenhagen Free University, http://www.copenhagenfreeuniversity.dk/freeutv.html Universidad Nómada, http://www.sindominio.net/unomada/ Facoltà di Fuga, http://www.rekombinant.org/fuga/index.php
The Independent Art School, http://www.independent-art-school.org.uk/ Informal Universityin Foundation, http://www.jackie-inhalt.net/
Mobilized Investigation, http://manifestor.org/mi
Minciu Sodas, http://www.ms.lt/ , including http://www.cyfranogi.com/, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/backtotheroot/, http://www.onevillage.biz/
Pirate University, http://www.pirate-university.org/
Autonomous University of Lancaster, http://www.knowledgelab.org
Das Solidarische Netzwerk für offene Bildung (s.n.o.b.), Marburg (Germany), http://deu.anarchopedia.org/snob
The Free/Slow University of Warsaw, http://www.wuw2009.pl/
The University of Openness, http://p2pfoundation.net/University_of_Openness
Manoa Free University, http://www.manoafreeuniversity.org/
L’université Tangente, http://utangente.free.fr/
12.) Von Osten and Egermann, “Twist and Shout.”
13.) See Irit Rogoff, “Smuggling – An Embodied Criticality, “ available on the website of the European Institute for Progressive Cultural Policies,
http://eipcp.net/dlfiles/rogoff-smuggling.
14.) See Lisa Adkins and Celia Lury, “What is the Empirical?” European Journal of Social Theory 12, no. 1 (February 2009): 5–20.
15.) Geoff Quinn, interview by Evan Davis, The Bottom Line, BBC, February 18, 2010, available online at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qps85#synopsis
16.) Keller Easterling, Enduring Innocence: Global Architecture and its Masquerades (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2005), 3.
17.) Jean-Luc Nancy, Being Singular Plural (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), xi.

ART STRIKE 1977-1980

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:42 +0000

Artists engaged in political struggle act in two key areas: the use of their art for direct social change; and actions to change the structures of the art world. It needs to be understood that this activity is necessarily of a reformist, rather than revolutionary, character. Indeed this political activity often serves to consolidate the existing order, in the West, and in the East.
The use of art for social change is bedevilled by the close integration of art and society. The state supports art, it needs art as a cosmetic cloak to its horrifying reality, and uses art to confuse, divert and entertain large numbers of people. Even when deployed against the interests of the state, art cannot cut loose the umbilical cord of the state. Art in the service of revolution is unsatisfactory and mistrusted because of the numerous links of art with the state and capitalism. Despite these problems, artists will go on using art to change society.
Throughout the century, artists have attacked the prevailing methods of production, distribution and consumption of art. These attacks on the organisation of the art world have gained momentum in recent years. This struggle, aimed at the destruction of existing commercial and public marketing and patronage systems, can be brought to a successful conclusion in the course of the present decade.
The refusal to labour is the chief weapon of workers fighting the system; artists can use the same weapon. To bring down the art system it is necessary to call for years without art, a period of three years – 1977 to 1980 – when artists will not produce work, sell work, permit work to go on exhibitions, and refuse collaboration with any part of the publicity machinery of the art world. This total withdrawal of labor is the most extreme collective challenge that artists can make to the state. The years without art will see the collapse of many private galleries. Museums and cultural institutions handling contemporary art will be severely hit, suffer loss of funds, and will have to reduce their staff. National and local government institutions will be in serious trouble. Art magazines will fold. The international ramifications of the dealer/museum/publicity complex make for vulnerability; it is a system that is keyed to a continuous juggling of artists, finance, works and information – damage one part, and the effect is felt world-wide.
Three years is the minimum period required to cripple the system, whilst a longer period of time would create difficulties for artists. The very small number of artists who live from the practice of art are sufficiently wealthy to live on their capital for three years. The vast majority of people who produce art have to subsidise their work by other means; they will, in fact, be saving money and time. Most people who practice art never sell their work at a profit, do not get the chance to exhibit their work under proper conditions, and are unmentioned by the publicity organs. Some artist may find it difficult to restrain themselves from producing art. These artist will be invited to enter camps, where making of art works is forbidden, and where any work produced is destroyed at regular intervals. In place of the practice of art, people can spend time on the numerous historical, esthetic and social issues facing art. It will be necessary to construct more equitable forms for marketing, exhibiting and publicising art in the future. As the twentieth century has progressed, capitalism has smothered art – the deep surgery of the years without art will give it a new chance.

WiederabdruckDer Text erschien online unter: http://www.thing.de/projekte/7:9%23/y_Metzger+s_Art_Strike.html [8.9.2013].

