Month: September 2013

  • Intimate Bureaucracies & Infrastructuralism: A Networked Introduction to Assemblings

    Craig Saper

    Deparment of English
    University of Pennsylvania
    csaper@ccat.sas.upenn.edu

     

    In the second half of the twentieth century, artists, writers, and printers started many alternative distribution networks for their experimental art and literature. They supplemented or ignored the gallery system with direct mailings and other innovative ways to reach their audiences and collaborators. During the 1960s, these alternative networks became the driving force of a new artworld scene that encouraged works difficult to classify or hang on a wall. By the early 1970s, distribution networks depended on the periodic mailings of very small editions, 50-500 copies, collected in folios, bound volumes, and boxes of original artist’s print, texts, pages, books, and textual-objects. These assemblings require that each book maker, visual poet, media artist, or printer send the entire run of his or her contribution to an assembler or compiler who, in turn, distributes the collection to subscribers or sometimes simply to all participants.

     

    Often consisting of visual and concrete poems, rubber-stamp art, xerography, small three-dimensional found-art, fine-press printing, re-cycled or détourned cartoons and advertisements, mock examples of mass produced printed objects, hand-drawn scribbles and pictures, etc., the assemblings are extremely difficult to describe in terms of a single medium’s form or structure or as art or craft. Many of these collections consist of a single page from each participant. Significantly, iconoclastic and personal code systems as well as the common practice of parody and allusion make the network, rather than the internal workings of the texts, the key reference of these works.

     

    In the 1990s, many of the people involved in mail-art networks began producing multimedia magazines on the World Wide Web. “Home pages” and electronic “‘zines” depend on making links to other sites on the Internet. Each page, even corporate pages, link to and assemble other groups’ or individuals’ work. The pages link according to the logic of amateur discoverers. “Here’s what I found,” they say. As with earlier assemblings and networks, the sense of a potentially infinite web appears as a salient characteristic of these electronic forms. As with the artists’ networks, the participants in the World Wide Web also seem to cherish an intimacy between visitors and the assemblers of the page. The seemingly inevitable iconoclastic personality of each site makes it too difficult to imagine other ways to code and construct these pages. Much of the fetishism of artisan production appears in the electronic forms of assemblings. Although they depend on extremely limited and constrained design parameters, the designers try to add their own personal twists. The pages’ codes reflect the play within this huge impersonal system with bureaucratic routing instructions, the iconoclasm of the site, and the intimacy between visitors and “home” sites. While comparing the Web to a medium like film or video makes it difficult to examine this type of social-aesthetic interplay, comparing the Web to assemblings and mail-art networks helps to highlight this interplay. Because the alternative artists’ networks examine the same fears and hopes found in many descriptions of the information super-highway, we can learn about the electronic web’s potential from studying the assemblings’ codes.

     

    The attention to artists’ magazines and electronic on-line ‘zines has further encouraged the growth of these works and networks. Chuck Welch estimates the number of mail-art participants at around six thousand in 1993; that number does not include the many more who buy ‘zines at newsstands. Because these magazines inherently offer a forum for discussions about this type of work, much of the secondary literature resides within the community of these artists. For example, in an issue of Arte Postale! Vittore Baroni has written one of the most complete histories of mail-art, but only subscribers or collectors have access to this treatise. A flirtation with more ambitious summaries, analyses, and definitions has emerged among current participants. The special issue of the popular RE/Search magazine dedicated to “ZINES!” also includes a détourned photograph of the editor of one magazine, Mystery Date, with the cartoon-like voice balloon exclaiming, “SURRENDER TO THE INCREDIBLY STRANGE URGE…TO CREATE YOUR OWN ZINE!” This issue, and Mike Gunderloy’s earlier The World of Zines: A Guide to the Independent Magazine Revolution, mark the increasing interest in low-budget self-produced magazines, as well as a cross-over of these works from ‘zines, networks, and assemblings to a wider audience.

     

    From April 17 through June 27, 1997, the Van Pelt Library at the University of Pennsylvania will host an extensive exhibition of assemblings, “Networking Artists & Poets: Assemblings from the Ruth and Marvin Sacker Archive of Concrete & Visual Poetry.” In conjunction with the exhibit, a series of talks and demonstrations and a compilation of Web sites will help give visitors an opportunity to experience these works. In keeping with the “networked” characteristic of these works, this essay can function as the curator’s introduction to the exhibit.

     

    Except for one notable exception, which began in the first half of the twentieth century–Feuillets Inutiles (and perhaps Spawn, begun in 1917)–and issued compilations from the late 1920s through the middle of the 1930s, most of these assemblings began as part of the underground art scene in the second half of the twentieth century. Of course, Dada publications, like Marcel Duchamp’s The Blind Man, hinted at collaborative efforts with claims such as: “The second number of The Blind Man will appear as soon as You have sent sufficient material” (qtd. in Perkins 15). The editors did not turn the magazines into artworks in themselves, unlike assemblings.1 General histories of underground, experimental, and neo-avant-garde activities during the 1960s and 70s include only peripheral discussions about these crucial distribution systems. When future scholars examine the sensibility appearing during those years, and how it influenced later Web sites and e-zines, the work on texts somewhere between visual art, literary text, and performance will prove essential.

     

    In the late 1970s, punk ‘zines appeared in England as a fanzine variant of assemblings. Dick Hebdige writes that “the existence of an alternative punk press demonstrated that it was not only clothes or music that could be immediately and cheaply produced from the limited resources at hand.” These works allowed for a “critical space within the subculture itself to counteract the hostile or at least ideologically inflected coverage which punk was receiving in the media” (111). These punk ‘zines’ attitude grew from concerns shared by the Situationists with their forerunners the Lettrists. Greil Marcus traces the lineage from the Situationist aesthetic to the punk movement; later I will trace the historical development of these Lettrist and Situationist tendencies in assemblings.

     

    The two most significant factors of these punk ‘zines involved their production practices and their attitude toward readers. Punk ‘zines were published without editorial interference. “Typing errors and grammatical mistakes, misspellings and jumbled paginations were left uncorrected in the final proof. Those corrections and crossings out that were made before publication were left to be deciphered by the reader” (Hebdige 111). This slipshod aesthetic produced a sense of urgency and immediacy. These publications wanted to make readers into music makers, ‘zine publishers, and protesters rather than passive consumers. The most important sign of punk’s impact had as much to do with a diagram printed in the fanzine Sniffin Glue as it did with a particular concert. Sniffin Glue, with its irreverent title and attitude, achieved the highest circulation of the punk periodicals. The diagram showed “three finger positions on the neck of a guitar over the caption: ‘Here’s one chord, here’s two more, now form your own band’” (Hebdige 112). The most influential punk group, The Sex Pistols, played few concerts; the band members hated each other and much of their own music; yet their punk pose, flaunting raw, simple music challenged others to start bands. Much like the underground art scene’s assemblings, the punk ‘zines captured this “do it yourself” attitude and allowed for a positive spin on a cultural movement that mainstream media only described as a scourge, threat, or oddity. Considering punk music’s re-emergence in the form of grunge rock and more recently neo-punk, it is not surprising that the number of ‘zines has also rapidly increased since the late 1980s.

     

    This attitude that everyone is an artist also appears in the conceptual work of Fluxus, which helped motivate the emergence of mail art networks and assemblings with activities like their “flux-post” stamps and mailings. Many assemblings began because of the Fluxus influence. For example, the editor of ART/LIFE, Joe Cardella, worked with Alison Knowles and Yohima Wada at the Fluxus influenced performance space “The Kitchen” before he began his assembling. Not only did the “flux kits” serve as a model for boxed assemblings, but the Fluxus invention of fictitious organizations and official codes and stamps greatly influenced the attitude of some of these assemblings. In her discussion of conceptual artists’ books Johanna Drucker2 suggests a socio-political dimension of publication and distribution practices by coining the phrase “democratic multiples” (69). This type of work began with Fluxus, CoBrA, Lettrist, and Situationist work,3 and in assemblings we see this same spirit everywhere. In the first issue of Libro Internacional (1976, compiled by Edgardo-Antonio Vigo, Argentina), the influential mail artist Guglielmo Cavellini constructs a poem relevant to this democratic impulse. He prints his version of the ten commandments on a sticker of the Italian flag. The commandments instruct one to avoid being part of the history of art and modern art and not to glorify one’s art or art movement. The last commandment reads: “thou shalt not publish the story of thy past present and future history, nor shalt thou write it in diverse and sundry places such as thy personal clothing, other human bodies, bolts of cloth, columns, and so forth.” In the first issue of Arte Postale! (1979), Vittore Baroni’s introduction states that “the only way to get a copy of ‘arte-postale’ is contributing by sending a mail-art work or publication in exchange. Special contributors send 100 words size A4 and get a free subscription to 5 issues of the magazine.” One very influential assembling, Commonpress, is named after this effort at producing work by “common effort.” The coordinator of the assembling, Pawel Petasz, even invites readers to volunteer to edit special issues.4 In an interview, Baroni confesses that he started his assembling because he “needed something readily available to trade with other networkers,” so he followed the lead of other mail-artists and started his own periodical (Janssen 3). An advertising slogan for ART/LIFE captures the democratic spirit by offering the participant to “become a page in art history in your own time.” 5

     

    Drucker explains that a similar move toward democratization occurred at first in artists’ books because of the new inexpensive modes of reproduction available in post WWII Europe and America. Fluxus member George Brecht staged mail art events that resembled the famous Happenings. As the artists increasingly became engaged with conceptual art rather than traditional media or forms, they looked for alternative forms of expression. They soon found that the concept of “multiples,” as opposed to the unique art object, offered a fascinating way to criticize the aura or place of a work of art. By definition the printed book did not have an original in the same way that an oil painting does. Drucker notes that with a relatively wider audience, the conceptual artists had to confront the problem of an audience left “baffled by…esoteric and complex conceptual terms” (Drucker 80). In fact, she argues that the artistic vision of some of the artists’ books never quite came to terms with their ideal of liberating the body politic. The conceptual book artists needed to make and find an audience. To do so, they started several institutions, including Printed Matter, which sells mass produced multiples of books and periodicals with over 100 copies; Franklin Furnace, which recently sold its collection to the Museum of Modern Art; the Visual Studies Workshop, which the book-art critic Joan Lyons founded; NEXUS Press in Atlanta; and the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, which has helped publish a number of important conceptual book works. Many of the printers and conceptual artists also looked to assemblings as a distribution and publicity system. For example, one editor of an assembling introduces a compilation by writing that “neither the editor nor the publisher feels this project will make any money, but it might well attract some press attention” (Bowles).

     

    The premiere issue of Running Dog One and Done (1976) is packaged in a portfolio with a silhouette reproduction of Muybridge’s running greyhound from 1879 on the cover. The contents include photocopy montages, concrete poems, and other texts on single sheets of loose pages. The letter from the editor, Michael Crane, notes that “the attempt of this publication is to present the documents of the experiments and explorations artists are undertaking today on an international level.” He explains that the unbound pages allow readers to “recycle the pages within their own information systems.” The introduction and the cover art point to a shared interest among participants in assemblings returning to a situation in which artists function more as experimenters, where information is produced to encourage and facilitate sharing. The work should feel as if it is taken from a journal of experimentation. The gallery system cannot compete with faster distribution systems that treat art as experiment rather than as masterpiece.

     

    The interest in manipulating distribution systems came by the end of the twentieth century to resemble a new form of art in itself–networked art. Nam June Paik, in his play on Karl Marx’s world-changing phrase, “seize the means of production,” emblematizes Fluxus’ concern to democratize networks. He says, “Marx: Seize the production-medium. Fluxus: Seize the distribution-medium!” This attitude led to great interest in mail-art systems. A fine example of mail art is Ben Vautier’s “postman’s choice,” which consists of a postcard with two identical sides. The sender fills in each side with two different names and addresses. The postman then has the choice of delivery. This work uses the open structural parameters of a system (mail) to run a humorous experiment.

     

    Assemblings allude to a socio-poetic practice and call for some type of network analysis. To describe these practices and analyses, alluding to the network artists’ penchant for playing on authoritative codes or terms, I use the term infrastructuralism. While structuralism is concerned with signs and sign systems, infrastructuralism is the study of system signs, socio-poetics, and conceptual-traffic patterns. The poets and artists involved in assemblings use many of the techniques of modernist poetics, but they especially cherish the dry wit involved in making fun of authoritative terms, official sounding institutional names, and the trappings of academic research. The Neoists, for example, invented a name that both spoofed and bettered any effort at riding the wave of the next new thing or neo-old thing. Infrastructuralism, with its connotations of bridges and roads as well as its apparent extension of structuralism, participates in this gentle caricature of the latest method even as it offers a serious and valuable methodology. A literal version of this motif or preoccupation with infrastructure, the assembling 8 X 10 includes a work by Robert Cummings analyzing sections of Los Angeles street maps. Cummings, once associated with mail art networks, withdrew in 1973 after writing a letter (which later appeared in FILE 2.3 [1979]) explaining that “The quick-copy mail art may pass in Vancouver or San Francisco as art, but wherever, it’s not worth the paper it’s on, nor the ink either; the utmost in idle activity” (qtd. in Banana, “Mail Art Canada” 252).6 A fascinating translation of concrete poetry into infrastructural poetry is “poemparades” by G.J. de Rook, which appears in AH (issue 8, 1967, compiled by Herman Damen). These “poemparades” consist of two photos of masses of people in a parade formation spelling out words and images in Chinese. This smirking seriousness is a defining characteristic of networked art. Conscious of readers, fascinated with bureaucratic collectivities, and aware of the serious value of a sense of humor, the networked artist often produces Janusian works.

     

    Impasses To Interpretation, or What An Assembling Can Teach Us About Reading On The Web

     

    The assemblings and mail art distribution systems examined here do not fit neatly into an art historical context in part because the individual works in any given assembling often, and often intentionally, lack aesthetic sophistication. Even an advocate of anti-aesthetic sensibilities might argue that many of the individual texts have little value to anyone besides the sender and possibly the receiver. These works appear in the context of hundreds and thousands of individual texts, images, objects, and textual-image objects all found in assemblings, collections of mail art, visual and conceptual poetries, and potentially mass produced multiples. My analyses follow many trails through the sometimes insignificant to suggest something monumentally important that exceeds the individual works. This strategy also assigns the prominent works a different significance in the context of this sea of insignificance. In this sense, the assemblings explicitly and implicitly advocate a postmodernist counter to modernist notions of genius and great works. Few of the individual works found in assemblings represent a great achievement. Some of the works flirt with a poetry of simple recognition. Marjorie Perloff notes that this sort of “license-plate joke” poetry merely demands one glancing look for appreciation. In the assemblings, recognition only starts the process of discovering invention and genius as inherently tied to the interconnectedness of these works.

     

    This resistance of assemblings to the leveling power of mechanical and electronic reproduction, even as they make use of these mechanisms, resembles the modernist poets’ struggle with the notion of genius while yielding to the initiative of (popular) languages. Network artists attempt more modestly to stave off homogenization, though they nonetheless wallow in the systems and mechanisms of mass distribution. Out of this and other peculiarities of networked art and poetry will spring an interpretive methodology unlike literary and art theories used to interpret individual texts and those texts’ individual contexts. Networked analysis and infrastructuralism refer both to the study of a particular type of networked art and literature and to a type of analysis which emerges from studying these networks. A number of interpretive impasses appear as soon as one begins examining these materials.

     

    1. Circumstantiality

     

    In describing one common paranoid schizophrenic symptom, clinicians use the term “circumstantiality.” That term describes the inability to edit out an overwhelming mass of trivial or irrelevant details which stymies the ability to stick to a topic or express a central idea. Read as an aesthetic strategy, circumstantiality appears in a comedy routine by Gilda Radner. Her character, Roseanne Roseannadana, begins her meandering stories with the pretext of giving a special news report on cultural events. She never quite gets to the point. Beginning a report about returning Christmas gifts, for example, she discusses her surprise at finding Bo Derek right in front of her in line. She notices that the movie star had a hair sticking out of her nose. She adds to this that she fantasized about pulling two more hairs out of her nose, making a braid, and putting a bead on them [in the style of Derek’s braided hair in the movie 10]. When the anchorman interrupts her absurdly irrelevant discussion, she quotes her uncle Dan Roseannadana who “always said, ‘if it’s not one thing, it’s another.’” Radner’s routine parodies the traditional news essay and also suggests a hilarious alternative. Circumstantiality as a joke allows for the realization that we usually edit out the morass of details when we want to “communicate” an idea, story, a point, or what have you.

     

    The mass of details in an assembling functions much like linguistic fetishes substituting for the loss of any central meaning. Readers cannot attend to everything; instead, they inevitably read and watch in the same way analysts listen: askew. Quickly they learn that to look for a central idea is not only frustrating, but also not particularly productive as an interpretive method. Using the analogy of circumstantiality to guide an interpretation allows readers of these often daunting works to appreciate the function of effects in terms of a social-aesthetic disruption or change. It will not help a reader to appreciate or cure an artist’s pathologies. The analogy highlights the significance of what appears explicitly and intentionally as a random compilation of many unrelated artists’ and poets’ works in assemblings.

     

    2. On-Sendings and Fanzines

     

    Another impasse for interpretation exists in the unique ways the network challenges authorship. Ray Johnson, the most influential mail artist, founded the New York Correspondance School (other artists invented variations–for instance, Glen Lewis’ Corres Sponge Dance School, started around 1970). Ed Plunkett, who actually coined the name, explains that “it was a reference to the ‘New York School,’ meaning the leading group of mostly abstract painters that flourished then” (qtd. in Filliou 7).7 This type of work always had a (parodic) connection to the vanguards of abstract painting. May Wilson, who also participated in Johnson’s School, explains that “Correspondence is spelled correspondance…the truth for Ray Johnson is not correspondence to actuality (verisimilitude), but is correspondence of part to part (pregnant similarities that dance)” (W. Wilson 54).8 His correspondence art has an implicit epistemology: a fan’s paranoid logic. This is the logic examined in the next section.

     

    Johnson initiated a practice called “on-sendings.” An on-sending involves an incomplete or unfinished artwork sent to someone, who, in turn, completes the work by sending it on with some additions to another participant in the network. The on-sending also creates the first (putatively) real network because the art depends on each link in the chain. These chains began when artists wanted to avoid the gallery system and art market. The gift exchanges evolved into more elaborate networks, but, in this case, remained relatively small circles of participants. This gift giving is reminiscent of the Lettrists’ interest in Potlatch (the name of their journal). The cultish gift exchanges soon led Johnson to explore the fan’s logic, and he increased his manipulation of the participants.

     

    Johnson would often involve famous artists, like Andy Warhol, as well as literary and art critics in his on-sendings. Another variant of this process asked the participant to send the work back to Johnson after adding to the image. Much of his mail art and on-sending consisted of trivial small objects not quite profound enough to be called “found-objects.” These on-sendings were part of the stuff previously excluded from art-galleries. He became famous for his repetition of a bunny-head character. These identical hand-drawn bunny-headed representations of famous people, each with its own caption, suggested that one could substitute any head as long as you included famous or personally significant names. The characteristic look of these bunny heads also suggested that portraiture represented an artist’s trademark as much if not more than the subject painted. His earlier collage works that included prints of James Dean and Elvis Presley found him a small place in the history of early Pop art, but the later work moved off the canvas and into conceptual work involving participants’ own desires. Clive Phillpot mentions that his later work is witty and demonstrates superb graphic skill.

     

    Because all his portraits are identical, his name-dropping stands out, as the reader inevitably associates the name under the picture with the identical image. The readers care about the big “names” even as they laugh at the absurdity of that interest considering the endless serial repetition. Johnson’s fascination with celebrity also manifests itself in his mail from fan clubs like the “Shelley Duval Fan Club.” Other clubs included: Marcel Duchamp Fan Club, the Jean Dubuffet Fan Club, and the Paloma Picasso Fan Club, as well as the Blue Eyes Club (and its Japanese division, Brue Eyes Club), and the Spam Radio Club. He even advertised meetings in newspapers, much to the surprise of the “genuine” fans. The kind of celebrity watching and stalking that Johnson is examining here pokes fun at artworld celebrity seeking. The lineage of assemblings from fanzines suggests another level of satire. Johnson’s work inevitably comments on fanzine-like networks and assemblings; his work takes these connections literally for figurative purposes. They put the reader in an uncomfortable position by highlighting the participants’ fan-like fascinations and identifications. For example, in his on-sendings, he challenges the participants not just to “participate,” but to resist sending the artwork on to a famous artist like Andy Warhol. The work points out just how difficult it is not to want to associate your scribbles with a work completed by a celebrity.

     

    The term “fan” re-emerges in common usage in the twentieth-century, but the word derives from the Latin fanum, a temple for prophets, and refers to the priests who flagellated themselves into a frenzy of inspiration. It appears in isolated instances during the 17th century, and becomes a more important term in the late 18th century as the threat to enlightenment. One study of fanaticism argues that the pejorative sense of the term appears only in the context of tolerance and tolerant societies. One is only a fanatic when certain intense behaviors are no longer considered appropriate (see Haynal, Molnar, and Puymège). Even though they share the same denotation, the usage “fan” has a different connotation from “fanatic.” The term “fan” conjures an isolated pathetic character idolizing stars, celebrities, or even genres of film, television, and literature like science fiction. We might think of the science fiction fans with their fanzines like Spockanalia. The fanzine began as a marketing ploy of Hollywood studios in the 1920s as part of their publicity machine. In the 1930s, fanzines produced by fans begin appearing. By the 1940s a new twist to these ‘zines appears. The Amateur Press Associations produce a type of science fiction collection of works by fans that will have an enormous impact on conceptual art especially during the late 1960s and early 1970s. An Amateur Press Association, usually referred to as an apa, consists of “a group of people who publish fanzines and send them to an official editor who mails a copy of each to each member in a regular bundle” (Sanders xi). The apas focus increasingly on the lives and interests of fans rather than on science fiction itself–they include “mailing comments” that do not react to sci-fi but to each other’s contributions. Soon these apa fanzines leave sci-fi behind and focus on small audiences of under a hundred. With the number of apas increasing through the 1950s, the participants in all such groups grew to include thousands (maybe even more than ten thousand). One commentator notes that these apas have a “curious blend of distance and intimacy.” That blend reappears in the conceptual art works found in mail-art and assemblings since the late sixties.

     

    The apas fanzines included written sounds, visual effects, puns (especially visual puns) irony, humor, nastiness, “fun with language,” running jokes and allusions, obscure lingo shared by the participants only, and a highly interactive feel to the works. One critic calls the atmosphere of an apa a “mail order cocktail party.” The especially “creative apas” contained poetry, drawing, and art. It was only a small step from these apas to the production of assemblings for artworld fans, those not-yet-famous artists looking for an outlet besides the absurdly restricted gallery system. In the science fiction apas, slogans like “Fandom Is A Way Of Life” and corresponding acronyms like FIAWOL or parodic comments on those acronyms like FIJAGH (“Fandom Is Just A Goddamned Hobby”) brings to mind the later use of pseudonyms and corporate names in assemblings and mail-art like The New York Correspondance School or the slogan “Mail-Art is Tourism.”

     

    A contemporary observer cannot help but notice the connection between fans and their particular type of fanaticism called stalking. The current political climate, with new national statutes defining and restricting stalking as well as increased concern on the state level, and the on-going representation of fans as stalkers in films like The Fan or King of Comedy, have highlighted the tendencies lurking in more benign forms in all fans–every one of us.9 The fan as stalker comments on the society of the spectacle in a disturbing performative criticism. While celebrities enter your home through the television, the fan returns the favor as a stalker. They challenge the one-way spectacle. If the star demands attention, then the stalking fan gives attention and demands a response. So, for example, Margaret Ray decided to pose as David Letterman’s wife. While he was away in California, she moved into his New Canaan, Connecticut house with her son, and began to live life as a celebrity’s wife. She ate meals there, drove the Porsche, and was only caught when she did not have the money for a turnpike toll. When Letterman dropped the charges, she moved back in within five days. When the police came to get her, she insisted that she tidy-up the house because Dave insists on a tidy home (“An Obsessed Fan Decides…”).

     

    Stars seek devoted and adoring fans. They send out photographs with personalized messages and their signature. Most fans understand the convention that this signature is not a personalized mark, but a signature in every other context functions as a sign of legitimation by connection to the actual person. Fans sometimes misrecognize these signs as signs of intimacy. They simply want their love requited, and when it goes unrequited, they write more letters. The typical stalker will write letters which in another context could pass for love letters. The crazed fan is perhaps the quintessential character in the late twentieth century. We see the dynamic in the films about obsessed fans mentioned above. In The Fan, the anti-hero confesses to his or her hero that “I lived my whole life for you, and you never answered me.” In fact, stalkers often begin by writing hundreds and thousands of letters to their idols. These letters often contain fetishized objects like locks of hair or pieces of skin much the same way that mail-artists send small fetishized objects to each other. Michael J. Fox and his bride received 6,000 letters with death threats from one of Fox’s fans because the fan was upset that Fox had not married her. Anne Murray received 263 phone calls in six months from a middle-aged farmer obsessed with Murray. The stars most likely to receive these letters have friendly approachable images on the screen; they are usually not the most glamorous or interesting stars.

     

    Michael Perry, who stalked Olivia-Newton John, had a fascination with her eyes and thought that her colored contact lens were a special signal to him. He eventually killed five people, including his parents, by shooting out their eyes. His fantasy also included Sandra Day O’Connor, and he was arrested in a Washington, D.C. hotel near the Supreme Court. In his hotel room, he had seven television sets–all turned on but tuned in to static and painted with eyes on the screens. The scene is reminiscent of Equus, the play in which a boy stabs out horses’ eyes. “Normal” fans do not recognize the embarrassment of the spectacle looking back at them–mocking them; the “normal” fan does not fantasize the possibility that she or he might play a role in the celebrity’s life. Normal fans give their love and attention without ever wanting anything in return: they recognize the celebrity as a god. The stalker wants his or her prayers answered.

     

    The mythic star quality of Ray Johnson himself (often referred to as “Sugar Dada”) grew as the networks increased in size. In 1970, Marcia Tucker staged the “New York Correspondance School Show” at the Whitney Museum. The show included work from 106 people–except Johnson’s own work–because he included only work sent to him. He put himself in the position of a structuring absence, and increased the desire to know more about him. Although he announced the death of the New York Correspondence School, in 1973, by sending a letter to the obituaries department of the New York Times, he soon invented Buddha University (reminiscent of Naim June Paik’s early mail-art series The University of Avant-Garde Hinduism). Playing on his tendency to drop people from his list of participants, his stamp read, “Ray Johnson has been dropped.” This sort of stamp, and the appearance of rubber stamps of Johnson’s head throughout the mail-art networks, further fueled the star frenzy. The mail-artist Honoria mentions a project in which she includes an image of herself with other images of mail-artists in a tub; the caption reads, “taking a bath with Ray Johnson.” (Honoria) In his efforts to become invisible from the art markets, he became a world-famous icon and name brand. He was so well-known as a “name” rather than as a personality, that in 1973 he was mistakenly included in a biographical dictionary of Afro-American artists. He had finally reached the status shared by Woody Allen’s Zelig. In fact, Johnson had done performances at the Fluxus AG gallery on “Nothing.” As one perverse twist on his highlighting of a fan’s logic, he would often include prints of potato mashers in his work as well, playing on that word’s other slang meaning: “a man who annoys women not acquainted with him, by attempting familiarities.” Fans were the ultimate mashers.

     

    In an article on Johnson, Clive Phillpot, the former director of New York’s Museum of Modern Art’s special collection of book and mail-art, mentions the last twist in Johnson’s effort to play through this perverse fan’s logic–the logic that fuels the art markets as well as the society of the spectacle–by calling or writing strangers. I think I received one of Johnson’s calls after publishing an article on the use of Fluxus strategies in University education. I do not know how he got my number, but one day my answering machine had a message on it (“Ray Johnson, Ray Johnson, Ray Johnson”); I did not recognize the voice, and at first was flattered. Then, when I could not figure out who called me, it began bothering me. Who actually called? How did they find me? Why did they call? What do they want? And, if it is actually Johnson, then what should I do with the tape-recording? Is this an artwork? Should I salvage the tape? What does this mean? Johnson (or some surrogate) had electronically mashed me. About two years later, Ray Johnson committed suicide–somehow not very surprising, considering his “suicide” of the New York Correspondence School and his book A Book About Death. With his typical flair he turned the sad occasion into a morbid joke and event. The New York Times ran a series of articles sifting through the details of his staging of the suicide, including a postcard sent to his home address that arrived the day after his suicide; it read: “If you are reading this, then Ray Johnson is dead.”10

     

    John Lennon often participated with Yoko Ono in Fluxus work and events. In issue number 7 of Aspen (1968, “The British Box”), Lennon includes a facsimile of his diary for 1968. Because of his status as a star, one rushes to read it carefully for any new information. This parodic use of “everyday life” appears in “The Lennon Diary” in which all the entries read: “Got up, went to work, came home, watched telly, went to bed.” The entries get increasingly scrawled, and the diary ends with one last “memorandum” that says, “Remember to buy Diary 1969.” In some ways, then, the repetition of the same everyday events plays a joke on the fan’s narcissistic identification with a star. One cannot avoid the urge, and the joke depends on that uncomfortable recognition and deflation of the pay-off. The other reading of the diary is that it parodies the boredom of everyday life in a Situationist send-up of the promise of change in the “society of the spectacle.” Like much of the work in assemblings, this is at first just a joke of recognition: you simply get the joke and move on. Its other meanings seep in more slowly.

     

    These works attack not just the art world’s production of celebrities as a marketing device, but also the way this marketing depends on the fantasies of other artists including those in alternative art groups. To break the narcissistic link between the participant and the celebrity may in fact be impossible; Johnson’s jokes depend on the link remaining strong. When you look at one of his serial images of basically identical bunny-like faces captioned by various famous names, or you are asked to function as the middle relay for a work involving Johnson and a celebrity, you laugh only if you recognize your own investment in this game. Otherwise, you simply discard the junk mail, fail to subscribe to the assemblings, and focus your narcissistic fascinations on other stars. You cannot simply disentangle personal desire from mass culture; there is no utopian outside for Johnson. His work challenges particular forms of celebrity and identity formation. On-sendings are not benign.

     

    Because the works depended on both reproducibility and on-sending, the notion of authorship was not merely disrupted by implicit problems with deciding about intention, but with the explicit disruption of that category. At the least, at the moment of the on-sending, everyone participated in authoring and reading. In assemblings the individual works often have signatures and sometimes even numbered prints or multi-media objects. Yet, when the works appear together in a compiled package, the works refer to each other and to other related assemblings and networks. It is not that authorship falls prey to a reader’s solipsism. It changes into a more fluid notion of production and consumption. The distinction between artists and spectators blurs not because of the open-ended-ness of interpretation, but because of the effort to build-in interactive game-like structures of discovery and play. Compilers, for example, function both as readers and as writers when they assemble work, package it, and send it back to the participants involved. Receiving this assembled package in the mail makes the participants join in the pleasures involved in discovery and relay. Once the participants begin joining in a number of assemblings, they often allude to other works in other assemblings. In fact, this article might function as a type of on-sending as it links to other sites and pages that then supplement and send-on the work in different contexts.

     

    3. Network Coverage

     

    The phrase “network coverage” probably conjures images of a nightly news broadcast rather than innovative artists’ and mail artists’ magazines. The irony of that situation is not completely coincidental. These assemblings explicitly respond to the distribution of words and images through gallery systems and in mass media. They respond to the lack of distribution systems for experimental work in the “media.” Some of this work responds to the art scene and some to the larger cultural scene’s or mass media’s exclusions and limits.

     

    The term “coverage” in museums, galleries, and academia usually refers to the research model of a scholar covering a field of study with a theory of explanation and corresponding descriptions of major works in that field. In the context of mail art and artists’ magazines, the term is somewhat ironic. The very form of these works challenges the coverage model with an information explosion that threatens the coverage paradigm, not only because of the elastic and ever-expanding number of these collaborative works, but also because authorship is often difficult to determine. In fact, Robert Filliou, associated with Fluxus, coined the term “eternal network,” often used to describe the mail-art networks, to describe the contemporary situation in which no one person can command all knowledge in any field; his article appeared in 1973 in the assembling FILE. The phrase describing the networks defines it as the chronicle of this failure of the coverage model.

     

    Assemblings propose another coverage model. Each assembling covers a mobile and changing network of artists and poets for a transitory moment even as it marks that moment for use by other readers at a later date. Each of these assemblings functions as a kind of relay system. Network coverage, in this sense, suggests a new way of understanding art and poetic practices which began flourishing in the last third of the twentieth century. From the perspective of the 21st century, may look like experiments in networked productions. They may, that is, have a similar impact and produce similar consequences as the rise of the novel in the 18th century.

     

    4. Unreadability (condensed version)

     

    The work found in assemblings tends to share one trait. It challenges any participant/receiver to figure out how to begin to read an assembling. In an historical context, the assemblings do seem to share a combination of lineages. From that history, a participant/receiver/reader can begin to find appropriate reading practices if not definitive meanings. To understand how “unreadability” becomes readable as an aesthetic opportunity requires a summary of the poetics involved. These poetic tendencies include concrete poetry as a break with “mainstream” expressive poetries, visual poetry as an effort to expand language systems, and conceptual art strategies as an intervention in everyday life. Through all of these tendencies, the problem of identifying the tone of these works makes the interpretation more complicated. Often these works’ meanings depend on the reader to recognize parodies, jokes, and a masquerade with the trappings of mass distribution systems like the post office and corporations. The tone of these works often presents many levels of meaning with important implications for interpretation. Besides these tendencies, the socio-poetics of networking also has important implications for ways of reading the unreadable assemblings.

     

    5. Craft as Conceptual Art

     

    Assemblings represent a special place in twentieth century art because they chart the emergence of craft in the age of mass production. The artists flaunt their fetishism of print and book-making alongside their fascination with huge bureaucratic systems of production and distribution. The artists cherish the production of carefully constructed individualized visual poems and constructions as well as the insistence that readers recuperate, re-cycle, plagiarize, and forever alter these codes and messages.

     

    In his study of modernist visual poetics, Jerome McGann argues that the “history of modernist writing could be written as a history of the modernist book” (McGann 77). In making and persuasively supporting this claim, McGann also opens the door to exploring other art and poetic practices as crafted and constructed objects. He explains how two small presses in particular, Kelmscott Press and Bodley Head, influenced modernist poetic practices by their emphasis on visual design over and above “legibility” (77). These practices also wanted to appeal to, as well as create, a particularly modern and aesthetically inclined audience. This interest in the printed page as an object found important practitioners not only in the later postmodern Concrete Poetry, but in Louis Zukofsky’s poetry. He initiated the interest in considering poetry as a “musical score” and an “aspiration…toward the condition of music” (83). Here again, the modernist precursors point toward the poetic compositions that resemble musical scores in concrete and visual poetry as well as the scores, instructions, and games found in assemblings. Ken Friedman explains how to perform a Fluxus event score:

     

    You can perform a Fluxus event in virtuoso or bravura style, and you can perform it jamming each piece into the minimal time possible as Ben Vautier does, or go for a slow, meditative rhythm as Alison Knowles does, or strike a balance as you'll see in the concerts organized by Dick Higgins or Larry Miller. Pieces can have a powerful torque, energized and dramatic, as in the work of Milan Knizak, the earthly folkloric touch seen in Bengt af Klintberg's pieces, or the atmospheric radiance, spiritual and dazzling, that is seen in Beuys's work. (Friedman, par. 4)

     

    McGann, focusing on American modernist poets, examines the usually overlooked work of Robert Carlton (“Bob”) Brown’s Readies for Bob Brown’s Machine. In that work Brown wanted to “immerse the reader in the print medium, much as the viewer is immersed in images at the cinema” (McGann 85). The modernist poetics of the page gain in intensity in postmodern poetry. McGann focuses on Language writing as the “key index of postmodern scene of writing” (88); that poetry uses a “textual process for revealing the conventions, and the conventionalities, of our common discursive formations” (107). This suggestion that the postmodern poetry emphasizes the social conventions of writing through the concrete visual construction also speaks to the further expansion and intensification of this process in assemblings. McGann summarizes these social concerns by discussing the implications of this writing’s “ironic self-representation,” that “situates poet and poem firmly in the social, institutional, and even the economic heart of things…an imagination of writing that knows it inhabits a world ruled by Mammon” (108). As Charles Bernstein writes, this poetry “flaunts its core idea as candy coating.” (Bernstein 380) McGann goes on to examine contemporary small presses, like Burning Deck, The Figures, Jargon, and Roof, in order to argue that in these presses’ publications (as well as throughout postmodern poetry) “writing is necessarily imagined as part of a social event of persons” (McGann 113).