Bodies in Alliance and the Politics of the Street

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:38 +0000

In the last months there have been, time and again, mass demonstrations on the street, in the square, and though these are very often motivated by different political purposes, something similar happens: bodies congregate, they move and speak together, and they lay claim to a certain space as public space. Now, it would be easier to say that these demonstrations or, indeed, these movements, are characterized by bodies that come together to make a claim in public space, but that formulation presumes that public space is given, that it is already public and recognized as such. We miss something of the point of public demonstrations if we fail to see that the very public character of the space is being disputed, and even fought over, when these crowds gather. So though these movements have depended on the prior existence of pavement, street, and square and have often enough gathered in squares, such as Tahrir, whose political history is potent, it is equally true that the collective actions collect the space itself, gather the pavement, and animate and organize the architecture. As much as we must insist on there being material conditions for public assembly and public speech, we have also to ask how it is that assembly and speech reconfigure the materiality of public space and produce, or reproduce, the public character of that material environment. And when crowds move outside the square, to the side street or the back alley, to the neighborhoods where streets are not yet paved, then something more happens.
At such a moment, politics is not defined as taking place exclusively in the public sphere distinct from a private one, but it crosses that line again and again, bringing attention to the way that politics is already in the home, or on the street, or in the neighborhood, or indeed in those virtual spaces that are equally unbound by the architecture of the house and the square. So when we think about what it means to assemble in a crowd, a growing crowd, and what it means to move through public space in a way that contests the distinction between public and private, we see some ways that bodies in their plurality lay claim to the public, find and produce the public through seizing and reconfiguring the matter of material environments; at the same time, those material environments are part of the action, and they themselves act when they become the support for action. In the same way, when trucks or tanks are rendered inoperative and suddenly speakers climb on them to address the crowd, the military instrument itself becomes a support or platform for a nonmilitary resistance, if not a resistance to the military itself; at such moments, the material environment is actively reconfigured and refunctioned, to use the Brechtian term. And our ideas of action then need to be rethought.
In the first instance, no one mobilizes a claim to move and assemble freely without moving and assembling together with others. In the second instance, the square and the street are not only the material supports for action, but they themselves are part of any account of bodily public action we might propose. Human
action depends upon all sorts of supports – it is always supported action. We know from disability studies that the capacity to move depends upon instruments and surfaces that make movement possible and that bodily movement is supported and facilitated by nonhuman objects and their particular capacity for agency. In the case of public assemblies, we see quite clearly the struggle over what will be public space, but also an equally fundamental struggle over how bodies will be supported in the world – a struggle for employment and education, equitable food distribution, livable shelter, and freedom of movement and expression, to name a few.
Of course, this produces a quandary. We cannot act without supports, and yet we must struggle for the supports that allow us to act or, indeed, that are essential components of our action. It was the Roman idea of the public square that formed the background for Hannah Arendt’s understanding of the rights of assembly and free speech, of action and the exercise of rights. Hannah Arendt surely had both the classical Greek polis and the Roman Forum in mind when she claimed that all political action requires the “space of appearance.” She writes, for instance, “the polis, properly speaking, is not the city-state in its physical location; it is the organization of the people as it arises out of acting and speaking together, and its true space lies between people living together for this purpose, no matter where they happen to be.” The “true” space then lies “between the people” which means that as much as any action takes place in a located somewhere, it also establishes a space which belongs properly to alliance itself. For Arendt, this alliance is not tied to its location. In fact, alliance brings about its own location, highly transposable. She writes: “action and speech create a space between the participants which can find its proper location almost anywhere and anytime.”¹
So how do we understand this highly if not infinitely transposable notion of political space? Whereas Arendt maintains that politics requires the space of appearance, she also claims that space brings politics about: “it is the space of appearance in the widest sense of the word, namely, the space where I appear to others as others appear to me, where men (sic) exist not merely like other living or inanimate things but make their appearance explicitly.”² Something of what she says here is clearly true. Space and location are created through plural action. And yet, in her view, action, in its freedom and its power, has the exclusive capacity to create location. Such a view forgets or refuses that action is always supported and that it is invariably bodily, even, as I will argue, in its virtual forms. The material supports for action are not only part of action, but they are also what is being fought about, especially in those cases when the political struggle is about food, employment, mobility, and access to institutions. To rethink the space of appearance in order to understand the power and effect of public demonstrations for our time, we will need to consider more closely the bodily dimensions of action, what the body requires, and what the body can do,³ especially when we must think about bodies together in a historical space that undergoes a historical transformation by virtue of their collective action: What holds them together there, and what are their conditions of persistence and of power in relation to their precarity and exposure?
I would like to think about this itinerary by which we travel from the space of appearance to the contemporary politics of the street. Even as I say this, I cannot hope to gather together all the forms of demonstration we have seen, some of which are episodic, some of which are part of ongoing and recurrent social and political movements, and some of which are revolutionary. I hope to think about what might gather together these gatherings, these public demonstrations. During the winter of 2011, they included demonstrations against tyrannical regimes in North Africa and the Middle East, but also against the escalating precaritization of working peoples in Europe and in the Southern Hemisphere, the struggles for public education throughout the United States and Europe, and, most recently, in Chile, and struggles to make the street safe for women and for gender and sexual minorities, including trans people, whose public appearance is too often punishable by legal and illegal violence. In public assemblies by trans and queer people, the claim is often made that the streets must be made safe from the police who are complicit in criminality, especially on those occasions when the police support criminal regimes or when, for instance, the police commit the very crimes against sexual and gender minorities that they were supposed to prevent. Demonstrations are one of the few ways that police power is overcome, especially when those assemblies become at once too large and too mobile, too condensed and too diffuse, to be contained by police power and when they have the resources to regenerate themselves on the spot.
Perhaps these are anarchist moments or anarchist passages, when the legitimacy of a regime or its laws is called into question, but when no new legal regimen has yet arrived to take its place. This time of the interval is one in which the assembled bodies articulate a new time and space for the popular will, not a single identical will, not a unitary will, but one that is characterized as an alliance of distinct and adjacent bodies whose action and whose inaction demands a different future. Together they exercise the performative power to lay claim to the public in a way that is not yet codified into law and that can never be fully codified into law. And this performativity is not only speech, but the demands of bodily action, gesture, movement, congregation, persistence, and exposure to possible violence. How do we understand this acting together that opens up time and space outside and against the established architecture and temporality of the regime, one that lays claim to materiality, leans into its supports, draws from its material and technical dimensions to rework their functions? Such actions reconfigure what will be public and what will be the space of politics.
I push against Hannah Arendt even as I draw upon her resources to clarify my own position. Her work supports my action here, but I also refuse it in some ways. Arendt’s view is confounded by its own gender politics, relying as it does on a distinction between the public and private domains that leaves the sphere of politics to men and reproductive labor to women. If there is a body in the public sphere, it is presumptively masculine and unsupported, presumptively free to create, but not itself created. And the body in the private sphere is female, ageing, foreign, or childish, and always prepolitical. Although she was, as we know from the important work of Adriana Cavarero, a philosopher of natality, Arendt understood this capacity to bring something into being as a function of political speech and action. Indeed, when male citizens enter into the public square to debate questions of justice, revenge, war, and emancipation, they take the illuminated public square for granted as the architecturally bounded theatre of their speech. And their speech becomes the paradigmatic form of action, physically cut off from the private do-micile, itself shrouded in darkness and reproduced through activities that are not quite action in the proper and public senses. Men make the passage from that private darkness to that public light and, once illuminated, they speak, and their speech interrogates the principles of justice it articulates, becoming itself a form of critical inquiry and democratic participation. For Arendt, rethinking this classical scene within political modernity, speech is understood as the bodily and linguistic exercise of rights. Bodily and linguistic – how are we to reconceive these terms and their intertwining here against and beyond that presumption of a gendered division of labor?
For Arendt, political action takes place on the condition that the body appear. I appear to others, and they appear to me, which means that some space between us allows each to appear. One might expect that we appear within a space or that we are supported by a material organization of space. But that is not her argument. The sphere of appearance is not simple, since it seems to arise only on the condition of a certain intersubjective facing off. We are not simply visual phenomena for each other – our voices must be registered, and so we must be heard; rather, who we are, bodily, is already a way of being “for” the other, appearing in ways that we can neither see nor hear; that is, we are made available, bodily, for another whose perspective we can neither fully anticipate nor control. In this way, I am, as a body, not only for myself, not even primarily for myself, but find myself, if I find myself at all, constituted and dispossessed by the perspective of others. So, for political action, I must appear to others in ways I cannot know, and in this way, my body is established by perspectives that I cannot inhabit, but that, surely, inhabit me. This is an important point because it is not the case that the body only establishes my own perspective; it is also what displaces that perspective and makes that displacement into a necessity. This happens most clearly when we think about bodies that act together. No one body establishes the space of appearance, but this action, this performative exercise, happens only “between” bodies, in a space that constitutes the gap between my own body and another’s. In this way, my body does not act alone when it acts politically. Indeed, the action emerges from the “between.”
It is both problematic and interesting that, for Arendt, the space of appearance is not only an architectural given: “the space of appearance comes into being,” she writes, “wherever men are together in the manner of speech and action, and therefore predates and precedes all formal constitution of the public realm and the various forms of government, that is, the various forms in which the public realm may be organized.”⁴ In other words, this space of appearance is not a location that can be separated from the plural action that brings it about; it is not there outside of the action that invokes and constitutes it. And yet, if we are to accept this view, we have to understand how the plurality that acts is itself constituted. How does a plurality form, and what material supports are necessary for that formation? Who enters this plurality, and who does not, and how are such matters decided?
How do we describe the action and the status of those beings disaggregated from the plural? What political language do we have in reserve for describing that exclusion and the forms of resistance that crack open the sphere of appearance as it is currently delimited? Are those who live on the outside of the sphere of appearance the deanimated “givens” of political life? Are they mere life or bare life? Are we to say that those who are excluded are simply unreal, disappeared, or that they have no being at all – shall they be cast off, theoretically, as the socially dead and the merely spectral? If we do that, we not only adopt the position of a particular regime of appearance, but ratify that perspective, even if our wish is to call it into question. Do such formulations describe a state of having been made destitute by -existing political arrangements, or is that destitution unwittingly ratified by a theory that adopts the perspective of those who regulate and police the sphere of appearance itself?
At stake is the question of whether the destitute are outside of politics and power or are they in fact living out a specific form of political destitution along with specific forms of political agency and resistance that expose the policing of the boundaries of the sphere of appearance itself. If we claim that the destitute are outside of the sphere of politics – reduced to depoliticized forms of being – then we implicitly accept as right the dominant ways of establishing the limits of the political. In some ways, this follows from the Arendtian position that adopts the internal point of view of the Greek polis on what politics should be, who should gain entry into the public square, and who should remain in the private. Such a view disregards and devalues those forms of political agency that emerge precisely in those domains deemed prepolitical or extrapolitical and that break into the sphere of appearance as from the outside, as its outside, confounding the distinction between inside and outside. For in revolutionary or insurrectionary moments, we are no longer sure what is the space of politics, just as we are often unsure about exactly in what time we are living, since the established regimes of both space and time are upended in ways that expose their violence and their contingent limits. We see this when undocumented workers gather in the city of Los Angeles to claim their rights of assembly and of citizenship without being citizens, without having any legal right to do so. Their labor is supposed to remain necessary and shrouded from the view, and so when these laboring bodies emerge on the street, act like citizens, they make a mimetic claim to citizenship that alters not only how they appear, but how the sphere of appearance works. Indeed, the sphere of appearance is both mobilized and disabled when an exploited and laboring class emerges on the street to announce itself and express its opposition to being the unseen condition of what appears as political.
The impetus for Giorgio Agamben’s notion of “bare life“ derives from this very conception of the polis in Arendt’s political philosophy and, I would suggest, runs the risk of this very problem: if we seek to take account of exclusion itself as a political problem, as part of politics it-self, then it will not do to say that once excluded, those beings lack appearance or “reality“ in political terms, that they have no social or political standing or are cast out and reduced to mere being (forms of givenness precluded from the sphere of action). Nothing so metaphysically extravagant has to happen if we agree that one reason the sphere of the political cannot be defined by the classic conception of the polis is that we are then deprived of having and using a language for those forms of agency and resistance that focus on the politics of exclusion itself or, indeed, that operate against those regimes of power that maintain the stateless and disenfranchised in conditions of destitution. Few matters could be more politically consequential.
Although Agamben borrows from Foucault to articulate a conception of the biopolitical, the thesis of “bare life” remains untouched by that conception. As a result, we cannot within that vocabulary describe the modes of agency and action undertaken by the stateless, the occupied, and the disenfranchised, since even the life stripped of rights is still within the sphere of the political and is thus not reduced to mere being, but is, more often than not, angered, indignant, rising up and resisting. To be outside established and legitimate political structures is still to be saturated in power relations, and this saturation is the point of departure for a theory of the political that includes dominant and subjugated forms, modes of inclusion and legitimation as well as modes of delegitimation and effacement.
Luckily, I think Arendt did not consistently follow this model from The Human Condition, which is why, for instance, in the early 1960s, she turned her attention to the fate of refugees and the stateless, and came to assert in that context the right to have rights. The right to have rights is one that depends on no existing particular political organization for its legitimacy. Like the space of appearance, the right to have rights predates and precedes any political institution that might codify or seek to guarantee that right; at the same time, it is derived from no natural set of laws. The right comes into being when it is exercised, and exercised by those who act in concert, in alliance. Those who are excluded from existing polities, who belong to no nation-state or other contemporary state formation, may be deemed “unreal“ only by those who seek to monopolize the terms of reality. And yet even after the public sphere has been defined through their exclusion, they act. Whether they are abandoned to precarity or left to die through systematic negligence, concerted action still emerges from their acting together. And this is what we see, for instance, when undocumented workers amass on the street without the legal right to do so, when squatters lay claim to buildings in Argentina as a way of exercising the right to livable shelter, when populations lay claim to a public square that has belonged to the military, or when the refugees take part in collective uprisings demanding shelter, food, and rights of sanctuary, when populations amass, without the protection of the law and without permits to demonstrate, to bring down an unjust or criminal regime of law or to protest austerity measures that destroy the possibility of employment and education for many. Or when those whose public appearance is itself criminal, transgendered people in Turkey or women who wear the niqa-b in France, appear in order to contest that criminal status and assert the right to appear.
Indeed, in the public demonstrations that often follow from acts of public mourning, as in Syria in recent months, where crowds of mourners became targets of military destruction, we can see how the existing public space is seized by those who have no existing right to gather there, who emerge from zones of disappearance to become bodies exposed to violence and death in the course of gathering and persisting publically as they do. Indeed, it is their right to gather free of intimidation and the threat of violence that is systematically attacked by the police, the army, hired gangs, or mercenaries. To attack those bodies is to attack the right itself, since when those bodies appear and act, they are exercising a right outside, against, and in the face of the regime.
Although the bodies on the street are vocalizing their opposition to the legitimacy of the state, they are also, by virtue of occupying and persisting in that space with-out protection, posing their challenge in corporeal terms, which means that when the body “speaks“ politically, it is not only in vocal or written language. The persistence of the body in its exposure calls that legitimacy into question and does so precisely through a performativity of the body. Both action and gesture signify and speak, both as action and claim; the one is not finally extricable from the other. Where the legitimacy of the state is brought into question precisely by that way of appearing in public, the body itself exercises a right that is no right; in other words, it exercises a right that is being actively contested and destroyed by military force and that, in its resistance to force, articulates its way of living, showing both its precarity and its way to persist. This right is codified nowhere. It is not granted from elsewhere or by existing law, even if it sometimes finds support precisely there. It is, in fact, the right to have rights, not as natural law or metaphysical stipulation, but as the persistence of the body against those forces that seek its debilitation or eradication. This persistence that requires breaking into the established regime of space with a set of material supports both mobilized and mobilizing.