     

    Charles Bernstein’s “Lift Off” demonstrates the way poetic practices capture this “social event.” To describe this process, McGann inserts a second narrative voice into his book. This disgruntled and humorous narrator describes Bernstein’s poem as a transcription of everything lifted off a page with a correction tape. The more earnest narrator remains unflappable and suggests that his (or her) reading also describes how Bernstein’s poem “foregrounds the machinery of writing” (McGann 109). For the suspicious narrator, it literally foregrounds the machinery, while for the more Apollonian narrator it figuratively foregrounds this process. In the work of assemblings individual pages or poems mean less than the distribution and compilation machinery. The assembling reader finds threads of the social connections as if receiving something “illegible,” but visual and poetically allusive and suggestive. Assemblings function as model and tool kits for both building and spoofing “a world ruled by Mammon” or at least Mammon’s corporate bureaucracy in webs and networks.

     

    Notes

     

    1. Held argues that “The first publication I know of to reflect the assembling sensibility was the cooperative periodical Spawn, initiated in East Orange, New Jersey, in 1917. In the March issue (1.3), the editorial stated that, “Spawn is the embodiment of an idea and is co-operative in the strictest sense of the word. Each man pays for his page and is absolutely responsible for what goes on it. Spawn is a magazine in name only…. It has no ax to grind or propaganda to propound.”

     

    2. Drucker is not only the premiere scholar in the study of book arts, having produced the first substantive book-length studies of these works, but is also an accomplished book artist.

     

    Editor’s Note: This issue of Postmodern Culture contains an extensive interview with Drucker. See “‘Through Light and the Alphabet’: An Interview with Johanna Drucker”.

     

    3. For an historical account of the development of CoBrA, Lettrism, and Situationism see Peter Wollen, Raiding the Ice Box: Reflections on Twentieth-Century Culture. Although Wollen focuses on the social history rather than aesthetic strategies, he does mention the importance of the “play of calligraphy” for the Lettrists (144). He also mentions the leader of the CoBrA artists’ strong criticism of Max Bill, who went on to influence the formation of Concrete Poetry.

     

    4. Pawel Patasz mentions that in Poland the censors would stamp each and every proof page of a publication on the back side of the proof. With these kinds of absurd controls, one can imagine how Commonpress began investigating these stamps of authentication.

     

    5. Joe Cardella, advertising slogan for prospective participants, ART/LIFE, 15, 11 (1995), back page.

     

    6. Also quoted in Banana’s “Corresponding Worlds: Debate and Dialogue,” Welch 189.

     

    7. The same quote appears in John Held, “Networking: the Origins of Terminology,” 17.

     

    8. The same quote appears in John Held, “Networking: the Origins of Terminology,” 19.

     

    9. The legal statute concerning stalkers in the state of Pennsylvania explains that “a person commits the crime of stalking when he engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts toward another person, including following the person without proper authority, under circumstances which demonstrate either of the following:

     

    1) an intent to place the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury;

     

    or

     

    2) an intent to cause substantial emotional distress to the person.”

     

    Pa.C.S. Ch. 27, 18 §2709 subsec. B.

     

    10. For comparison, see also D.A. Levy’s suicide while incarcerated. Levy was an important mail-artist collected by Fluxus list-maker Ken Friedman. Friedman had close ties to both of these artists. Perhaps they saw in suicide a socio-political act?

     

    Works Cited

     

    • Banana, Anna. “Mail Art Canada.” Crane and Stofflet.
    • —-. “Corresponding Worlds: Debate and Dialogue.” Welch 187-196.
    • Bernstein, Charles. “Living Tissue/Dead Ideas.” Content’s Dream, Essays 1975-1984. Los Angeles: Sun & Moon Press, 1986.
    • Bowles, Jerry G., ed. “letter from the editor.” Art Work, No Commercial Value. 1971.
    • Brown, Robert Carlton. Readies for Bob Brown’s Machine. Cagnes-sur-Mer: Roving Eye Press, 1931.
    • Crane, Michael and Mary Stofflet, eds. Correspondence Art. San Francisco: Contemporary Art Press, 1984.
    • Drucker, Johanna. The Century of Artists Books. New York: Granary Books, 1995.
    • Filliou, Robert. “Research on the Eternal Network.” FILE. 1973.
    • Friedman, Ken. “Getting Into Events,” The Fluxus Home Page : n. pag. Internet. 6 June 1996. Available URL: www.nutscape.com/fluxus/homepage/n2events.html.
    • Haynal, André, Miklos Molnar, and Gérard de Puymège. Fanaticism: A Historical and Psychoanalytical Study. Trans. Linda Butler Koseoglu. New York: Schoken Books, 1983. 20-33.
    • Hebdige, Dick. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London & New York: Methuen, 1979.
    • Held, John. “Networking: the Origins of Terminology.” Welch 17-21.
    • Honoria. “Introducing Mail Art: A Karen Elliot Interview with Crackerjack Kid and Honoria.” Postmodern Culture. 3.2 (1993): n. pag. Online. Internet. 6 June 1996.
    • Janssen, Ruud. Interview. Assembling Magazines.
    • McGann, Jerome. Black Riders: The Visible Language of Modernism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
    • “An Obsessed Fan Decides to Make David Letterman’s House Her Home.” People Weekly. 13 June 1988: 131.
    • Perkins, Stephen, ed. Assembling Magazines. Exhibit checklist and catalogue. Iowa City: Subspace Gallery, 1996.
    • Phillpot, Clive. “Artists’ magazines: News of the Art Strike, Monty Cantsin, and Karen Elliot.” Art Documentation (Fall 1992): 137-138.
    • Sanders, Joe, ed. Science Fiction Fandom. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1994.
    • Welch, Chuck, ed. Eternal Network: A Mail Art Anthology. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 1995.
    • Wilson, William. “NY Correspondence School.” Art and Artists. (April 1966). 54.
    • Wollen, Peter. Raiding the Ice Box: Reflections on Twentieth-Century Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993.

     

  • Jumping to Occlusions

     
     
    Abstract: “Jumping to Occlusions” is perhaps the first thorough statement of a poetics of online space. In the present hypertextual trickster edition, a lively investigative language of the link is employed helping to develop this essay’s written argument through its own hypertextuality–its jumps, sidebars, graphics, embedded sound files, misleadings, and other features. This essay explores electronic technology’s opportunities for the production, archiving, distribution, and promotion of poetic texts but most importantly, argues that electronic space is a space of writing. For previous excursions into this a written terrain of links and jumps one need only look to the language experiments of certain poets writing in this century. Such poets include Gertrude Stein, Charles Olson, Robert Creeley, and Language-related experimentalists such as Charles Bernstein, Ron Silliman, and Susan Howe. Electronic writing, like previous instances of writing, engages the double “mission” of writing evident in some of this experimental poetry: to varying degrees, writing is about a subject, but also about the medium through which it is transmitted. If relevant previous poetic experiments involved the exploration of language as physical, what are the physical parameters of webbed online space? Texts move not only within themselves but into socially-charged externalities, “a webbed interference of junk mail, ‘frets’ of information, systemic failures, ephemera, disunion. There is no resting place–only the incessantly reconstituted links dissolving each time the reading is entered.” The physical features most up for grabs? These include online hypertext itself, a mass of fits and starts. Links are at the center of an electronic hypertextual writing and links introduce disjunction. This post-typographic and non-linear disunion is no news to poetics. It is through a poetics of experimental poetries that a framework is sketched and progress is made towards the building of an electronic poetics, one where experiments that changed poetic language may inform the electronic air we breathe.–lpg

     


    Proceed to Hypertext…

     

  • ‘Through Light and the Alphabet:’ An Interview with Johanna Drucker

     
     
    Abstract:Johanna Drucker’s cumulative work as a writer, printer, book artist, and scholar of visible language in all its forms has accumulated in a critical and creative corpus which is, as one observer has put it, nothing less than “a conceptual framework for the relationship between the visual arts and the written arts.” Nowhere is such a conceptual framework currently more needed than in the post-alphabetic writing spaces of electronic media–an area to which Drucker has, in fact, lately turned her attention.
     

    In this interview (conducted entirely via electronic mail) I have attempted to frame my questions so as to provide as complete an overview as possible of Drucker’s career, with particular emphasis on her recent interest in matters of the virtual. The text of the interview is accompanied by forty digital images of Drucker’s artistic work, as well as her brief catalogue essay entitled “The Corona Palimpsest: Present Tensions of the Book.”–mgk

     


    Proceed to Hypertext…

     

  • The Heimlich Home Page of Cyberspace

     
     
    Abstract: This collaborative document is a hypertextual reflection upon the politics of of sovereignty, self-hood, and community as they are embodied in three distinctive moments and formations of the social imaginary in Western capitalism: the emergence of linear perspective and the specular visual ordering of the social senses in Renaissance mercantile capitalism; the formation of imperial identity that was manifested in the rhetorical and cartographic construction and physical conquest of the “New World”; and the simulacra of virtual selves and communities of cyberspace. It explores the performative emplotment and emplacement of virtual “home pages” of identity in MOOspaces and the World Wide Web, and argues that a critical understanding of the “new frontier” of cyberspace must take into account the ways in which it uncannily restages the imperial drama of sovereignty which animated the conquest of the old frontier of America as “New World.”–ah

     


    Proceed to Hypertext…

     

  • Book Unbound*

    John Cayley

    © 1997
    PMC 7.3

     

    Book Unbound*

     

    Abstract: “Book Unbound” is a “collocational cybertext,” a self-assembling poetic collage that can be read in two ways: either automatically in the “bound” mode, or in an “unbound” mode that allows readers to extract and recycle words from its recombinant text stream. The present version is a HyperCard stack (Mac only, HyperCard program not required) available for downloading. –Editor

     


     
    Editor’s Note: “Book Unbound” is a HyperCard stack. The present version runs only on Apple Macintosh computers. Activate one of the links below to download a compressed, binary version of the stack (a self-extracting StuffIt archive). If you are using a correctly-configured graphical browser, the file should be converted and decompressed file automatically. If it does not, save the file, convert it with
    BinHex then double-click to launch the self-expanding archive. If you own a copy of HyperCard, download the stack only (120k). If you do not own HyperCard, download the stand-alone application (676k).
     


     

    Author’s Remarks

     

    “Book Unbound” is a literary object which, I believe, exemplifies certain potentialities of cybertext. 1

     

    The first version of “Book Unbound” was produced in 1995 using HyperCard for the Apple Macintosh, although I had made earlier collocational pieces in 1993. From one point of view–especially when read in its “bound” mode–“Book Unbound” is simply a text generator. As such, it employs a fairly simple algorithm, which I call “collocational” but which might also be recognized as a simple stochastic transformation. The transformation can proceed beginning with any word of the given (or source) text. Any other word–occurring at any point in the given text–which follows (collocates with) the word last chosen may then follow it and so become in turn the current word. Clearly, in this type of transformation, at the very least, each pair of successive words are two-word segments of natural English. However, the text will wander within itself, potentially branching at any point when a word that is repeated in the given text is picked, and this will most often occur when common, grammatical words are encountered.

     

    The given (or source) text of “Book Unbound” is a brief, closely-written piece concerned with the book, so-called new media, and varieties of textuality which they underwrite. In “Book Unbound” I have chosen to keep the source text hidden. Anyone who is interested to see it can either hack into the Hypercard stack or track down the catalogue of the exhibition for which it was written, “Mapping Knowledge” (curated and edited by Les Bicknell), an exhibition of book art held at The Minories Gallery, Colchester, UK, November 1994. Even when read in its “bound” mode, and starting from its initial state, I am more or less satisfied with the performance of the generative text. This performance is the “due form” of what “I” have (pre-)written or programmed, by composing the source text and applying these quasi-aleatory collocational procedures.

     

    However, “Book Unbound” has other, more interesting, potential which could be taken much further in the future work of this field. 2 Once read in its “unbound” mode and altered by a reader it becomes, in part, the work of that reader (or, if you prefer, that reading).

     

    When you open “Book Unbound” and read it in this “unbound” mode, you change it. New collocations of words and phases are generated from the given text according to the algorithm described briefly above. After each screen fills, the reader is invited to select a phrase from the generated text by clicking successively on the first and the last words from a continuous string of text. These selections are collected on the page of the book named “leaf,” where they are accessible to copying or editing. But they also become a part of the store of potential collocations from which the book goes on to generate new text. The selections feed back into the process and change it irreversibly. If the reader continues to read and select over many sessions, his or her preferred collocations may eventually come to dominate the process. The work may then reach a state of chaotic stability, strangely attracted to one particular modulated reading of its original seed text. Each reader’s copy of the work thus becomes unique: non-trivially different from every other copy.

     

    “Book Unbound” is (inevitably) an experiment with limitations. 3 For example, it is not possible to select discontinous text from one screen or from previous screens of generated language. Neither does the present work allow you to add your own new words to the total vocabulary of the piece (except to the freely editable “leaf” page). You can only select new or preferred collocations from those which are generated within its textual microverse. However, even within this defined and bounded space some interesting experiments can be performed, selecting, for example, only noun phrases, or only linguistic function words. Readers might make several copies of “Book Unbound” and train them in different ways, watching for divergences in the nature of the texts they generate, as for example, one version becomes a gallery for a small group of objects and another becomes a Steinian obsessive, possessed, let’s say, by pronouns.

     

    John Cayley
    May, 1997

     


     

    Addendum

     

    Remarks on “Book Unbound” from Espen Aarseth’s Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature (PhD dissertation, University of Bergen, 1995; forthcoming from Johns Hopkins University Press):

     

    John Cayley's "Book Unbound" is a literary work not easily classified by traditional aesthetics... it takes over the screen and spits forth short suggestive sentences one word at a time ...

     

    The program is assembling these lines from its "hidden texts" according to certain algorithms. As the process goes on, the hidden text is changed by what is displayed, and the user can select passages for inclusion in the regenerative process. Thus the text output is influenced, and will be different for each copy of the text. Is it still the same text? Cayley calls the produced output "hologograms," fragments that contain holographic versions of the initial material....

     

    This text is an impurity, a site of struggle between medium, sign and operator. The fragments produced are clearly not authored by anyone, they are pulverized and reconnected echoes of meaning, and the meaning that can be made from them is not the meaning that once existed. "Book Unbound" is an extreme paragon of cyborg aesthetics, an illustration of the issue of communicative control. The pleasure of this text is far from accidental; it belongs not to the illusion of control, but to the suggestive reality of unique and unrepeatable signification. It would be a grave mistake to see this text as a metaphor of the "impossibility of perfect communication" or as the embodiment of the gap between sign and meaning in texts. Instead, it shows how meaning struggles to produce itself, through the cyborg activity of writing.

     

    Notes

     

    *. “Book Unbound” was also included in the CD-ROM issue, number 3, of the arts magazine, Engaged (London, 1995).

     

    1. Here, I distinguish cybertext from hypertext according to criteria first set out by Espen Aarseth in his essay, “Nonlinearity and Literary Theory” (in George Landow, ed. Hyper/Text/Theory, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1994) and refined in Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature (forthcoming from John Hopkins University Press), and an article, “Text, Hypertext or Cybertext: a Typology of Textual Modes Using Corresponding Analysis,” forthcoming in Research in Humanities Computing, 6, ed. Susan Hockey, Nancy Ide and Giorgio Perissinotto, Oxford: Oxford University Press). Aarseth uses cybertext as a more inclusive term embracing, for example, generative or “ergodic” textuality (the latter explicitly demands work from the reader), while reserving “hypertext” for the (chiefly passive) link-node structures which are now familiar to over 50 million of (scare quotes) “us.”

     

    2. In its HyperCard version, my later work “Pressing the Code Key” employs a somewhat elaborated version of the “Book Unbound” form, although it does not address the limitations outlined below. As an essay, “Pressing the Code Key” was published in ejournal v.6, n. 1. See: http://www.hanover.edu/philos/ejournal/archive/ej-6-1.txt.

     

    3. There are also software limits to the HyperCard version, which cannot cope with text fields containing more than 32 kilobytes (about 32,000 characters or 5,000 words). Eventually, these software limitations would also be reached.

     

  • AlphaWeb

     

     

    Abstract: Alphaweb is a hypertext consisting of poetry and ruminations, graphics, and fragments of the Coriolis Codex, suggesting (but hardly conclusively) a special relationship between angels and dragons. The work has at least three interpenetrating structures, approximately 250 areas and three times that many doors and passageways. The structure that is always present for orientation is the alphabetical structure; both the poems and the angels progress from A to Z, a comfort for those who like to proceed in an orderly fashion from A to Z, or at least to B. The stability of this structure is seriously compromised by built-in folds in the alphabet; because you can link to any letter from any area, the structure can be used to demolish itself at the behest of the traveler. A prolonged wander will reveal interior structures, jointly created by author and traveler, which are the work itself. The author suggests a dark room for optimum viewing of the graphics. –drs


    Proceed to Hypertext…

     

  • Twelve Blue

     

     

    Abstract:A drowning, a murder, a friendship, three or four love affairs, a boy and a girl, two girls and their mothers, two mothers and their lovers, a daughter and her father, a father and his lover, seven women, three men, twelve months, twelve threads, eight hours, eight waves, one river, a quilt, a song, twelve interwoven stories, a thousand memories, Twelve Blue explores the way our lives–like the web itself or a year, a day, a memory, or a river–form patterns of interlocking, multiple, and recurrent surfaces.–mj

     

    Help with Reading: The story threads quite obviously along its edges, like frayed cloth, in the left window. You’ll find links there. There are passing links within the text on the right as well, but these, once followed, go away. You’ll want, I think, to open the space so all twelve threads show, diurnally (a not terribly obscure word for the weaving and unraveling of time). Their progress is measured in the stories and their occasional proximities are meaningful. The words work best with serifs and space enough (14 point is preferred). There are two hundred and sixty nine links here among ninety six spaces. Twelve blue isn’t anything. Think of lilacs when they’re gone.


    Proceed to Hypertext…

     

  • Editor’s Introduction

    Stuart Moulthrop

    School of Communications Design
    University of Baltimore
    samoulthrop@ubmail.ubalt.edu

     

    Decorating the Corpse: Hypertext After the Web

     

    Not long ago I learned that in 1997-98, two new literary prizes will be given for work in hypertext, one in the U.S. and one in Europe. When I reported this to a certain writer well versed in “new media,” I received an interesting answer. The givers of the prizes are very kind, the writer said, “but they are pinning medals on a corpse.” My correspondent thought that creative hypertext had a fine future behind it but little in the way of prospects. It was an idea whose time had been.Writers say these things. Sometimes, as in the case just mentioned, we speak from despair, fearing that the audience for serious work may be collapsing to a singularity. At other times the lament that X is lost may serve as prelude to hubris, for instance when the mourner believes that a bright and promising meta-X (of his own invention) is coming with the dawn. Writing is dead!–and not a moment too soon–long live my kind of writing! Because they can be disingenuous in this way, literary mass obituaries should never be taken at face value. The reader is warned.

     

    Yet if one has time and inclination to worry about such things, there are reasons to be concerned about hypertext. Until recently the United States had two major publishers of substantial work in new media: Eastgate Systems and the Voyager Company. After struggling to create a market for CD-ROMs with admirable production values and strong literary sensibilities, Voyager has left the field. Eastgate carries on, and other ventures, perhaps by university presses and non-U.S. firms, may compensate in some measure for Voyager’s absence. Still, the implications are troubling.

     

    No doubt the change at Voyager came for various reasons, many having little to do with the Internet, but Voyager’s withdrawal does seem to coincide neatly with the recent surge of interest in the World Wide Web. One has to wonder whether Voyager’s often exquisite products were eclipsed by offerings on the Web–from on-line ‘zines like Salon, Feed, and Suck to the more dubious prospects of “push” media and VRML. If this is the case, then we may be seeing a shift, as far as hypertext is concerned, from a commercial model of literary production:

     

    “EXPANDED BOOK” = CD-ROM =
    MARKETABLE COMMODITY

     

    to a public-service or indeed an amateur model:

     

    HYPERTEXT = WEB SITE =
    WORK OF PURE DEVOTION

     

    Postmodern Culture has an evident stake in these developments. Since our recent move to Johns Hopkins University Press and the Muse Project, back issues of the journal, formerly available to anyone with Web access, have been open only to institutional and individual Muse subscribers. (Each current issue continues in free circulation until the next issue appears.) As we explained when the change was announced, this seemed a reasonable way to cover operating costs and keep the journal alive. We knew, though, that we were swimming against the tide. As a number of our authors and readers pointed out, free availability has been a key feature of this publication. Imposing charges seems to some a betrayal. On the Web, as they would have it, information wants to be free.In response to these concerns, the Press and the editors have decided to make text-only versions of our back issues available to all. This is only a preliminary announcement; details of the new arrangement will appear in our next issue (September, 1997). It bears mentioning, though, that we are not abandoning the subscription model of on-line publishing. Subscriptions to Postmodern Culture will still be offered both individually and through Project Muse, and versions available to subscribers and non-subscribers will differ in important ways.

     

    The free archive will most likely contain full text of conventional articles minus hypertext links, search support, and other valuable features. Because they depend on more sophisticated forms of encoding, hypertext and hypermedia compositions like the contents of this special issue will almost certainly be excluded from the text-only archive. Where hypertext is concerned, some of us still prefer to go against the flow.

     

    It would be easy to mistake this perverseness for greed, common as that motive has become. The insistence on hypertext as a cash nexus (to say it bluntly) may seem in line with the rampaging commercialization of the Internet. Ever since the discovery of Web browsing as the fin de siècle“killer app,” the corporate world has been lusting after computer networks with priapistic urgency, and though pundits regularly predict a nasty end to this affair, the ardor shows no sign of cooling yet. Information wants to be free? On the dot-commons these days the buzz is rather different: info-makers want to see fees. This is a long way from pure devotion.

     

    Yet as any old cyberspace hand will tell you, it is hard to use the words hypertext and profit in the same sentence without arousing deep suspicion. In the most popular Internet business models, major revenues come not from subscriptions but from sale of advertising space. Advertising–as business has known it so far, anyway–depends on reliable, sustained audience attention, the sort of thing TV, movies, radio, and print provide quite handily. Hypertext systems foster rather different behavior. They emphasize transition and active selection of content, raising the primitive impulse of channel-surfing to something that might be called art. They challenge viewers to become interpreters, working out connections between fragments instead of relaxing into the paratactic flow. In short, hypertext does not go well with mass marketing.

     

    Mass marketing, however, remains our primary economic doctrine; so something needs to be done about hypertext (for starters) to make the Internet safe for oligopoly. This is where “push” programming and “Web channels” come in (who needs hypertext links?), where Microsoft’s absorption of WebTV starts to look like something other than amoebic reflex, and where Larry Ellison’s recent bid to turn Apple Computer into a manufacturer of dumb terminals makes a certain deeply sinister sense.

     

    In his interview with Johanna Drucker in this issue, Matthew Kirschenbaum adverts to Sven Birkerts’ attack on the “Faustian bargain” of emerging technologies. (See this and also Drucker’s response.) This argument also plays its part in the defense of the old order. Dire moralist that he is, Birkerts asks us to choose the stony but honest road to salvation. A more jaded reader, or one better informed about the current state of media, might draw a different conclusion: better the devil you know. How much more comfortable to live in a world where books are books, television is television, and so is the World Wide Web. Why learn to surf when it’s it’s so delicious to drown? As for hypertext, leave that to the hobbyists.

     

    Hypertext is a strange kind of hobby, though. Pursued for purposes of art or inquiry, hypertext is a vexation, a disorderly practice. As the projects collected in this issue demonstrate, this sort of writing calls us back to fundamental questions about language, meaning, structure, and authority that have long been part of the postmodern agenda; but we come to these questions in practice as well as theory, and in the marketplace and classroom as well as the library. To be sure, Messrs. Gates, Murdoch, Ellison and company will not lose much sleep over the contents of this issue, but that does not mean these texts are insignificant or futile, mere posthumous campaign ribbons for the celebrated corpse.

     

    Whatever its fortunes in the marketplace, hypertext is far from dead–and there may be hope, in the fulness of years, even for the marketplace, since late-stage capitalism doubtless does not mark the end of history. History is dynamic and therefore debatable–literary history in particular. The reader will have learned by now not to trust an author with a long face and a sad story about his favorite form. A hasty bill of mortality is often a transparent fraud. Consider the evidence.

     

    In This Issue

     

    This special issue on and of hypertext contains four explicitly hypertextual works and three scholarly articles in which electronic media figure as subject, mode of expression, or both.

     

    Michael Joyce’s “Twelve Blue” is a network of stories or a music in words composed of twelve parts in eight bars–all asking to be read at a certain blue depth.

     

    Two of the hypertexts are poems: Diana Slattery’s “Alphaweb” and John Cayley’s “Book Unbound.” Slattery’s work is a text-and-graphic exploration of the angelic, the demonic, and the electronic rendered onto the Web. Cayley’s work is a singular and significant representative of electronic writing outside the Web (it was created with HyperCard), and of generative, interactive “cybertext.”

     

    In the critical register there is “Through Light and the Alphabet,” Matthew Kirschenbaum’s interview with the writer, artist, and historian Johanna Drucker, the text supplemented with links to and reproductions of Drucker’s work. Loss Pequeño Glazier’s “Jumping to Occlusions” is a hypertextual essay considering the status, potential, and problems of interactive poetry. Craig Saper’s “Intimate Bureaucracies and Infrastructuralism” considers anti-institutional practices such as mail art and artists’ assemblings in relation to, among other things, the culture of the Internet.

     

    In addition this issue also includes “The Heimlich Home of Cyberspace,” a multi-authored, collaborative hypertext produced by undergraduates at Drake University. As a communal discourse, as a project from the classroom–and most important, as the work of writers about as young as the Internet itself–this text has a particular significance.

     

    Acknowledgements

     

    This issue could not have been produced without much wise and generous assistance. I am especially grateful to (and for) our Managing Editor, Sarah Parson Wells, who handled with capability and confidence the enormous technical work behind this issue. Thanks also to Mark Bernstein and Eastgate Systems for their kind cooperation in publishing “Twelve Blue.” My co-editors, Lisa Brawley, Eyal Amiran, and John Unsworth, along with Ellen Sauer at Johns Hopkins University Press, gave encouragement and counsel. Jane Yellowlees Douglas and Greg Ulmer graciously served beyond the call of their editorial board duties. Above all I wish to thank those who acted as consulting readers and advisers: Espen Aarseth, David Balcom, Carolyn Guyer, Jon Ippolito, Johndan Johnson-Eilola, Michael Joyce, Nancy Kaplan, Matthew Kirschenbaum, Catherine Marshall, Barbara Page, and Jim Rosenberg.

     

    Introductory Essay In this Issue

     

    Acknowledgements

     

    Meaning appears only at the intersection


    "Home pages" and electronic "'zines," much like assemblings, depend on making links to other sites on the Internet. Each page, even corporate pages, link to and assemble other groups' or individuals' work. The pages link according to the logic of amateur discoverers. "Here's what I found," they say. 


    He had been a coward. No one liked him. It was a life. Each morning he woke up surprised and a little disappointed that he'd made it to another goddamn day in this empty stinking valley. 

    The “forms” which will emerge won’t, I don’t think, replace print media for a long time–we’re too attached to the intimacy and convenience of portable books and magazines–but the electronic forms will and already are allowing the popular imagination to reinvent its relation to the received traditions of reading, writing, and imagining. Don’t you think?

     

    In my own experience, the Web is both useful and frustrating. A great source for information, research, and communication, it is very disorienting for me. I am attached to the spatial modes which print media offer as orientation. I despise the “scrolling screen” and the attempt to locate myself in a document by the position of the sidebar marker.

    …the point is not that everything is linked through these sequences. The constitution of any such whole could only be a misrepresentation of stability, the futile pursuit of yet another encyclopedia. The insistences of the internal orders of texts do not add stability to the text, rather they add a perplexing layer of instability; it is the “failure” of the links, whether they connect or not, that gives them their activity and it is through this activity that electronic writing departs irreversibly from the world of print.

     

  • Selected Letters from Readers

     

     

    The following responses were submitted by PMC readers using regular e-mail or the PMC Reader’s Report form. Not all letters received are published, and published letters may have been edited.

     


    Editors’ Note

    As promised in the last issue, this instalment of Letters contains a selection from the electronic mail we received in response to our decision to begin publishing by subscription in Project Muse. A complete archive of these exchanges can be found at:

     

    http://www.iath.virginia.edu/lists_archive/pmc-jhup

     

    Because of the length and number of these messages we have grouped them into a separate section.

    Letters on other topics begin immediately below.

     


     

    PMC Reader’s Report on Michael Joyce’s “Twelve Blue” (PMC 7.3)

     

    What a happy, disturbing, confusing, challenging, delightful joy to discover Michael Joyce’s simply breathtaking story(ies) “Twelve Blue.” I’ve been drowning in his words for the last two days, gasping for breath.

     

    The potential and not the realization…the process and not the product. I am reminded of Michael Ondaatje’s astonishing poetry and poetic prose. This is bleeding edge writing, exciting and disconcerting.

     

    Where can I find more?!?

     

    These comments are from: Linda Wallace
    wallacel@is.dal.ca

     


     

    The Editors reply

     

    “Twelve Blue” was co-published by Postmodern Culture and Eastgate Systems. Both “Twelve Blue” and further information about Joyce’s work are available at Eastgate’s Web site.

     


     

    PMC Reader’s Report on Fredman, “How to Get Out of the Room That is the Book?” (PMC 6.3)

     

    I’m currently working on a PhD thesis on the novels of Paul Auster and always interested in collecting material in the shape of articles and intelligent criticism. Vol 6, no 3 of Postmodern Culturehad an article by Stephen Fredman entitled “How to Get Out of the Room That Is the Book?” I’ve been able to secure an abstract of this (a student of mine gave it to me); do I have any chance of getting the whole article? Thanks.

     

    These comments are from: Carl Springer
    fs5y246@public.uni-hamburg.de

     


     

    The Editors reply

     

    Text-only versions of all conventional articles, including Professor Fredman’s, are available at http://www.iath.virginia.edu/pmc/text-only/. This archive excludes hypertextual articles and media pieces that cannot be presented as plain text.

     


     

    PMC Reader’s Report: cyberspatial hypereality is a capitalist plot

     

    So I see the only remedy to this centuries-old disease to be the total sharing of information for free by those of us who see the light at the end of the tunnel as that belonging to the oncoming train called cyber-capitalism. This will keep the culture of the net pure for long enough until there are so many of us “doing it for free” that the snakey train of consumerism will derail. So will you please send me enough money for room and board while I dedicate my life to this setting-the-world-righteous cause? I will appreciate email with the details of where and when I can collect my share ASAP, as my rent is again due.

     

    Thank you,
    RIC ALLAN

     

    These comments are from: ric allan ricallan@loop.com

     


    Special Section: PMC and Project Muse


     

    Russell Potter, 3-25-97

     

    I wanted to comment on some of the issues in John Unsworth’s informative posting, and thank him for taking the time to lay out all these histories, and set up this list.

     

    The vagaries of academic journal publishing certainly exert their pressures in all kinds of frustrating ways, and the transition into on-line incarnations has not radically altered them. But I always thought of PMC as fundamentally different from other journals, in that its functional ephemerality (back in the days, at least, when it was retrieved by e-mail or ftp) represented at least a partial exception to the old habits of thinking of texts as things, as commodities, texts as substantial material entities.

     

    Now, marketed as “America’s oldest electronic journal” (a rather ghastly moniker, I think), PMC is a little commodity package much like other little commodity packages; it has, as it were, materialized. Access to it, like access to many other electronic scholarly resources, is a commodity restricted to paid users or institutions. The Aedificium, to echo a page from Eco, is once more locked, and with Benedictine conviction we are supposed to admit that, alas, it was written that it should be so.

     

    Ironies abound–among them the fact that I and other PMC contributors cannot access our own writings, to which we ostensibly retain copyright. We have lost the ability to control the dissemination even of our own work, lost the ability in fact to give it away for free, which was part of why I was always glad to have written for PMC. Those who search the web will no longer come up with our fish in their nets, unless they are fortunate enough to be in an institution that subscribes to Project MUSE. In a time when library budgets, and university budgets generally, are in a downward spiral, this simply means that PMC has gone from being available to almost any networked computer user to being available to a few thousand persons affiliated with well-heeled educational institutions.

     

    With regard to the half of PMC’s traffic that John notes come from the .com domain, I wonder how many of these users would really want to pay for individual access. And certainly the many students at public institutions, or at poorer institutions abroad, will not be able to pay up if their institutions themselves cannot.

     

    It’s certainly a sea-change from the ostenisbly “non-commercial” internet of pre-WWW days, and maybe harder to take for old sailors who remember when the information superhighway looked more like Route 66 with potholes than the freeway offramp at LAX.

     

    And, I think, there is a disturbing trend, where the vaunted techno-demotics of the information age (and yes, yes, it was problematic from the start) is rapidly being recolonized, where public electronic materials are being sealed off, pubic-domain e-texts are being scanned, marked, and then locked away behind commercial firewalls, and such things as are still “free” are largely demos and teasers for what is not.

     

    In terms of how these concerns could really have been met with regard to PMC, I’m not sure I have an answer. If institutional support could have come from other, less-readily un-earmarked resources (faculty course-relief, or via a modest graduate editorial assistantship), or perhaps taking advantage of the net’s polylocality by farming out editorial tasks to a rotating team of editors at a number of sites, each one of which would have had only modest demands made on their time, I certainly would have preferred it.

     

    As for what is possible now, though, I wonder: would it not be far better to make the new issue the one that costs money, and make the archive free? This, at least, by adopting a sort of term-of-patent approach to the textual property of the journal, does not close up the conduit, or make what was formerly accessible inaccessible. Since PMC has been web hypertext for a while, the more recent issues would offer sufficient indication of PMC’s persona to entice those who were interested to subscribe. If 50% of the traffic goes to the archive as compared with the new issue, there would be no loss in “traffic” as such.

     

    I also would like to know if I or other PMC authors can, without violating some contract, post our own PMC articles on our own web sites, restoring them to public access. But I’d rather see the whole archive “freed” up, and let the old-fashioned notion that what a subscriber pays for is the sequential access to new issues of a journal or magazine. Most of all, I’m curious to know what other PMC people think about these issues.

     

    Russell A. Potter
    rpklc@uriacc.uri.edu

     


     

    Victor Grauer, 3-25-97

     

    Thank you, Russell Potter, for an excellent post that just about says it all for me. Before getting down to some very nitty gritty practical stuff, I just want to add that the Internet has become something like what the sun was for the Aztecs according to Bataille, an “expenditure without reserve.” And I like it that way. I myself expend a Hell of a lot without reserve, or recompense either, for that matter. And I like it a lot when institutions do the same. PMC has been very special because of its expenditure without reserve and now it will no longer be special as it seeks to enter the restrictive (and competitive) arena of restricted economy.

     

    Now let’s get down to it. How much money, exactly, are we talking about here?…A measly $5000 a year plus change? If I were making $100,000 a year, as is, apparently, many a full professor, instead of the far smaller sum I actually earn (that I will not even mention what it is) I’d be happy to subsidize the whole operation myself. You could call it Victor Grauer’s Postmodern Culture….Anyhow, as little as I make, if you asked me to contribute in order to keep it free, I’d probably plump for more than the price of a subscription, whereas now I refuse to subscribe at all on principle. Haven’t you guys ever seen It’s A Wonderful Life?

     

    As far as advertising is concerned, to be perfectly postmodern about it all, why are you turning up your nose? According to Marshall McLuhan advertising is good news and I’m sure Baudrillard would agree. It has enabled TV to shine like the sun, so why not PMC? You have a lot of readers and they must love to read so they must love to buy books. I doubt if amazon.com or Borders would lose any money if they paid PMC to add some links to its site. And there are probably a lot of those pay-per-view journals that might also like to post an ad and a link.

     

    Victor Grauer
    grauer@pps.pgh.pa.us

     


     

    John Unsworth, 3-26-97

     

    The costs of producing PMC are not large, it’s true, but they total more than that $5K–the Managing Ed. (esp. during the weeks leading up to an issue) puts in more than 10 hrs. a week, and we usually lay on some additional people, etc. etc.. With office expenses of the sort I mentioned before, extra people, and so on the total is between $10,000-15,000. And if you’d like to kick in for that, I could get used to Victor Grauer’s PMC. Capra economics, on the other hand, really don’t seem like a realistic way to go–would you want to be depending on the kindness of strangers if it were your hourly wage that was at issue? Bear in mind, the Managing Editor (Sarah Wells, now) has usually been a grad student or other part-time person, doing a lot of the grunt work of producing the issue and managing the communications flow: the editors, editorial board, authors, etc. contribute their time and effort as expenditure without recompense–this $10-$15,000, then, is a small part of the expenditure that actually goes into producing the journal, most of which already fits your Bataillian model. It just happens that this last part is the nub that has to involve cash (Fed Ex doesn’t do barter; the ME has rent to pay, the phone company etc.), and I’d like to see a sustainable way of producing that cash. Contributions doesn’t strike me, at least, as it.