Just to be clear: I am not referring to a vitalism or a right to life as such. Rather, I am suggesting that political claims are made by bodies as they appear and act, as they refuse and as they persist under conditions in which that fact alone is taken to be an act of delegitimation of the state. It is not that bodies are simply mute life forces that counter existing modalities of power. Rather, they are themselves modalities of power, embodied interpretations, engaging in allied action. On the one hand, these bodies are productive and performative. On the other hand, they can persist and act only when they are supported, by environments, by nutrition, by work, by modes of sociality and belonging. And when these supports fall away and precarity is exposed, they are mobilized in another way, seizing upon the supports that exist in order to make a claim that there can be no embodied life without social and institutional support, without ongoing employment, without networks of interdependency and care, collective rights to shelter and mobility. Not only do they struggle for the idea of social support and political enfranchisement, but their struggle is its own social form. And so, in the most ideal instances, an alliance begins to enact the social order it seeks to bring about by establishing its own modes of sociability. And yet that alliance is not reducible to a collection of individuals, and it is, strictly speaking, not individuals who act. Moreover, action in alliance happens precisely between those who participate, and this is not an ideal or empty space. That interval is the space of sociality and of support, of being constituted in a sociality that is never reducible to one’s own perspective and to being dependent on structures without which there is no durable and livable life.
Many of the massive demonstrations and modes of resistance we have seen in the last months not only produce a space of appearance, they seize upon an already established space permeated by existing power, seeking to sever the relations between the public space, the public square, and the existing regime. So the limits of the political are exposed and the link between the theatre of legitimacy and public space is severed; that theatre is no longer unproblematically housed in public space, since public space now occurs in the midst of another action, one that displaces the power that claims legitimacy precisely by taking over the field of its effects. Simply put, the bodies on the street redeploy the space of appearance in order to contest and negate the existing forms of political legitimacy – and just as they sometimes fill or take over public space, the material history of those structures also works on them, becoming part of their very action, remaking a history in the midst of its most concrete and sedimented artifices. These are subjugated and empowered actors who seek to wrest legitimacy from an existing state apparatus that depends upon the regulation of the public space of appearance for its theatrical self-constitution. In wresting that power, a new space is created, a new “between” of bodies, as it were, that lays claim to existing space through the action of a new alliance, and those bodies are seized and animated by those existing spaces in the very acts by which they reclaim and resignify their meanings.
Such a struggle intervenes in the spatial organization of power, which includes the allocation and restriction of spatial locations in which and by which any population may appear, which implies a spatial regulation of when and how the “popular will” may appear. This view of the spatial restriction and allocation of who may appear – in effect, of who may become a subject of appearance – suggests an operation of power that works through both foreclosure and differential allocation.
What, then, does it mean to appear within contemporary politics, and can we consider this question at all without some recourse to the media? If we consider what it is to appear, it follows that we appear to someone and that our appearance has to be registered by the senses, not only our own, but someone else’s. If we appear, we must be seen, which means that our bodies must be viewed and their vocalized sounds must be heard: the body must enter the visual and audible field. But is this not, of necessity, a laboring body and a sexual body, as well as a body gendered and racialized in some form? Arendt’s view clearly meets its limits here, for the body is itself divided into the one that appears publically to speak and act and another, sexual and laboring, feminine, foreign, and mute, that generally is relegated to the private and prepolitical sphere. Such a division of labor is precisely what is called into question when precarious lives assemble on the street in forms of alliance that must struggle to achieve a space of appearance. If some domain of bodily life operates as the sequestered or disavowed condition for the sphere of appearance, it becomes the structuring absence that governs and makes possible the public sphere.
If we are living organisms who speak and act, then we are clearly related to a vast continuum or network of living beings; we not only live among them, but our persistence as living organisms depends on that matrix of sustaining interdependent relations. And yet, our speaking and acting distinguishes us as something separate from other living beings. Indeed, we do not need to know what is distinctively human about political action, but only finally to see how the entrance of the disavowed body into the political sphere establishes at the same time the essential link between humans and other living beings. The private body thus conditions the public body in theories such as Arendt’s, but in political organizations of space that continue in many forms. And even though the public and private body are necessarily the same, the bifurcation is crucial to maintaining the public and private distinction and its modes of disavowal and disenfranchisement.
Perhaps it is a kind of fantasy that one dimension of bodily life can and must remain out of sight, and yet another, fully distinct, appears in public. Is there no trace of the biological in the sphere of appearance? Could we not argue, with Bruno Latour and Isabelle Stengers, that negotiating the sphere of appearance is, in fact, a biological thing to do, one of the investigative capacities of the organism? After all, there is no way of navigating an environment or procuring food without appearing bodily in the world, and there is no escape from the vulnerability and mobility that appearing in the world implies, which explains forms of camouflage and self-protection in the animal world. In other words, is appearance not a necessarily morphological moment where the body risks appearance not only in order to speak and act, but suffer and move, as well, to engage others bodies, to negotiate an environment on which one depends, to establish a social organization for the satisfaction of needs? Indeed, the body can appear and signify in ways that contest the way it speaks or even contest speaking as its paradigmatic instance. Could we still understand action, gesture, stillness, touch, and moving together if they were all reducible to the vocalization of thought through speech?
This act of public speaking, even within that problematic division of labour, depends upon a dimension of bodily life that is given, passive, opaque, and so excluded from the conventional definition of the political. Hence, we can ask: What regulation keeps the given or passive body from spilling over into the active body? Are these two different bodies, and if so, what politics is required to keep them apart? Are these two different dimensions of the same body, or are these, in fact, the effect of a certain regulation of bodily appearance that is actively contested by new social movements, struggles against sexual violence, for reproductive freedom, against precarity, for the freedom of mobility? Here we can see that a certain topographical or even architectural regulation of the body happens at the level of theory. Significantly, it is precisely this operation of power – the foreclosure and differential allocation of whether and how the body may appear – that is excluded from Arendt’s explicit account of the political. Indeed, her explicit account of the political depends upon that very operation of power that it fails to consider as part of politics itself.
So what I accept from Arendt is the following: Freedom does not come from me or from you; it can and does happen as a relation between us, or, indeed, among us. So this is not a matter of finding the human dignity within each person, but rather of understanding the human as a relational and social being, one whose action depends upon equality and articulates the principle of equality. Indeed, there is no human, in her view, if there is no equality. No human can be human alone. And no human can be human without acting in concert with others and on conditions of equality. I would add the following: The claim of equality is not only spoken or written, but is made precisely when bodies appear together, or, rather, when through their action, they bring the space of appearance into being. This space is a feature and effect of action, and it works, according to Arendt, only when relations of equality are maintained.
Of course, there are many reasons to be suspicious of idealized moments, but there are also reasons to be wary of any analysis that is fully guarded against idealization. There are two aspects of the revolutionary demonstrations in Tahrir Square that I would like to -underscore. The first has to do with the way a certain sociability was established within the square, a division of labor that broke down gender difference, that involved rotating who would speak and who would clean the areas where people slept and ate, developing a work schedule for -everyone to maintain the environment and to clean the -toilets. In short, what some would call “horizontal relations” among the protestors formed easily and methodically, alliances struggling to embody equality, which -included Ωn equal division of labor between the sexes – these became part of the very resistance to the Mubarak regime and its entrenched hierarchies, including the extraordinary differentials of wealth between the military and corporate sponsors of the regime and the working people. So the social form of the resistance began to incorporate principles of equality that governed not only how and when people spoke and acted for the media and against the regime, but how people cared for their various quarters within the square, the beds on pavement, the makeshift medical stations and bathrooms, the places where people ate, and the places where people were exposed to violence from the outside. We are not just talking about heroic actions that took enormous physical strength and the exercise of compelling political rhetoric. Sometimes the simple act of sleeping there, on the square, was the most eloquent political statement – and even must count as an action. These actions were all political in the simple sense that they were breaking down a conventional distinction between public and private in order to establish new relations of equality; in this sense, they were incorporating into the very social form of resistance the principles they were struggling to realize in broader political forms.