     

    >As far as advertising is concerned, to be perfectly postmodern about
    >it all, why are you turning up your nose?

     

    Advertising might be it, and nobody’s turning up a nose–it may be that our needs are small enough that even the imploding Web advertising market could support them. Michael, do you have any comment on that?

     

    John Unsworth
    http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~jmu2m/

     


     

    Michael Jensen, 3-26-97

     

    Unfortunately, advertising is hardly a funding panacea for a journal like PMC. Some costs can be somewhat subvened by advertising revenue, but the audience of PMC is sufficiently broad yet small that it makes revenue-generating by advertising hard–especially if it’s not being organized by a professional marketing staff. That is, the time cost involved in soliciting, communicating, processing, designing, and/or emplacing advertising is also substantial, and would be unlikely to pay for itself for an individual journal, were PMC still a “free” journal.

     

    At least $5,000 per issue would need to be generated (even independent of the costs of solicitation, etc.), and scholarly journals–even one with a relatively broad readership–just don’t command huge ad-placement sums, particularly in an uncertain marketing domain like the Internet. Something like 25 ads per journal at $200/ad would be required–more than one per article. Or, if one was really lucky, 20 ads at $250 apiece. Either of those numbers is unlikely. That’s a lot of hustling–phone calls, handling of queries, etc. With forty journals and 4 million potential readers of Muse, we’ve been approached by two–count ’em–potential advertisers. That will change, but it’s not a simple matter.

     

    Scholarly publication–regardless of the medium–is of small market interest, regardless of the high value of the material to the readers. The Project Muse model–in which subscribing campuses are provided with campus-wide free access–is an attempt to do a bunch of things: keep libraries at the nexus point between scholarly publication and scholars/readers, keep costs low by keeping overhead/trouble costs low, provide broad access to high quality material to interested readers, maintain a nonprofit model of scholarly communication in an increasingly capitalist Internet, fight the trend toward cryptolopes and similar unit-based “ownership” models, and more. The Capra/Wonderful Life approach that would seem most apt would be for one scholar at each institution to buy, for $50, an institutional sub to PMC–obviating the need for anyone else (including the library) to purchase it on campus.

     

    I’m the representative of the Press in this discussion, and it’s worth knowing that I discriminate firmly between commercial and nonprofit publishers (their goals are utterly different), and between scientific and humanities/social sciences publishing (their processes and product are quite different). I’ve also gone, over the last seven years, from true believer to reluctant pragmatist as far as the Internet is concerned. It takes time to do any kind of publication well, and people’s time has costs. Somehow those costs need to be recovered. I’m quite comfortable with the hybrid of broad access and a charging model as Muse is currently structured, though if other workable cost recovery mechanisms can be suggested, I’m all ears.

     

    Michael Jensen
    Michael.Jensen@jhu.edu

     


     

    David Golumbia, 3-27-97

     

    We all agree that PMC needs to recover its costs, and that the IATH project was unable to provide adequate funds to do so.

     

    Whether or not MUSE was the only available route through which to provide these funds is, I suspect, more the province of PMC’s editors than of the other participants on this list. For the time being, it appears that PMC will remain on MUSE.

     

    What I’m not sure is clear is the degree to which the goals of the MUSE project–which are to provide alternate access to scholarly journals–dovetail well with the goals of PMC, which is to make dynamic scholarly writing available exclusively on the web.

     

    In principle, most of the journals on MUSE are available to anyone, free of charge–most public libraries can get access to them, either through their own collections or via intralibrary loan. (not that many people take advantage of this, but we’re talking principle).

     

    In principle, very few peole have access to PMC on MUSE. As other writers have pointed out, web crawlers will now be unable to index the contents of PMC (once the current issue is archived). Unless one has access to a library that 1) has a fair number of web-ready computers for public use and that 2) subscribes to MUSE, one can’t get PMC. And here I agree with other writers that individual subscriptions aren’t the solution.

     

    So the question that I think has been left hanging is: has MUSE considered radically altering its paradigm for PMC–perhaps allowing its total contents to be free as a kind of “loss leader,” or allowing the IATH site to remain up for non-academic users while “requiring,” on an “honor principle,” univerisities to access it only via MUSE? Or, as some have suggested, requiring payment for only the current issue, and allowing all the archives to be free (and thus indexable)?

     

    To summarize: the radical restriction that has now been placed on access to PMC cannot, by any argument I can think of, be suggested as a promising event for the continuing health of the journal. I would hope that something could be done to loosen this restriction, while keeping the journal’s goals consonant with those of MUSE.

     

    David Golumbia
    dgolumbi@sas.upenn.edu

     


     

    Michael Jensen, 3-28-97

     

    …Muse makes all tables of contents freely available (including the Library of Congress subject headings, etc.), as well as its search engine; the AltaVistas of the world have no trouble indexing that part of the site. We try to be as open as possible. We’re also working out arrangements with abstracting & indexing services for easy access and A&I of electronic-only journals, which many are wary of, but are more likely to pursue A&Iing when an e-journal is demonstrably stable.

     

    …Currently, 260 institutions and 80 public libraries are Muse subscribers; that represents something like 2.4 million university students, faculty, and staff who have unencumbered access to PMC, and another 3 million by way of the public libraries of Cleveland and Pittsburgh. We hope that more institutions hop on, of course, and they are (we’re in discussions with large–even massive–consortia which will affect these numbers dramatically); individual libraries can subscribe to PMC only, enabling the entire campus for $50.

     

    PMC is reaching entirely new audiences through Muse–community colleges, even high schools, public libraries, etc.–and there are lots of people performing searches on Muse-the-mass which turn up PMC articles, leading to those works being read by people interested in topics far afield from PMC’s domain. This could be exceedingly good for the journal, for the authors, and for the ideas underlying the articles themselves.

     

    …JHUP is granted nonexclusive rights to publish–authors can do with something what they will. PMC’s rights model is very appealing in spite of its “threat” to the traditional “rights” of publishers. It fits with our overall mission as a nonprofit scholarly publisher, and we’re beginning to adopt it for many of our other journals.

     

    Michael Jensen
    Michael.Jensen@jhu.edu

     


     

    Sarah Parsons Wells, 3-28-97

     

    My paycheck has been a subject of some debate here. I can certainly testify to the demands of running a journal, and the unrecompensed hours that the editors, board members, and peer reviewers put in to PMC. I have been reading the postings with great interest.

     

    The Managing Editor’s position is not one that will bring academic laurels, or even employment. As John noted, there is not much professional benefit in the scut work of managing an academic journal. I find great pleasure and great frustration in it, but I wouldn’t consider it a sound investment of time for a scholar.

     

    Some have talked about a rotating staff of editors, who can share the work and drop out after a few issues. I can imagine such a situation, but it’s not a pretty picture, frankly. The work is not rocket science, and it’s not difficult to answer correspondence and track submissions. But, many of the submissions take months to get through the review process and unless all of the editors were equally good at record keeping we would soon have chaos. Authors are sometimes hard to reach, unsure of our requirements, and confused by the technology. We already switch editorial duties between the two editors, and we bring in guest editors who take on special issues. But there is a constant flow of small tasks that need to be handled, routine letters to be answered, and communications lines to be maintained. The editors rarely lay eyes on each other or me, since they are spread out all over the country (Lisa is in Chicago, Paula in Illinois, Stuart in Baltimore, Eyal in Raleigh, and John here in Charlottesville), and they are occupied by other work, such as conferences, teaching, and research. The Managing Editor acts as traffic coordinator, data base, and, hopefully, trouble-shooter.

     

    The Managing Editor is also a reference for authors. Many authors are well-informed and experienced in electronic publishing, and they are entirely capable of formatting their articles. However, some don’t even use their e-mail accounts and have no idea what HTML is. It takes far more time to tag a 20 page essay then one might think, and it can take hours to pull it out of a word processing program, especially if the disk is corrupted, or there’s a problem with an attachement, or if the internet is overloaded. It is simply a question of paying someone to take the time to work out the details and fuss over the little questions. I am paid as much for my willingness to do these tasks as for my ability to do them. And, practically speaking, it is cheaper to pay me to do it then to ask a highly trained scholar to take time away from research and teaching to acknowledge submissions and clean out files.

     

    I am sympathetic of struggling universities and scholars who consider each penny, believe me. And I understand the importance of free access and the impact of cutting off the supply of free knowledge. But I think that the Managing Editor’s salary is necessary, at least in the current structure of the journal.

     

    Sarah Wells
    Managing Editor, PMC

     


     

    Russell Potter, 3-28-97

     

    I very much appreciated hearing from Sarah Wells, who I think has done a superlative job as Managing Editor. I agree that there are numerous small and, in themselves, rather unrewarding tasks associated with editing and assembling a peer-refereed journal. With some of the non-academic e-zines I’ve edited, I was handed the editorship as a kind of hot potato that no one wanted to hold on to.

     

    But although I suppose I am myself a “highly trained scholar,” I don’t think that ought to make me immune to or “above” scut-work. If I, or anyone, wants the prestige or recognition of editing a journal, seems to me they should be willing to sweat some. And if contributors don’t use e-mail or understand HTML, I’m not sure what attracted them to PMC in the first instance, or even how they knew about it. Careful editing may be painful and frustrating, but it’s never a waste of time.

     

    There is, inevitably, a lot of time and energy taken up in editing a journal. But the more collective it could be, the more dispersed that energy, the less of an individual burden it would become. Certainly, you still need a traffic director to make sure that evrything goes where it need to go and happens when it needs to happen–but I think that such a traffic director could be an academic, and that s/he oughtn’t to feel it beneath him/herself to take care of the numerous details such a task would entail.

     

    Another thing that e-journals can do that would break up the logjam somewhat is to discard the idea of “issues” or “numbers.” If, like the journal SURFACES, one simply adds articles to a web or ftp site at whatever point their editorial content has been resolved, one frees up a tremendous amount of time spent worrying over deadlines.

     

    I’m not saying that any of these things–editorial collectivizing, more personal responsibility on the part of e-authors, dynamic rather than static postings to the site, and on-line correction and revision–would eliminate the costs of running a refereed e-journal. But they could keep costs minimal, and by spreading them around a larger number of scholars and institutions, keep the time-budget fying ‘under the radar’ of an increasingly cost-cutting-minded academia.

     

    What disturbs me most is that this PMC thing seems to be part of a larger trend–proprietary scanned texts, proprietary journals, proprietary information–which in effect will colonize the internet. I think there is something vital in the ability to search millions of pages of data, and retrieve the needed or the unexpected–be that a painting by Frederic Church, a philosophical treatise by Kant, a bibliographical reference to a hitherto unknown writer, or a theoretical essay that fits in perfectly with a course one is designing. To the extent that scholarly information is privatized, it will not be a part of such searches, not be a participant in what had been, until recently, a stunningly heteroglot yet idiolectic internet, burning, as it was put by an earlier contributor to this list, like a Bataillean sun.

     

    What we have now is not a sun, but a light-bulb. And if that’s what we have, no doubt we must pay the power company.

     

    At any rate, I’m going to switch over to simply lurking on this list, as I feel that I’ve said what I wanted to say, but am still very curious about what others, especially past PMC contributors, have to say.

     

    Russell A. Potter
    rpklc@URIACC.URI.EDU

     


     

    Matthew Kirschenbaum, 3-28-97

     

    Rather than having only the current issue freely available at the IATH site, what about keeping all three of the year’s issues that go to make up the current volumeonline and freely available at IATH? Or alternately, adopt a rolling year-long period for hosting individual issues of PMC at IATH?

     

    Obviously this would only be prolonging the inevitable, and would not address the concerns that Russell Potter and others have articulated about maintaining long-term access to their own work. But it seems like this would at least take some of the edge off of the new distribution system. I suppose what I’m really thinking of is the way the library here keeps current issues of print journals in its periodicals room until a complete volume has accumulated before shipping the whole set off to the bindery. Those authors who published with PMC from here on out would be doing so with the understanding that their work would remain in the publically accessible IATH reading room for one year, followed by archiving on the Muse server.

     

    I’m sure that such an arrangement would fully satisfy no one who’s spoken here, but it also seems to me that it could be undertaken with minimal adjustments to the current PMC-JHUP relationship.

     

    Matthew Kirschenbaum
    mgk3k@faraday.clas.virginia.edu

     


     

    Eyal Amiran, 3-28-97

     

    This discussion itself reflects (and performs!) the dis-ease of the editors of Postmodern Culture with the decisions we’ve made about the immediate future of the journal. They’re complicated decisions, partly for the reasons already mentioned. We didn’t want to charge for the journal, and wanted as wide a distribution for the journal as possible. That was the reason we chose ascii in the beginning. But free publication isn’t possible now if we’re to continue to publish the journal as we now see it, as a professional and scholarly publication in hypermedia on the Web. Publishing on the web has made it yet more difficult to process and format and publish essays three times a year. Also, as John already noted, doing the work of the ME and of publicity and other development proved very taxing for the editors in the long run, particularly now that the editors work in different places.

     

    That said, it’s worth considering a number of other issues. It is possible that we (or someone else) publish a journal without the kind of editorial process that now defines the journal (including copy-editing, proofreading, and formatting–and even the intellectual exchange involved in the review process). Clearly there is room for such publications, and they would surely cost less time and money to produce so that they might well be published free of charge. But much would be lost if PMC went that route. PMC is not a distribution site. Like any peer-reviewed journal, it is an interactive process and not simply a set of links. To publish as we do we need some financial support (though still much less than the $30,000 normally considered a journal’s yearly budget, apart from release time and institutional support). Hypermedia is a big issue here–it makes little sense for PMC to publish in any other form, today.

     

    Given these decisions, we hope to find new and better ways to publish that would genuinely help our authors and readers. One question here is the role of the press. It’s clear to me that journal publishers will not be able to continue to use their print paradigms in the emerging environments of hypermedia. Publishers are fighting this realization tooth and nail. They categorically oppose the idea of giving anything away for free. And they have no compunction about driving the toughest bargain they think they can, whatever fairness might say. This doesn’t mean that publishers do not do the right thing, or mean well, but even not-for-profit publishers like JHUP (whose journal division makes money and subsidizes its book publishing) are having a hard time figuring out what their role can be in the new environment, and adjusting to their own new expectations from themselves. So far, for example, Hopkins has been slow to state explicitly and clearly in its promotional materials, ads, and on its web site just what is available for free and where, how individuals might access the journal, and what author and redistribution rights are. I am optimistic that academic presses will change rapidly in the next few years.

     

    So what can the press do? That’s an issue we haven’t discussed yet here. Part of our idea in signing with JHUP is that it will develop new tools–for searching, inter alia–that will add value to our articles. We expect the press to develop other, for now unknown ways of improving the electronic environment. The press is also in principle in good position to do the kinds of managerial tasks we have done in the past, like advertising and ad-exchange, better than we amateurs can, and that would benefit our authors and the journal. I hope this proves true. In addition, it should be added that our authors benefit from an association with a reputable press, such as Hopkins, though of course the press is not involved with the journal’s content and processes. But there is a value to academic prestige for most of our authors.

     

    We have signed with the press for five years, which we expect will be good ones. If they prove lean, or if our experiment fails (as Victor and Russell suggest), then we’ll have to think what is in the best interest of the journal and its readers. Considering what costs for whom and how much is part of that. But we also need to take a longer view of our readers’ and authors’ interests. It’s clear that we lose some valuable things by charging for access, and I think it’s important to say that. This is regrettable, whatever its benefits. It’s not as clear to me that, on balance, we’re giving up more than we gain. Life is short and brutish, but consider the alternative.

     

    Eyal Amiran
    eaeg@unity.ncsu.edu

     


     

    John Unsworth, 3-30-97

     

    To put the discussion of advertising in perspective, I thought I’d forward to you all our most recent request for ad placement:

     

    >Hello, my name is Guy W. Rochefort, President
    >of Dino Jump International. I found your address
    >through YAHOO. Dino Jump International are
    >specialists in manufacturing and distribution
    >of Interactive Inflatables worldwide. My lines
    >have been featured in Walt Disney productions,
    >NFL shows, and NBA events. Our product lines
    >include moonwalkers, bouncehouses, and castles.
    >
    >I am interested in mutual links on our
    >respective webpages beneficial to both our
    >businesses.  Additionally, I am interested in
    >opening dialog on mutual beneficial business
    >dealings as far as wholesale/retail efforts for
    >manufactured products from my factory and/or
    >resale distribution at competitive pricing....
    >
    >If this email is intrusive I apologize and you
    >will not hear further from me. Thank you again
    >and I am looking forward to doing business with
    >you.
    
    

    Interactive inflatables: the phrase is so… suggestive.

     

    John Unsworth
    jmu2m@jefferson.village.virginia.edu

     


     

    Lisa Brawley, 4-3-97

     

    Several key issues have been raised here about the ultimate compatibility of MUSE and of PMC as models and modes of scholarly electronic publishing, and this note is in no way meant to foreclose that larger discussion. I would say from the outset that it’s clear to me and I hope to those in this discussion that JHUP has not forced PMC into a generic MUSE model; Michael and others at JHUP clearly appreciate the specificity of PMC as an all-electronic journal with an established readership and an open access policy and they have done much to accommodate that specificity within the parameters of the MUSE project. I’m fully confident that we can continue to refine the journal’s place within project MUSE such that (to adapt David Golumbia’s phrase) our move to JHUP will indeed prove a promising event for the continuing health of the journal.

     

    That said, this much is also clear: any responsible, workable model of electronic publishing will need to provide its authors meaningful access to their own work–our current model doesn’t.

     

    The problem of author access is a central and symptomatic issue, one that those of us on the editing/publishing side of this discussion have not adequately addressed. The problem of author access is not limited to authors who published with PMC before the move to JHUP. Under the current plan, we have nothing to offer contributors other than the free current issue (i.e. nothing more or less than any web user receives). What’s more, contributing authors lose access to their own work once the issue in which it appears is no longer current, as several PMC authors have pointed out here with dismay. I share their view that this is unacceptable.

     

    So: 1). I’d be very interested to hear additional suggestions for ways to provide–not just allow–authors meaningful and ongoing access to work published in PMC. I’d add that citing the non-exclusive copyright clause and reluctantly acknowledging that authors can republish their own work elsewhere on the Internet is not an adequate solution to this problem.

     

    2). I’d like to hear what the other editors and Michael Jensen would have to say to the important and troubling point that Russell Potter and others raise that in granting JHUP the rights to restrict the PMC archive we have violated a primary prior understanding with our contributing authors. It seems to me that in many ways we have, although it’s not at all clear to me what we can do about that under the terms of the current contract (about which more directly). As Russell Potter recently made plain: “I wrote with the understanding that my writing could be disseminated without cost, and I think this bargain with JHUP is a fundamental violation of that understanding.” David Golumbia also notes that he chose to publish in PMC “precisely because of its universal availability to Internet users.”

     

    3). Several people here have argued persuasively that we might solve both the problem of author access and the problem of violating prior understanding by moving to a less restrictive subscription-based model, one that would reverse our current archive/free issue system: we would charge for access to the current issue or volume and provide free access to the archive of past issues. I, for one, find many of their arguments compelling (and I recall that John Unsworth briefly wondered whether “Maybe we did get it backward”). I’d be interested to hear what Michael and the other editors would have to say about reversing the current access model. And I’d think we would want to move our consideration of these access questions beyond simply citing the impressive access figures of project MUSE–those figures, it seems to me, lend equal support to either model.

     

    Finally, I would like to address David Golumbia’s concern that we not merely answer the questions raised here with a “plain assertion that things must be done the way they have been done.” I fully agree. If there has been any plain asserting it may have been out of a sense that we have already signed a contract that grants JHUP the rights to restrict access to the PMC archive. It’s worth pointing out, however, that that same contract also enables and obliges us to re-visit the terms of the contract every year–especially in regard to the question of what is freely available and what is restricted to subscribers. It’s my hope that our discussion here will not only help us identify problems with the current model, but will also help us find innovative ways to solve them….

     

    Lisa Brawley
    Co-editor, Postmodern Culture
    lbrawley@kent.edu

     


     

    Michael Corbin, 4-16-97

     

    There is a feel of inexorability, a ring of elegy to the discussion. I mean the contract is signed after all; and while the terms of that contract may be ‘revisited,’ it’s easy to see the physics lesson on the properties of inertia or gravity becoming the mass around which that ostensible revisitation will orbit. I mean also that I’m here because I was booted from the PMC archive for not having my affiliations in order. In fact I had no affiliation. What made my relationship (heretofore an engaging one) to PMC, its texts, its authors, it experiences, its pretensions, its hopes, is, well, over. Someone changed the locks.

     

    Be that as it may, trampled by the running-dog once again, maybe a couple of observations by way of benediction:

     

    I would agree with R. Potter (whose posts herein should be noted for tilting admirably against many of the obvious windmills that are proffered as the realpolitik-speak of the ‘necessary’) that the archive is the field to romp in. That if it could be accessible, maybe by secret passage, or by fugitive re-constitution, all to the good. I mean, in that romp, it’s not the purchase on the ‘new,’ but the purchase on that which matters that produces pleasure.

     

    In that line of thinking, I read the desire of contributors to retain ‘rights’ here as a discussion of ‘retaining’ or rather producing ‘rights’ for readers. Perhaps this is obvious but it is a distinction perhaps clouded by too narrow a look at authorial use-value of the ‘journal’ rather than the more pedestrian hopes of its exchange-value. Something the language of ‘contract’ often clouds.

     

    For me, from my limited vantage, I would, ex post facto, want PMC to be a kind of a fly in the ointment of the MUSE. Struggle against its too ready desire of the very ‘replicability’ that ostensibly is sought. While I appreciate the distinction between JHUP’s ‘non-profit’ protestations and publishing’s evil profit-mongering other, such a distinction too easily absolves a kind of will-to-monopoly of cultural capital that, I feel, a scheme like Project Muse represents. This is not just the apostasy of Net/Web anarcho-utopians, but rather the sequestering of more and more intellectual labor everywhere; not just an affront to a democratic thinking, but an affront to thinking itself. I mean, who do you want reading PMC and why?

     

    Regarding scut-work, it seems to me that it is precisely here that some responsible, more modest intervening might be done. The institutions under whose auspices PMC exist, as has been noted, assign no, or very little, status to said scut work. A longer term project no doubt, but it seems incumbent that cultural capital must be demanded from these institutions for intellectual labors of the sort the web/electronic publishing represent. If such recognition is not forthcoming then indeed it seems inexorable that the JHUP’s and the Project Muse’s will bundle together the de-valued labors of the divided many for the inflated value of the collated few. And do so speaking a magnanimous tongue.

     

    So lets be honest. The bargin stuck with the MUSE makes PMC a different thing. Different from what it formerly was. Perhaps it aspires to a difference from what it elegiacally, perhaps tragically, might become. Not to be melodramatic…so we’ll see. And, well, if anybody wants to let me in the back door when the guards aren’t looking, you got my number on the top.

     

    Michael Corbin
    evadog@bitstream.net

     


     

    Marjorie Perloff, 5-2-97

     

    [In reply to a previous message by Michael Jensen, not included here.]

     

    Your arguments are cogent but the big question that remains in my mind is this: once PMC gets to be more or less like all journals (those not on-line) what makes it special? Different? My own feeling is that once one has to subscribe and the journal comes out in its current format, I’d much rather sit in an armchair (or out in the sun!) and read it between two covers than bother to scroll down the screen. I think electronic journals have a different mission. I like EBR [Electronic Book Review], edited by Joe Tabbi at Illinois very much because of its speed in turn-around and high quality of argumentation. When I reviewed Franco Moretti’s book for EBR, I had the pleasure of seeing my review on line within a month or less and then his response and my response–ditto. That creates dialogue. This is what electronic publication can do. But PMC has increasingly followed the “normal” model–a bunch of essays, a bunch of reviews–and now the need to subscribe, so what is the ADVANTAGE of this over any normal print journal?

     

    Marjorie Perloff
    perloff@leland.Stanford.EDU

     


     

    David Porush, 5-3-97

     

    I was waiting for an argument like Marjorie’s to arise to put in my two cents.

     

    There must be a virtue to an on-line journal beyond the speed, ease and convenience of shuttling the raw data among reviewers, authors and editors. To constrict this new potential into the rut already carved by an older medium (i.e. print) seems an ostrich-like way to proceed.

     

    So shouldn’t we be spending a good deal of our time in this discussion wondering how to unleash the potential for academic discourse provided by this new medium rather than worrying over how to make it legitimate by squeezing it into the old boxes?

     

    For instance: what is the power provided not by a totally closed subscription model but by a gateway or access-provider model? What about a semi-permeable membrane model, which gives the reader-user access, in part, to dialogues with authors and editors through the on-line text? What about a journal that included hyperlinks to other resources, sites, databases, archives, people? What about a journal that was partly “graffitable” (as my grad students have been calling it) so that readers could in limited fashion “write over” or “on” the e-space provided by the journal, leaving traces of their travel through the site? I think it is tragic if PMC, which has already established its credentials in the old, fussy legitimate print fashion (to a certain degree) now turns backward rather than forward. It would be like including banisters in elevators. Indeed, embracing some of the new electronic forms invited by the medium might help PMC define what is distinct about it not only in terms of how its delivered, but in some fundamental epistemological terms.

     

    David Porush
    dporush@widomaker.com

     


     

    Adrian Miles, 5-7-97

     

    As someone who has published via PMC, and is considering doing so in the future, I would like to add my voice to this (and also Russell Potter’s comments). The strength of PMC was that

     

    1.      it was scholary (peer reviewed, etc) 
    2.      it was hypertextual (new forms of academic publication and writing) 
    3.      anyone with net access could read it (from my local library to where ever)

     

    While points a and b remain, all of a sudden no one at my campus (RMIT, Melbourne Australia) can read my work, and the only way I seem to be able to allow people to read it where they don’t have subscription rights is to make a copy avaialble.

     

    However, where the work may be explicity hypertextual (for example incorporates multimedia elements and relies on a web server) all of a sudden it is no longer a case of just sending someone some text, but of needing to send or even self publish a web based version, and in numerous cases this might not be possible, and is probably in breach of the terms of publication in PMC (I’m not sure about this last point).

     

    And that leads to the question of mirrored pages/sites. A piece of mine is mirrored on my server since it is bandwidth intensive, so it made sense to keep a copy in Australia for Pacific users. Am I supposed to remove this? or do the links from the original PMC edition still point to the mirrored copy? And what in the future, would this still be an option or only while the current issue is available? (I suppose if it moves to a subscription model then the entire site could also be hosted, say in Australia, Europe, and Japan…)

     

    Adrian Miles
    amiles@rmit.edu.au

     

  • Who’s Zoomin’ Who?: The Poetics of www.poets.org and wings.buffalo.edu/epc

    David Caplan

    Department of English
    University of Virginia

    dmc8u@virginia.edu

     

    The Academy of American Poets’ Web site and the Electronic Poetry Center
     

    “Friends?”

     
    If, as Blake would have us believe, opposition is true friendship, then some antagonists certainly hide their affection better than others. Consider how the Academy of American Poets introduces itself on its new Web site:

     

    The Academy of American Poets was founded in 1934 to support American poets at all stages of their careers and to foster the appreciation of contemporary poetry. The largest organization in the country dedicated specifically to the art of poetry, the Academy sponsors programs nationally. These include National Poetry Month; the most important collection of awards for poetry in the United States; a national series of public poetry readings and residencies; and other programs that provide essential support to American poets, poetry publishers, and readers of poetry.

     

    Now consider how Charles Bernstein, the poet and Executive Editor and co-founder of SUNY Buffalo’s Electronic Poetry Center, describes the same organization (which he mistakenly refers to as the “American Academy of Poetry”):

     

    Finally, there are the self-appointed keepers of the gate who actively put forward biased, narrowly focused and frequently shrill and contentious accounts of American poetry, while claiming, like all disinformation propaganda, to be giving historical or nonpartisan views. In this category, the American Academy of Poetry and such books as The Harvard Guide to Contemporary American Writing stand out. (248)

     

    Since Bernstein’s memorable attack, his poetry and criticism have gone, to use Alan Golding’s phrase, “from outlaw to classic.” Appointed the David Gray Professor of Poetry and Letters at SUNY Buffalo, Bernstein faces the obvious charge that he has been co-opted by “the official verse culture” he condemns. In an ironic contrast, the sexagenarian Academy of American Poets finds itself a mere babe on the Internet. Opened in April to coincide with the second Annual National Poetry Month, the organization’s Web site faces comparisons and, to a certain degree, competition with the much better established Electronic Poetry Center. As if according to some New Age prophecy, the old have been made young, and the outcast reborn as Executive Editor.

     

    Given such a background, the two sites might be said to offer an old fashioned war-of-words writ electronic, a continuation of poems and poetics by other means. Like the groups and figures behind them, both sites also must face the larger challenge of trying to find a place for poetry in the American public sphere. A skeptic might quip that the art can claim a National Poetry Month but not a national audience, while others offer anecdotal evidence in support of their hope that reports of poetry’s death have been greatly exaggerated. Regardless of which view is more accurate–and, frankly, who knows?–the Electronic Poetry Center and the Academy of American Poets’ Web site offer noteworthy models of how technology might allow what are often called “mainstream” and “oppositional” or “outsider” poetries to sustain themselves in an age of such insistent pulse checking. Among the questions, then, that I will consider are: what kind of poetries do the Web sites promote, and to what extent do they exploit or fail to appreciate the new interpretive, archival, and critical possibilities that the electronic age offers?

     

    “Not Here For Years”

     

    As a man said to me, we were buying
    fruit on Seventh Avenue, I know you by
    your picture, you are the lady who has
    not been here for thirty one years.
    	    --Gertrude Stein
    	      How Writing is Written (67)

     

    In late March the Academy of American Poets released a press statement announcing it would establish a Web site. Run on the wire services, the story made several newspapers’ gossip pages, along with the news that Steven Spielberg had cast a former Supreme Court Justice to play the role of a Supreme Court Justice and Barbara Streisand had missed Celine Dion’s performance of Streisand’s academy-nominated song, “I Finally Found Someone,” because of “an ill-timed trip to the restroom.” Awarding the Academy’s efforts equal respect as Babs’ faux pas and the Jurist’s well-rehearsed cameo, the Boston Globe reported:

     

    Quoting T.S. Eliot and Robert Frost, the Academy of American Poets has announced it's going on line. Academy executive director Bill Wadsworth said this week that the academy will launch "the most comprehensive and lively poetry site on the World Wide Web" April 1, the first day of National Poetry Month. Browsers who key in www.poets.org will find "an oasis for wisdom in an age of information...a place to read, learn, and discover," Wadsworth said.

     

    To have good press releases, you need unblushing self-promotion. However, Wadsworth’s superlatives interest me less than the first boast it qualifies: his claim that the Academy’s Web site will be “comprehensive”–and, by implication, certainly not “biased, narrowly focused” as Bernstein characterizes the Academy’s previous accounts of American poetry. And why not? After all, greater comprehensiveness is one of the chief virtues ascribed to the Internet. While print-based discussions of poetry are literally bound by the technological and cultural limits of how much material can be held together in a marketable package, the electronic form, at least in theory, promises to expand radically these parameters. A future when The Best American Poetry has been supplanted by on-line anthologies of all poems published or just submitted that year–such is the stuff hypertext dreams are made of.

     

    So is the Academy’s Web site “comprehensive?” In one important respect, a qualified yes. Like many poetry Web sites, this one runs a discussion forum. What’s admirable about this discussion is not what’s being said but who is saying it. Although most contributors to the list did not identify their professions, among those who did were a technical editor in the aerospace industry, a NASA employee, and an elementary school librarian. It is a national and cultural disgrace that so few public forums exist in America for those who live outside of urban centers and university towns and want to discuss poetry. As one of the select poetry organizations capable of getting a press release onto the wire services, the Academy performs a valuable service by helping these people–and interested others–come together to talk about poetry.

     

    Sadly, though, there doesn’t seem much to talk about, at least not yet. By mid-June, the two most popular topics for general discussion drew only nine e-mails apiece, most brief and tentative. As newcomers to the already crowded Internet, the group might just need a little more time to attract new participants. However, the awkward trickle of replies suggests the larger challenge of launching an electronic discussion group, even a well-publicized one. The Academy admirably invites “anyone with an interest in literature” to participate; but poetry as a whole, let alone literature, offers an impossibly wide topic for conversation. Although poetry might be what the neighbors don’t want to talk about, interested parties need a more manageable set of shared interests and texts–a canon, one might say, if that term were not too busy doing penance for New Critical sins. Put simply, the strangers who make up the discussion group share a desire to talk but not yet a subject.

     

    In addition to the discussion group, the Web site currently features recordings of poets reading their work, three historical exhibits–on Modernism, the Harlem Renaissance, and British poetry–and four thematic exhibits on poems about ancestry, love, grief, and work.

     

    While the discussion group is, at least so far, a noble failure, the historical poetry exhibits are reprehensibly, perhaps even defiantly, inadequate. Here is “The Modernist Revolution” on Marianne Moore, e.e. cummings, and William Carlos Williams (with links to biographical sketches):

     

    What was new in Marianne Moore was her brilliant and utterly original use of quotations in her poetry, and her surpassing attention to the poetic image. What was new in E.E. Cummings was right on the surface, where all the words in lower-case letters and a parenthesis "(a leaf falls)" may separate "l" from "oneliness." William Carlos Williams wrote in "plain American which cats and dogs can read," to use a phrase of Marianne Moore. "No ideas but in things," he proclaimed. In succinct, often witty poems he presents common objects or events--a red wheelbarrow, a woman eating plums--with freshness and immediacy, enlarging our understanding of what a poem's subject matter might be.

     

    As the saying goes, you could write a book about what the Academy has left out–indeed, the many authors of books on these three poets and Modernism in general have done exactly that. Given such rich resources, the editorial choices behind “The Modernist Revolution” leave me baffled. Why does the Web site never cite a single critical study, prose appreciation, interview, or biography? Why does it not offer an annotated bibliography and some essays for those who want more than a brief half paragraph on Williams and a single sentence on Moore and on cummings? In short, why doesn’t it take advantage of the Internet’s capabilities for expansiveness? Poetry without literary criticism except in baby-sized bites–is this what “comprehensive” means?

     

    By limiting itself to one-page synopses of major historical movements, the Academy perhaps invites scorn from pointy heads like me who don’t like to see their favorite poets reduced to caricatures. However, to say the Web site presents a dumbed-down version of Modernism does not do justice to the consistency of its editorial choices. Instead, it is more accurate to say that “The Modernist Revolution” offers Modernism Without Too Much Revolution. I return to the last sentence of the passage I just quoted because it is so frustratingly representative: “In succinct, often witty poems he [Williams] presents common objects or events–a red wheelbarrow, a woman eating plums–with freshness and immediacy, enlarging our understanding of what a poem’s subject matter might be.” If Williams could log in, he would be less than thrilled to read that his main contribution to literature is to make the world safe for the late confessional short lyric–or, as it is more often called, the workshop poem. According to Academy, Williams should be celebrated for “common objects or events” vividly presented. But didn’t Williams more crucially enlarge our understanding of what a poem’s form might be? To borrow a phrase from another Modernist, the Academy seems to have had the experience but missed the meaning. Take the example of one of Williams’ two poems that “The Modernist Revolution” cites, “To a Poor Old Woman.” The poem famously declares:

     

    They taste good to her
    They taste good
    to her. They taste
    good to her. (383)

     

    If the main point of these lines is their subject matter, then they are overly repetitious and poorly punctuated. Instead, this stanza can be more accurately called a demonstration of what poetic form can do. Line breaks suggest inflection which, in turn, act far more ambitiously than as the mere exposition of subject matter. In particular, the slow, extended consideration of the statement, “They taste good to her,” proceeds with the hesitant, sensuous pleasure of the imagination at work. The poem may be titled “To an Old Woman” but it is less about her than the formal pleasures the imagination allows the poet to experience, or, as Williams wrote in Spring and All,

     

    The only realism in art is of the imagination. It is thus that the work escapes plagiarism after nature and becomes a creation. Invention of new forms to embody this reality of art, the one thing which is, must occupy all serious minds concerned. (198)

     

    “The Modernist Revolution,” however, does not mention Spring and All, Williams’ most important book, nor Kora in Hell, his most influential book for writers of prose poems, nor any of Williams’ crucial essays; his most important poem, the five volume “Paterson,” is wildly pruned to the single familiar motto that has become, as Ron Silliman notes, “the battle cry of anti-intellectualism in verse” (660). (Fittingly, the version of “The Red Wheelbarrow” that the Academy refers to is the anthology piece of Selected Poems, not the untitled prose and verse meditations of Spring and All.)