Second, when up against violent attack or extreme threats, many people chanted the word silmiyya which comes from the root verb salima, which means “to be safe and sound,” “unharmed,” “unimpaired,” “intact,” and “secure”; but also “to be unobjectionable,” “blameless,” “faultless”; and yet also “to be certain,” “established,” “clearly proven”.⁵ The term comes from the noun silm, which means “peace, “ but also, interchangeably and significantly, “the religion of Islam.” One variant of the term is hubb as-silm, which is Arabic for “pacifism.” Most usually, the chanting of silmiyya comes across as a gentle exhortation: “peaceful, peaceful.” Although the revolution was for the most part non-violent, it was not necessarily led by a principled opposition to violence. Rather, the collective chant was a way of encouraging people to resist the mimetic pull of military aggression – and the aggression of the gangs – by keeping in mind the larger goal: radical democratic change. To be swept into a violent exchange of the moment was to lose the patience needed to realize the revolution. What interests me here is the chant, the way in which language worked not to incite an action, but to restrain one: a restraint in the name of an emerging community of equals whose primary way of doing politics would not be violence.
Finally, then, to what extent was the revolution a media revolution, and how does that make actual bodies less central to the political action? How important was the locatedness of bodies to the events that took place? Of course, Tahrir Square is a place, and we can locate it quite precisely on the map of Cairo. At the same time, we find questions posed throughout the media: Will the Palestinians have their Tahrir Square? Where is the Tahrir Square in India? That’s to name but a few. So it is located, and it is transposable; indeed, it seemed to be transposable from the start, though never completely. And of course, we cannot think the transpos-ability of those bodies in the square without the media. In some ways, the media images from Tunisia prepared the way for the media events in Tahrir, then those that followed in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and Libya, all of which took different trajectories and take them still. As you know, many of the public demonstrations of these last months have not been against military dictatorships or tyrannical regimes. They have also been against the monopoly capitalism, neoliberalism, and the suppression of political rights and in the name of those who are abandoned by neoliberal reforms that seek to dismantle forms of social democracy and socialism, that eradicate jobs, expose populations to poverty, and undermine the basic right to a public education.
The street scenes become politically potent only when and if we have a visual and audible version of the scene communicated in live or proximate time, so that the media does not merely report the scene, but is part of the scene and the action; indeed, the media is the scene or the space in its extended and replicable visual and audible dimensions. One way of stating this is simply that the media extend the scene visually and audibly and participate in the delimitation and transposability of the scene. Put differently, the media constitute the scene in a time and place that includes and exceeds its local instantiation. Although the scene is surely and emphatically local, those who are elsewhere have the sense that they are getting some direct access through the images and sounds they receive. That is true, but they do not know how the editing takes place, which scene conveys and travels and which scenes remain obdurately outside the frame. When the scene travels, it is both there and here, and if it were not spanning both locations – indeed, multiple locations – it would not be the scene that it is. Its locality is not denied by the fact that the scene is communicated beyond itself and so constituted in a global media; it depends on that mediation to take place as the event that it is. This means that the local must be recast outside itself in order to be established as local, and this means that it is only through globalizing media that the local can be established and that something can really happen there. Of course, many things do happen outside the frame of the camera or other digital media devices, and the media can just as easily implement censorship as oppose it. There are many local events that are never recorded and broadcast, and some important reasons why. But when the event travels and manages to summon and sustain global outrage and pressure, which includes the power to stop markets or to sever diplomatic relations, then the local will have to be established time and again in a circuitry that exceeds the local at every instant.
And yet, there remains something localized that cannot and does not travel in that way, and the scene could not be the scene if we did not understand that some people are at risk, and the risk is run precisely by those bodies on the street. If they are transported in one way, they are surely left in place in another, holding the camera or the cell phone, face to face with those they oppose, unprotected, injurable, injured, persistent, if not insurgent. It matters that those bodies carry cell phones, relaying messages and images, and so when they are attacked, it is more often than not in some relation to the camera or the video recorder. It can be an effort to destroy the camera and its user, or it can be a spectacle for the media produced as a warning or a threat. Or it can be a way to stop any more organizing. Is the action of the body separable from its technology, and is the technology not helping to establish new forms of political action? And when censorship or violence is directed against those bodies, are they not also directed against their access to media and in order to establish hegemonic control over which images travel, and which do not?
Of course, the dominant media is corporately owned, exercising their own kinds of censorship and incitement. And yet, it still seems important to affirm that the freedom of the media to broadcast from these sites is itself an exercise of freedom and so a mode of exercising rights, especially when they are rogue media, from the street, evading the censor, where the activation of the instrument is part of the bodily action itself. This is doubtless why both Hosni Mubarak and Michael Cameron, eight months apart, both argued for the censorship of social media networks. At least in some instances, the media not only report on social and political movements that are laying claim to freedom and justice in various ways; the media also are exercising one of those freedoms for which the social movement struggles. I do not mean by this claim to suggest that all media are involved in the struggle for political freedom and social justice (we know, of course, that they are not). Of course, it matters which global media do the reporting and how. My point is that sometimes private media devices become global precisely at the moment in which they overcome modes of censorship to report protests and in that way become part of the protest itself.
What bodies are doing on the street when they are demonstrating is linked fundamentally to what communication devices and technologies are doing when they “report” on what is happening in the street. These are different actions, but they both require the body. The one exercise of freedom is linked to the other, which means that both are ways of exercising rights and that, jointly, they bring a space of appearance into being and secure its transposability. Although some may wager that the exercise of rights now takes place quite at the expense of bodies on the street, that Twitter and other virtual technologies have led to a disembodiment of the public sphere, I disagree. The media requires those bodies on the street to have an event, even as those bodies on the street require the media to exist in a global arena. But under conditions when those with cameras or Internet capacities are imprisoned or tortured or deported, the use of the technology effectively implicates the body. Not only must someone’s hand tap and send, but someone’s body is on the line if that tapping and sending gets traced. In other words, localization is hardly overcome through the use of a media that potentially transmit globally. And if this conjuncture of street and media constitutes a very contemporary version of the public sphere, then bodies on the line have to be thought as both there and here, now and then, transported and stationery, with very different political consequences following from those two modalities of space and time.
It matters that it is public squares that are filled to the brim, that people eat and sleep there, sing and refuse to cede that space, as we saw in Tahrir Square and continue to see on a daily basis. It matters, as well, that it is public educational buildings that have been seized in Athens, London, and Berkeley. At Berkeley, buildings were seized and trespassing fines were handed out. In some cases, students were accused of destroying private property. But these very allegations raised the question of whether the university is public or private. The stated aim of the protest – to seize the building and to sequester themselves there – was a way to gain a platform, indeed, a way to secure the material conditions for appearing in public. Such actions generally do not take place when effective platforms are already available. The students there, but also at Goldsmiths College in the UK more recently, were seizing buildings as a way to lay claim to buildings that ought properly, now and in the future, to belong to public education. That doesn’t mean that every time these buildings are seized it is justifiable, but let us be alert to what is at stake here: the symbolic meaning of seizing these buildings is that these buildings belong to the public, to public education, and it is precisely the access to public education that is being undermined by fee and tuition hikes and budget cuts. We should not be surprised that the protest took the form of seizing the buildings, performatively laying claim to public education, insisting on gaining literal access to the buildings of public education precisely at a moment, historically, when that access is being shut down. In other words, no positive law justifies these actions that oppose the institutionalization of unjust or exclusionary forms of power. Can we then say that these actions are nevertheless an exercise of a right, a lawless exercise that take place precisely when the law is wrong or the law has failed?
Let me offer you an anecdote to make my point more concrete. Last year, I was asked to visit Turkey on the occasion of the International Conference against Homophobia and Transphobia. This was an especially important event in Ankara, the capital of Turkey, where transgendered people are often served fines for appearing in public, are often beaten, sometimes by the police, and where murders of transgendered women in particular have happened nearly once a month in recent years. If I offer you this example of Turkey, it is not to point out that Turkey is “behind“ – something that the embassy representative from Denmark was quick to point out to me and that I refused with equal speed. I assure you that there are equally brutal murders outside of Los Angeles and Detroit, in Wyoming and Louisiana, or even in New York. It is rather because what is astonishing about the alliances there is that several feminist organizations have worked with queer, gay/lesbian, and transgendered people against police violence, but also against militarism, against nationalism, and against the forms of masculinism by which they are supported. So on the street, after the conference, the feminists lined up with the drag queens, the genderqueer with the human rights activists, and the lipstick lesbians with their bisexual and heterosexual friends – the march included secularists and Muslims. They chanted, “We will not be soldiers, and we will not kill.“ To oppose the police violence against trans people is thus to be openly against military violence and the nationalist escalation of militarism; it is to be against the military aggression against the Kurds, but also to act in the memory of the Armenian genocide and against the various ways that violence is disavowed by the state and the media.
This alliance was compelling for me for all kinds of reasons, but mainly because in most Northern European countries, there are now serious divisions among feminists, queers, lesbian and gay human rights workers, antiracist movements, freedom-of-religion movements, and antipoverty and antiwar mobilizations. In Lyon, France, last year, one of the established feminists had written a book on the “illusion” of transsexuality, and her public lectures had been “zapped” by many trans activists and their queer allies. She defended herself by saying that to call transsexuality “psychotic” was not the same as pathologizing transsexuality. It is, she said, a descriptive term and makes no judgment or prescription. Under what conditions can calling a population “psychotic” for the particular embodied life they live not be pathologizing? This feminist called herself a materialist, a radical, but she pitted herself against the transgendered community in order to maintain certain norms of masculinity and femininity as prerequisites for a nonpsychotic life. These are arguments that would be swiftly countered in Istanbul or Johannesburg, and yet these same feminists seek recourse to a form of universalism that would make France, and their version of French feminism, into the beacon of progressive thought.
Not all French feminists who call themselves universalists would oppose the public rights of transgendered people or contribute to their pathologization. And yet, if the streets are open to transgendered people, they are not open to those who wear signs of their religious belonging openly. Hence, we are left to fathom the many universalist French feminists who call upon the police to arrest, detain, fine, and sometimes deport women wearing the niqāb or the burqa in the public sphere in France. What sort of politics is this that recruits the police function of the state to monitor and restrict women from religious minorities in the public sphere? Why would the same universalists (such as Elisabeth Badinter) openly affirm the rights of transgendered people to freely appear in public while denying that right to women who happen to wear religious clothing that offends the sensibilities of die-hard secularists? If the right to appear is to be honored “universally“, it would not be able to survive such an obvious and insupportable contradiction.
Perhaps there are modalities of violence that we need to think about in order to understand the police functions in operation here. After all, those who insist that gender must always appear in one way or in one clothed version rather than another, who seek either to criminalize or to pathologize those who live their gender or their sexuality in nonnormative ways, are themselves acting as the police for the sphere of appearance, whether or not they belong to any police force. As we know, it is sometimes the police force of the state that does violence to sexual and gendered minorities, and sometimes it is the police who fail to investigate, fail to prosecute as criminal the murder of transgendered women or fail to prevent violence against transgendered members of the population.
If gender or sexual minorities are criminalized or pathologized for how they appear, how they lay claim to public space, the language through which they understand themselves, the means by which they express love or desire, those with whom they openly ally, choose to be near, engage sexually, or how they exercise their bodily freedom, what clothes they wear or fail to wear, then those acts of criminalization are themselves violent, and in that sense, they are also unjust and criminal. In Arendtian terms, we can say that to be precluded from the space of appearance, to be precluded from being part of the plurality that brings the space of appearance into being, is to be deprived of the right to have rights. Plural and public action is the exercise of the right to place and belonging, and this exercise is the means by which the space of appearance is presupposed and brought into being.
Let me return to the notion of gender with which I began, both to draw upon Arendt and to resist Arendt. In my view, gender is an exercise of freedom, which is not to say that everything that constitutes gender is freely chosen, but only that even what is considered unfree can and must be claimed and exercised in some way. I have, with this formulation, taken a certain distance from the Arendtian formulation. This exercise of freedom must be accorded the same equal treatment as any other exercise of freedom under the law. And politically, we must call for the expansion of our conceptions of equality to include this form of embodied freedom.
So what do we mean when we say that sexuality or gender is an exercise of freedom? To repeat: I do not mean to say that all of us choose our gender or our sexuality. We are surely formed by language and culture, by history, by the social struggles in which we participate, by forces both psychological and historical – in interaction, by the way with biological situations that have their own history and efficacy. Indeed, we may well feel that what and how we desire are quite fixed, indelible or irreversible features of who we are. But regardless of whether we understand our gender or our sexuality as chosen or given, we each have a right to claim that gender and to claim that sexuality. And it makes a difference whether we can claim them at all. When we exercise the right to appear as the gender and to claim them at all. When we exercise the right to appear as the gender we already are – even when we feel we have no other choice – we are still exercising a certain freedom, but we are also doing something more.
When one freely exercises the right to be who one already is and one asserts a social category for the purposes of describing that mode of being, then one is, in fact, making freedom part of that social category, discursively changing the very ontology in question. It is not possible to separate the genders that we claim to be and the sexualities that we engage from the right that any of us has to assert those realities, in public, or in private, or in the many thresholds that exist between the two, freely, that is, without threat of violence. When, long ago, one said that gender is performative, that meant that it is a certain kind of enactment, which means that one is not first one’s gender and then one decides how and when to enact it. The enactment is part of its very ontology, is a way of rethinking the ontological mode of gender, and so it matters how and when and with what consequences that enactment takes place, because all that changes the very gender that one “is”.
To walk on the street without police interference is something other than assembling there en masse. And yet, when a transgendered person walks there, the right that is exercised in a bodily form does not only belong to that one person. There is a group, if not an alliance, walking there, too, whether or not they are seen. It is a person there who walks, who takes the risk of walking there, but it is also the social category that traverses that embodied movement in the world, and the attack, when it comes, is clearly on both at once. Perhaps we can still call “performative” both this exercise of gender and the embodied political claim to equality and protection from violence so as to be able to move with and within this social category in public space. To walk is to say that this is a public space in which transgendered people walk, that this is a public space where people with various forms of clothing, no matter how they are gendered or what religion they signify, are free to move without threat of violence. But this performativity applies more broadly to the conditions by which any of us emerge as bodily creatures in the world.
If we are thinking well, and our thinking commits us to the preservation of life in some form, then the life to be preserved takes a bodily form. In turn, this means that the life of the body – its hunger, its need for shelter and protection from violence – all become major issues of politics. Even the most given or nonchosen features of our lives are not simply given; they are given in history and in language, in vectors of power that none of us chose. Equally true is that a given property of the body or a set of defining characteristics depends upon the continuing persistence of the body. Those social categories we never chose traverse this given body in some ways rather than in others, and gender, for instance, names that traversal as well as its transformations. In this sense, those most urgent and nonvolitional dimensions of our lives, which include hunger and the need for shelter, medical care, and protection from violence, natural or humanly imposed, are crucial to politics. We cannot presume the enclosed and well-fed space of the polis, where all the material needs are somehow being taken care of elsewhere by beings whose gender, race,
or status render them ineligible for public recognition. Rather, we have not only to bring the material urgen-cies of the body into the square, but to make those needs central to the demands of politics.
In my view, a shared condition of precarity situates our political lives, even as precarity is differentially distributed. And some of us, as Ruthie Gilmore has made very clear, are disproportionately more disposed to injury and early death than others. Building on the importance of local expertise, there’s something to be said about attorneys who’ve earned respect within the courthouse walls. During my cousin’s case two years ago, we learned that experienced Jersey City criminal defense lawyers with prosecutorial backgrounds can identify weaknesses in the state’s evidence that others might miss. These professionals understand the burden of proof required and know when prosecutors haven’t met it, which becomes crucial during negotiations. Their familiarity with programs like Pre-Trial Intervention and Drug Court opened doors we didn’t know existed, ultimately resulting in charges being downgraded significantly. The transparency they provided throughout the process—keeping us informed at every decision point—made an incredibly stressful situation feel manageable and gave us confidence in the legal strategy being employed.