     

    What’s excluded is the “other” Williams that, among others, Bernstein, Silliman, Marjorie Perloff, Hank Lazer, and Eliot Weinberger have written about. While it is undeniable that Williams’ “succinct, often witty poems” form part of his work’s legacy, the Academy’s sin is that of the funhouse mirror which distorts one arm into an entire body. Captured in such unforgiving glass, Williams becomes, like Moore, less a groundbreaking experimenter than a rather unambitious Imagist.

     

    Although no single figure can sum up what’s missing from “The Modernist Revolution,” one comes close: Gertrude Stein. Her name appears once, without any elaboration, in a list of several early twentieth-century artists in painting, music, architecture, and literature. Again, the Academy remains true to its prejudices. Stein is not an Imagist; her work is not “conventional”; it may be wildly influential, but not, evidently, to those poets whom the Academy considers to be important.

     

    With characteristic shrewdness Stein once wrote, “A very bad painter once said to a very great painter, ‘Do what you like, you cannot get rid of the fact that we are contemporaries.’ That is what goes on in writing” (151). A historical exhibit should remind us of exactly whom history cast as contemporaries: Gertrude Stein and Robert Frost, born during the same year, William Rose Benét, Mina Loy, and William Carlos Williams, together for a wildly anticipated joint poetry reading, and the young Yvor Winters, who hailed Loy as one of the greatest poets of her generation and Williams as a potential prophet. Although Modernist poetry contains multitudes, the Academy, failing to exploit the Internet’s archival resources, presents it as the work of seven men and two women.

     

    As the Academy’s Web site makes perfectly clear, the argument over Modernism neither stops nor starts with Williams, Stein, Pound, Eliot, et al. Rather, where we think we have been tells us where we need to go. As if to prove this point, the Web site lists the poets its exhibits feature or will feature. Not one of these poets is associated with either Language Poetry or New Formalism, the two movements which, during the last two decades, have posed the noisiest challenges to late confessional poetics. Although individual readers may prefer the work of one group to the other, no literary history of contemporary American poetry is complete without at least considering these movements and their implications. The Academy does not. The omissions of the past become the omissions of the present and, it seems safe to predict, of the future.

     

    “a group poem/renga/range of affection”

     

    It all depends on what you call profound.
    	    --William Carlos Williams
    	      The Autobiography (390)

     

    Soon after Allen Ginsberg’s death on April fifth of this year, the Electronic Poetry Center began to memorialize him with an exhibit, “Allen Ginsberg (1926-1997),” a collection of e-mail exchanges from Poetics, the poetry discussion linked to the Electronic Poetry Center. Written on April 4, the first post came from Charles Bernstein:

     

    Allen Ginsberg has been diagnosed with liver cancer and is not given much more time to live. There are articles about his illness in today's New York Post and Philadelphia Inquirer. I would imagine everyone reading this will have the same intense reaction I am having. It seems like Allen Ginsberg has been with me all my life.

     

    What follows is extraordinary. In forty-four postings over the period of two days, the respondents offer sometimes painfully intimate tributes to Ginsberg’s profound influence on their lives. After one contributor asks, “shall we write a group poem/renga/range of affection for allen ginsberg?” a group poem begins, with each line composed by a different writer. At one point the poem reads:

     

    pull my daisy, poet
    Happening to notice the willow leaves in the garden, a
    		braille page of words
    the wind a simultaneous translation
    the sorority girls sing of fucking in a plaintive way
    nothing has happened, no one has died

     

    “nothing has happened, no one has died”: if this line were to appear without any further explanation in the pages of, say, The Paris Review, the best adjectives to apply to it might be “artful,” “elegiac,” and “nicely understated.” Read in the context of “Allen Ginsberg (1926-1997),” it is a wish poignantly pretending to be a fact. As the heading attests, the e-mail was written on Friday, April fourth, at eleven eighteen p.m. By then, although Ginsberg was still alive, the something that had happened was the certainty that he soon would die.

     

    The closest analogy I can think of for “Allen Ginsberg (1926-1997)” is a condolence book at a funeral, another written record of a social mourning. However, the Poetics’ exchanges take place in the notoriously cool medium of electronic mail; the mourners are not gathered in some funeral home parlor but seated before their terminals, in some cases separated by thousands of miles. A few months later, what they wrote while waiting for a poet they loved to die forms a precisely dated chronology–equal parts consolation, catharsis, and homage: an oddly pre-Modernist elegy written according to e-mail conventions.

     

    “Allen Ginsberg: 1926-1997” displays the Poetics List and perhaps even the electronic discussion format itself at its best. While technological efficiency allows discussion to proceed almost in real time, this conversation never would have taken place at all without cultural and human necessity: the absence of equally attractive venues coupled with the knowledge that the other contributors would share, as Bernstein wrote, “the same intense reaction I am having.” To lament that such social mourning can take place only through e-mail is to miss the larger point of what was accomplished. Instead, it seems more accurate to say that “Allen Ginsberg (1926-1997)” presents a hopeful vision of the kind of public spaces technology can help create, even within a culture that often frowns upon or trivializes such displays of grief. More particularly, the ensuing conversation’s tone, so intimate that, at times, it almost verges on the exhibitionistic, seems wholly appropriate for eulogizing Ginsberg. The author of “Kaddish” and “White Shroud” would appreciate, I believe, the emotional paradoxes inherent in declaring over the Internet, as several contributors did, that they have broken down in tears.

     

    “Our aim is simple,” the Electronic Poetry Center’s welcome cheerfully declares, “to make a wide range of resources centered on contemporary experimental and formally innovative poetries an immediate actuality.” While this clearly defined sense of purpose makes possible discussions such as “Allen Ginsberg (1926-1997),” it also fuels more common and less productive exchanges. De rigueur for discussion are quick dismissals of poems that do not neatly fulfill the group’s definitions of “experimentally and formally innovative,” as if nothing can be learned from writing that differs from your favorites. Conspiracy theories also abound–but just because you’re paranoid, that doesn’t mean someone is after you.

     

    A few months after Ginsberg’s death, the Electronic Poetry Center moved “Allen Ginsberg (1926-1997)” to a permanent exhibit of what it calls obituaries. The introductory link’s new displays include a letter from Jackson Mac Low, in which he discusses the differences between his work and John Cage’s. The reader whom the Academy’s Web site would envision might reasonably ask, “John Cage–do you mean the composer? And who is this Jackson Mac Low?” Indeed, to go from the Academy’s Web site to the Electronic Poetry Center is akin to taking a winter flight from Bangor to Key West. The fact that no passports are checked confirms that we have not left the country, but everything else–the climate, landscape, culture, even the air itself–seems wholly different.

     

    As I mentioned before, the Academy’s Web site conspicuously ignores poets associated with Language Poetry. In turn the Center unkindly repays the favor. Only a half-dozen poets make both the Academy’s and the Center’s lists of featured authors, while nearly two hundred names appear only on one. The Center offers Rae Armantrout to the Academy’s W.H. Auden, Samuel Beckett to John Berryman, Robert Creeley to Lucille Clifton, and so on.

     

    “Is anything central?” John Ashbery, the one living author whom both lists share, famously asks in “The One Thing That Can Save America.” After several reformulations of the question, the poem ends with a vision of a suburban present morphing into the future:

     

    Now and in the future, in cool yards,
    In quiet small houses in the country,
    Our country, in fenced areas, in cool shady
    streets. (45)

     

    Twenty years later, these households are still fenced (now electronically); they also have bought satellite dishes and gone on-line. What, if anything, is central to this later version of the culture Ashbery depicts–the town or university library, or its Barnes & Noble? The M.T.V. its teenagers watch obsessively, Martha Stewart’s latest cookbook, or the web its college students spend their nights surfing, home for a long weekend and already bored?

     

    Out-doing Yeats, Ashbery turns his and my questions into rhetorical ones. For him, the idea of the center cannot hold because there can be no one center but various centralities. This, I believe, is the best way to understand both the Electronic Poetry Center and its relation to the larger poetic community. The Center’s Mission Statement declares its role to be compensatory, offering alternative routes of distribution to what the “mainstream” ignores: “Our aim is to provide access to [the] generous range of writing which mainstream bookstores, publishers, and, increasingly, libraries are unable or unwilling to make available.” To this end, the Center offers fairly extensive information about small presses and publishers, and the kind of experimental poetry you cannot find in The Norton Anthology of Modern Poetry.

     

    To call the Center out of the “mainstream,” however, is to overlook the issue of which stream we are talking about. Such monolithic distinctions are not very helpful, even when applied only to the limited topic of elite, print-based discussions of poetry. Is The New York Times central–or PMLA? For example, any reasonable account would place in the poetry mainstream Anthony Hecht, the much honored Academy Chancellor Emeritus. Published by Knopf, Harvard University Press, and Princeton University Press, the four new books of poetry and criticism that Hecht produced during the nineties benefitted not only from his reputation but from the impressive publicity and distribution resources of these prestigious publishing houses. Predictably, all five books were reviewed in the literary journals and newspapers that assiduously ignored the work of poets such as Charles Bernstein. Yet a few minutes with the Arts and Humanities Citation Index confirms that, during 1994-1997, the number of academic citations for Bernstein’s work doubled those for Hecht’s. As this statistic suggests, the poetry that university poetry presses and book reviews chart as “mainstream” looks more like a mudflat to many literary critics–and, as The Washington Post‘s Jonathan Yardley reminds his readers almost weekly, vice versa.

     

    More to the point of this review, the Electronic Poetry Center dramatizes the differences between the kinds of poems and poetics central to the web and print-based cultures. While scholarly citation marks academic respect, the number of hits a Web site receives suggests the electronic community’s view of whether or not that site is literally worth looking at. In April, 1997, the month Allen Ginsberg died and the Academy’s site opened its electronic doors, the Center’s root directory recorded 151,200 transactions. Including both the multiple hits of a single user roaming through the Center and the use of background graphic files, this imprecise figure of course can be analyzed in innumerable ways. Its import, however, is rather self-evident: to many, many poetry enthusiasts, the Center seems the place to be. No matter how you crunch them, 151,200 hits can’t be wrong.

     

    Why? What these raw numbers hint at is an unquantifiable sense that, while the Academy gives the appearance of going on-line because everyone else has, the Center addresses an otherwise unsatisfied need. Reading the poems that the Academy’s Web site feature is often a depressing aesthetic experience because the poems lose the immediacy of a book held in your hands yet gain so very little. An Auden poem converted into HTML mark-up and typed onto the screen looks like, well, an Auden poem converted into HTML mark-up and typed onto the screen. Even if the Academy’s Web site were to focus on typographical poems such as Hecht’s “The Gardens of the Villa d’Este,” John Hollander’s heart-shaped “Crise de Coeur” or star-shaped “Graven Image,” the resulting exhibit would just emphasize that, to its credit, such verse works best on the page, the canvas for which it was originally painted. However, to look at the Center’s visually stunning gallery of poems is to appreciate the affinities between a kind of hypertext and what the Center calls “experimental and formally innovative” poetics. Bernstein’s on-line visual work, “Veil,” sends a reader back to his earlier book of the same name. Published in 1986 by Xexoxial Editions, a small press in Madison, Wisconsin, Veil, the book, overlays typescript lines of sometimes grainy, indecipherable words upon each other. Constructed in the nineties, “Veil,” the hypertext poem, offers digital words, shapes and colors similarly overlaid over each other. In short, while both works profoundly engage the resources of their chosen medium, it is easy to see how the experiments of one would lead to the other. This likeness does not stop with the poetry the Center has put on-line. Instead, to re-read Cage’s and Mac Low’s “reading through” and “writing through” of source texts, Johanna Drucker’s visual poetry, or any of a number of other print-based works written before the Internet boom is to see how they were–and, in most cases, still are–hypertexts waiting to happen.

     

    Recognizing these similarities between hypertext and verse poetics, the Center does not segregate poetry from literary theory, criticism, and hypertext scholarship, as the Academy’s Web site does. As a consequence, a viewer can go from an on-line version of “Tender Buttons,” to bibliographies of Mina Loy’s works and criticism on them, to Marjorie Perloff’s home page, then end with Christopher Funkhouser’s provocative essay, “Hypertext and Poetry,” in which he claims, “Technology is just catching up to what progressive minds have been doing across atomic-atomicized decades.”

     

    At moments like these, the Center swaggers a bit with the self-assurance of someone doing something important. “The future is watching,” it all but crows to anyone who’ll listen. Acting on this hope, the Poetics List archives all of its e-mails, not just those from the last ninety-nine days, as the Academy does. Such confidence belies the Center’s claim that its role is secondary, providing an alternative to the more powerful “official verse culture.” Instead, the aptly named Electronic Poetry Center gives every indication of believing that the poetics it promotes are, and will continue to be, central to any understanding of late twentieth-century poetry and poetic theory.

     

    Word processors are to postmodernism what the typewriter was to modernism, Fredric Jameson once declared, neatly conjuring a wide range of familiar assumptions (quoted in Public Access 125). Yet whole shelves of learned books remind us how recently equally heady claims were made for psychoanalysis, LSD, even the Ouija board. However, if Jameson’s prediction turns out to be right, or at least more right than wrong, then the next generation of literary scholars are likely to see much of the Center’s cockiness as rather charming self-assurance and remember the Academy in the same vein as Lascelles Abercrombie, the Georgian poet best known for provoking Ezra Pound into challenging him to a duel.

     

    “You Can Get There from Here”

     

    “The possibilities for poetry’s writing in electronic space are to be reckoned,” Loss Pequeño Glazier, the director of the Center, wrote in a recent issue of Postmodern Culture. “What will happen? Will it be milk and honey or virtual Balkans?”

     

    So far I have proposed the latter possibility, with imagery that stresses opposition, competition, even dueling. “Both,” however, is the better answer to Glazer’s second question. The literary histories that the Web sites present are mutually exclusive; the Web sites themselves are not. Significantly, each offers links to the other. Like the group poem at the heart of “Allen Ginsberg (1926-1997),” this cooperation is less the taste of milk and honey than a reminder that the electronic landscape is, at least so far, neither essentially cooperative or competitive but a little of both. Instead, the poetics that the two sites represent draw what Ashbery would call “juice” from their dance through several mediums; in the electronic landscape, the Center leads and the Academy follows, while, elsewhere, their roles dramatically reverse.

     

    Ultimately, what the two sites share is their desire for technology to help poetry not be merely “academic.” To this end, the Academy’s site seeks to bring poetry to readers outside the universities. In this utopia, however, Homer banishes Plato and most other poets, as the Academy deems literary criticism, theory, and a great deal of poetry not worth its consideration. In contrast, the Center, sponsored by a university and peopled by many card-carrying members of the MLA, brings together writers not only of poetry, literary criticism, and theory, but also of hypertext scholarship. Fed with such abundant information, many of the resulting conversations are driven by name-recognition value and clannish attitudes. Even on an afternoon where forty messages deluge each subscriber’s account, a topic suggested by, say, Ron Silliman will not go undiscussed.

     

    In this paradoxical, competitively cooperative, and cooperatively competitive electronic landscape, any claim to comprehensiveness is quixotic. However, while the study of poetry suffers from so many professional categories and sub-categories that have little to do with the actual practice of writing and reading, hyperspace’s eternal delight is the energy of feuding poets, critics, flame wars, and scholarship gathered together, sometimes despite themselves, into a dream of what comprehensiveness might be.

     


    *I’d like to thank Matt Kirschenbaum and Gena McKinley for conversations about poetry and the Internet, and Charles Bernstein for answering my questions about the Center.


    Works Cited

     

    • The Academy of American Poets. “The Modernist Revolution.” April 1 1997. www.poets.org.
    • Ashbery, John. Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror. New York: Penguin Books, 1972.
    • Bernstein, Charles.Content’s Dream: Essays, 1975-1984. Los Angeles: Sun and Moon, 1986.
    • Bérubé, Michael. Public Access: Literary Theory and American Cultural Politics. New York: Verso, 1994.
    • Dezell, Maureen. “Poets Spin a Web.” The Boston Globe. 28 March 1997: F2.
    • The Electronic Poetry Center. “Allen Ginsberg (1926-1997).” 1994. wings.buffalo.edu/epc.
    • Funkhouser, Chris. “Hypertext and Poetry.” The Electronic Poetry Center. wings.buffalo.edu/epc.
    • Glazier, Loss Pequeño, “Jumping to Occlusions.” Postmodern Culture. 7.3 (May, 1997).
    • Silliman, Ron. “Of Theory, To Practice.” Postmodern American Poetry: A Norton Anthology. Ed. Paul Hoover. New York: Norton, 1994.
    • Stein, Gertrude. How Writing is Written: Volume II of the Previously Uncollected Writings of Gertrude Stein. Ed. Robert Bartlet Haas. Los Angeles: Black Sparrow Press, 1974.
    • Williams, William Carlos. The Autobiography of William Carlos Williams. New York: New Directions, 1948.
    • —. The Collected Poems of William Carlos Williams: Volume I 1909-1039. Eds. A. Walton Litz and Christopher MacGowan. New York: Directions, 1986.

     

  • CrossConnections: Literary Cultures in Cyberspace

    Rena Potok

    English Department
    University of Pennsylvania

    rnpotok@sas.upenn.edu

     

    On-line literary and university reviews.

     
    Search the Web for on-line creative writing, and you will find a burgeoning number of electronic literary reviews, or literary zines, ranging from the downright tacky and macabre to high quality poetry and fiction. Whatever their level of literary merit, one thing is clear: the Web is rapidly becoming a new medium for the production of literary culture. Indeed, we are witnessing the emergence of a new literary era, in which narrative and poetics interconnect with the world of artificial intelligence and computer-generated graphics to redefine our notions of how and where literature is produced.

     

    Yet, this literary-electronic interconnection produces a curious irony: the best of the literary zines are the most traditional, and the least experimental. While they offer high quality fiction, poetry, art and criticism, they do not explore the possibilities of the Web–hypertext is the first example that comes to mind–in the manner that might be expected. And those zines that do attempt to make use of the world of the Web tend to do so poorly, boasting experimental writing and hypertext links, but in fact presenting amateurish poetry and prose, and links that lead nowhere.

     

    One might think that an electronic narrative experiment like on-line zines would be an excellent way to explore the idea of crossing boundaries between literature and cyber culture, and of breaking down barriers between author and reader. Hypertext can afford a reader a large element of narrative authority, and can produce a collaborative experiment between reader and author–a collaboration that seems in keeping with the notion of synthesizing digital technology and established literature. The editors of these literary zines might expand their horizons and take advantage of the imaginative possibilities presented by the electronic medium they use. Furthermore, it would be interesting to see how they might respond to the challenges that would be presented by trying to translate hypertext from the zine forum to print media.

     

    Literary zines may be divided into two broad categories: high-caliber, traditional literary reviews that happen to be produced electronically, and low-caliber experimental zines that often try but more often fail to explore the potentially exciting possibilities of electronic literary writing. Put otherwise, these zines may be classified as the good, the bad, the ugly, and the university reviews.

     

    Among the better literary zines is Oyster Boy Review, published in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, which offers a combination of fiction, poetry and essays. The writing is strong, traditional and complex. Oyster Boy presents good quality writing, with the feel of a seasoned literary review. Other top-tier zines are The Abraxus Reader, The Richmond Review, The Mississippi Review , and The Paris Review (the latter two are electronic versions of the long-standing print reviews).

     

    In a category almost unto itself is The Jolly Roger, originating at Princeton University, and calling itself the “Flagship of the WWW literary revolution,” and “The World’s Largest, Most-Feared Literary Journal Ferrying over 12,000 to Greatness, While the Rest of the World Waits.” One could pause here, and say no more, but this unusual zine is worth characterizing, if only for its quirky qualities. The Jolly Roger has been described as prose and poetry for Generation X, and indeed has sections devoted to X-ers and their (presumed) interests and desires. The home page of the latest issue boasts many offerings, among them the warning: “Anyone trying to deconstruct anything aboard the Good Ship will be keelhauled.” Among other offerings are ghost stories, pirate tales, pseudo-literary criticism, “conservative environmentalism” (articles on “conserving Great Books and the Great Outdoors”), and an essay titled, “What I Learned in Toni Morrison’s Long Fiction Writing Class.” The visual presentation and text bullets are designed on a pirate-ship theme. While this zine cannot boast the best literary writing on the Web, it deserves points for originality and personality. It is a smart-alecky, skillfully written and provocative on-line magazine lampooning literary, academic, generational and traditional politics.

     

    Along other lines entirely is 256 Shades of Grey, which calls itself a “progressive” literary magazine, and features new writers’ works of poetry, art and fiction. Our first introduction to this zine is the home page, depicting a graphic of an alien creature literally ripping itself apart….One wonders if that is the editors’ expected response from readers accessing its offerings. From there we can link to poetry that is mixed in quality–some is strong, but overall, there is not much sense of poetics in the verse. The fiction, on the other hand, is awful, consisting mostly of vignettes with no plot and no narrative structure.

     

    5ive Candles “seeks to exploit the non-linear qualities of Hypertext.” Unfortunately (and, perhaps, ironically), all efforts to call up this zine went unanswered. Also inaccessible were Swiftsure Magazine, publishing reviews, poetry and fiction, and In Vivo, a Florida State University literary magazine rumored to publish choice poetry. blood + aphorisms is a journal of literary fiction from Canada. Its table of contents is set up with only a few links to the actual contents of the zine, and the fiction that is accessible is only of fair quality.

     

    Among the university reviews is The Trincoll Journal, a student magazine from Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. An award-winning zine recognized as a Magellan 3-star site and a Top 5% Web site, Trincoll Journal claims to be “the Internet’s first Web ‘Zine.” The journal publishes no poetry or fiction, but presents articles on life, culture, and the arts, skewed to a college-level perspective–articles address graduation, job-hunting, and semi-arty, semi-juvenile ruminations on love and life after college. Other university zines are Deep South Journal, a publication of literary criticism and poetry by graduate students in New Zealand; Harvard Advocate, now on-line, is the oldest of the college magazines in the US, publishing collegiate poetry and fiction; Qui Parle is an on-line companion to a UC Berkeley journal that publishes literature, philosophy, visual arts and history; Threshold is an award winning zine containing, interestingly enough, only high school work–but from the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Virginia; Cyberkind: Prosaics and Poetry for a Wired World publishes fiction, non-fiction, and poetry–all on the theme of cyberspace, and comes out of Chapel Hill, North Carolina; and Enormous Sky is the literary publication of Temple University.

     

    One of the best university literary zines is CrossConnect: Webzine of the Arts, produced at (but not under the official auspices of) the University of Pennsylvania. It deserves special attention not only because of its high quality, but because it has done what no other on-line literary review has done to date: in the spirit of crossing over between media, the editors of CrossConnect have published a print anthology, reflecting the “best of” the six issues now available on the CrossConnect Web site. In so doing, CrossConnect, in a quintessentially postmodernist trope, disrupts the barriers between printed and electronic narrative and attempts to create a kind of hybrid literary experiment.

     

    While the stated mission of this zine is to connect the art of electronic communication with that of literary and artistic production, the attractive logo–visible on a computer terminal but not always on a print-out–reminds us that while CrossConnect has crossed over into print media, its primary form (and forum) is electronic. And though the print anthology does contain some dynamic and well-crafted poems, it does not yet compare to top-tier literary reviews, such as Granta or The Kenyon Review. The /~Xconnect (the print anthology’s title renders CrossConnect in this glyphic form) anthology purports to reverse the more common trend of turning print literary reviews into literary Web sites by printing a selection of the best Web site publications. Interestingly, the best work remains on the zine, an award-winning trail-blazer of electronic literature.

     

    The CrossConnect Web site note on the print anthology claims that the stories and poems contained within it “collectively grapple with the questions and issues of our society, as well as the very function of art itself in this new age of technology,” but other than its name and stated mission, the anthology contains little to identify it as the product of cyber culture, or as an attempt to explore the challenges and functions of technology. (Hypertext links would provide an excellent opportunity for narrative experimentation.) An exception is Nathalie Anderson’s poem “Clinophobia,” whose quick, clipped pace seems apt for the rapid pace of exchange characteristic of electronic communication:

     

    Here's the toad. Here's the edge of the well.
    			      Steeped
    leaves, steep water. Still noctambulist.
    Bolt hole. Bed rock. Never see, never go
    under. Yes you will. Shut eye. Drowse. Drown.
    
    Cock light. Burrow. What's quick? What's mired?
    				    Quilt
    crawls. Flicks. Licks the dust. Gulch. Gully.
    Bed fast. Bed fellow. Never stir, never
    stare. Yes you will. Twitch toad. Rattle bones.
    
    Oh toad. No kiss, no golden ball. No one
    loves you. Yes it will. Quilt's rucked, rumpled.
    Something seethes. Something shivers. Jaws unhinge.
    Yes you will. Like stone. Kick toad. Leap frog. (2)

     

    The collection overall is strong, although the quality of work is uneven, ranging from complex, well-crafted writing by recognized poets and novelists (such as Nathalie Anderson, Sharon Ann Jaeger, and Helen Norris), to less refined musings on the level of an introductory college writing workshop. As in the on-line journal here, too, the poetry is stronger and more interesting than the fiction. Among the best work in both the print journal and the zine is Linh Dinh’s poetic translations and refigurings of Vietnamese aphorisms and poems, especially his translation of Bao Linh’s “A Marker on the Side of the Boat” (Vol. II, Issue II). These texts are alternatingly humorous and deeply touching, and always hauntingly evocative of a place and time no longer existing except in memory and nostalgia. Dinh’s “Translations of Vietnamese Aphorisms,” appearing in the print journal, is quirky and playful, amusing and touching at once. Organized in thematic form, it builds to a crescendo in its final arrangement of aphorisms:

     

    Rich at dawn
    Poor at dusk
    
    The rich eat
    The poor smoke
    
    His eyes are rich
    His hands are poor
    
    The rich have easy manners
    The poor lie
    
    Man not quite
    Monkey not quite
    
    Old hair old teeth
    Old gums old ears
    Old penis
    Young testicles (14)

     

    Among other strong poems is David Bolduc’s emotionally complicated “Other Side,” a stark, plain, and honest look at the secret gay street life of a married (presumably) heterosexual man (3). And Sharon Ann Jaeger’s “Faring Well” is poignant, with strong images–as in the line, “it haunts you like a fog that fades to touch”–and nice alliteration:

     

    There are filaments of affinity--
    fragile, but they hold: with dawn the new sun sends
    shadows through their constant Web like lace. (56)

     

    Also of note are Helen Norris’ “Consider” (136), a finely-formed pearl of a poem; Meredyth Smith’s “This Little Girl” and “Eleven Times Twelve Times Two” (150-3); and Barry Spacks’ “What Breathes Us” (155). Judith Schaechter’s stained-glass art works are unexpected, vibrant, and disturbing (and they are reproduced well in print), especially “Voice of a Sinking Ship,” which served as the cover of CrossConnect Vol. I, Issue I.

     

    The Webmag phenomenon may be a peculiarly postmodern one, in that it pushes back the boundaries of traditional literary expression and regularly crosses the boundaries between electronic and print media. Yet if it is to survive as more than a digital trend, this literary genre will need to explore more fully the wealth of opportunities provided by its medium; on-line literary reviews will need to become more than merely electronically produced companion volumes to print reviews. Perhaps, now that the trend has been set, and the forum of electronic literature has been established, editors of literary zines will become more creative and daring, and will truly show us what can happen to literary culture in cyberspace.

     

    Top-tier On-line Literary Reviews:

     

     

    University Reviews:

     

     

    Other Web Sites of Interest:

     

    • 256 Shades of Grey
    • blood + aphorisms
    • InterText
    • The Jolly Roger
    • Swiftsure Magazine
    • Excite! Review This useful site offers a directory of other on-line literary magazines, but it is not always up and running.
    • Virtual Reading Group This site has a short list of links to on-line literary zines as well as an “Internet Book Information Center,” featuring booksites, links to literary magazines, book resource guides and reviews.
    • Also of interest is The Book of Zines. Ed. Chip Rowe. New York: Henry Holt, 1997. A guide to a broad range of zines (mostly non-literary), from the vaguely interesting to the downright bizarre.

     

  • Telluric Texts, Implicate Spaces

    Stefan Mattessich

    University of San Francisco
    hamglik@sirius.com

     

    Thomas Pynchon, Mason & Dixon. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1997.

     

    We ought to have topographers…

    –Montaigne I, 31

     

    If we are to believe Montaigne, what is near masks a foreignness.

    –Michel de Certeau1

     

    Where am I?

    –Thomas Pynchon, Mason & Dixon

     

    The publication of Gravity’s Rainbow in 1973 has proved an object lesson for many in the deferring and repetitious temporal structure of trauma or, put a little less psychoanalytically, catastrophe. Gravity’s Rainbow was catastrophic in the sense that it jammed in advance the hermeneutic apparatuses that might read it, flooded the system Cs of interpretation to such a degree that it could not synthesize its object in time and space–that is, the novel could not properly be an object of interpretation.2 Gravity’s Rainbow, in a sense that is not altogether metaphoric, did not happen; a non-event in a non-place, its effect in literary and social circles has been much like the auto-detonation with which it ends. The novel exploded and disappeared: it cleared a space in which its canonization would be instantly assured and, like the flowers that bloomed in the Ota estuary after the atomic blast incinerated Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, left us wondering just what it meant.

     

    The metonymic relation between the (non)event of Gravity’s Rainbow and the post-World War II period (non-period? post-period?) to which it belongs can be identified in the novel’s subsequent reception. It is a commonplace by now that many people “know” Pynchon but hardly anyone “reads” him (or, a variant on this theme, no one reads him “anymore,” as if some historical transformation has occurred which renders his brand of ironic fiction obsolete–a sentiment recently echoed by novelist David Foster Wallace in an interview on the Charlie Rose Show). The dissymmetry this implies verges on the bi-polar. Gravity’s Rainbow has generated, on the one hand, a plethora of more or less “bad” readings clustered around the academic banner of “Pynchon studies” and, on the other, a throng of fans who substitute for reading an exercise of nominalist decryption, asking who, what or where the “real” Pynchon might be, either in his books or out.3 The symptom under consideration here is this: a failure to read brought on by an unreadable flash, a vacuum into which readings that are non-readings (and readers who cannot or will not read) rush with all the resistless pressure of air or gas. Gravity’s Rainbow presides, from its 24-year-old vantage point, over a spectacle to which in fact it gave its best metaphors: equilibrium, inertia, entropy, a discursive practice (of writing and reading) implicated in the non-discursive field it modifies, a crisis of meaning indexed in the force with which the vacuum is filled or the “message” heard in a distinctly cybernetic society. In this society, systems of control, be they political, economic, technological or otherwise, take on a life of their own (become self-moving) and transform the subjects who manipulate them into manipulated “operators” in a fully functional technocratic order. The genius of Gravity’s Rainbow was that it grasped this transformation in “scriptural” terms, as a social inscription of inscription itself, a writing of the writer/reader that immobilizes us in the “text” of technical reason. Reading Gravity’s Rainbow is traumatic because it cannot be read without reference to this double writing that “frames” its reception and condemns us to a reflexive textual practice bent on discovering within itself the mark of its own historical location, its “place” within a period inaugurated by the traumas of the Second World War (Gravity’s Rainbow, it will be recalled, takes place nominally in the years 1944 and 1945).

     

    To judge by the early reviews of Pynchon’s new novel, Mason & Dixon, not much headway has been made in resolving the antinomies of this peculiar catastrophe, and Pynchon has once again managed to drop a literary bomb on America, even if this time it’s not exactly thermonuclear in scope. The rhetoric in these reviews is characterized by a relief at the apparent retreat in Mason & Dixon from the excesses that made Pynchon’s earlier, pre-Vineland work so notoriously difficult to understand. Anthony Lane is gratified to report in the New Yorker that “Mason & Dixon really is about Mason and Dixon,” that its characters are “heroic” and “substantial,” and that Pynchon has at last managed to write a “real, honest-to-God story.” T. Coraghessan Boyle, on his authority as a practicing novelist, relates in the New York Times Book Review how well Pynchon’s “sublime” method “works,” delivering complete, well-rounded and sympathetic characters in a “time and place” that the novel, “for all [its] profuse detail, its jokes and songs and absurdities…nonetheless evokes better than any historical novel I can recall.” John Leonard, in the Nation, imitates Pynchon’s accumulative prose style and constructs a little linguistic bomb of his own by way of impressing his readers with Mason & Dixon‘s complexity, only to end by telling us how great a “buddy-bonding” story it is–a dud of a conclusion if ever there was one, at least where Pynchon’s complexity is concerned. What these reviews have in common is an enthusiasm for realist conventions of fiction as they peek through Pynchon’s “absurdities,” reducing these to stylistic traits that function to confirm the very substances they seem to traduce. At the same time that Pynchon’s deployment of essentially comic and parodic techniques is praised as “sublime,” the novel’s human nature comes to be attested by the skillful use to which these techniques are put. Unlike in Gravity’s Rainbow, it is implied, where manipulation by technocratic forces dehumanizes author, text and reader alike, Pynchon in Mason & Dixon manages to be a humanized and humanizing producer, one whose agency the reader can discern and identify with in the product itself.4

     

    There seems to be little patience nowadays for reflexive textual practices, for double and ironic anti-realist fabulations of the kind associated with Pynchon’s early work. A distinctly post-structuralist sensibility has failed to make its case for the value or utility of “writing about writing.” The essentially political point implied in this sensibility–about the effects of a functionalist rationality on the social field it now dominates to an unprecedented degree–is lost as much on the right-wing pundit content to see in it the elitism of an ivory tower invaded by multiculturalists, as by left-wing writers like Katha Pollitt and Barbara Ehrenreich, who diagnose it as a cause of the political inertia afflicting the left today. In both cases, what remains unanalyzed is a rationality that seizes us at the moment a position is staked out, and thus the usefulness for political thought and practice of an implicate or implicated metaphorics that frames politics itself within a larger inquiry into the nature of modernity. The predicament of non-reading evident in responses to Pynchon’s work finds its origin point in this inability to grasp implication as a social and political term. Efforts by critics to humanize Pynchon in Mason & Dixon, along with the re-humanization of American politics implicit in the contemporary critique of “postmodern” theory (clearly marked, for instance, in the recent Sokal affair in Social Text and Lingua Franca), and even the bad “postmodern” non-readings that inspire this critique (many of which can be found under the rubric of “Pynchon studies”) are all symptoms of this inability, imperfect attempts at grasping a social logic predicated on a principle of concentric reverberations around a fundamental displacement, a “hole” in space and time.

     

    Pynchon’s work can be situated in this shift toward disjunction, toward the question of rationality itself as it determines how one writes or expresses oneself. The best review to date of Mason & Dixon, Louis Menand’s “Entropology” in the New York Review of Books, makes this shift clear by reminding his readers of the significance “entropy” as a concept has had for Pynchon, from his early short story of that name all the way to Mason & Dixon. Entropy in information theory, Menand reminds us, refers to the process by which “clarity and mutual understanding” are “purchased by a loss of diversity of opinion” (24). The more senders and receivers of messages approach certitude (or find themselves, like Mucho Maas with the world when he takes LSD in The Crying of Lot 49, “on the same wavelength”), the more transparent meaning becomes. The result is a homogenization of the field in which these exchanges occur, a levelling of differences catalyzed by a compulsion to “come together.”[5] Menand, quoting the Lévi-Strauss of Triste Tropiques, sees in this entropic compulsion the dynamic of imperialism that amounts almost to an obsession in Pynchon’s work; it is what “modernity” means, the stake in maintaining a relation to the history and assumptions of “enlightenment” at the level of practice or within one’s own mode of self-placement and identification. This is why Pynchon does not employ the reflexive techniques of comic or parodic fiction in order expertly to sustain a moment of humanist adequation to the truths we all share (the gist of most reviews of Mason & Dixon). On the contrary, he employs them to foreground an inadequation, an inexpert or even incompetent discursive operation that, for all its virtuousity, founds itself upon an apprehension of its own historicity, its own authorizing and authorized pretensions. Only to the extent that this apprehension is acknowledged in our readings does Pynchon’s text succeed in being a discourse without its own discourse, a meditation upon its own lawfulness as a literary artifact.6

     

    Unfortunately this folding back of discourse upon itself is precisely what arouses ire on the part of those critics who see in it no politically efficacious outcome. The price of communication today is more and more the displacement of questions about the form of communication, the bizarre presumption that the positivity or intense visibility of meaning constitutes a state of low social entropy, when in fact what we are witnessing is a profound vitiation of sense, an emptying of content, the contraction of depth into the various surfaces of social, political and economic inscription. This can be observed in the reviews of Mason & Dixon, the majority of which are in effect non-reviews, saying nothing clearly (or rather clearly saying nothing), beyond assuring the reader of the presence in Pynchon’s work of universal human values like “heroism” (Anthony Lane), sympathy and inspiration from the “breath of life” (T. C. Boyle). Partly this is due to the limitations of the review genre, partly to its subordination to the functions of advertising and markets. But either way, what results is transparent meaning indeed, a language of impressionistic escapism (“Awash with light and charm,” Paul Skenazy writes of Mason & Dixon in the San Francisco Chronicle, “rich with suggestion and idea, stuffed with all the minutiae of another time and world”) or triumphalist affirmation (Mason & Dixon is for Paul Gray of Time a “unique and miraculous experience….A tale of scientific triumph and an epic of loss”) that is conspicuous for the deftness with which it sidesteps any engagement with the “modernity” of the text.