Racial difference can be tracked precisely through looking at statistics on infant mortality, for example. This means, in brief, that precarity is unequally distributed and that lives are not considered equally grievable or equally valuable. If, as Adriana Cavarero has argued, the exposure of our bodies in public space constitutes us fundamentally and establishes our thinking as social and embodied, vulnerable and passionate, then our thinking gets nowhere without the presupposition of that very corporeal interdependency and entwinement. The body is constituted through perspectives it cannot inhabit; someone else sees our face in a way that none of us can and hears our voice in a way that we cannot. We are in this sense, bodily, always over there, yet here, and this dispossession marks the sociality to which we belong. Even as located beings, we are always elsewhere, constituted in a sociality that exceeds us. This establishes our exposure and our precarity, the ways in which we depend on political and social institutions to persist.
After all, in Cairo, it was not just that people amassed in the square: they were there; they slept there; they dispensed medicine and food; they assembled and sang; and they spoke. Can we distinguish those vocalizations emanating from the body from those other expressions of material need and urgency? They were, after all, sleep-ing and eating in the public square, constructing toilets and various systems for sharing the space, and thus not only refusing to disappear, refusing to go or stay home, and not only claiming the public domain for themselves – acting in concert on conditions of equality – but also maintaining themselves as persisting bodies with needs, desires, and requirements: Arendtian and counter-Arendtian, to be sure, since these bodies who were organizing their basic needs in public were also petitioning the world to register what was happening there, to make its support known, and in that way to enter into revolutionary action itself. The bodies acted in concert, but they also slept in public, and in both these modalities, they were both vulnerable and demanding, giving political and spatial organization to elementary bodily needs. In this way, they formed themselves into images to be projected to all who watched, petitioning us to receive and respond and so to enlist media coverage that would refuse to let the event be covered over or to slip away. Sleeping on that pavement was not only a way to lay claim to the public, to contest the legitimacy of the state, but also quite clearly, a way to put the body on the line in its insistence, obduracy, and precarity, overcoming the distinction between public and private for the time of revolution. In other words, it was only when those needs that are supposed to remain private came out into the day and night of the square, formed into image and discourse for the media, did it finally become possible to extend the space and time of the event with such tenacity as to bring the regime down. After all, the cameras never stopped; bodies were there and here; they never stopped speaking, not even in sleep, and so could not be silenced, sequestered, or denied – revolution happened because everyone refused to go home, cleaving to the pavement as the site of their convergent temporary, awkward, vulnerable, daring, revolutionary bodily lives.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien zuerst in: McLagan, Meg; McKee, Yates (Ed.): Sensible Politics. The Visual Culture of Nongovernmental Activism, ZONE BOOKS: New York 2012, S. 117–137.

1.) Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), p. 198.
2.) Ibid., p. 199.
3.) “The point of view of an ethics is: of what are you capable, what can you do? Hence a return to this sort of cry of Spinoza’s: what can a body do? We never know in advance what a body can do. We never know how we’re organized and how the modes of existence are enveloped in somebody.“ Gilles Deleuze, Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza, trans. Martin Joughin (New York: Zone Books, 1992), pp. 217–34. This account differs from his in several respects, but most prominently by virtue of its consideration of body in their plurality.
4.) Arendt, The Human Condition, p. 199.
5.) Hans Wehr, Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, 4th ed., ed. J. Milton Cowan (Ithaca: Spoken Language Services, 1994), s. v. „salima“.

There is no Alternative: The Future is self-organised

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:38 +0000

Part 1
As workers in the cultural field we offer the following contribution to the debate on the impact of neoliberalism on institutional relations:
– Cultural and educational institutions as they appear today are nothing more than legal and administrative organs of the dominant system. As with all institutions, they live in and through us; we participate in their structures and programmes, internalise their values, transmit their ideologies and act as their audience/public/social body.
– Our view: these institutions may present themselves to us as socially accepted bodies, as somehow representative of the society we live in, but they are nothing more than dysfunctional relics of the bourgeois project. Once upon a time, they were charged with the role of promoting democracy, breathing life into the myth that institutions are built on an exchange between free, equal and committed citizens. Not only have they failed in this task, but within the context of neoliberalism, have become even more obscure, more unreliable and more exclusive.
– The state and its institutional bodies now share aims and objectives so closely intertwined with corporate and neoliberal agendas that they have been rendered indivisible. This intensification and expansion of free market ideology into all aspects of our lives has been accompanied by a systematic dismantling of all forms of social organisation and imagination antithetical to the demands of capitalism.
– As part of this process it’s clear that many institutions and their newly installed managerial elites are now looking for escape routes out of their inevitable demise and that, at this juncture, this moment of crisis, they’re looking at ‘alternative’ structures and what’s left of the Left to model their horizons, sanction their role in society and reanimate their tired relations. Which of course we despise!

In their scramble for survival, cultural and educational institutions have shown how easily they can betray one set of values in favour of another and that’s why our task now is to demand and adhere to the foundational and social principles they have jettisoned, by which we mean: transparency, accountability, equality and open participation.
– By transparency we mean an opening up of the administrative and financial functions/decision making processes to public scrutiny. By accountability we mean that these functions and processes are clearly presented, monitored and that they can in turn, be measured and contested by ‘participants’ at any time. Equality and open participation is exactly what it says – that men and women of all nationalities, race, colour and social status can participate in any of these processes at any time.
– Institutions as they appear today, locked in a confused space between public and private, baying to the demands of neoliberal hype with their new management structures, are not in a position to negotiate the principles of transparency, accountability and equality, let alone implement them. We realise that responding to these demands might extend and/or guarantee institutions’ survival but, thankfully, their deeply ingrained practices prevent them from even entertaining the idea on a serious level.
– In our capacity as workers with a political commitment to self-organisation we feel that any further critical contribution to institutional programmes will further reinforce the relations that keep these obsolete structures in place. We are fully aware that ‘our’ critiques, alternatives and forms of organisation are not just factored into institutional structures but increasingly utilised to legitimise their existence.
– The relationship between corporations, the state and its institutions is now so unbearable that we see no space for negotiation – we offer no contribution, no critique, no pathway to reform, no way in or out. We choose to define ourselves in relation to the social forms that we participate in and not the leaden institutional programmes laid out before us – our deregulation is determined by social, not market relations. There is no need for us to storm the Winter Palace, because most institutions are melting away in the heat of global capital anyway. We will provide no alternative. So let go!

The only question that remains is how to get rid of the carcass and deal with the stench:
– We are not interested in their so-called assets; their personnel, buildings, archives, programmes, shops, clubs, bars, facilities and spaces will all end up at the pawnbroker anyway…
– All we need is their cash in order to pay our way out of capitalism and take this opportunity to make clear our intention to supervise and mediate our own social capital, knowledge and networks.
– As a first step we suggest an immediate redistribution of their funds to already existing, self-organised bodies with a clear commitment to workers’ and immigrants’ rights, social (anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic) struggle and representation.
There is no alternative! The future is self-organised.
– In the early 1970s corporate analysts developed a strategy aimed at reducing uncertainty called ‘there is no alternative’ (tina). Somewhat ironically we now find ourselves in agreement, but this time round we’re the scenario planners and executors of our own future though we are, if nothing else, the very embodiment of uncertainty.
– In the absence of clearly stated opposition to the neoliberal system, most forms of collective and collaborative practice can be read as ‘self-enterprise’. By which we mean, groupings or clusters of individuals set up to feed into the corporate controlled markets, take their seats at the table, cater to and promote the dominant ideology.
– Self-organisation should not be confused with self-enterprise or self-help, it is not an alternative or conduit into the market. It isn’t a label, logo, brand or flag under which to sail in the waters of neoliberalism (even as a pirate ship as suggested by mtv)! It has no relationship to entrepreneurship or bogus ‘career collectives’.
– In our view self-organisation is a byword for the productive energy of those who have nothing left to lose. It offers up a space for a radical re-politicisation of social relations – the first tentative steps towards realisable freedoms.

Self-organisation is:
– Something which predates representational institutions. To be more precise: institutions are built on (and often paralyse) the predicates and social forms generated by self-organisation.
– Mutually reinforcing, self-valorising, self-empowering, self-historicising and, as a result, not compatible with fixed institutional structures.
– A social and productive force, a process of becoming which, like capitalism, can be both flexible and opaque – therefore more than agile enough to tackle (or circumvent) it.
– A social process of communication and commonality based on exchange; sharing of similar problems, knowledge and available resources.
– A fluid, temporal set of negotiations and social relations which can be emancipatory – a process of empowerment.
– Something which situates itself in opposition to existing, repressive forms of organisation and concentrations of power.
– Always challenging power both inside the organisation and outside the organisation; this produces a society of resonance and conflict, but not based on fake dualities as at present.
– An organisation of deregulated selves. It is at its core a non-identity.
– A tool that doesn’t require a cohesive identity or voice to enter into negotiation with others. It may reside within social forms but doesn’t need to take on an identifiable social form itself.
– Contagious and inclusive, it disseminates and multiplies.
– The only way to relate to self-organisation is to take part, self-organise, connect with other self-organising initiatives and challenge the legitimacy of institutional representation.

We put a lid on the bourgeois project, the national museums will be stored in their very own archive, the Institutes of Contemporary Art will be handed over to the artists unions, the Universities and Academies will be handed over to the students, Siemens and all the other global players will be handed over to their workers. The state now acts as an administrative unit – just as neoliberalism has suggested it – but with mechanisms of control, transparency accountability and equal rights for all.

END

Disclaimer:
This text can be freely distributed and printed in non-commercial, no-money contexts without the permission of the authors.
It was originally conceived as a pamphlet with the aim of disrupting the so-called critical paths and careers being carved out by those working the base structure of the political-art fields. We’re aware of contradictions, limits and problems with this text and invite all to measure the content in direct relation to the context in which it may appear. In fact, it has come as no surprise to us that its dodgy, legitimising potential has been most keenly exploited by those it originally set out to challenge.
Having let it fly we now invite you, the reader, to consider why it’s in this publication, whose interests it serves and the power relations it helps to maintain.

Stephan Dillemuth in Munich, Anthony Davies in London and Jakob Jakobsen in Copenhagen, 12 June 2005.

Wiederabdruck
Der Text erschien zuerst in: Will Bradley/Charles Esche (Hg.): Art and Social Change. A Critical Reader. London 2007, S. 378–381.