     

    Louis Menand does engage Mason & Dixon, curiously enough through a detour to anthropology, or rather to what Lévi-Strauss proposes as “entropology,” the study of cultural production as a stimulus to greater and greater disintegration (with colonialist expansion its most destructive feature). By this detour, Menand opens a space for reading the novel’s strategy of resistance to the rationalization of modern society, a strategy of defection and detachment that centers on the act of marking an earth coded as a writing surface or Numen. Pynchon’s move to the 1760s, the decade before the advent of democracy in America (mediated through the year 1786, one decade after the Revolution, when the story is narrated), alerts his readers in a stroke to his interest in founding acts and what they necessarily have to displace in order to take place. The long sojourn of Mason and Dixon at the beginning of the novel in South Africa, and later their proximity in the wilds of western Pennsylvania to the frontiers where the Indian wars of the 17th and 18th centuries were fought, further indicate in rough what Pynchon’s reading of his (and our) foundation will be: the American republic, and American capitalism–the American techno-political order in the broadest sense–could only come into being after the racist suppression of the Native Americans and with the institution of slavery. Americans could only establish democracy by losing the ability to confront colonialism (a legacy we still see today in the difficulty with which the issue of racism is entered into fields of discourse), and this sacrifice at the heart of what democracy “is” becomes the subject of Pynchon’s novel, what it elaborates in the dream-work of Mason and Dixon’s straight-line labyrinth through America.

     

    The terrain here is, as Menand intuits, anthropological in nature. The America into which Mason and Dixon penetrate by way of marking a boundary and defining an orientation (a westward “Vector of Desire,” as narrator Wicks Cherrycoke puts it) is no ordinary “place” in the sense that this means delimited or enclosed, ordered according to principles of extension, causality and isotropy–in a word, Newtonian space. Pynchon proceeds not from a notion of coexistence (where each object, point or locus in space is externalized with respect to every other) but rather of palimpsests and Moebius strips, invisible Ley-lines and parallel universes. Pynchon offers perhaps his most ingenious metaphor for this America in the quartz prisms that Mason and Dixon place on the marker stones along the Line. These crystals disclose under a microscope “a fine structure of tiny cells, each a Sphere with another nested concentrickally within, much like Fish Roe in appearance” (547). Nested inside such nested structures is what the expedition’s “Quartz-scryer” Mr. Everybeet calls a “‘Ghost,’ another Crystal inside the ostensible one, more or less clearly form’d” (547). Mr. Everybeet explains:

     

    “‘Tis there the Pictures appear . . . tho’ it varies from one Operator to the next,–some need a perfect deep Blank, and cannot scry in Ghost-Quartz. Others, before too much Clarity, become blind to the other World . . . my own Crystal,”–he searches his Pockets and produces a Hand-siz’d Specimen with a faint Violet tinge,–“the Symmetries are not always easy to see . . . here, these twin Heptagons . . . centering your Vision upon their Common side, gaze straight in,–” “Aahhrrhh!” Mason recoiling and nearly casting away the crystal.

     

    “Huge, dark Eyes?” the Scryer wishes to know.

     

    "Aye.--Who is it?" Mason knows. (442)

     

    The face that Mason sees in the crystal inside the crystal “varies from one Operator to the next” according to who it is he or she wishes to see or is haunted by (in Mason’s case, this will be his dead wife Rebekah, whose eyes in fact he does “know” in the crystal). The doubly crystalline prisms that mark the Mason and Dixon Line, that mark the mark of boundary and location in Mason & Dixon, contain representations of “other Worlds” than the “ostensible one.” This spectral investiture of desire in the objects by which “place” is established clearly indicates a fundamental strategy of the novel to fold desire and the object, the time that desire actualizes and the space that the object defines, into one textual (but also telluric) surface. “Time is the Space that may not be seen,” says Dixon’s childhood teacher Emerson, and for Pynchon it is the invisible world that dwells in matter (quite literally, it turns out later in the novel, invaginated into the earth) and that canbe seen after all (for Mason in fact sees it), so long as perception finds the right balance between opacity (the “deep Blank”) and transparency (“too much Clarity”), the variable point of visual acuity that can never be fixed.

     

    Pynchon is conceptually close in anecdotal narrative details like these to what Merleau-Ponty calls a “human” or “anthropological space.” Distinguished from a “geometrical” system of objective relationships between determined points that is experienced as perspective, convergence, depth and position by a synthesizing eye/I, “anthropological space” designates that spatial condition or frame that cannot be “put into perspective by consciousness” (256). Unlocatable and ungraspable, this “more primordial” dimension forms a kind of infinite set around the objective world which is not itself objectivizable, an “outside” in which Merleau-Ponty finds the “essential structure of our being [as a] being situated in relation to an environment” (284). This “relation” is one of implication in a totality, an envelopment of the subject in a pre-personal “depth” that, beneath or coterminous with geometric space, commits that subject to an existential immediacy irreducible to acts of comprehension. Anthropological space has the “thickness of a medium devoid of any thing” and indicates a “depth which does not yet operate between objects, which…does not yet assess the distance between them, and which is simply the opening of perception upon some ghost thing as yet scarcely qualified” (266). Such an experience of ghosts (and such a ghostly experience) precedes the differentiation of perception and dream, and as such it constitutes what Merleau-Ponty calls a “direction of existence,” an intention immanent to the world in which it orients itself, a desire which is not the property of a constituted subject but a direction taken, a velocity or rate of change in a fluctuating and multiple space. The way Mason looks into the piece of quartz and sees the “huge, dark Eyes” of a ghost (Rebekah) is a pure perception which does not presuppose an act of consciousness within an objective or even an ontological order.7 It cannot be that Mason sees a ghost in the crystal anymore than he can see the crystal without the ghost orienting his gaze or quickening his desire in it. This gyre-like implication of Mason in his world comes through most distinctly in the “recoil” which it produces in him, the terror that almost causes him to drop the crystal and which signifies that death, that nothingness, that infinite regress at the heart of time as it reduces “Mason” to no one and his world to a “non-place” of ghostly “pictures.” This is why Wicks Cherrycoke, commenting on Emerson’s homily about time as invisible space, adds “that out of Mercy, we are blind as to Time,–for we could not bear to contemplate what lies at its heart” (326).

     

    But Mason & Dixon does contemplate what lies at the heart of time, albeit in modes of attenuated catastrophe, and its conjurations of that “non-place” unfold in the way that Emerson, his student Dixon, Mason and the narrator Wicks Cherrycoke all cease to be “characters” in a realist novel. They are “selves entirely word-made” as the foppish Son of Liberty Philip Dimdown puts it, woven into the texture of a massive pastiche that performs the spatial laminations it also thematizes in sly metaphysical exchanges like this one:

     

    "Lo, Lamination abounding," contributes Squire Haligast, momentarily visible, "its purposes how dark, yet have we ever sought to produce these thin Sheets innumerable, to spread a given Volume as close to pure Surface as possible, whilst on route discovering various new forms, the Leyden Pile, decks of Playing-Cards, contrivances which, like the Lever or Pulley, quite multiply the apparent forces, often unto disproportionate results...." "The printed Book," suggest the Rev'd [Cherrycoke], "--thin layers of pattern'd Ink, alternating with other thin layers of compress'd Paper, stack'd often by the Hundreds..." (389-90)

     

    The Pynchon whose “dark” tactics stand revealed here at the “pure Surface” of writing opens the “space” of encounter with the American wilderness by locating it at the level of a language that is flush with its own specifically temporal ground. At stake is a kind of duration that refers “America” to an anterior plane of undifferentiated “pictures” or images on which perception becomes a function of pure transition, of a “lived present” defined always in terms of its own disappearance.8 Mason & Dixon is a “travel” story in the sense that Michel de Certeau maintains “all stories are travel stories” (Practice, 115), tissues of metaphors that move, metaphorai, “spatial trajectories” that make the “places” they traverse textual non-places in which the act of delimitation meets its own internal limit, the “ghost” of a figural or semiotic motility that haunts the geometrical structures it founds. (For an interesting visual representation of this ghostly investiture of objectivized (non)space, see William Blake’s painting Newton.)

     

    De Certeau, building upon Merleau-Ponty’s ideas on spatiality in The Practice of Everyday Life, constructs an opposition between place (lieu) and a space (espace) linked to narrative tactics of inversion, quotation or doubling, ellipsis, metaphor, and metonymy. The ruses of rhetoric “describe” (“as a mobile point ‘describes’ a curve” [116], he writes) an element of almost Brownian motion that depends upon its “operation” in a multi-dimensional present that is always other to itself, furrowed internally by the specters of its own singularity. Space for De Certeau is “like the word when it is spoken, that is, when it is caught in the ambiguity of an actualization, transformed into a term dependent upon many different conventions, situated as the act of a present (or a time), and modified by the transformations caused by successive contexts” (117). Space is a practice of place, a putting into motion of one’s own time and contingency. Only in the grip of a such a practice, in fact, does “time” come to quicken in us a historical sense, a feeling for the historicity of our own actions as they play out symptomatically the displacement of time (or, to be more precise, the displacement of this sense for the displacement of time, usually in the name of history or of some more objective relation to the past, to a tradition, to a place). De Certeau makes this co-implication of time and practice explicit by asserting a certain non-distinction between spaces and places. The former (spaces) is the play in structures (places) that marks not an external but an internal difference, a non-self-identical “labor” at the heart of place (placement, position, positionality) that constantly transforms it into its opposite and vice versa.

     

    This is why the turn to language and narrative is important to De Certeau: the “story,” he writes, incisively highlights the overlapping of space and place, their coextension in a practice of “moving” or ever-shifting signification. Under the pressure of a history consisting in the progressive technicization of space (and the strict regulation of time), “spatial practices”–those concerned with the remainders of a process of rationalization and colonization undergone since the Enlightenment–pass into the domain of literature, where they take the form of “everyday virtuousities that science doesn’t know what to do with and which become the signatures, easily recognized by readers, of everyone’s micro-stories” (70). The story, in other words, dissimulates the “invisible Space” or temporal nun that paradoxically dies beneath the instruments of its own delimitation and designation. This sacrifice underlies the “primary function” of the story to “authorize the establishment, displacement or transcendence of limits, and as a consequence, to set in opposition, within the closed field of discourse, two movements that intersect (setting and transgressing limits) in such a way as to make the story a sort of ‘crossword’ decoding stencil…[or] dynamic partitioning of space…” (123). Only through this “stencilization” does space come into being at all, and this is why it remains constitutively tied to a practice (of writing) that “nests” another practice “Concentrickally within” its own demarcative procedures.

     

    With this we are clearly in the topography of Mason & Dixon, a novel about its own narrativity and, precisely through this reflexive turning around upon itself, about America too, about its delimitation and colonization, about the enclosure of space in proper places (or properties), and about its own (and our) complicity in that enclosure–a complicity that in turn conditions the possibility of seeing the imperialist history it reproduces within the ever-shifting boundaries of “anthropological space.” Pynchon hints at this textual overdetermination in the previously quoted passage on lamination, where the printed book becomes one more device (like the lever or the pulley) to extend our powers of control. Mason & Dixon is about a technological society only by first being technological, sustaining its own narrative desire to found, to originate, to be a world in its “disproportionate” multiplication of forces and effects. To use and be used is one obvious subtext of a literary practice as wedded to citation, parody, and encyclopedic “overstuffing” farce as Pynchon’s, and his novel clearly reflects this problem back upon its readers. The ingenuity of Mason & Dixon is that to read it well is almost necessarily to provoke the “ghost” of a spatiality that disappears beneath our interpretive tools, to involve us in a “Destiny…to inscribe the Earth” (221). But such an involvement in the story of Mason and Dixon must also entail an involvement in Mason & Dixon, its linguistic involutions, its opacities and transparences, its reflexivity defined not as abstraction but as the carefully constructed limit to the abstraction that governs the resistance to reading. What gets lost in this resistance is a time deeper than memory and thus an immemorial space (Pynchon calls it “America”) that does not ever appear except insofar as it alters reading toward a commitment to the polyvalences of language.

     

    This “space” is the stake in Pynchon’s mode of writing and in any reading of it, a history, a continuing legacy, a haunting, a repetition upon which no reflection is possible except by way of acknowledging its precessionary grip upon every act of writing and reading. Pynchon understands this as a logic of implication, of texts that are “general” in a Derridean sense and that form vortexes into which the reader is plunged. Mason & Dixon is an attempt to bring this logic into a clear literary focus, to tell a story about founding acts that takes as its own foundation a kind of textual vortex. Pynchon affords a glimpse of this vortical structure in passages like this one, an extended riff on the specific inscriptive desire that both Mason and Dixon and Mason & Dixon act out:

     

    Does Brittania, when she sleeps, dream? Is America her dream?--in which all that cannot pass in the metropolitan Wakefulness is allow'd Expression away in the restless Slumber of these Provinces, and on West-ward, wherever 'tis not yet mapp'd, nor written down, nor ever, by the majority of Mankind, seen,--serving as a very Rubbish-Tip for subjunctive Hopes, for all that may yet be true,--Earthly Paradise, Fountain of Youth, Realms of Prester John, Christ's Kingdom, ever behind the sunset, safe till the next Territory to the West be seen and recorded, measur'd and tied in, back into the Net-Work of Points already known, that slowly triangulates its Way into the Continent, changing all from subjunctive to declarative, reducing Possibilities to Simplicities that serve the ends of Government,--winning away from the realm of the Sacred, its Borderlands one by one, and assuming them unto the bare mortal World that is our home, and our Despair. (345)

     

    This long sentence is destined to become a signature piece for the whole novel, and indeed many of its reviewers have quoted from it, although not often in its entirety. What gets excluded from the various attempts to highlight in selected parts its exemplary force is the way its convoluted syntax is its exemplarity. The almost vertiginous experience of this sentence suggests (phenomenologically, as it were) the movement of the text as a whole, orthogonal and yet at the same time devious, drifting through qualifications, meandering to its final resting place in the word “Despair.” Pynchon, that is, works here at two levels: semantic, where Mason and Dixon’s “West-ward” momentum is glossed in terms of a “declarative” desire for the “subjunctive” space of America; and syntactic, where that desire is made to circulate through an essentially sinuous writing. The transformation of the subjunctive into the declarative on the first level is inverted on the second level: Pynchon’s diction takes the reader back to a state of “unmapped” disorientation and ambiguity, back to the overdetermined realm of dream. The dreamer, Brittania, moves toward the dream of America as the dream itself returns to the dreamer, agitating at the center of the latter’s intention to “see,” “record,” and “measure.” This double and deviating movement in fact organizes the entire novel: Mason and Dixon penetrate the wilderness and then withdraw back into already penetrated zones of civilization (they construct the Line in spring and summer, then wait out the winter back in Philadelphia), and in addition they make brief excursions above and below the Line (north to New York, south to Maryland and Virginia). Mason & Dixon “triangulates its Way into the Continent” in spider-like fashion, assimilating invisible spaces into the ordered places of empire in order to evoke the space of rationality itself, the scene of empire as it materializes in the practice of language.

     

    Michel de Certeau has written elegantly on this rhythm of departure and return in discourse. The sleight-of-hand by which discourse about the other becomes a discourse authorized by the other has for its basic structure the travel story: narrative’s constituent relation to limits, to what de Certeau calls “frontiers” and the “bridges” that mark their cooptation (127), underscores its function in the process of legitimating a disciplinarian organization of knowledge. The urge to delimit is also an urge to narrate; the urge to narrate, in turn, cannot be differentiated from a de-temporalizing rationalization of space. This is why Pynchon writes as he does, creating “Net-works” of complex association, rhizomatic surfaces into which he flattens the depth-effect of meaning. That the above-quoted passage is in fact elaborate parody, not meant to be taken as exemplary of any hidden intent except insofar as it exemplifies precisely the nothingness that adheres in levity, indicates the method of the text’s meta-commentary upon American colonialism. The latter envelops the text and the text of its reception (our reading) as well. It happens in the most basic assumptions of representation and truth, transforming “Borderlands one by one” into interiorized limits, internal differences that open the inside to its “Sacred” other.9

     

    Mason & Dixon is thus a profoundly heterological novel, concerned with the strangeness of its own authority in a world founded upon the displacement of limits. Pynchon’s is a discourse without its own discourse because even this registration of the arbitrariness of authority resonates with the violence it finds so strange. America (both as democratic critique of power and as its extension in the form of a technologically advanced capitalism) is synonymous with this violence, and the “strangeness” of this overlap conditions another kind of critique, one focussed less on asserting the “entropological” values of pluralism and communication than on exposing, at their heart, the sacrifice that drives them. Mason & Dixon‘s singularity–its parodies and pastiches, its unstable ironies, its puns and jokes, all the elements that a more humanist reading can see only as techniques for the transmission of messages in a shared social context–consists in recognizing the peculiar immediacy with which the history of colonialism in America is always experienced, and the impossibility of reflecting upon that history without perceiving it in our own practices. Far from merely celebrating parody, pastiche or irony as transgressive ends in themselves, Pynchon in Mason & Dixon makes them the vehicle of an implicated relation to the past and to place, a duration exactly calibrated to the time of reading which then raises the stakes of interpretation immeasurably.

     

    Notes

     

    1. The quote from Montaigne’s essay “Of Cannibals” occurs at the opening of De Certeau’s essay, “Montaigne’s ‘Of Cannibals’,” which begins with the sentence quoted subsequently here. De Certeau’s essay is collected in the volume entitled Heterologies.

     

    2. I am echoing here the language of Freud’s speculations in Beyond the Pleasure Principle on traumatic repetition and the liminal structure of consciousness. By the term system Cs Freud designates in living organisms the ectodermic or cortical surface where consciousness resides and which is susceptible of rupture either by internal or external excitation. When such a rupture effectively floods the organism’s capacity to make sense of its own experience, a repression occurs which paralyzes any affective response and generates the attempt to master the stimulus symptomatically through repetition. See in particular Chapter 4 (pp. 26-39) of Beyond the Pleasure Principle.

     

    3. Time magazine, in its review of Mason & Dixon, exploits this nominalist desire by including a photograph of Thomas Pynchon as a young man over a text box that reads Where is he now? This question is followed by a series of phrases detailing his current whereabouts and situation.

     

    4. The humanist slant present in these reviews suggests a transformation in the concept of production brought on by technological development since the 18th century. I follow here a discussion of this history by Michel de Certeau in The Practice of Everyday Life. As artistic or artisanal techniques became detached from art itself in the form of machines that “do the work for you,” producers lost the objective determination of a practice and withdrew into a purely subjective knowledge or “savoir-faire.” This intuitive know-how became the domain of a new kind of producer to whom practice reverted in newly technologized forms. The subject became an “engineer” equipped with a “taste,” “tact” or “genius” that was simultaneously unconscious and “logical,” original and automatic.

     

    Judgement in the Kantian sense (mediating a practical art that knows but does not reflect upon what it does and a theoretical science that provides this obscure knowledge with a reflective language, however supplemental it might be) was the skill this new “engineer” had to offer, but at the cost of internalizing a technological relation to the means of production. “Genius” as a concept presupposes this technicization even (perhaps especially) when it implies a denigration of knowledge that is self-conscious. This denigration paradoxically indexes the privilege of consciousness by founding the modern distinction between practice (art) and theory (science). De Certeau sees this practice/theory distinction as heterological in nature: know-how signifies the incorporated (and idealized) “other” of theory, that object of the “engineer’s” theoretical knowledge that supports and authorizes it. Pynchon, to the extent that he is a “genius” who operates the machinery of fiction toward the end of securing a “human” value, is thus only an avatar of this “engineer,” so long as he is not also read as undoing the practice/theory distinction and exposing the heterological relation at its heart. It is indeed a testament to Mason & Dixon‘s self-reflexive brilliance that it more or less tackles this problem head on, as I hope to show in the reading that follows here. See The Practice of Everyday Life, pp. 61-76, for a fuller discussion of the relation between technology and practice since the 18th century.

     

    5. This reading of entropy, suggestive in its qualification of the value modern societies place upon communication, nonetheless leaves untroubled its own assumption about the value of “diversity of opinion,” as if pluralism were in fact the value that Pynchon does assert in Mason & Dixon. Menand, that is, does not graft onto his reading a clear account of the role a rhetoric of pluralism plays in the very process of homogenization he calls entropic and that involves a proliferation of perspectives within well-defined social spaces.

     

    6. In fact only in the reading of the text does it live out this extra-legality, this discursive eccentricity to the literary power structure through which its dissemination is assured. Mason & Dixon, for instance, clearly bears in the manner of its publication all the marks of literature as a center of power, and only its readers can rescue it (or not) from this determination. Even when ironic or parodic fabulation can be seen as ideologically neutral with respect to the institution of literature, its politicization consists not in locating in a given text some specific ideological content so much as grasping clearly the reflexive dimension of its language and asking whether it raises the question of discursive rationality.

     

    7. By pure perception I mean to echo Merleau-Ponty’s emphasis upon a non-thetic or “pure description of phenomena prior to the objective world…giving us a glimpse of ‘lived’ depth, independently of any kind of geometry” (258). The anterior “depth” at which neither objects nor the I/eye have been posited becomes the enveloping or engrossing “situation” of the existential subject, who is grasped in terms of implication and motivation rather than production or causality. Phenomenal space for this subject “is neither an object, nor an act of unification on the subject’s part; it can neither be observed, since it is presupposed in every observation, nor seen to emerge from a constituting operation, since it is of its essence that it already be constituted…” (254). Even though phenomenal space, pre-objective and pre-logical, is distinguished for Merleau-Ponty from being (nothing in it is or exists as determined), phenomena do have a “significance” that can be “recognized” if not “thematized.” This non-thematic recognition–or a version of it linking its independence from a thetic order to the “being” of language–is what the designation “pure” perception is meant to convey here.

     

    8. When Merleau-Ponty maintains that “geometrical space” is “temporal before being spatial,” he means that its necessary pre-condition is the (no)thingness of an always passing present (or nun). “Things coexist in space because they are present to the same perceiving subject and enveloped in one and the same temporal wave. But the unity and individuality of each temporal wave is possible only if it is wedged in between the preceding and the following one, and if the same temporal pulsation which produces it still retains its predecessor and anticipates its successor. It is objective time which is made up of successive moments. The lived present holds a past and a future within its thickness….We know of movement and a moving entity without being in any way aware of objective positions, as we know of an object at a distance and of its true size without any interpretation, and as we know every moment the place of an event in the thickness of our past without any express recollection” (275). What Merleau-Ponty calls a “lived present” in which knowledge happens without a rational knower (i.e., “only with the help of time,” he writes) is understood here in a distinctly catastrophic or “catastropic” register: the lived present is never self-present or proper to itself and cannot secure even a phenomenological description from the slippages of meaning that index themselves in the language of its expression.

     

    9. Apropos of the functions of the “frontier” and the “bridge” in the “story,” De Certeau maintains that the “bewildering exteriority” accessed via the “bridging” of the frontier causes its conversion into an “alien element” previously arraigned (by this very process) in the interior. By virtue of a coming into contact with the outside, that is, the subject of narrative (the “traveller”) “gives ob-jectivity…expression and re-presentation…to the alterity which was hidden inside the limits.” As a result, his or her departure from the fold of the familiar ends with a return experienced as a discovery, in objectivized form, of the very exteriority sought beyond the frontier. “Within the frontiers, the alien is already there, an exoticism or sabbath of the memory, a disquieting familiarity. It is as though delimitation itself were the bridge that opens the inside to its other” (128-29). By internal difference, then, I mean the incorporated “other” or limit that conditions this repetitition and that constitutes the text’s implicated relation to a colonialist history.

     

    Works Cited

     

    • Boyle, T. Coraghessan. “Mason & Dixon.” New York Times Book Review 18 May 1997: 9.
    • De Certeau, Michel. Heterologies. Trans. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1986.
    • —. The Practice of Everyday Life. Trans. Steven Rendall. Berkeley: U of California P, 1984.
    • Freud, Sigmund. Beyond the Pleasure Principle. Trans. James Strachey. New York: W.W. Norton, 1961.
    • Gray, Paul. “Drawing the Line.” Time 5 May 1997: 98.
    • Lane, Anthony. “Then, Voyager.” The New Yorker 12 May 1997: 97-100.
    • Leonard, John. “Crazy Age of Reason.” The Nation 12 May 1997: 65-68.
    • Menand, Louis. “Entropology.” The New York Review of Books 12 June 1997: 22-25.
    • Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. The Phenomenology of Perception. Trans. Colin Smith. New York: Routledge, 1962.
    • Skenazy, Paul. “Pynchon Draws the Line.” The San Francisco Chronicle 27 April 1997: 1, 8.

     

  • From Freaks to Goddesses

    Charles D. Martin

    Department of English
    Florida State University

    cmartin@mailer.fsu.edu

     

    Rosemarie Garland Thomson, Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Physical Disability in American Culture and Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.

     
    In the last two decades, much critical attention has been focused upon the cultural importance of the sideshow freak, emphasizing the effect of the exhibit on the audience. In his book Freaks: Myths and Images of the Secret Self, Leslie Fiedler, reaching back initially to his own childhood experiences, uses a Freudian lens to demonstrate that the exaggerated corporeal difference of the sideshow attraction embodied childhood nightmares and anxieties over scale, the limits of the body, individuality, even the primal scene of the child’s creation. In exhibition, the freak helps constitute the “normality” of the audience. The advent of modern medical science, in Fiedler’s eyes, has “desacralized human monsters forever,” and has replaced the audience’s awe with a quotidian curiosity that diminishes the once-exalted status of the freak as a wonder and a miracle (19). Robert Bogdan also confesses a childhood experience with the freak show in the prefatory statement of his study Freak Show: Presenting Human Oddities for Amusement and Profit, as he was hurried away from the tent by his parents, leaving him with shame and a sense that he somehow had transgressed into a domain cordoned off by taboo. Bogdan advances the study of sideshow exhibitions by perceiving the construction of the freak in the hierarchical relationship between the attraction and the audience. “A ‘freak,’” according to Bogdan, “is a way of thinking, of presenting, a set of practices, an institution–not a characteristic of an individual” (10). Bogdan turns away from the use of the term “freak,” offering instead the seemingly more humanizing one of the “disabled” for those attractions with real, not manufactured, physical anomalies. Susan Stewart, in her book On Longing, extends the idea of social construction by succinctly declaring the lusus naturae, or freak of nature, instead a “freak of culture” (109). The exhibit of this social construction domesticates and naturalizes those bodies determined to be congenitally or ethnically different in a spectacle of colonialization. “On display,” Stewart writes, “the freak represents the naming of the frontier and the assurance that the wilderness, the outside, is now territory” (110). In the freak is evidence of the colonial impulse to know and to dominate the unknown, the exotic. Common to all three of these critical works is the emphasis placed upon the relationship between the exhibit–the spectacle of the anomalous body–and the audience, which places the burden of meaning upon the exhibit.

     

    In her book Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Physical Disability in American Culture and Literature, Rosemarie Garland Thomson envisions her mission as one of denaturalizing the disabled figure, and consequently that of the freak, by resacralizing it and giving it agency. Late in her introductory chapter, in a section which she calls a manifesto, she expresses her desire to rescue the disabled figure and to establish it as a political category alongside class, ethnicity, sexuality, and gender, among others. For Thomson, extending the arguments of Bogdan and Stewart, the figure of the disabled is as much a social construction as the freak. She also incorporates into those constructions the figure of the “normate,” a term she coins to define “the social figure through which people can represent themselves as definitive human beings,” a subject position which requires its antithesis–the figures, among others, of the disabled and the freak–in order to constitute itself (8). The exhibition of the “extraordinary body,” the term she prefers for the figure of the disabled and the freak, relies, as with most exhibitions, on the visibility of the body. At this point, a reader might expect a gloss on the Enlightenment shift to the institutional reliance on the visible that fueled the delineations of the natural world into rigid, authoritarian, easily discernable categories. But, unlike some of her predecessors–Bakhtin and Fiedler, for instance–she finds little difference in effect between the display of the extraordinary body as an anti-authoritarian exhibition of a world turned topsy turvy (a prelapsarian vision of folk culture before the Age of Reason); the Barnum presentation of the sideshow freak as prodigy and potential humbug, a spectacle to be deciphered; and the rational rhetoric of medical case history that diminishes the extraordinary body to an anomalous specimen of a malady in need of treatment. In each case, the exhibition reduces the body to one feature, a synecdoche that erases the rest of the whole that it represents.

     

    In her second chapter, “Theorizing Disability,” Thomson demonstrates a correspondence between feminist theory’s emphasis on the politics of the body and her analysis of disability discourse. Feminist theory, though, serves more as a guiding spirit for her study than as a critical foundation, influencing her to select in particular the disabled female body as her primary subject. Even though she refuses to conflate the female body and the disabled body, she uncovers conflation in works by Aristotle, Freud, and Veblen, who each envision the female body as disabled or mutilated in comparison to the culturally normalized male body. This conflation provides the occasion for the introduction of feminist theory. Thomson finds an analogue between the spectacle of the female body and that of the disabled body in the relationship each spectacle has with its spectator, a relationship in which the spectator–the normate, who is by cultural definition white, male, and physically abled–constructs his spectacle. “If the male gaze makes the normative female a sexual spectacle,” Thomson writes, “then the stare sculpts the disabled subject into a grotesque spectacle” (26). Thomson, though, is not a pure constructionist; she does not deny bodily difference. The disabled body is different from the abled. She maintains the flexibility of the constructionist view while refusing to erase the physical reality of difference, the materials from which the spectator constructs the category.

     

    For her critical foundation, Thomson incorporates theories from three different sources: Erving Goffman’s theory of stigmatization as a cultural process, Mary Douglas’s theory of dirt as a cultural contaminant, and Michel Foucault’s docile bodies. The result of this hybridization illuminates the forces at work that identify, isolate, and ostracize the extraordinary body. According to Thomson, Goffman’s theory “untangles the processes that construct both the normative as well as the deviant and…reveals the parallels among all forms of cultural oppression while still allowing specific devalued identities to remain in view” (32). In order to establish and cultivate a definition of normality, a society needs to identify and stigmatize normality’s antithesis, creating and naturalizing categories of superiority and inferiority. Society maintains order by distinguishing the anomalous. In Thomson’s reading of Douglas’s theory, “[d]irt is an anomaly, a discordant element rejected from the schema that individuals and societies use in order to construct a stable, recognizable, and predictable world” (33). The anomalous, or the extraordinary as Thomson prefers, threatens the treasured uniformity of society. Thomson aptly fuses these two theories, asserting succinctly that “human stigmata function as social dirt” (33). Choosing to historicize at this point, Thomson introduces Foucault’s theories on the construction of the modern subject and the institutional processes set up to regulate the body, through measurement and classification, and to root out those anomalous bodies that violate the norm of the Cartesian solitary, autonomous, productive individual–in particular, the disabled bodies. As Thomson makes clear, “[d]isability is the unorthodox made flesh, refusing to be normalized, neutralized, or homogenized” (24). Since the disabled figure exceeds the rigid taxonomy of the modern subject and cannot be normalized, it must be institutionally identified and contained. Once again, in her too-brief discussion of the applicability of Foucault’s theories, Thomson neglects to note the importance of visibility to enforce this containment. One of the primary panoptical institutions of the late-eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was the nascent natural history museum, designed not only to display the natural world in a rigid and highly visible hierarchical taxonomy, but also to influence and contain as well the behavior of its patrons. The freak show, a related institution of containment, developed out of the American Museum of Charles Willson Peale and its later proprietor, P. T. Barnum.

     

    Thomson devotes her last three chapters to a limited, but distinctive, list of cultural and literary sites where the extraordinary body receives representation: the freak show, the sentimental novel of reform, and the African-American liberatory novel. Unlike her presentation of the history of the exhibition of the extraordinary body up to this point as unvarying objectification, she arranges these sites as gradual, if at times incremental, improvements in the cultural representation of the extraordinary body, a freak’s progress, if you will. Each of these sites performs specific cultural work, improving the lot of the extraordinary body as it climbs its way up what might be called a Great Chain of Representation and offering initially endorsement, then criticism of liberal individualism and the ideal American self promoted by Ralph Waldo Emerson in that bible of liberal individualism, “Self-Reliance.” Emerson’s ideal of broad-chested masculinity, fully naturalized as a self-governing, atomized individual, requires the opposition of the figure of the disabled, the invalid, the body ungovernable, unconforming, dependent.

     

    In her third chapter, Thomson embraces Fiedler’s assumption that freaks help establish the normality of those who witness the spectacle and adds to the achievement of the cultural work of the American freak show the constitution of Emerson’s ideal American self. Simply put, the extraordinary body of the freak helps constitute Emerson’s ideal American self by displaying its antithesis, of which, to Thomson, Joice Heth was the best example. Presented by Barnum as his first major attraction and humbug, Heth was billed as the impossibly ancient nurse of the young George Washington. Thomson describes Heth as “[a] black, old, toothless, blind, crippled slave woman, she fuses a combination of characteristics the ideal American self rejects” (59). In presenting the body of Joice Heth to the reader, Thomson effaces the narrative of the exhibit, the humbug romance of the founding father Barnum uses to frame the extraordinary body, in order to offer an unalloyed narrative of her own. Thomson complicates the simple economy between spectacle and spectator with the examples of Sartje Baartman (the Venus Hottentot) and Julia Pastrana (the Ugliest Woman in the World), who, according to the author, disrupt rigid, naturalized categories “that underpin Western rationality,” those of race, gender, and sexuality (74). Thomson limits the liminality of the extraordinary body to binary constructions that do not apparently threaten the spectator’s ability to constitute himself.

     

    In order to satisfy her mission, Thomson necessarily views the exhibition of the extraordinary body as unmitigated containment and objectification. Although she gives a brief nod to the carnivalesque properties of the extraordinary body, she does not linger long on the disruption the figure causes to the exhibition space in the attempts to contain it. She assumes that all disruptions are contained, all threats neutralized by the apparent hierarchy of the space. Thomson also erases distinctions between audience members, lumping them all into the construction of the ideal American self. Yet most patrons must have realized as they witnessed Barnum’s exhibitions of the extraordinary and the exotic that the same fate could await them. Beneath the glee that urban working class, rural poor, and immigrant populations experienced in being potentially normalized by the display of difference lay the anxiety that if they did not conform to expectations, they too could be exhibited as anomalous bodies, exiled from membership in Emerson’s ideal. Contemporary literary representations of Barnum disclose an anxiety concerning exhibition. In George Washington Harris’s Southwestern humor tale, “Sut Escapes Assassination,” Sut Lovingood meets up with P. T. Barnum, who threatens to stuff and display the gangly, rural poor youth as a nondescript (130). The presence of Barnum not only jeopardizes Sut’s status as an autonomous American self, it endangers his life, underscoring the anxiety experienced among audience members at the margins.

     

    Thomson is more concerned with the theoretical demands of her mission than with the historical minutiae of the era she portrays, consequently (and ironically) homogenizing the concept of the freak show and its presentation. All exhibitions and exhibition spaces for the anomalous body are alike in her eyes, denying the changes in context and the complex set of relationships that arise from those changes. Around the name Barnum gave for his exhibition space (the Lecture Room), Thomson places quotation marks, an attempt, I imagine, to indicate a euphemism for a freak show stage, yet Barnum did use the space for lectures and temperance melodramas, as well for the display of the extraordinary body. Barnum, as Bluford Adams has recently demonstrated in his book E Pluribus Barnum, used his freak show exhibits between acts of his moral dramas, often to interesting effect. He added a General Tom Thumb in blackface to the cast of a dramatization of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Dred, which consequently mitigated the anti-slavery message of the play and disrupted the high seriousness of the melodrama at the same time as it helped constitute the normality of his audience (142). Thomson also oversimplifies the hierarchy between Barnum’s displays and his patrons. Not only did the audience have to resolve what Thomson calls an “affront” to the categories, the audience had to discern what kind of operation was at work (N. Harris 57). Those who could not discern the operation became, in a sense, part of the show, reduced in status in the hierarchy of Barnum’s exhibition space.

     

    Thomson fares better with the literary materials of the sentimental novel of reform and the African-American liberatory novel. She capably calls attention to the disabled figures in each of these novels and demonstrates how integral they are to each novel’s purpose and structure. In her fourth chapter, “Benevolent Maternalism and the Disabled Women in Stowe, Davis, and Phelps,” Thomson seeks an analogue between the hierarchical relationship of the spectacle and the spectator in the American freak show, and that of the sentimental novel’s disabled women and the “maternal benefactress heroines,” as the author terms them. Even in the economy of sympathy generated by these two figures, the relationship remains largely parasitic. Like the sideshow freak, the figure of the disabled woman remains passive and objectified before the gaze of the benefactress, who benefits from the misery of the spectacle through the offer of compassion, a culturally approved response. The disabled woman, generating maternal affection in her audience, helps constitute a benefactress otherwise refused membership as an American self and gives her an opportunity at a public life. The benefactress can only achieve agency by witnessing the display of the extraordinary body: “The disabled figures thus legitimated the middle-class woman’s move out of the sequestered home while remaining within the maternal role” (89). Thomson successfully reveals the freak show template at work in the sentimental novel of reform, but she could have extended the analogue further concentrically to the relationship between the staged drama of the book–not unlike the melodramas on Barnum’s Lecture Room stage–and its readership.

     

    In her fifth chapter, “Disabled Women as Powerful Women in Petry, Morrison, and Lorde,” Thomson sees the extraordinary body as a vehicle for empowerment and agency. The obese, heavily scarred Mrs. Hedges in Ann Petry’s The Street presents a transitional figure in the recovery of the extraordinary body. Generating sympathy, she still represents the misery and abjection of the sentimental novel’s disabled figures, yet she achieves empowerment through her body, an empowerment that Lutie, the character who attempts to normalize herself, cannot accomplish in the racist, sexist society of the book. The culmination of Thomson’s critical achievement is her extended discussion of the disabled figures in Toni Morrison’s novels, in which she deftly shows the ubiquity of these extraordinary bodies and their importance to Morrison’s work. The marked bodies of Morrison’s novels–the amputee Eva and her birthmark-afflicted daughter in Sula, the blind Therese in Tar Baby, Sethe and her scarred back in Beloved, among others–give testimony to the hardships inflicted by the dominant society. These afflictions, though, as they mark a physical deviation from the norm, also indicate “the markings of history,” a history that each character needs to embrace in order to achieve empowerment (122). The extraordinary bodies of Morrison’s novels indicate “a transformed social order, one that reconfigures value hierarchies, norms, and authority structures” (123). Thomson, in this chapter, abandons the idea that the disabled body still serves to constitute Emerson’s ideal, even though the process is still much in evidence. Morrison denaturalizes the Emersonian ideal American self and renders it perverse and evil. Reducing African-American slaves to the status of natural history exhibit, the schoolteacher in Beloved obsessively enters inconsequential measurements into his notebook. Even though Morrison’s characters repudiate the ideal American self as Emerson constructed him and struggle with the social order that embraces the figure, they still embody the spirit of self-reliance; by Thomson’s admission, “they literally constitute themselves with a free-ranging agency whose terms are tragically circumscribed by an adversarial social order” (116). The newly empowered extraordinary body still bears the residue of the ideal American self.

     

    To counter the hegemony of Emerson’s ideal, Thomson proposes the constitution of a postmodern self, a politicized recovery of the pre-Enlightenment grotesque body as a celebration of difference and the transgression of boundaries that dismisses the authoritarian construction of the ideal American self as mundane and undistinguished. The authors of the African-American liberatory novel–Morrison and Lorde, in particular–renounce the objectification of the freak show, imbue the extraordinary body with a mythic glow, and imagine their disabled figures as metaphoric goddesses and priestesses.

     

    The mythic becomes critical to Thomson’s mission to lift the disabled body from the objectification of the freak show. She embraces the spiritual subtext of Morrison’s and Lorde’s works as a vehicle of the disabled figure’s redemption and applies the same terminology to achieve her goal, a critical laying on of hands, as it were, to cast a nearly divine light on the disabled figure and invest it, it appears, with the goddess myth from popular psychology. The effect, even if unintentional, is unfortunate.

     

    The shortcomings of Extraordinary Bodies do not diminish the achievement of its mission. Thomson accomplishes her goal of rescuing the figure of the extraordinary body, denaturalizing the categories of freak and normate in the process, and adding to the ongoing literature of the freakshow and its cultural work in the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. Most important to future work on freakshow exhibitions, Extraordinary Bodies testifies to the role the freakshow played in the institutions of liberal individualism and in constituting the Emersonian ideal of the masculine, autonomous self.

     

    Works Cited

     

    • Adams, Bluford. E Pluribus Barnum: The Great Showman and U. S. Popular Culture. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1997.
    • Bogdan, Robert. Freak Show: Presenting Human Oddities for Amusement and Profit. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1988.
    • Fiedler, Leslie. Freaks: Myths and Images of the Secret Self. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978.
    • Harris, George Washington. “Sut Escapes Assassination.” High Times and Hard Times. Ed. M. Thomas Inge. Nashville: Vanderbilt UP, 1967.
    • Harris, Neil. Humbug: The Art of P. T. Barnum. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1973.
    • Stewart, Susan. On Longing: Narratives of the Miniature, the Gigantic, the Souvenir, the Collection. Durham, N. C.: Duke UP, 1993.

     

  • Tuned In

    Matthew Roberson

    Department of English
    University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

    matthewr@csd.uwm.edu

     

    Larry McCaffery, Some Other Frequency: Interviews with Innovative American Authors. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996.

     
    For two decades few critics have done more than Larry McCaffery to map the terrain of contemporary American fiction. His book The Metafictional Muse (1982) was one of the first in-depth studies of 1960s and 1970s American metafiction. His edition of essays on contemporary science-fiction, Storming the Reality Studio: A Casebook of Cyberpunk and Postmodern Science Fiction (1991), is a seminal collection of some of the most interesting and genuinely serious essays about the current SF scene. Editor of the journals Fiction International and Critique, McCaffery has also in the recent past been in charge of an issue of Postmodern Culture devoted to postmodern fiction. Add to these things his more recent work as an editor–his massive Postmodern Fiction: A Bio-Bibliographic Guide (1986); his editions of Avant-Pop fiction, Avant-Pop: Fiction for a Daydream Nation (1993) and After Yesterday’s Crash: The Avant-Pop Anthology (1995); as well as a forthcoming edition of essays on one of America’s first postmodern fictioneers, Raymond Federman: From A to X-X-X-X–and it becomes clear just how extensive and expansive is his contribution to the study of the diverse field of contemporary writing.

     

    This bibliography, however, does not cover what is perhaps McCaffery’s most significant contribution to the study of contemporary fiction: his continuing series of interviews with cutting-edge experimental American writers. Beginning in 1983 with Anything Can Happen: Interviews with Contemporary American Novelists, which he co-edited with Tom LeClair, McCaffery went on to produce Alive and Writing: Interviews with American Authors of the 1980s (1987), which he co-edited with Sinda Gregory, and Across the Wounded Galaxies: Interviews with Innovative Science Fiction Writers (1990). These collections have now been joined by a fourth, Some Other Frequency: Interviews with Innovative American Authors.

     

    While McCaffery is careful to avoid broadly labeling as “postmodern” the contemporary writers he interviews, the ideas that the first three collections trace, in one shape or another, are ones most readers will recognize as postmodern. Anything Can Happen, a collection of 1970s writers, focuses on artists in particular with a “common sense that crisis was [in the 1960s and 1970s] at hand, for literature and society at large–and that extreme measures were needed to rescue the novel and the community from the grips of outmoded assumptions” (AW 1). Alive and Writing is primarily interested in seeing how this crisis comes out; its galvanizing question asks how 1980s writers take advantage of the battles won by the writers included in ACH. The writers included “in this volume simply take it for granted that many of the features of postmodernism that once seemed extreme…are perfectly valid ways for approaching the creation of fiction” (AW 2). Across the Wounded Galaxies takes as its premise that the study of SF has by 1990 become a serious institution; this is because SF itself is not only a central influence upon the styles of our times, but because it has been influenced by some of our time’s major ideas. These ideas, one of which is that in this quantum age we cannot divorce science from the arts, is for better or worse recognizably postmodern.

     

    Although continuing the earlier collections’ interests in innovative (or fringe or experimental)1 American authors, Some Other Frequency seems at first glance unwilling to commit to McCaffery’s overarching interest in postmodernism. In terms of the authors that McCaffery includes, there is no postmodern party line, or at least certainly not the kind of party line shared by some of the breakthrough postmodern innovators–Coover, Barthelme, Sukenick, Federman, Katz.2 In fact, it seems at times as if the only party line ascribed to by the writers included in Some Other Frequency is that they are not postmodern, or even necessarily avant-garde. As McCaffery sums up this point in his introduction, not only do “very few of the authors interviewed [in the collection] feel any sense of kinship to the concept of ‘postmodernism’ however that term is defined,” but it is also difficult for these authors to be avant-garde when the avant-garde’s “relevance as an artistic movement may have permanently ended during the 1960s, when artists like Andy Warhol helped dismantle the distinction between an aesthetically radical, adversarial ‘underground’ and the ‘mainstream’” (SOF 3).

     

    The authors included, to be sure, make up a disparate group with diverse backgrounds and aesthetic goals, and a group that on the largest scale McCaffery justifies pulling together only because they are part of a community of American writers who publish “formally daring and thematically rich works of fiction, mostly outside the ‘official channels’ of our commercial presses” and the strictures of traditional realism (SOF 2).[3] The end result here, then, is that although some of the included authors–Kathy Acker, Clarence Major, Kenneth Gangemi, and Harold Jaffe–are, and have been for some time, considered postmodern, these four in particular have all always been in one way or another on the fringes of postmodern fiction, not strictly postmodern or not always postmodern.4

     

    Mark Leyner and William T. Vollmann belong to a post-postmodern generation less interested in fighting postmodern battles than in absorbing the aftereffects of those battles and in searching for new struggles with which to engage and new subjects to plumb. A good number of authors who have done some work that must be considered postmodern “fiction,” but who are not typically considered postmodern writers (and certainly not postmodern novelists) are also included: Gerald Vizenor, Richard Kostelanetz, David Antin, Lydia Davis, Lyn Heijinian, Derek Pell. They are poets, visual artists, multimedia artists, and translators. McCaffery also includes two authors who for all intents and purposes seem to have very high-modernist sensibilities: Marianne Hauser and Robert Kelly.

     

    When all is said and done, though, it becomes clear that certain concepts and tropes can best and perhaps must be employed in order to discuss the innovations of this varied group. The concepts and tropes that pervade the interviews are as McCaffery himself lists them: textuality, defamiliarization, narrative, the “I” narrator, realism, history, reality, originality, invention, appropriation, authority, representation, and collaboration. These terms refer, noticeably, to issues bound up in the postmodern moment. Considering this, it is clear that even if postmodernism does not seem to be an immediate concern of or influence upon these innovative writers, and even if the writers in SOF in many ways disavow a connection to postmodernism and postmodern fiction, the ideas involved in postmodernism do in many ways seem to subtend their work.5

     

    What is unique to the postmodernism that emerges in this collection of interviews, however, is a valuable new understanding of “the real.” Like the writers included in Alive and Writing, the writers in Some Other Frequency have no static tradition of realism against which to rebel, unlike the breakthrough postmodernists. What they have instead is a primary understanding of the fluidity of reality, “a casual acceptance of the view that both reality and the self are in fact discontinuous entities” (SOF 9). As McCaffery sees it, their texts are distinguished by an immanence to this fluidity, and he is particularly interested in the ways that they “reconfigure assumptions concerning relationships between author and story, inner and outer, self and other, history and imagination, and truth and reality” (SOF 10).

     

    The notion that the interviews frequently pursue, then, is that contemporary innovative writers do not abandon realism’s need to “tell it like it is,” but instead they do their telling with an awareness that “the real…is not some discrete, isolable identity that can be represented objectively but is in actuality a network of relationships that can be rendered ‘realistically’ only via formal methods that emphasize rather than deny the fundamentally fluid, interactive nature of this network” (SOF 10).6 They are motivated by, as McCaffery puts it, an interest in exploring this new kind of “reality,” and writing in order to enlarge “readers’ perceptions” and inject “meaningful choices, diversity, and unprogrammable possibilities into lives and imaginations that seem to be increasingly drained not only of originality but of the ‘real’ itself” (SOF 6).

     

    One consistently notable quality of McCaffery’s interviews is that they are, in a way, postmodern artifacts themselves. As collaborative pieces aimed at opening up a dialogue between interviewer and interviewee, they often seem to be freefloating; they are obviously conducted only after the most careful preparation, but they also always operate with a feel for improvisation. Ideas in these interviews are taken up without undue anxiety over a preset plan or structure into which they should fit. There is due insistence, too, that although the interviews will eventually be presented in written form, they are not simply transcripts of some “real” event. McCaffery makes very clear in his foreword to the interviews that each is left open to extensive, communal revisions between McCaffery and the interviewees.

     

    That is, although the question and answer format is retained in the interviews in Some Other Frequency, the pieces are in many ways “collaborative texts based on actual conversation rather than as a direct rendering of that conversation” (SOF 12). To interviews, then, McCaffery brings a clear sense of poststructuralism’s insistence that we be aware of the complexities involved whenever “reality” is transformed into words. He also insists on making evident the interplay that occurs when throughout the interview process spoken words are in many ways translated to written, revealing how the entire process is a slippery, and, where he is concerned, a self-conscious game.

     

    McCaffery claims that there are four things crucial to successful interviewing:

     

    You've got to flat out know your material, be able to think on your feet (because an interview is a kind of live performance involving the improvisation of ideas and structures), to be able to read people, and have the ability to communicate at both the intellectual and human levels, so that people are willing to answer questions about their intimate feelings, about their work or failed marriages fifteen minutes after you've first met them. ("Interview with LM" 157)7

     

    Where the first of these things is concerned, what flat out knowing your material equals for McCaffery in Some Other Frequency is an enormous familiarity with not only all of the works of all of the authors in question, but all of the secondary work relating to these authors, as well as the various traditions leading to and surrounding each novelist. (An extensive and tremendously helpful bibliography of every writer precedes his/her interview.) With Kathy Acker, for example, conversation can range freely from Baudelaire, to John Cage, to Deleuze and Guattari, to Sade, to Bukowski. In the very next interview, though, with David Antin, conversation can switch with seeming effortlessness to discussions of Kafka, Dostoyevsky, Gogol, and Tolstoy. Not only are there fluid switches between traditions and authors, but genres as well, and McCaffery throughout seems as comfortable discussing translations with Lydia Davis as he does discussing language poetry with Lyn Heijinian, or performance art with Richard Kostelanetz.

     

    In a way, the other interviewing skills mentioned by McCaffery are intertwined; they all involve being sharp in a swift and frequently personal way. This translates in Some Other Frequency into knowing who will receive and actively engage highly theoretical questions (Acker), and who is not going to be particularly interested in discussing postmodernism, at least in the language of postmodernism (Kelly). It involves a tremendously fast dance when the overarching concepts and tropes of Some Other Frequency are met with clear resistance, and a turn to a discussion of craft and personal background is clearly the preferred avenue of conversation (Davis). It also involves a full-throttle engagement with questions postmodern and avant-poppish when the writers are game (Leyner, Vollmann). At times McCaffery can seem a bit indulgent, letting writers strike what (dare-devil) poses they will (Kostelanetz), but this also bears fruit in a kind of high-energy, larger than life, extremely animated sort of way.

     

    McCaffery’s comments about the interview form also point to perhaps its most appealing quality–its unique entrance onto the personal. For readers, one imagines that this “personal” view of a subject is at times the interview’s greatest draw; it can tap into a writer’s immediate insights, for example, about his or her work; it can also offer, in many ways, interesting voyeuristic moments, glances at the “real,” behind-the-scenes workings of an interviewee’s life. In any case, the interview does often, more than many other discourses, offer a more direct, one-on-one connection with a life, a mind, a personality. For the person interviewed, this personal side to interviews often seems to offer itself as a form through which to “write” autobiographically. In Some Other Frequency, Marianne Hauser is able to deliver not only ideas about contemporary fiction, but stories of a life that has spanned the whole of the twentieth century. Kenneth Gangemi supplements a discussion of his work with a revealing look at the charged (night)life of a New York City bartender. And it is also possible to see in Some Other Frequency the details of Harold Jaffe’s life as Buddhist (as well as “hear,” I must note, that virtually everything that comes out of this man’s mouth is remarkably insightful).

     

    In all, probably the greatest strength of McCaffery’s collection of interviews is its diversity of authors, ideas, angles of approach, and insights both into the life of writing and writer’s lives. At times this diversity of authors, in particular, seems to be had at the cost of hearing from many other talented contemporary writers for whom there did not seem to be space in Some Other Frequency: Carole Maso, David Foster Wallace, Steve Erickson, Eurudice, Richard Powers. On the other hand, one can hope that the desire to interview some or all of these writers (and certainly others as well) will motivate McCaffery to generate his next important collection.

     

    Notes

     

    1. Obviously, one can find a host of terms used to describe the contemporary avant-garde. Settling upon a label for these writers is certainly no easier now than it was in the seventies, when critics trumped one another almost daily with new terms: surfictionists, superfictionists, metafictionists, fabulationists, and so on. The way the subtitles of McCaffery’s interview collections sample from this grab-bag of terms shows that he is not unaware of, and possibly not (a bit) unamused by this situation.

     

    2. As Steve Katz says in an interview with McCaffery, for this group of writers, certain shared things were “in the air,” in a manner of speaking: “…all of us found ourselves at the same stoplights in different cities at the same time. When the lights changed, we all crossed the streets” (ACH 227).

     

    3. McCaffery finds that this community of writers is in some ways like the Tristero of Pynchon’s Crying of Lot 49, existing on some other frequency of American life (and it is from a scene in Lot 49 that McCaffery draws his title).

     

    4. They are considered postmodern in as much as they have shared “streetlights” with the breakthrough innovators mentioned earlier; they are frequently interested in exploring unusual typography, discontinuous and nonlinear narratives, and self-consciousness. They are not strictly or always postmodern in as much as they can also, variously, be categorized as feminist-postmodern, African-American postmodern, and so on.

     

    5. As McCaffery notes, postmodernism, “like Melville’s white whale, is forever destined to elude all human efforts to categorize and define it” (SOF 3).

     

    6. This new realism is in many ways tied to the “avant-pop” fiction that McCaffery discusses in a number of essays, and in the forewords to his recent editions of avant-pop fiction. Avant-pop fiction wants to “tell it like it is” in a late 20th-century world colonized everywhere by consumer and pop culture. That is, it wants to survive somehow as “serious” art in a world that is less a “literal territory than a multidimensional hyperreality of television lands, media ‘jungles,’ and information ‘highways,’ a place where the real is now a desert that is rained on by a ceaseless downpour of information and data; flooded by a torrent of disposable consumer goods, narratives, images, ads, signs, and electronically generated stimuli; and peopled by media figures whose lives and stories seem at once more vivid, more familiar, and more real than anything the artist might create” (AYC xiv).

     

    7. It strikes me, too, that these are qualities that one finds in the very best of teachers, and it’s not hard when reading through the interviews in Some Other Frequency to imagine that in them McCaffery is (superbly) leading a seminar peopled by some of America’s most precocious and talented and contentious students.

     

    Works Cited

     

    • McCaffery, Larry. Across the Wounded Galaxies: Interviews with Innovative Science Fiction Writers. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1990.
    • —, ed. After Yesterday’s Crash: The Avant-Pop Anthology. New York: Penguin, 1995.
    • —. Alive and Writing: Interviews with American Authors of the 1980s. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1987.
    • —. Anything Can Happen: Interviews with Contemporary American Novelists. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1983.
    • —, ed. Avant-Pop: Fiction for a Daydream Nation. Normal: Fiction Collective Two, 1993.
    • —. The Metafictional Muse: The Works of Robert Coover, Donald Barthelme, and William H. Gass. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 1982.
    • –, ed. Postmodern Culture (Special Fiction Issue Devoted to Postmodern Fiction) 3:1 (1992).
    • —, ed. Postmodern Fiction: A Bio-Bibliographic Guide. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986.
    • —. Some Other Frequency: Interviews with Innovative American Authors. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1996.
    • —. Storming the Reality Studio: A Casebook of Cyberpunk and Postmodern Science Fiction. Durham: Duke UP, 1991.
    • Shiner, Lewis. “An Interview With Larry McCaffery,” Mississippi Review 20:1-2 (1991): 155-167.

     

  • Renegotiating Culture and Society in a Global Context

    Stacy Takacs

    Department of English
    Indiana University

    stakacs@indiana.edu

     

    Anthony King, ed. Culture, Globalization and the World-System: Contemporary Conditions for the Representation of Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997.

     
    Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci is credited with offering the first full-fledged analysis of Fordism as both an economic and a cultural system. His major insight was to recognize that the “rationalization of work” entailed by the reorganization of the productive processes under Fordism necessitated a certain reorganization of social behavior as well. For Gramsci, Fordism was more than a technological paradigm; it was “the biggest collective effort to date to create, with unprecedented speed, and with a consciousness of purpose unmatched in history, a new type of worker and of man” (302).

     

    One cannot help but hear the echo of Gramsci in the recent plethora of Marxist accounts of the contemporary transition to a so-called post-Fordist regime of accumulation.[1] Clearly, contemporary cultural critics have learned from Gramsci which questions about culture and society are worth posing. Gramsci’s analysis of Fordism asks not whether, but how social transformation occurs. In linking the rationalization of work to the regulation of social bodies, he focuses less on the nature of productive relations than on how those relations are reproduced over time and across space. This means introducing into the science of political economy questions about the role of politics, culture, ideology, and identity in the regulation of a given set of capitalist relations. Finally, Gramsci seeks to understand the relationship between the economic base of capitalist society and these airy superstructures without reducing the latter to mere expressions of the former. In this sense, he should be seen as an intellectual forefather of the interdisciplinary field of Cultural Studies, which takes this task as its guiding problematic.

     

    Culture, Globalization and the World-System: Contemporary Conditions for the Representation of Identity, edited by Anthony King, fits squarely within this growing body of material designed to apply Gramsci’s insights to the emerging post-Fordist[2] socio-cultural complex. As the serial form of the title indicates, the text attempts to cover a lot of ground in a short period of time. The first part of the title offers a broad outline of the terms of engagement, so broad as to be disorienting, I would argue. The second part seems designed to temper the excesses of the first by establishing identity as the primary vehicle through which to pursue the study of culture, globalization, and the world-system. The implicit question it poses is: how do structural changes in the organization of society impact the ability to locate oneself vis-à-vis others in the world? This is a provocative question. Unfortunately, as I will demonstrate, the text fails to fulfill the promise of its subtitle. Instead of charting a course through the maze of the global via an examination of lived identity, Culture, Globalization and the World-System ends up reinscribing disciplinary boundaries in a defensive attempt to ward off the cognitive disorientation unleashed by the widespread social transformations it describes.

     

    The text’s production history provides some insight into why the title of the volume appears so expansive as to be virtually meaningless: the organizers of the original symposium were attempting to provide an introduction to the history of study in these areas. As King explains in his introduction, each term in the title is designed to connote an entire body of theory connected, for the sake of convenience, to a single theorist who becomes the representative of this body of theory within the space of the symposium/text. The term “culture” is intended to reference the works of Cultural Studies guru Stuart Hall and anthropologist Ulf Hannerz; “globalization” refers to the work of Roland Robertson; and “the world-system” refers to Immanuel Wallerstein’s ground-breaking work in international political economy. Hall’s two lectures were presented prior to the symposium while Robertson, Wallerstein, and Hannerz’s lectures served as the focal points for the symposium itself. Respondents included Janet Abu-Lughod, Barbara Abou-El-Haj, Maureen Turim, King, John Tagg, and Janet Wolff, who provided the (admirable) summation of the proceedings. As I will show, the respondents were also made to bear the responsibility of representing their disciplines and/or their theoretical orientations, but in a more enabling way.

     

    To my mind, the content of Culture, Globalization and the World-System is less important than its structure as an interdisciplinary conversation about the various economic, political, and cultural processes of globalization. Unfortunately, as I will demonstrate shortly, what it stages is only a pseudo-dialogue that can neither bridge the gap between the social sciences and the humanities, nor think the economic in conjunction with the cultural. Stuart Hall’s two essays are, perhaps, the exceptions to this general rule, and before I embark on a critique of the rest of the text, I want to outline some of his arguments. As the former director of the Birmingham Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies–the institutional hub of British Cultural Studies for over two decades–Hall has the most experience a) crossing disciplinary divides and b) analyzing the relationship between culture and the material basis of capitalist society. Thus, he has a certain advantage over the other presenters. Given his background, it is not surprising that he would be the only one of the primary speakers to take up the challenge posed by the symposium’s subtitle. Like the others, he details the structural transformations wrought by new forms of capitalist organization and new modes of production. Unlike the others, however, he refrains from abstraction and so is able to present a much more complex picture of the contradictory and uneven nature of the processes of globalization.

     

    Hall’s outline of the macro-level transformations follows the basic structure of the “New Times” position, which, in turn, follows the basic outlines of French Regulation theory.[3] The Regulationists conceive of the capitalist system as inherently crisis-prone and seek to explain how the periodic phases of crisis, like the current crisis of Fordism, are managed or controlled so that the system as a whole does not break down. They emphasize the role of social institutions and informal norms in stabilizing, or “regulating,” capital at such moments of crisis. Thus, for them, a phase of capitalism consists of both a “regime of accumulation” and a clearly defined “mode of social regulation.”4 Fordism was characterized by the twin dynamics of mass production and mass consumption. Its key institution of regulation was the Keynesian welfare state, which both mediated between capital and labor to secure the indexing of wages to productivity and stimulated consumer demand by providing money and social services to groups formerly marginalized by the economy. Since the 1970s, declining corporate profits caused by increased international competition, the growing burden of wages indexed to productivity, and a shift in the patterns of consumption (from mass to individualized consumption) have spurred corporations to reorganize their production processes in order to respond more flexibly to changes in labor and consumption markets. The new, flexible paradigm involves the geographic dispersal of production processes and concomitant centralization of command functions, both of which are enabled by new technologies of information, communication, and transportation. It is also characterized by an increase in the production of non-material or “postindustrial” commodities, especially information and entertainment. Of course, Hall does not offer quite this level of detail, but he does define the economic basis of globalization in these terms.

     

    He then proceeds to argue that the reorganization of capitalism has undermined the material basis of personal and national identity. As a result, new habits of thought and modes of resistance are required to combat the worst effects of the structural adjustments. To a certain extent, this is a practical argument: global flows of people, money, machines, images, and ideas[5] transgress the boundaries of the nation-state virtually at will, undermining its geographical and ontological security. As corporations set their sights on the global marketplace, the traditional relationship between industrial enterprise and national identity also erodes. Moreover, flexible production has caused drastic cutbacks in industrial employment as corporations downsize and travel abroad seeking a more favorable wage bargain. The loss of manufacturing jobs as well as the increase in service sector and managerial employment have irrevocably altered the class relations of (Western) societies, weakening labor unions and temporarily paralyzing political response to these social changes. These developments lead Hall to conclude that “[the] logic of identity [as we have known it] is, for good or ill, finished” (43). The contemporary conditions for the representation of identity are not conducive to the types of homogeneous collectivities on which political activity had previously been based (44-45). These material adjustments are compounded by the theoretical decenterings of the Cartesian subject from within the fields of linguistics, psychoanalysis, feminism, and post-colonialism, to name just a few. The connection between the epistemological and material crises of the subject is one of Hall’s key insights, and one that escapes the remainder of the volume’s contributors.

     

    Together, Hall’s two essays complement each other nicely. In “The Local and the Global: Globalization and Ethnicity” (19-40), Hall describes the crisis of Fordism and the decline of the nation-state via the disintegration of a unified sense of national identity. He demonstrates how the concept of “Englishness” was produced and sustained by an earlier moment of globalization, more commonly referred to as imperialism. This identity depended on a certain construction of the “other” against which it could define itself as good and moral. Once firmly grounded in its sense of ethnic homogeneity, this strand of nationalism has given way, under the pressure of contemporary processes of globalization, including the invasion of the colonial center by its formerly peripheralized populations, to a more lethal brand of English nationalism. Because its homogeneity is harder to maintain, this version of nationalism must resort to extreme, sometimes violent measures to produce the ideological closure its seeks. The major insight here is that this virulent brand of ethnic nationalism is not an atavistic or anomalous eruption in an otherwise happily integrated global village. It is a constitutive feature of globalization, and, especially, of transnational corporatism, which fetishizes localities in order to a) commodify them or b) pit them against each other in competition for scarce economic resources (jobs and money).

     

    His second essay, “Old and New Identities, Old and New Ethnicities” (41-68), elaborates on these insights by tracing the emergence of “Black” as a political category of identity positioned to challenge the hegemonic formulation of Englishness as whiteness. The title of this essay offers a succinct outline of his major points: Identity, associated with the older forms of social collectivity (class politics, etc.), has given way to Ethnicity, a more contingent and open-ended process of social location based on the strategic coalescence of the interests and needs of different individuals. Hall argues that, in the face of the homogenizing forces of globalization, resistance must involve a process of “imaginary political re-identification, [a] re-territorialization” designed to reclaim place from space and establish a ground from which to enunciate common demands. As he notes, however, because this is a precarious positioning always open to co-optation by the forces of capitalism or by regressive forces within a given grouping, such an identity politics is necessarily a politics without guarantees. In a world too prone to homogenization, however, this style of politics promises to avoid the tendency to imagine that one’s views are universal.

     

    The only criticism I have to make of Hall’s contributions is a criticism that many have had of the “New Times” position in general. That is, while it is able to hold the global and the local in tension without subsuming one under the sign of the other, it is not as successful at holding the new and the old in tension. The very name “New Times” implies that what is being described is unlike anything that has come before. As a result, habits of thought and modes of action that were characteristic of the previous phase of capitalism are made to seem irrelevant and even useless in the analysis of the emerging dynamic. This is problematic, for as Marx himself notes, capitalism is always unevenly developed. Emergent and residual forms of capitalist organization coexist with the dominant in any given historical context. Therefore, the call to abandon previous habits of thought and forms of action in the contemporary context seems, at best, premature, and, at worst, foolhardy.[6]

     

    I want to turn now to the other essays within Culture, Globalization, and the World-System in order to demonstrate how the structure of dialogue works to reinforce disciplinary divides in ways that are ultimately debilitating for the analysis of culture in general. The text reinforces some of the problems with the organization of the symposium itself. For one thing, the primary essays–by Hall, Robertson, Wallerstein, and Hannerz–are neatly sectioned off from those of the respondents, thereby creating hierarchical distinctions between the participants. Not the least debilitating of these distinctions is the one between the global “stars” (Hall, Wallerstein, Robertson, and Hannerz) and the local “peons” (five of the six respondents were from the New York area, three from the host institution). In the way that generalized discussions of the global tend to subsume the local, this hierarchical organization marginalizes the respondents, according them a certain oppositional status but very limited power. The relative value of each essay/speaker to the symposium is registered quantitatively in the amount of time/space the speaker is allowed to command (respondents rarely merited more than twenty minutes, it would seem). The conspicuous absence of audience participation in the text of the symposium[7] raises most concretely the question of who is authorized to speak about the dynamic of globalization. Finally, the way in which the partitioning of the text is accomplished produces a divisive and often dismissive quality in the essays. Labeling the second section “Interrogating Theories of the Global” prepares both the respondents and the readers to assume an antagonistic role in relation to the primary essays. Many of the respondents take this role too much to heart, neglecting to give credit where it is frequently due. The result is less an inter- or even transdisciplinary conversation about the problems of globalization than a fortification of institutional divides, particularly the one between the humanities and the social sciences.

     

    King, in his introduction, and Wolff, in her concluding essay, both draw attention to this disabling dynamic and recognize the complicity of the organizers in its production. That is, by naming the various methodological divides–“Culture, Globalization and the World-System”–the symposium inadvertently reified them. In addition, it formulated a new divide between these concepts (and the methodologies associated with them) and the problem of identity, which, by virtue of its position in the subtitle, was ultimately subordinated to the “main topics.” As King points out, this was a divide the organizers had hoped the speakers would bridge, but only Stuart Hall “addressed both the title and subtitle of the main theme mapping” (14). An interesting and troubling dynamic resulted: while the three primary speakers (Robertson, Wallerstein, Hannerz) focused their energies on reconciling the terms of the main title, the respondents, especially John Tagg and Maureen Turim, emphasized the issue of identity and the constitutive role played by economic, political, and cultural conditions in the formation of identity. Not surprisingly the different emphases produced different levels of discourse, ranging from the highly abstract and totalizing mappings of Robertson and Wallerstein to the concrete counter-examples offered by Abu-Lughod and Abou-El-Haj to demonstrate the heterogeneity and unevenness of the processes of globalization. Wolff reads this divide as a symptomatic expression of an on-going problem within the (supposedly) interdisciplinary field of Cultural Studies–namely, the failure of the social sciences to take the humanities seriously. Her point is well-taken, though I would argue, based on my experience studying television within an English department, that any disregard or outright enmity is, in fact, mutual.8 Certainly the disregard exists, and it is symptomatic of a general failure to be interdisciplinary enough when it comes to the study of culture, particularly at the supra- and sub-national levels.

     

    Read against the grain, however, the structural divide that the text performs illuminates the inadequacies of our current imaginings of interdisciplinary practice. In other words, as an example of a post-disciplinary practice that might complement the shift toward a post-national conception of culture, the volume is an utter failure; as a lesson for future interdisciplinary approaches to the study of global culture and society, it has its moments. For one thing, the participants are highly self-conscious about the symposium’s failings. Thus, I would disagree with Wolff’s assertion that the theoretical differences between the speakers were submerged during the symposium (163-164). On the contrary, the respondents were quick to call Wallerstein and Robertson out for their “econocentrism” (Turim 146). John Tagg goes so far as to accuse them of offering “totalizing” accounts that are, at worst, complicit in the construction of uneven and coercive power relations–as if theory were of the same order of violence as material deprivation or physical punishment–and, at best, guilty of “[putting] us back, once more, in the primitive architecture of the base and superstructure model of the social whole” (156). Meanwhile, Tagg’s own theoretical excesses–he takes Derrida’s prescription that “there is nothing outside of the text” far too literally, denying the existence of any material reality outside of representation–make his discursive positioning obvious. Indeed, at all times, either directly or indirectly, the reader is made aware of the theoretical and methodological biases of the contributors. They become representative figures for their disciplines, charting a course through the larger institutional and epistemological struggles over how best to know and understand the world. Again, I say, this is a virtue. There can be no better introduction to the cross-disciplinary squabbling that characterizes the study of contemporary culture than to have it staged in the open like this.

     

    As Hall notes, “you have to be positioned somewhere in order to speak. Even if you are positioned in order to unposition yourself…you have to come into language to get out of it” (51). Too often, as King’s introduction makes clear, the theoretical baggage accompanying concepts like “culture,” “globalization” and “the world-system” goes uninterrogated by the people who deploy it. His sophisticated critique of the nationalist bias under which cultural studies operates is a case in point. The study of culture has always proceeded as if the nation somehow defined the essence of culture. Multinational capitalism’s aggressive demystification of this common sense assumption has, therefore, caught cultural studies unaware. A coherent formulation of what a post-national methodology for the study of culture would look like has yet to emerge from within any discipline. Likewise, no one has yet formulated a post-disciplinary praxis that would be capable of addressing the economic and the cultural as an interpenetrated and indistinguishable complex. Adorno and Horkheimer once proposed that what was novel about contemporary culture was not so much the fact that it commodified the aesthetic, but the degree to which the economic base invaded and took over the superstructure, making it impossible to think the one independently of the other. The very existence of a text like Culture, Globalization and the World-System demonstrates that these epistemological conundrums have yet to approach a satisfactory resolution. But it does point the way, if only through its failings.

     

    Notes

     

    1. The literature on the topics of post-Fordism, transnationalism, and globalization is extensive to say the least. Readers interested in pursuing the debates are encouraged to turn to the journals Theory, Culture, and Society and Public Culture. Texts that might be of interest include The Condition of Postmodernity by David Harvey; Global Culture, edited by Mike Featherstone; New Times, edited by Stuart Hall and Jacques Martin, especially Michael Rustin’s contribution “The Politics of Post-Fordism: or, the Trouble with ‘New Times’”; Post-Fordism: A Reader, edited by Ash Amin; Global/Local: Cultural Production and the Transnational Imaginary, edited by Rob Wilson and Wimal Dissanayake.

     

    2. When I use the term “post-Fordism,” I do not mean to imply that the world has entered an entirely new phase of capitalism. Rather, I use it quite literally to connote the time period after the onset of the crisis of Fordism. That is, the time period after the recession of 1973.

     

    3. Most commonly associated with Michael Aglietta and Alain Lipietz.

     

    4. To clarify the terminology a bit, “regime of accumulation” designates all of the macroeconomic conditions that enable a particular type of capital accumulation, including the organization of production, labor relations, conditions of exchange, and patterns of consumption and demand during a given historical moment. Those institutional structures, cultural habits, and social norms responsible for reproducing a particular regime of accumulation are known as the “mode of regulation.”

     

    5. Arjun Appadurai lists several types of global flows: ethnoscapes (flows of people), technoscapes (flows of technology), financescapes (flows of money), ideoscapes (flows of ideas and political ideologies), and mediascapes (cultural flows, especially of images). He emphasizes that these flows are uneven and multidirectional; therefore, power relations are much more difficult to pin down.

     

    6. For an elaboration of these critiques and others, see Rustin.

     

    7. The substance of the question and answer session following Stuart Hall’s second lecture is included, but the names and identities of the questioners are effaced.

     

    8. Having monopolized the study of culture for years, English departments are generally reluctant to surrender their interpretive privileges to “quantoids” in the social sciences who prefer to study “degraded” forms of culture like TV. Likewise, social scientists consider humanities-style approaches to culture to be shoddy because they do not subscribe to the same rules of evidence.

     

    Works Cited

     

    • Aglietta, Michael. A Theory of Capitalist Regulation: The US Experience. London: New Left Books, 1979.
    • Amin, Ash. Post-Fordism: A Reader. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1994.
    • Appadurai, Arjun. “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy.” Global Culture. Ed. Mike Featherstone. London: Sage Publications, 1990. 295-310.
    • Featherstone, Mike, ed. Global Culture. London: Sage Publications, 1990.
    • Hall, Stuart, and Jacques Martin, eds. New Times: The Changing Face of Politics in the 1990s. London: Lawrence and Wisehart, 1989.
    • Gramsci, Antonio. “Americanism and Fordism.” Selections From the Prison Notebooks. Eds. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith. New York: International Publishers, 1971. 279-320.
    • Harvey, David. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1990.
    • King, Anthony, ed. Culture, Globalization and the World-System: Contemporary Conditions for the Representation of Identity. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1997.
    • Lasch, Scott and John Urry. Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage Publications, 1994.
    • Lipietz, Alain. Mirages and Miracles: The Crisis of Global Fordism. London: Verso, 1987.
    • Marx, Karl. Capital, Volume One. New York: Vintage Books, 1979.
    • Rustin, Michael. “The Politics of Post-Fordism: Or, The Trouble With ‘New Times.’” New Times: The Changing Face of Politics in the 1990s. Eds. Stuart Hall and Jacques Martin. London: Lawrence and Wisehart, 1989. 303-320.
    • Wilson, Rob and Wimal Dissanayake, eds. Global/Local: Cultural Production and the Transnational Imaginary. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 1996.

     

  • Structuralism’s Fortunate Fall

    David Herman

    Department of English
    North Carolina State University

    dherman@unity.ncsu.edu

     

    François Dosse, History of Structuralism, Vols. I (The Rising Sign, 1945-1966) and II (The Sign Sets, 1967-Present). Translated by Deborah Glassman. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1997.

     

    Believe it or not, this two-volume, 975-page history of French structuralism, originally published in French in 1991-1992 and based on interviews with some 123 French academics and intellectuals, reads like a good novel. Once you pick it up, it is hard to put Dosse’s History down. From the beginning, structuralism makes for an ideal protagonist, fighting against impossible odds and winning our sympathies throughout all its difficulties and vicissitudes. Indeed, in Dosse’s account the early structuralists come across as heroic revolutionaries, underdogs opposed by powerful reactionary forces visibly operative at the Sorbonne, but deeply entrenched in French academe at large (I: 191-201). In these postpoststructuralist times, it is easy to forget that the structuralists were in fact the Young Turks of their day. They were articulate champions of avant-garde literature and art (II: 154-55, 200-206), formidable analysts of specifically sociopolitical structures (I: 142-57, 309-15; II: 247-59), tireless promoters of intellectual revitalization, ingenious methodological innovators (I: 202-22), and fearless breakers-down of accepted disciplinary boundaries. At the same time, Dosse engrossingly emplots the structuralist adventure in France as a particular kind of rise and fall: after revolutionizing philosophy, psychoanalysis, literary theory and the social sciences, structuralism died a spectacular death, and no disciplinary tradition will ever be the same. This overarching plot allows the author to attach localized episodes to his ongoing historical narrative. Thus, whereas the structuralist dissolution of the subject proved untenable and was ultimately abandoned, it forced a rethinking of the kind of subjectivity that underwrote prestructuralist humanism (II: 324-63). The same goes for the banishment of history from the domain of structuralist analysis (I: 181-83; II: 364-375, 427-36); history is back, but it is not the same as it used to be. What is more, Dosse’s character vignettes make such reversals (or perhaps zigzags) of fortune come palpably alive. The two volumes are studded with portraits of major and minor figures who lived the structuralist revolution and its aftermath–from Roman Jakobson, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Georges Dumézil, Algirdas Julien Greimas, Roland Barthes, Gérard Genette, Oswald Ducrot, Julia Kristeva, Michel Foucault, Louis Althusser, Jacques Lacan, Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Derrida, to Gaston Berger, Jean-Marie Auzias, Louis Hay, Joseph Sumpf and Jean-Marie Benoist, among many others.

     

    Here emerges a second assumption at the basis of Dosse’s account: that the history of structuralist thought reduces, at one level of analysis, to a collocation of the biographies of its proponents, fellow-travellers, and detractors. This is therefore a history that takes shape through an encyclopedic assemblage of highly memorable images: Lévi-Strauss being dazzled in the early 1940s by Roman Jakobson’s classes on sound and meaning at the New School for Social Research, while both men were in exile from Europe (I: 12, 21-24); Barthes finding his way to Greimas in Alexandria, Egypt, in 1949 and undergoing his fateful semiological conversion, like a Saint Paul converted on the way to Damascus (I: 68, 74); Lacan implementing his principle of “scansion,” or pointed break, by cutting short his sessions and thus multiplying the number of patients he could see and charge (I: 95-97); Foucault brilliantly defending his thesis on the history of madness in 1961, amazing a thesis committee that included Georges Canguilhem and Jean Hyppolite (I: 150); André Martinet lecturing to classes of six hundred students during the height of linguistics’ popularity as a “pilot science” for structuralist theorizing (I: 192); Nicolas Ruwet reading a text on generative grammar on the train from Liège to Paris and embracing the Chomskyean model by the time he arrived (II: 4); Derrida opposing Lacan’s candidacy to become head of the department of psychoanalysis being founded in the late 1960s at the then-experimental university at Vincennes (II: 148); Tzvetan Todorov being profoundly transformed, shifting from formalist to more broadly socioideological concerns, as a result of his 1981 translation of Bakhtin’s writings (II: 324-326); and the “master thinkers” of structuralism–Barthes, Lacan, Foucault, Althusser–all dying in relatively quick succession in the span of a decade (II: 376-90). Such character profiles help make Dosse’s History of Structuralism a gripping, eminently readable account of a period that has proved foundational for subsequent work in literary and cultural theory. More than that, though, the biographical sketches ensure that the text will be an indispensable reference work for anyone interested in recent intellectual history, particularly the history of philosophy, literary studies, and the social sciences in postwar France.

     

    Yet a catalogue of the experiences of (more or less renowned) structuralist thinkers does not suffice to explain what structuralism was or why it exerted such a tenacious hold on the French imagination during the later 1950s, the 1960s, and the 1970s. Nor is the telling of structuralism’s rise and fall tantamount to an evaluation of its significance, an assessment of what its history might mean for those of us living in its wake. What makes documentation of the structuralist enterprise more than just antiquarianism in Nietzsche’s sense, an inert chronicling divorced from the concerns that define the epoch of the present? At the outset, Dosse points to

     

    the necessity of illuminating the richness and productivity of structuralism before seizing upon its limits. This is the adventure that we will undertake here. Notwithstanding the dead ends into which structuralism has run on occasion, it has changed the way we consider human society so much that it is no longer even possible to think without taking the structuralist revolution into account. (I: xxiii)

     

    Historicizing structuralist thought, then, also involves a reconsideration of the extent to which we can call ourselves “beyond” structuralism. To think today about language, literature, society, identity and their interconnections is to live a certain relationship to structuralism–to its origins, presuppositions, methodologies, and aims. Dosse’s achievement–no small feat–is to help us live that relationship more critically; his History expands the range of contexts in which the structuralist legacy can itself become an object of inquiry.

     

    It is worth recalling that the provenance of the term structuralism is essentially linguistic (I: xxii). Troubetzkoy, Jakobson, and Hjelmslev, extending and refining the model developed in Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics, all referred to a “structural linguistics” in their work during the years preceding WWII. Significantly, although Saussure used the word system 138 times in the Course, not once did he use structuralism, which apparently was Jakobson’s coinage (I: 45). Saussure’s model was distinguished by two major features, which Dosse also detects in structuralist extrapolations from the Course. First, the model emphasized the synchronic relations between the elements constituting the linguistic system, as opposed to the diachronic relations between earlier and later stages of a given system or between earlier and later versions of a particular linguistic variant. There is thus a conscious analytic decision to background the historicity of systems/structures, a decision that inflected the work of the French structuralists. In this light, Dosse describes Ferdnand Braudel’s focus on the longue durée as an effort on the part of the Annales historians to reconcile structure and history, i.e., “to slow down temporality” (II: 229) and frame a “history of inertias” (II: 230). Foucault’s Archaeology of Knowledge (1969) works toward an analogous neutralization of diachrony (II: 234-46). Second, Saussure’s model focused on signifiers (sound-images) and signifieds (concepts) to the exclusion of extralinguistic referents and, more generally, the circumstances of enunciation.1 Hence, from a Saussurean perspective “the linguistic unit…always points to all the other units in a purely endogenous combinatory activity” (I: 48). Structuralists similarly favored the construction and formalization of abstract relational networks, in a way that often set structuralists and Marxists, for example, at odds with one another (II: 88-98: cf. I: 306-308).

     

    Saussure’s approach was the governing paradigm for the linguists affiliated with the Prague and Geneva Schools in the 1920s and 1930s; but it was an article written in 1956 by Greimas, “L’actualité du saussurisme,” that generalized the appeal of Saussure’s ideas and highlighted connections between Saussurean linguistics and the work of Merleau-Ponty, Lévi-Strauss, Barthes, and Lacan (I: 45). An earlier event, already mentioned, was even more crucial in this context. Lévi-Strauss’s discussions with Jakobson at the New School for Social Research resulted in the former’s adoption of structuralist phonology as a model for anthropological research. Thus, in Structural Anthropology (1958) Lévi-Strauss wrote: “Like phonemes, kinship terms are elements of meaning; like phonemes, they acquire meaning only if they are integrated into systems” (quoted at I: 22).2 Dosse identifies 1964, however, as the year of the real “semiological breakthrough” (I: 203-209). Communications published an issue that included articles by Todorov on formal techniques for analyzing literary signification, Bremond on the possibilities and limits of Propp’s groundbreaking Morphology of the Folktale (1928), and Barthes on Saussurean linguistics and Hjelmslev’s glossematics as tools for semiological analysis. In the same year, Barthes published Critical Essays, which included his programmatic statement of “The Structuralist Activity,” defined as an activity that transcends the division between science and art and that aims “to reconstitute an object in such a way as to reveal the rules by which the object functions” (quoted at I: 207). In this sense, Mondrian and Butor, as well as Troubetzkoy and Dumézil, could be brought under the structuralist aegis.

     

    It was during the 1960s, too, that structuralism developed the “ideology of rigor” (I: 219) for which it would later become notorious. In The Elementary Structures of Kinship (1949), Lévi-Strauss had already whetted the French appetite for scientificity. From the start he drew on linguistic and mathematical models in an effort to establish anthropology, and the social sciences more generally, on the same footing as the natural sciences (I: 23-24; cf. I: 259-61 and II: 197-99). Likewise, Lacan framed his “return to Freud” using linguistic and mathematical formalisms; both were part of an attempt to demedicalize the psychoanalytic project and rescientize it on other grounds. “The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious” (1957) included references to Saussure and Jakobson and diagrammed the operations of the sign to argue that the unconscious is structured like a language (I: 105-10). By 1970, though, Lacan had turned from linguistic to topological demonstrations:

     

    Lacan gave more and more seminars on topological figures, including graphs and tores, and on stage he used string and ribbons of paper, which he snipped into smaller and smaller pieces to demonstrate that there was neither inside nor outside in these Borromean knots. The world was fantasy, and sat beyond intraworldly reality; its unity was accessible only through what is missing in languages. "Mathematization alone achieves a reality, a reality that has nothing to do with what traditional knowledge has sustained...." (II: 196-97)3

     

    Meanwhile, Althusser and his followers (including Pierre Macherey, Michel Pêcheux, and Étienne Balibar) tapped into the “ambient climate of scientism” (I: 290). During what Dosse calls “The Althusserian Explosion” (I: 293-308), the scientificity of a properly Marxist discourse–a mode of theorizing that was to have fully extricated itself from ideology–became an explicit and canonical theme. Indeed, no longer content to measure its progress within specific disciplines, with Althusser structuralism broadened its horizons “to include a structuralist philosophy that presented itself as such, and as the expression of the end of philosophy, the possibility of reaching beyond philosophy in the name of theory” (I: 295-6). Thus Althusser did not hesitate to give lessons in scientificity to practicing scientists (I: 392).

     

    What remains to be explained, however, is why the ideology of rigor, the climate of scientism enabling and pervading the struturalist revolution, became such a dominant force in France during this period. According to Dosse, the problematic status of the social sciences in postwar France created an environment especially–perhaps uniquely–favorable to structuralism. Volume I opens with the claim that the birth of structuralism came at the cost of the death of existentialism. Yet the reaction against Sartre is contextualized as only part of a larger antiacademic revolt (I: 380-93). This was a time when the social sciences were forcing their own institutional recognition, and Sartre’s philosophy of the subject had made no effort to establish a middle ground between the traditional humanities and the hard sciences (I: 4-5; cf. I: 382-83). Indeed, after the war “the weight of the humanities in France blocked the social sciences within the French university, contrary to the situation in the American universities, where they were triumphing” (I: 391). The structuralist revolution thus represented a broad-based attempt by the philosophical avant-garde and the nascent social sciences to make a place for themselves within a recalcitrant French university, notorious for its highly centralized and routinized modus operandi. To those embroiled in debates about how best to reconfigure instructional practice and the organization of the academic disciplines, structuralism appeared as a unifying, transdisciplinary project that could “confederate the human sciences around the study of the sign” (I: 388). Once those sciences established themselves methodologically and secured their institutional footing, disciplinary segregation set in again and weakened the hold of structuralism as a quasi-universal research paradigm (II: 276ff.).4 Domains of inquiry that fell outside structuralist theorizing now started to gain more attention: the dialogic and more broadly intersubjective aspects of communication (II: 325-31); ethical concerns (II: 282-87); biography and autobiography as routes to knowledge of the subject (II: 354-56); the role of events in a history once more viewed as dynamic and irreversible (II: 373-375).

     

    Dosse addresses his main topic in this study–i.e., the philosophical and social-scientific contexts of structuralism’s rise and fall–in a remarkably compelling way, interspersing textual analysis with quotations from interviews, citations from reviews of major structuralist publications, and tabulations of the number of books sold by key structuralist authors from year to year. The two volumes weave a rich tapestry of biography, historico-institutional analysis, critical exegesis, and synoptic commentary on the migration of structuralist concepts and methods from one area of inquiry to another. This is not to say that the History is without flaws, however. For example, when the author turns from the analysis of particular structuralists and structuralist works and begins to make larger claims about precedents for structuralism, his account sometimes loses focus and cogency. Consider this passage from a chapter towards the end of the first volume, “The Postmodern Hour Sounds” (351-63), where careful argumentation sometimes gives way to stylistic exuberance:

     

    Western society underwent a number of changes during the interwar years that...upset the relationship between past, present and future. The future was reduced by computerized programming to little more than a projected reproduction of the present, but it was impossible to think a different future....this atemporal relationship became fragmented into myriad uncorrelated objects, a segmentation of partial and disarticulated knowledge, a disaggregation of the general field of understanding, and the gutting of any real contents. This socioeconomic mulch would particularly nurture a structural logic, symptomatic reading, logicism or formalism that would find its coherence elsewhere than in the world of flat realia. (I: 357)

     

    It would take a lot of work, doubtless, to substantiate these statements. Contrast with such hyperbolic claims problems of the opposite sort: more or less serious omissions, elisions, and foreshortenings.5 For instance, apart from two brief mentions of The Postmodern Condition (I: 354, 360), Dosse omits any discussion of the work of Jean-François Lyotard, whose intellectual biography (tracing a route from phenomenology to psychoanalysis and Marxism to post-Wittgensteinian theories of enunciation) in many ways parallels the history of structuralism. Later, Dosse too quickly assimilates the positions of Barthes and Foucault in their respective essays on “The Death of the Author” and “What Is an Author?” (II: 124). In actual fact, Foucault, far from belonging to the “strict structuralist orthodoxy” on this question, contested Barthes’ claim that authors have simply died off at the hands of modern-day écriture. Instead, Foucault argued for a genealogical approach to the author viewed as a function specifying how discourses can be produced and read in different eras.6

     

    What is more, readers interested in learning about the historical relations between structuralism and feminism–or even about how women as a group responded to structuralist thought–will be disappointed by this text. It is true that, in the unmarked case, structuralism was gendered male. Yet feminists too have oriented themselves around the sciences of the sign and, inversely, the rethinking of structuralism as a dominant research paradigm was bound up with the development of feminism construed as a way of thinking about thinking itself.[7] Nonetheless, the only female figure to make more than a fleeting appearance in this History is Julia Kristeva. Note that she is introduced in a chapter subtitled “Julia Comes to Paris” (I: 343-48): women, it seems, are the only historical personages with whom we can presume to be on a first-name basis. Further, Dosse suggests that it was Kristeva’s marriage to Philippe Sollers that “sealed Kristeva’s intellectual place within Tel Quel” and quotes one of Sollers’ remarks about “‘her grace, her sensuality, [and] this union between grace and physical beauty and her capacity for reflection” (I: 344). In no other case does the author attribute a scholar’s “intellectual place” to marriage, and no other theorist is described in any physical detail, let alone as “sensual.”

     

    Dosse’s overall achievement, however, should not be underestimated. This text contains a wealth of useful information, stylishly and convincingly presented. One of the most interesting chapters is an overview of the new journals founded during the heyday of structuralism (I: 273-83; cf. II: 154-63). Dosse describes the conditions of emergence of journals like La Psychanalyse (founded by Lacan in 1956), Langages (1966), Communications (1961), Tel Quel (1960), La Nouvelle Critique (1967), and Les Cahiers pour l’analyse (1966), reviewing the main editorial mission in each case. Equally illuminating is the author’s account of the radical protests of May 1968 and their effect on structuralism and individual structuralists (II: 112-132). Whereas Greimas was of the opinion that “‘All scientific projects will be set back twenty years’” (II: 114), Lacan boldly proclaimed during an argument with Lucien Goldmann: “‘If the events of May [1968] demonstrated anything at all, they showed…precisely that structures had taken to the streets!’” (II: 122). Lacan proved to be right: the protest movement sided with the structuralist critique of academic traditionalism and, in its dissatisfaction with received educational practices, reinforced the structuralist desire for scientific rigor (II: 128-30). One of the lesser-known episodes in the history of structuralism involves geography, and Dosse provides a fascinating glimpse into the delayed transformation of an “objectless discipline” via structuralism (II: 312-23). This incident confirms that the impact of structuralism on the separate social sciences was nonsynchronous. Even though structuralism prioritized spatial relations at the expense of historical analysis, creating an environment that would seem to favor a reexamination of cartographic techniques, geographers at first failed to structuralize their discipline. But there was a discipline-specific reason for this:

     

    geography in the sixties had continued to be defined as a science of the relationship between nature and culture, between the elements of geomorphology and climatology and those belonging to the human valorization of natural conditions. Consequently, the structuralist ambition of basing the sciences of man solely on culture, modeled by linguistic rules, appeared somewhat foreign to the geographer's concerns for basing disciplinary unity on the correlationship [?] between levels of nature and culture. (II: 312)

     

    Starting in the 1970s, however, geographers such as Yves Lacoste drew on structuralist ideas to distinguish between “space as a real object and as an object of knowledge” (II: 317). Foucault’s work on observation and the logic of spatial organization also came into play. By 1980, Roger Brunet had developed the notion of the “choreme,” the geographical equivalent of the phoneme and “the smallest distinctive unit for describing graphic language around elementary spatial structures” (II: 323). This latecomer to structuralist theorizing had revolutionized itself, even as the structuralist paradigm was on the wane.

     

    What does it mean, though, to talk about the “fall” of structuralism? Arguably, like other falls in other myths, this fall has not been a bounded, discrete event; it remains a fall in progress, one that we continue to live. Granted, developments in the human sciences during the last twenty-five years have enabled us to demystify the structuralists’ idealization–and ideologization–of scientific rigor. As Dosse’s study reveals, a discipline’s valorization of science does not ipso facto make that discipline scientific. Nor, for that matter, was Saussurean linguistics the best candidate for a pilot science, even during the glory days of structuralism. By the 1950s and 1960s, linguistic praxis (outside France at least) had already superseded the theory of language that the structuralists took over from Saussure.8 Judged on the basis of criteria internal to structuralist theory, then, structuralism fell short of the absolute rigor to which it aspired. Its future-looking scientism masked a nostalgia for the Saussurean sign. Paradoxically, however, structuralism’s undoing marked a first step towards the lofty goals that it had envisaged, the tough investigative standards that it had set. A theory can be exact only insofar as it knows where its exactness breaks down. The structuralists, in passing through “The Mirage of Formalization” (II: 191-99), have taught us some of formalization’s limits. At the same time, it is at our own peril that we ignore the richness and fecundity of their efforts to formalize–to frame explicit models for the description and explanation of a wide variety of phenomena, literary, linguistic, anthropological, historical, geographical, socioeconomic. Indeed, the history of structuralist thought is the history of a refusal to view languages and texts, human beings and cultures, as random assemblages of inexplicable elements. That refusal amounts of course to an infinite task. But structuralism’s fall has made it easier to grasp both the impossibility of wholly rigorous explanations and the necessity of attempting them.

     

    Notes

     

    1. In 1939, however, Émile Benveniste argued that despite Saussure’s stated position, his approach presupposed a concept of the referent. For Benveniste, Saussure’s arguments about the arbitrariness of the sign did not prove that concepts and sound-images are only arbitrarily related; indeed, if the signifier-signified relation were truly arbitrary, languages would lack the systematicity that enables communication. (In such a scenario, if I said structuralism you would have no way of knowing whether I meant lukewarm, Montana, postmodernism, or indefinitely many other possible candidates.) What Saussure’s arguments demonstrated, rather, was that different systems of signification–i.e., different languages–relate to referents in a merely conventional way. Thus referring expressions from different languages are inter-translatable precisely because no single language stands in a natural, non-conventional relation to a given domain of referents.

     

    2. For a devastating critique of Lévi-Strauss’s attempt to use phonological notions to build a theory of the combinatory patterns of “mythemes,” see Pavel 18-37.

     

    3. Dosse takes this quotation from Jacques Lacan, Le Séminaire, Livre XX, Encore (1973-1974) (Paris: Seuil, 1975), 118.

     

    4. The author identifies other causes for structuralism’s decline as well. For example, Dosse discusses the shock waves set off by the translation of Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago into French in 1974. This book had an especially powerful effect on those who followed Althusser in propounding a structural Marxism (II: 269-75).

     

    5. A third class of problems must be ascribed not to Dosse but to the translator. Usually supple, lively, and accurate, the translation does have a few glitches, as when Glassman offers nonstandard translations of well-known titles (e.g., Logical Searches for Husserl’s Logische Untersuchungen) and contorts English syntax in sentences like “The avoidance of a certain number of properly philosophical questions, by choosing the social sciences, had led people to think that with structuralism, questions on ethics and metaphysics were made obsolete once and for all” (II: 282).

     

    6. In other places, however, Dosse writes persuasively about Foucault’s complex relationship with structuralism. There is for example an excellent assessment of The Order of Things in Volume I (330-42).

     

    7. The formulation is Myra Jehlen’s (95).

     

    8. Pavel (125-44) discusses ways in which structuralism grew out of the delayed exposure of French linguistics and philosophy of language to ideas developed elsewhere, particularly in the neopositivist tradition associated with the Vienna Circle and in Anglo-American language theory.

     

    Works Cited

     

    • Benveniste, Émile. “The Nature of the Linguistic Sign.” Critical Theory Since 1965. Eds. Hazard Adams and Leroy Searle. Tallahassee: UPs of Florida, 1986. 725-28.
    • Jehlen, Myra. “Archimedes and the Paradox of Feminist Criticism.” Feminisms: An Anthology of Literary Theory and Criticism. Eds. Robyn R. Warhol and Diane Price Herndl. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1991. 75-96.
    • Nietzsche, Friedrich. “On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life.” Untimely Meditations. Trans. R. J. Hollingdale. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983. 59-123.
    • Pavel, Thomas G. The Feud of Language: A History of Structuralist Thought. Trans. Linda Jordan and Thomas G. Pavel. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989.

     

  • First Communion, There Was a Time, Summer Questions, and Stars of Desire

    Cory Brown

    Ithaca College
    cbrown@ithaca.edu

    First Communion

     

    Another guest has departed and we are left
    with the backdrop of another day,
    left to carry out the remains of July.
    One or two days strung out before the clouds
    clear and we can begin to see the sun again
    in a new light; cicadas’ buzzes imminent,
    not yet salient to the ear, but expected enough
    for me to hear them in the mind. I raise
    my screen to get a better view of the lake,
    cornflowers and day lilies in the hazy,
    muggy afternoon–as if an unimpeded view
    of the outdoors could offer me
    something I hadn’t seen or heard before.
    All for the purpose of giving me
    that little extra umpf of inspiration
    like a good cup of strong Vienna-roast.
    And here I’ve come again to see if I can
    make that seminal commentary, that communal
    graft which both describes and sets the stage
    for what is to be described later,
    when hummingbirds and helicopter leaves
    are just an image from the past and yet
    a vision of what is to come. Like seeing
    the still lake from far away, such as where I am,
    and recognizing its resemblance to itself
    in the midst of a fierce, mid-winter freeze.
    I suppose I’m still making stabs
    at attaining that transcendent experience,
    ever since my first holy communion,
    a wafer-taste emerging on my tongue
    as I write, mixed now with a straight-forward
    mocha flavor, no cream no sugar, unadulterated
    adulteration, pure as can be. But that’s
    how we always start everything it seems,
    waiting and waiting until we can’t
    see another way out, a few confessions
    and blandishments along the way and then
    it’s all over. The baby wakes up, the phone
    rings, and what with the diaper and all.
    And before you know it the buzzing
    of reality has stopped and your eyelids
    are closing ever so slowly. A black spider
    crawls up one side of the door and then
    the other before it reaches the top,
    where it continues steadily along its path,
    rightside up for now, and you breathe
    a long pleasant sigh of relief in your sleep.

     


     

    Summer Questions

     

    Can I imagine a life without them?
    It is the anger I would miss.
    How wind can come upon you as you
    picture yourself in the fall,
    standing in the middle of an apple orchard
    with your hand outstretched for the
    last time of the day, and suddenly
    the entire summer’s complexion has changed.
    They are the incompletions, lying awake
    at night and picturing the purity
    of an imaginary planet’s skies. They are
    the lies that make up the thin tissue
    we think of as skin and July’s grass
    and purple loosestrife. They are evenings
    in early August, the sun’s last light
    stretching itself pink and reluctant
    over the orchard’s high straggling limbs.
    Trying to make it appear so natural.

     


     

    There Was a Time

     

    1.
    There was a time when what I wanted to say
    came to me unhesitantly, the ease
    not so much in how it was to be phrased
    or what words to use, but in the faith
    I had in the foundation of sayings.
    Like in a dry spell as a boy when I could
    stand at the bottom of what was a small pond
    and look down at all the cracks that marked
    where patches of earth the size of large
    sea turtles had separated but could be
    reunited in a nice common rain. The slightest
    smell of it in the air and I could imagine
    again the catfish scanning the silt,
    my hook down there being dragged around,
    drawing attention to itself as a squirming,
    nourishing morsel. But even the patches
    of earth themselves were refreshing
    in their own way, the way you could leap
    from one shell to the next, large as continents,
    and then pause and look up just in time
    to see a player piano-shaped cloud drop its
    tune trippingly from the sky, the beginning
    of a long, large-dropped, shirt-soaking shower.
    And you could imagine the continents
    growing soggy and you worrying about it
    raining for forty days and forty nights
    and how you were going to fit them all
    two by two in what it was you had no way
    of knowing how to build, let alone
    find the words to tell the others.

     

    2.
    Now, it’s as if the dandelion seeds
    flying in the air, sometimes it seems as fast
    as birds, could be the words themselves.
    As if being here watching the swallows
    weave between powerlines is a way of weaving
    between the lines myself. And to take
    ourselves back to the time before we sat
    down to muse about going back, or to muse
    by going back, would be a way of disingenuously
    seeing ourselves here, of being here,
    as if just being here isn’t enough.
    What I want to say now is in the margins,
    that place where the dandelion seeds in the air
    come from and disappear to, and where
    the goldfinch hides when it’s not within
    the view of my window. And it wouldn’t
    help to get a larger window, for discovery
    is what’s outside the aperture, which dislocates
    and misplaces. And discovery is, after all,
    the only setting worth sitting at, the placemat
    of the greatest meal–even if we do suspect
    when we sit down that there may be an old
    forgotten hook somewhere in one of the dishes,
    the baked sole perhaps, the lightly battered haddock,
    or the deep-fried catfish with its myriad
    meandering bones you have to always be on the lookout
    for with that curious dexterity of tongue
    and roof of the mouth, so you can never
    just relax and taste the taste. Little bones
    like hooks themselves waiting for you
    to swallow hook line and sinker if you are
    so inclined. That is, gullible enough to want
    it all: the dips and subtle hesitations
    of swallows skimming the treetops, as well as
    the slow movements in the darkness of ponds.

     


     

    Stars of Desire

     

    I would like to have written
    about the falling stars for you.
    How one after another streamed
    like tears down the face
    of the night sky,
    the sky shrouded here and there
    by thin clouds appearing from the West.
    And how those clouds would turn
    the night’s face inscrutable
    for a few passing moments,
    as if it were longing,
    or lost in thought.
    But we didn’t see them as we
    would have liked: clear as
    notes in a piano sonata
    tripping down the scale in trill
    or tremolo, or in multitudinous
    burstings like slow, silent fireworks.
    I had known it all along,
    before we sat down outside
    in chairs with our heads back
    in a sort of obverse position
    of homage and prayer. Had known it
    as we hummed old songs
    for our daughter in your lap,
    each of us imagining
    how it might be to be back
    in our mother’s arms–
    listening to a voice as familiar
    as our own pulling us down
    into deep sleep like stars falling
    into earth. That night
    you came to me in the smooth
    skin of a half-dream
    and convinced me in whispers
    that we had seen the stars
    as we had wished. That those flames
    were the source of these
    momentary passions, were ours.

     

  • A Response to Twelve Blue by Michael Joyce

    Greg Ulmer

    Department of English
    University of Florida
    gulmer@english.ufl.edu

     

    Michael Joyce is well known as a theorist, teacher, and creator of hypertext fiction. His most recent composition, authored in StorySpace for presentation on the World Wide Web, may be found at http://www.eastgate.com/TwelveBlue. Twelve Blue thus demonstrates the strengths (but also some of the limitations) of StorySpace as an authoring environment for the Web. Its great evocative power also shows off the craft of Joyce as a creative writer.

     

    The epigraph makes explicit the intertextual relationship between Joyce’s hypertext and On Being Blue by William Gass, a tour de force of poetic prose. I have long admired Gass’s meditative essay, for which Twelve Blue provides a narrative counterpart. Gass’s text demonstrates what I now call writing with the choral word (derived from a strategy often used by Jacques Derrida)–the inventio and dispositio are governed by the principle of blue (every possible usage) rather than by a thesis statement or a story (although the text both argues and narrates). I anticipated then that Joyce would continue this experiment, testing its applicability as a way to design a hypertext (and I was not disappointed). The introduction explains that the hypertext includes 269 links in 96 spaces. The reader is offered a definition that turns out to be a phrase from the work: “12 Blue isn’t anything. Think of lilacs when they are gone.” It so happens that I have never stopped thinking of the lilacs that grew in the backyard of my childhood home, the very scarcity of flowering bushes in Montana making their brief but fragrant appearance all the more impressive. I am hooked.

     

    The layout includes two frames–a narrow column on the left displaying a field of colored threads or yarn, spread horizontally from the top to the bottom of the frame. We are given to understand that these threads, mostly of a dark color except for one line of yellow, represent the StorySpace network. Indeed, each thread is a link to a document in the web; running the cursor over the frame shows the range of URLs available. Clicking on these threads moves the reader through the web in digital jumps. Since the URLs are numbered in sequence the reader might be tempted to move through the hypertext in a linear fashion by entering the document addresses in consecutive order. This effort will not produce a linear path, however, for the work is nonlinear in both conception and execution. The large righthand frame displays the prose segments printed in light blue on a dark blue background. Each cell offers at least one link within the prose, motivated this time by formal or aesthetic motifs derived from the attributes or properties of objects, places, events, persons.

     

    The effect of spending a couple of hours browsing Twelve Blue is the literary equivalent of seeing an interlaced gif assemble itself, passing from an unintelligible array of diffuse shapes into a fully coherent representation. This experience of initial disorientation and confusion that modernist fiction labored so hard to produce is more or less inherent in the nonlinear linking of hypertext. Some of John Cage’s experiments anticipate the potential of a different mode altogether of reading and writing, such as those in which he attempted to produce in prose the effect of working the tuners of numerous radios to pass in and out between noise and speech. Part of the craft of authoring in hypertext masterfully manifested in Twelve Blue is this gradual passage in and out of focus of the diegesis or imaginary space and time of the narrative world. As the reader moves through the cells of prose in a random order of selection, a recognizable world emerges–even a world of verisimilitude reflecting qualities of realist fiction (psychologically deep characters with complex inner lives)–but assembles itself fully only in the reader’s imagination.

     

    The style of the prose is mostly indirect, with the actions, thoughts, and speeches of characters being reported for the most part rather than dramatized. We meet a group of characters entangled in melodramatic domestic stories of sex, fatal accidents, and murder. We are not expected to identify with these characters, as we might do if we encountered them in their original soap operatic genres. We learn who they are, what their relationship is to one another, but, as one of the women explains to her illegitimate daughter, their stories only have beginnings, but no middles or endings. A number of the lives do end, but the point concerns the form of the work more than its themes: its non-Aristotelian quality.

     

    Twelve Blue is a brilliant probe of the direction in which on-line writing must inevitably evolve. The counterparting with Gass calls attention to the qualities of the hybrid writing that takes fullest advantage of the hyperlink effect. On Being Blue and Twelve Blue converge on a lyrical order from the sides respectively of the essay and the story. In the era of print, as Scholes and Kellogg long ago argued, prose writing was divided into two functions associated with two styles: the plain style of the essay was assigned the representation of fact, and the narrative story was assigned the expression of fiction. The making of patterns by means of association fell to lyric poetry, and was subordinated culturally to the report and the novel. Science, meanwhile, abolished style altogether to rely solely on experimental proof. These conventions have been dissolving throughout the new age of media. Long anticipated in the experimental arts, the technology to support a new arrangement among functions and styles is finally reaching the general public in the form of desktop interactive authoring. What remains to be invented (as I keep saying) is the practice that fully exploits the features of the new apparatus (electracy).

     

    In electracy (the practices that are to multimedia computing what literacy is to print) essayistic exposition and narrative story still exist, but they are incorporated into and subordinated under poetic patterning. Twelve Blue is an excellent example of this inversion of the literate hierarchy among the basic modes and styles, in that all the features of the diegetic world are put in service of the figurative creation of an atmosphere, a mood, a feeling, in the manner of a poem. The events, characters, places, and objects have their own interest, of course: incomplete in themselves, they accumulate into an evocation of something beyond themselves–an image, a figure. The various scenes and anecdotes converge around the experience of drowning. The beautiful, athletic wife of a prominent scientist, skin-diving off Malibu, becomes entangled in weeds and drowns. Her daughter, obsessively compelled to reenact the event, is said to have become a strong swimmer out of grief. A deaf boy drowns in a creek. The repetitions signal unmistakably that something more and unstated is motivating these events.

     

    These drownings described as events return as metaphors and analogies for the experience of the characters. A daughter tells her father, who is learning to date again, that women prefer men with a story–stories of blues songs and lost loves, or of shipwreck and drowning. Javier, the scientist, is a man figuratively drowning for having fallen in love too late in life. The assembling pattern triggers in the reader the realization that an allegory is in the making, or at least, in modernist style, an allegorical effect in which the microcosm and macrocosm come into correspondence but without grounding in any particular metaphysical system. The diegetic plane of events evokes parallel worlds at the level of the fluids of the body–especially the secretions and processes of sexual functioning–and the fluids of nature (water within and without, mediated by the human organism). The philosopher Voltaire used the image of a shipwrecked man who realizes that the ocean in which he swims has no shores, to convey the feeling of utter hopelessness. A similar mood is evoked in Twelve Blue.

     

    Roland Barthes’s theory of narrative offers a frame within which to appreciate the implications of Joyce’s example:

     

    The logic to which the narrative refers is nothing other than a logic of the already-read: the stereotype (proceeding from a culture many centuries old) is the veritable ground of the narrative world, built altogether on the traces which experience (much more bookish than practical) has left in the reader's memory and which constitutes it. Hence we can say that the perfect sequence, the one which affords the reader the strongest logical certainty, is the most cultural sequence, in which are immediately recognized a whole summa of readings and conversations. (144)

     

    Twelve Blue shows how the stereotypes of melodrama may become an asset rather than a liability; Joyce relies on the predictability of all that he leaves unsaid in order to elaborate more fully the background details that conventional narrative confines to the function of furthering the action or expanding the character.

     

    The act of reading Twelve Blue then is organized less by the enigma of action or the revelations of character and more by the gradual formation of an image. The readers become their own “Henry James,” receiving from the hypertext the germ of a story, in the manner James described as his creative process in The Spoils of Poynton. Dining with some friends, James heard a fragment of an anecdote during the conversation, something to do with “a good lady in the north, always well looked on, who was at daggers drawn with her only son, ever hitherto exemplary, over the ownership of the valuable furniture of a fine old house just accruing to the young man by his father’s death” (121). The reader of Twelve Blue overhears a number of such germs or seeds; even a garden plot salted with them.

     

    These “germs” of stories James welcomed as “precious particles”:

     

    Such is the interesting truth about the stray suggestion, the wandering word, the vague echo, at touch of which the novelist's imagination winces as at the prick of some sharp point; its virtue is all in its needle-like quality, the power to penetrate as finely as possible. (119)

     

    The needle point might be reduced to one word: blue. James of course developed these germs into what for me now (having paid my dues in graduate school) are unreadable novels, as archaic from the point of view of electracy as Homer was from the point of view of literacy. Joyce, judging the nature of digital art, leaves the narrative seeds largely in their concentrated state. The image James used to convey the effect of hearing such partial situations extracted from reality (reported in the press or distilled from local gossip) may be recognized as the same one Barthes used to name the effect of “third meanings”–the punctum created by the details noticed in photographs that makes them unforgettable. The punctum is to electracy what the eidos is to literacy. If literate thinking organized itself around recognizable shapes or forms that evolved into conceptual classification systems, electrate thinking is coming into existence around felt moods or atmospheres.

     

    The reason for emphasizing this effect in Joyce’s prose may have more to do with my concerns than his, but it is why I consider his work to be exemplary. Reading Joyce in the context of contemporary theory and media, not to mention the context of the World Wide Web, calls attention to the challenge confronting those of us working on the invention of electracy (the practices of both specialized and quotidian reading and writing for a society becoming committed to interactive multimedia), among whom I count Michael Joyce. Information in an electrate civilization is organized fundamentally in the mode of the image: enigma and enthymeme both are now at the service of the figurative. Again it is Barthes who provides an account of how the image functions. In image culture predominance is given to the semic code, organizing the attributes associated with the props and setting that constitute the environment within which the characters perform their actions. The semes, properties, or indices accumulate to create a certain atmosphere or mood. “The signifiers of the object are of course material units, like all the signifiers of any system of signs, i.e., colors, shapes, attributes, accessories” (The Semiotic Challenge 185). In narrative and argument these semes are subordinated to the purposes of proof or story, but in image discourse made possible by photography (the way the conceptual discourse was made possible by the alphabetic recording of sound), they emerge to function autonomously. Patterns of similarity, contiguity, and other aesthetic matches organize the inference path, the logic of hypermedia.

     

    The cumulative effect created by the semes of Twelve Blue is this aesthetic experience of drowning, accompanied by the strong awareness that this image of drowning in its totality is the signifier for some unstated, abstract, perhaps inarticulable signification. Such is the effect a literate person expects from poetry or poetic prose. But what about in electracy? As W. J. T. Mitchell explains in Picture Theory, our moment has absorbed the linguistic turn of modern epistemology, to move now into a pictorial turn. The challenge he poses is that of learning how to think text and picture together, not only as image, a term ambiguous enough to include both pictures and words, but as a hybrid or syncretic practice in which the graphic dimension is liberated from domination by the textual. Barthes himself, one of the great theorists of the linguistic turn, assumed that language mediated the systematicity of every other code. But this assumption may have had more to do with the apparatus of literacy than with any limitation inherent in the pictorial. Indeed, late in his career, in his writings about photography and music, Barthes himself took the pictorial turn. The point is that an electrate practice will use the atmosphere of drowning (or any other atmosphere selected by a user) as a way to classify a great quantity of other kinds of information.

     

    The challenge to the disciplines of Arts and Letters is to invent or design the practice of this syncretic writing. Teachers at many universities and colleges are introducing general education students to writing now in environments that require as much attention to graphic tools as to textual ones. Unfortunately, the limitations of StorySpace (in the examples I have seen) as an authoring tool and Twelve Blue as a model are apparent in relation to this new situation. The basic reality of the pictorial turn is that the site of invention of the next stage in the evolution of writing is taking place within the institution of entertainment, in the form of advertising. The discourse emerging within advertising, whose operating structure has been analyzed and refined within the experimental arts, may be applied to the needs of the other institutions of society, especially including education. Unfortunately the media literacy movement still formulates this moment almost exclusively in terms of literacy, wanting to make citizens more critical of what they consume in the media. This approach could be compared to that of warning students learning a foreign language to be sure to translate it always back into their native language in order to avoid experiencing those mental states different from what is familiar. The movement instead should promote the making of imagetexts in the schools, including learning the basic skills of photography and punning. Mitchell’s point that schools exclude (or enslave) the visual or pictorial could be expanded to note that they also exclude a complete dimension of language that the theorists call the remainder. Schools need to add to their function the forming of electrate citizens.

     

    In short, I am not interested in hypertext fiction as such (no matter how much I might enjoy it) because I need models or relays that show me how to include pictures and nonfiction. O. B. Hardison’s description of an on-line version of The Tempest summarizes the sort of bricolage that comes naturally to hypermedia:

     

    There would certainly be discussion of the date of The Tempest, relating its theme to the beginning of English colonization of the New World. The texts of two narratives of the shipwreck of a boat called the Sea Adventure in 1609 in Bermuda and the letter by William Strachey describing the shipwreck should also be available because one or more of them was a source for the play. A map of the New World showing where the Sea Adventure was wrecked would be useful. Another source that should be included is the essay "Of Cannibals," by Michel de Montaigne, in the English translation published by John Florio in 1603....Magic is important in Tempest, and there is an elaborate masque featuring classical deities. Hypertext should include an explanation of the Renaissance idea of magic, including the distinction between white and black magic, and an explanation of what a masque is....If you imagine a reader using hypertext, you have to imagine a constant movement from text to glossary to grammatical comment to classical dictionary to Bermuda map to textual variants to drawing of Ariel to text to Sea Adventure narrative... (263)

     

    Hardison laments the effect on the experience of reading of the process he describes, and it may be the case that the representation of Shakespeare in hypertext does as much damage to the original experience of theater as the printing of The Iliad did to the singing of the epics. My concern is with the rhetoric, logic, and poetics needed to guide the composition of new works specific to electracy that such tools make possible. The present condition of hypermedia that Hardison, Coover, and others describe is indeed a state of chaos in which the complex organizing forms and practices created to manage the print apparatus have fallen apart into a mass of simple or basic forms–some oral, some literate, some specific to electronic technology. On the internet all these different parts are piled together in a blizzard of clickable items. The division into truth-exposition and fiction-narrative that emerged in literacy with the invention of the essay and the novel is not particularly helpful in this new environment that is perhaps best named by the theoretical term simulacrum. To try to sort out the true from the false prior to acting in a world in which superstructure is base (in which the distance intrinsic to representation has collapsed upon itself) is a luxury of the old rhetoric, a luxury denied to the rhetoric of electracy. Michael Joyce takes me some way toward understanding electracy, and for that I am grateful, beyond my admiration for what he has achieved in his own terms (rather than mine). The invention process we inherited from the creators of literacy must be taken up again in the apparatus of our time. There remains plenty of work to be done.

     

    Works Cited

     

    • Barthes, Roland. The Semiotic Challenge. Trans. Richard Howard. New York: Hill and Wang, 1988.
    • Gass, William. On Being Blue: A Philosophical Inquiry. Boston: David Godine, 1976.
    • Hardison, O.B., Jr. Disappearing Through the Skylight. New York: Penguin, 1989.
    • James, Henry. The Art of the Novel. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1962.
    • Joyce, Michael. Twelve Blue. http://www.eastgate.com/TwelveBlue.

     

  • Reality for Cybernauts

    Sergio Sismondo

    Department of Philosophy
    Queen’s University
    sismondo@post.queensu.ca

     

    Introduction: virtual reality as a metaphysical laboratory

     
    Virtual reality (VR) is a wonderfully successful misnomer. To the extent that VR is reality, there is little virtual about it.

     

    I should qualify those claims right away: virtual reality is virtual in the derivative sense in which “virtual” has come to be a synonym for computer-based, but that sense is a result rather than a precondition of VR’s cultural success. VR has provided a path from an old meaning of “virtual” to a new one. The old meaning, what we could call virtual(1), is: in effect, but not actual. The meaning that is new to the last decades of the 20th century is virtual(2): simulated on or mediated by a computer.

     

    Many cybernauts have realized that VR is not merely virtually(1) real–an oxymoron?–and therefore are arguing that it is virtual(2) reality, real but computer-based. In so doing they have not merely added a new meaning to the term “virtual,” but have revamped talk of reality. At a time when skeptical humanists and others are more and more cautious about reality, VR enthusiasts are giving new life to words like “real” and “reality,” using them constantly, and with a variety of meanings. The best VR is described as “really real” and is contrasted with “real reality,” yet neither phrase fully makes sense without at least some confusion about meanings of “real.” At the same time, some cyberphiles and cybercritics have been proclaiming the death of reality. If we could create environments that have the look and feel that we expect from everyday reality, what is left of the “real” thing? Why should we care about it?

     

    Michael Heim says that “with its virtual environments and simulated worlds, cyberspace is a metaphysical laboratory, a tool for examining our very sense of reality” (83). Heim may be right that cyberspace–or in my case VR–is a metaphysical laboratory, but his laboratory is largely unbuilt. Currently-available VR, for example, is more crude as a metaphysical laboratory than are our imaginations, literature, and thought experiments. For my purposes the limitations of existing VR are unimportant: my intention here is, following Heim, to use VR to examine “our very sense of reality,” but in that I want to look at our use of the term “reality” and the presuppositions of that use. Along the way I take issue with some of the wilder claims about VR’s effects on reality.

     

    Although there is no one consistent picture of reality implicit in talk about VR, there are at least some common images. Some of those images are exactly what are needed to revamp talk of reality, and some are misguided. Some VR talk, for example, reinforces an impoverished sense of reality in its dominating images of levels and degrees; my preferred images are more chaotic and multi-dimensional. In order to show why we should prefer some images of reality, in the second half of this essay I put forward a general account of reality talk. That account makes space for (though does not guarantee) the reality of VR, and much more besides.

     

    For my project here we do not have to be full-fledged cybernauts. That is a good thing, because this essay is written by yet another interloper into VR. I haven’t made the tours of labs where systems like RB2 (“Reality Built for Two”) or gadgets like the DataGlove have been developed. I spend little of my time browsing Mondo 2000, and have tested out only the most publicly available virtual environments, computer games like “Doom,” and high-tech video games like “Dactyl Nightmare.” Donning the latter’s 3-D video helmet and battling its schematic pterodactyls even put me off-balance and made me slightly nauseous. All of that should place me as a text-based critic whose access to VR and cyberculture is largely through the guidance of texts. Therefore my text displays many signs of my interloper status, in the form of references to the canonizers and the canonized agents of the history of VR.

     

    The virtualization of reality?

     

    Our point is thus a very elementary one: true, the computer-generated "virtual reality" is a semblance, it does foreclose the Real; but what we experience as the "true, hard, external reality" is based upon exactly the same exclusion. The ultimate lesson of "virtual reality" is the virtualization of the very "true" reality: by the mirage of "virtual reality," the "true" reality itself is posited as a semblance of itself, as a pure symbolic edifice. (Zizek 44)

     

    For some cybernauts (and their critics) VR promises (or threatens) to limit or even eliminate the claims of the material to its status as reality. At Britain’s first VR conference in 1991, as Benjamin Woolley describes it, speakers such as chair Tony Feldman repeatedly claimed that because of the power of technology to simulate and otherwise artificialize objects, “reality is no longer secure, no longer something we can simply assume to be there” (5).

     

    At their simplest, such arguments have been around since people first asked whether they could be dreaming reality. Descartes’ almost paranoid musings, reconstituted as Meditations, are probably the best known sustained questioning of our evidence for the reality of our everyday world. Descartes asked, could he be dreaming it all? Or, since we all know how to tell the difference between waking and dreaming, could a powerful Deceiver be systematically and consistently creating our experiences, convincing us of the reality of a completely fictional material world? We know the results of Descartes’ questions: although he made valiant efforts to prove the reality of the world around him, most of his readers have been unconvinced. His efforts to vanquish skepticism reinforced it by demonstrating its resilience. Of course while it has been resilient, universal skepticism has rarely had much force. This is not merely because of our naive ordinary faith in the material world: pragmatists have argued that doubts such as might lead to a Cartesian Deceiver themselves require some justification. It might simply be unreasonable to follow Descartes in doubting everything, even if only for a few minutes.

     

    For some of its enthusiasts, VR provides grounds for such a doubt. In the passage above, Slavoj Zizek appears to be taken by a new, or future, capacity to question the reality of non-virtual reality. VR will provide the skeptic’s reinstatement of the Cartesian Deceiver by creating sensations indistinguishable from ordinary, everyday sensations. What we call “real” will become simply one world to live in among many, and a relatively conservative and unimaginative one at that. Timothy Druckrey claims, reading these lines of Zizek, that “what is so fascinating about the issues of immersion and virtual reality is the way in which it substantiates the problem of representation itself” (8).

     

    It is hard to be too impressed by such sophomoric skepticism, even if it is widespread. It is little more than an advertisement for VR technologies and VR as a cultural icon, or, for those who are uncomfortable with the disappearance of a hard “reality,” an anti-advertisement: consider Mark Slouka’s recent War of the Worlds: Cyberspace and the High-Tech Assault on Reality. Certainly commentators like Druckrey and Zizek are not talking about available technologies–the simulators found in corners of the post-industrial world–because those are little more than poor 3-D video games, expensive but crude, and are less capable of sustaining one’s attention than most 2-D video games of a decade ago.

     

    I will return to the question of whether VR will ever be able to deceive its participants completely; however, my main point is not to express pessimism about technologies. Rather, I’m interested in examining our sense of reality. Any thought that VR will be the twenty-first century Deceiver, providing grounds for a universalized skepticism, appears to take reality as the object of possible sensory experiences. Most of the major problems that VR researchers are working on have to do with visual and tactile realism: they are working to create better video displays, faster calculations that will lead to faster responses to users’ actions, and improvements and extensions of the DataGlove that will allow users to feel more of their virtual environment. In this way VR is following in the footsteps of the Cartesian Deceiver–and begins to provide the grounds for a universalized skepticism–because what it aims to deceive us about is material reality, our paradigmatic reality.

     

    VR’s model reality

     

    True virtual reality may not be attainable with any technology we create. (Zeltzer, qtd. in Heim 123)

     

    David Zeltzer, of the MIT Media Lab, doesn’t like to use the term “virtual reality” to refer to his creations, preferring instead “virtual worlds” and “virtual environments.” This stems less from uneasiness with the term “reality” than from an uneasiness about his tools. “The Holodeck [a Star Trek VR system] may forever remain fiction. Nonetheless, virtual reality serves as the Holy Grail of the research” (Zeltzer, qtd. in Heim 123). We may never be able to re-create the full experience of working with and in the material world using computers, video, speakers, data suits, etc. Unlike some VR enthusiasts, Zeltzer recognizes the richness of ordinary sense experiences, and the difficulties with the technology in reproducing this richness.

     

    More importantly for my purposes, Zeltzer makes explicit the goals, even if unattainable, for VR: the technology is supposed to recreate the type of experiences we have of the material world. VR is therefore a virtual material reality, a computerized simulation of mountains, trees, buildings, bodies, and flies. VR aims to create human-centered spaces which users can explore, containing objects to manipulate. These spaces are wrapped around users and adjust to their efforts at motion, so that they always remain at centers or origins. VR is a simulation that takes as its starting point the everyday space that we experience ourselves moving in, and our everyday world of moderately small to moderately large material objects. This is probably so obvious a starting point that it is important to point out some alternatives, such very real things as institutions, ideas, and cultures, none of which is neatly bounded in 3-D space. Some of these things are being re-created in cyberspace more generally, but are not the focus of virtual reality. For the purposes of VR, reality is paradigmatically a spatial and material system.

     

    At this point I want to mark a difference between cyberspace and virtual reality. Cyberspace, as used in, for example, Michael Benedikt’s Cyberspace: First Steps, is the more inclusive category, a label for any computer-generated or computer-mediated environment that is accessible by multiple users, including environments that are in no way imitations of material realities. In fact, many of the contributors to Benedikt’s volume are explicitly attempting to describe novel architectures for such spaces. Some of their work is fascinating for its sophisticated interdisciplinarity, combining readings of science fiction, mathematics, psychology, data management, and architecture. For my purposes it is interesting that these authors generally avoid the term “virtual reality,” suggesting that they recognize constraints and limitations of “realities” that can be more easily evaded by “spaces.”

     

    Reality as a singular closed system

     

    Quadriplegics live, virtually, through the actions of others. Perhaps, life would be more fulfilling if they were also offered the opportunity to directly control their environment through telerobotic tools for independent living. Virtual telerobotic environments for the rest of us could bring reality to these individuals.


    (Leifer et al., qtd. in Rheingold 264)


    When VR becomes widely available, it will not be seen as a medium used within physical reality, but rather as an additional reality. VR opens up a new continent of ideas and possibilities.

     

    (VPL Research product brochure, qtd. in Pimentel & Teixeira 53)

     

    It is an apolitical fantasy of escape. Historical accounts of virtual reality tell us that one of the initial project's slogans was "Reality isn't enough anymore," but psychoanalytic accounts would more likely tell us that the slogan should be read in its inverse form--that is, "Reality is too much right now."

     

    (Sobchack 20)

     

    Whether reality is too much or not enough, most VR enthusiasts and their critics agree in taking the reality/irreality boundary to be a relatively sharp one–even while they are trying to blur it or are claiming that the technology will change that distinction fundamentally. And thus they agree in their image of reality as a closed system and neat package, much like the systems that are being built. The VR designing firm VPL Research is creating not parts of the world or new views of the world, but worlds themselves, alternatives to the world we know as real. Non-virtual reality is singular in the past and present; it is the three-dimensional space that we live in and will continue to live in until VR creates new spaces. The creation of new spaces, though, introduces questions about the geometry of reality.

     

    Consider, for example, the following statements, all taken from Howard Rheingold’s Virtual Reality: “The reality level is rising by the month” (214); “How much reality do you get for all that money?” (166); “Reality has always been too small for human imagination” (Laurel, qtd. in Rheingold 391); “a new plane of reality that will thrill everybody” (Lanier, qtd. in Rheingold 155); “A laser microscanner will paint realities directly on the retina” (Furness, qtd. in Rheingold 194). VR enthusiasts are united in believing that new technologies will increase the quantity of reality available, but they do not agree on how that increase will be measured. Will we be able to buy reality, as if by the kilo or the yard? Will we be enlarging it? Or adding new planes to it? Or creating new realities, plural? Their disagreement stems from the fact that we don’t know much about the current geometry of reality and realities, conceived of as objects, stuff, or measurable quantities. Perhaps “worlds” share the geometry of realities; importantly, we often use “world” in much the same way as we use “reality.” The idea that reality comes in planes, for example, may be descended from a medieval picture of layered worlds, from ours down to Hell and up to Heaven; each has its own rules, logic and inhabitants, though individuals also move or are moved among worlds depending upon their powers and virtues. If a reality is a world, this gives us both the sense of space and the sense of substance.

     

    Reality is an odd substance, though it shouldn’t be surprising that VR researchers can think of it as one. According to the self-image and hype of the VR community, researchers are not merely in the business of creating 3-D video games or creating simulations of environments, but are creating real worlds to work in, play in, and explore. VR researchers are trying to make reality or realities, and to make something is to make some thing. But even though the common perception has it that reality is a singular closed system, and the VR community treats reality as a substance to be manufactured, we don’t know whether it is best pictured in planes, as more amorphous stuff, or as an indivisible unit. A good account of reality should develop and make sense of as many of these metaphors as possible, to allow us to understand how reality is planar, or how the reality level of VR is rising.

     

    The body as foundation and target of VR

     

    With virtual realities upon us, we may find it increasingly difficult to distinguish between our "natural" selves and the electronic extensions.


    (de Kerckhove 177)
    I think one of the striking things about a virtual world system in which you have the pliancy, the ability to change the content of the world easily, is that the distinction between your own body and the rest of the world is slippery.


    (Lanier & Biocca, qtd. in de Kerckhove 203)

     

    VRs are ideally tactile environments, full of sensual experiences. More centrally, the technology makes use of body knowledge, our ability to respond physically to situations, to communicate using more than our vocal chords or the tips of our fingers. VR treats us as fully embodied creatures and then stimulates and trains our bodies in ways that are appropriate to the virtual environment. Until now the most convincing of virtual environments have been the US military’s flight simulators; they place the pilot-in-training in an artificial cockpit, complete with visual displays that respond with subtlety to physical commands. Other activities that involve high levels of risk, skill, and money–medicine is an obvious domain–will probably be similarly simulated over the coming decades. And one other prominent attempt to produce and use body knowledge is the simulation, using VR techniques, of the tinker-toy models chemists use to gain insight into the structure and properties of molecules. VR revalidates, in a high-tech setting, body knowledge, and thus takes us away from a logocentric mode, away from some of our modern ideals of rational control and communication.

     

    Yet cyberculture is the culmination of those same modern ideals in its recognition and attempted erasure of the limitations of bodies. Dominant metaphors make bodies soft and weak compared to silicon-based entities. William Gibson’s futuristic characters are exemplary in this, displaying cybernauts’ contempt for flesh, or “meat,” as it is often called. (I should clarify, however, that Gibson’s “Matrix” is not a VR, even though it has some cultural continuity with VR.) Gibson’s best bodies are largely artificial, enhanced through muscle implants and rigorous physical training; Molly, of Neuromancer and Mona Lisa Overdrive fame, is the favorite, a feminine cyborg for hire, complete with rewired nerves that speed up reaction times and razor-sharp retractable claws that slice through too-slow meat. Gibson’s other freaks abandon their bodies, sometimes for long trips on the net, and other times for good. Molly’s counterpart Case also has a tight, wired body, but because of the neglect that comes from too much drugs and too many hours exploring the Matrix. Lise of Gibson’s short story “The Winter Market” is a down-and-out mindscape artist held together and dragged through life by a polycarbon prosthetic. When she makes it big she can afford to abandon the prosthetic and what is left of her body in favor of a fully electronic simulation of herself. This is not a fascination peculiar to Gibson. In the 1992 film The Lawnmower Man the central character abandons his body for an electronic life. Among cyberspace residents he is an oddity, because he abandons an exemplary body, flawed only in its materiality. Abandoning the body, or at least the flawed bodies we are saddled with, is an ideal built into VR. Meat holds cybernauts back, limiting their informational excursions. The virtualization of the body, then, is a goal in part because the body represents an unfortunate link to a material reality that “isn’t enough anymore.” Virtualizing the body is a special case of the virtualization of reality as a whole.

     

    Margaret Morse’s fascinating paper “What do Cyborgs Eat?” points out that the construction of the cyborg body represents an accommodation of the human to the machine (see also Stone). This accommodation leaks from the pages of cyberpunk novels into everyday culture in the form of an anorexic ethic of not eating. For cyborgs the smart drug–“a kind of lubricant or ‘tune-up’ for wetware” (Morse 161)–or some other goal-specific nourishment replaces food, because human-machine interactions demand a machine-like performance from mind and body. Although Morse’s call for reversing this human-machine relationship suggests a nostalgia for human autonomy, it is rooted in a realization that meat-based systems are not infinitely flexible, that cyborgs need to eat. This is an important limitation of VRs: as long as they are realities designed for humans, they are limited by the needs of our soft bodies. Overcoming these limitations is central to cybernautic fantasies, but before VR can serve as a surrogate Deceiver it will have to deceive the body. Technicians will have to answer Morse’s question, “What do cyborgs eat?,” to allow users to live in VR and not just to visit it. Just as we know the difference between dreams and waking experiences, because we dip in and out of dreamworlds, we are likely to know the difference between VR and less artificial experiences until we no longer have to dip in and out of VR. Fooling the body is perhaps just the hardest case of a more general problem of robustness: it is unlikely that VR technologies in the foreseeable future will deceive us in their realism, and therefore David Zeltzer is almost certainly right that Zizek’s Virtual Deceiver is a Holy Grail, an unreachable goal.

     

    Simulations and artificial realities

     

    Zizek’s observation that VR virtualizes reality is more complicated than Druckrey or I (in paragraphs 7-10 above) gave him credit for. He carefully distinguishes between the “Real” and “reality”: whereas the “Real” is the hard kernel that we must posit as resisting metaphorization, “reality” refers to our experiences. And our experiences, following Lacan, are framed by our fantasies. Zizek is modifying and extending the idea that categories are prior to experiences, where the relevant categories are many, varied, and pliable. In particular, he takes sex as paradigmatic reality and “sex” as a paradigmatic category. Our experience of sex with a flesh-and-blood partner, he claims, is experienced as sex to the extent that it matches our fantasies, sex with imagined partners. Rather than being a poor copy of real sex, masturbation is the model of which sex is the copy. If we take sex as paradigmatic, then our experience of the “true, hard, external reality” can only be based on virtualizations of that reality. Zizek is not claiming, then, that VR will conform itself to experiences so closely as to provide a new Deceiver, but that VR will produce new types of experiences of non-virtual realities. In this respect VR will be like many other aggressive technologies and media, especially film, Zizek’s main focus.

     

    Of course sex is an odd choice for paradigmatic reality, being more obviously responsive to our fantasies than most other things we take to be real. But the argument does not depend in any important way on that choice: a more cautious version of Zizek’s argument could accept our standard paradigms, the material world and its objects. Experiences of some virtual reality might still tend to produce new types of experiences of the paradigm. After long sessions of playing a computer video game, my driving–in my true, hard, external car–changes, and in ways that are easy to detect. I am more inclined to pose challenges, to take advantage of openings in the road. This is one small way in which the artificial changes the boundaries of the real.

     

    Myron Krueger raises a similar point:

     

    But what of a world in which every action is rehearsed in simulation before it is taken, as was the case for pilots during the Gulf war? Will real action lose its immediacy when it is but a recapitulation of simulated activity? (Heim ix)

     

    Krueger’s concern about immediacy is a concern about those boundaries. If we try to make our experiences of “true reality” mimic our experiences of simulated reality, as the US military attempted in the Gulf War, then we may be giving up some of the immediacy of those experiences of “true reality.” In the case of the Gulf War, a lack of immediacy was exactly the object, helping to distance the participants from the objects of their attacks; this may be, as Paul Virilio would suggest, only the most recent and most successful use of representional technologies to mediate and contain experiences of battle (50). As experiences lose their immediacy, whatwe experience loses some of its status as reality–reality seems less real.

     

    Simulations and authenticity

     

    [S]imulation threatens the difference between the "true" and the "false," the "real" and the "imaginary." (Baudrillard, Simulacra 3)

     

    Virtual reality is a simulation of space and objects in space, but, as Jean Baudrillard has pointed out, simulations are odd entities. Whereas a representation, at least since the demise of the picture theory of language, need not resemble the objects or relations it represents: at its core a representation is a coded description, expression, or portrayal; a simulation, by contrast, re-creates some of the characteristics of that which it simulates, even while it is a copy or fake. For this reason simulation threatens the difference between the real and the irreal.

     

    Like Zizek, Baudrillard starts from an interesting and complex set of examples to make his point vivid: religious icons, Disneyland, ethnology protecting the isolation of a society, and illnesses, particularly mental illnesses. “Whoever fakes an illness can simply stay in bed and make everyone believe he is ill. Whoever simulates an illness produces in himself some of the symptoms” (Littré, qtd in Baudrillard, Simulacra 3). Simulations are fakes, but they are fakes made by appropriating qualities of the real. They are thus themselves real–though Baudrillard prefers to say that they are “hyperreal” because he conceives reality in terms of depth, stasis and authenticity. The reality of simulations is a second way in which VR enthusiasts are right in their claims that VR is changing the boundaries of the real. To the extent that VR has qualities of reality it can become a reality.

     

    Just before the beginning of the 1991 Gulf War, Baudrillard wrote a now almost infamous article insisting that the war in the Gulf would not occur (“La guerre du Golfe n’aura pas lieu,” published in the Manchester Guardian as “The Reality Gulf”). In part this insistence reflected his firm belief in deterrence, and in part it reflected his belief that coming out of the standoff there were only many-layered images of war, images which bore no resemblance to actual wars, though they did resemble some Hollywood films. For Baudrillard Saddam Hussein was, through his use of hostages, engaged in a simulation of war. As if to insist that his first article not be read as a simple mistake, during and after the war he wrote and published two more installments–the three were later published together under the title, “La guerre du Golfe n’a pas eu lieu.” Despite the soldiers, the bombs, the deaths, Baudrillard insists that what happened was not a war, but rather a simulation of a war, or a hyperreal war. Unlike past wars, fought primarily for territory or political control, the Gulf War was fought primarily for the sake of images. A war for the sake of images, Baudrillard claims, is not authentic, but a simulacrum.

     

    For Baudrillard, like many others, reality has to be in some way authentic or natural. It is arguable, though, that his concern with authenticity is dated, at least for those of us who have always lived in artificial surroundings. His concern that reality has disappeared depends upon a nostalgic view of reality as profound. Because much of our environment, from the Simpsons to supermarkets, has no pretension to naturalness or authenticity–and we recognize this in part because of the work of commentators like Baudrillard–these criteria can now be disengaged from reality. If we live among simulacra, images which do not pretend to refer, then so be it: reality has ceased to be necessarily authentic. All that is added in calling these simulacra “hyperreal” is attention to their artificiality, the deliberateness of their invention. A modern supermarket is a crafted environment that bears no resemblance to the markets which were its ancestors. A successful television show refers to itself, its counterparts, and its immediate ancestors, not to some external reality. External reality refers to it.

     

    A Platonic critic

     

    Reality is still there, though not in the material realm of the physical universe where the modern era assumed it to be. In my attempt to distinguish between simulation and imitation, the virtual and the artificial, I have tried to provide a glimpse of where that reality may be, in the formal, abstract domain revealed by mathematics and computation. [T]he computer has, through its simulative powers, provided what I regard as reassuring evidence that it is still there. (Woolley 254)

     

    Benjamin Woolley is unimpressed by VR and unimpressed by arguments for the disappearance of reality. In his Virtual Worlds he presents us with a litany of sexy new technologies, mathematical and scientific theories, and postmodernist arguments, though his message is consistently anti-euphoric: as the subtitle to the book advertises, his exploration is a Journey in Hype and Hyperreality. Whereas VR enthusiasts tend to see the technology as breaking new frontiers and re-arranging consciousness, Woolley prefers to draw attention to VR’s more mundane roots in flight simulators. He points to the failures of artificial intelligence research to live up to early promises; he wonders why we should care about chaos theory, why we should have cared about catastrophe theory during its heyday; he argues that the Internet is only the latest network; and he insists that Baudrillard’s Gulf War that did not take place most definitely took place, even if it was shaped by the demands of computers, other high-tech devices, and audiences expecting a Hollywood war.

     

    Woolley is still fascinated by these over-hyped postmodern cultural developments, even if he wants to expose the modernity at their cores. While he doesn’t accept Baudrillard’s conclusions, he is bothered by the same developments that Baudrillard celebrates, in part because the two critics share an image of reality. The material world is becoming increasingly artificial and inauthentic; it imitates–though rarely lives up to–our ideals. And these changes are disturbing not just because of the type of change they are, but because they highlight the instability of the material world. Artificiality and instability are both symptoms of irreality, because for Woolley that which is most real is natural and enduring, not artificial and fleeting.

     

    Umberto Eco, who was disappointed with the real Mississippi, claims that “Disneyland [with its riverboats] tells us that technology can give us more reality than nature can” (44). Woolley is similarly disappointed with his real Mississippis, but doesn’t find their improvement in technology, at least not directly. Rather he looks to mathematical physics and its kin for an authentic world, because mathematical physics is the most revered of sciences, and science is the attempt to uncover reality. The physicists’ world, a world of mathematized laws and snapshots, apparently satisfies Woolley’s requirements of reality, because it is objective, natural and enduring–Woolley would not be too happy with recent discussions in the field of Science & Technology studies (see Sismondo). The physicists’ world is objective both in the sense that it is (assumed to be) external to us, discovered rather than invented, and in the sense that science is our best example of objective knowledge. If the book of nature is written in the language of mathematics, then the physicists’ world is as natural as is possible. And it is enduring because even when laws describe change they are always structural, always identifying what remains the same through time, or through some other variable.

     

    For Woolley, computer simulations spread artificiality, but they also reinforce his position. Along with physics the simulation power of computers tells us that the book of nature is written in mathematics, because simulations are done mathematically: the more that can be simulated the more nature is shown to roughly instantiate a Platonic reality. Woolley’s reality is Platonic because it is an abstraction away from the world as we experience it, an ideal description of the forms and structures that lie behind or underneath our experience. He would be uncomfortable, though, with the Platonic notion that ours is only an imperfect copy of a more real world of forms, because he thinks that that ideal reality is found embedded in the natural world.

     

    This version of reality is quite austere, limited to the structures of the natural world that can be described mathematically. Austerity is a calculated impoverishment, though like most austerity programs Woolley’s follows some traditional paths. As I’ve claimed, the attention of VR enthusiasts and their critics is on the material world, rather than the social world: even though interaction is a goal of VR, the real world of institutions is usually forgotten, or even deliberately excluded. Partly because of that exclusion commentators such as Woolley and Baudrillard see reality as static–this is not to say that material reality is static, but it is often conceived in terms of what remains invariant.

     

    “Real” deflated

     

    I want to take a closer look at this little word "real." I propose, if you like, to discuss the Nature of Reality--a genuinely important topic, though in general I don't much like making this claim. (Austin 62)

     

    Talk of and around VR, then, provides us with a number of characteristics of reality. One option is to dismiss this mess as the product of overzealous enthusiasts and critics, and to retreat to a reductive and monovalent account of reality, such as a materialist account or Woolley’s physicalist one. I think that that is the wrong option to take. Even putting VR aside, reality is too multifaceted, or there are too many types of realities, to be shoehorned into a reductive account. Instead, in the rest of this essay I reorganize and unify characteristics of realities in a flexible deflationary account. I want to understand reality in terms that recognize the insights and temptations of different cybernauts’ images of reality, even those that I criticize, like Baudrillard’s authenticity criterion. My account is deflationary in the sense that it flatly denies an ultimate reality, though not so deflationary as to deny characteristics that realities might have.

     

    A currently fashionable, though not popular, account of what is real in philosophical circles stems from J.L. Austin’s simple and elegant analysis of our concept of “real” in his Sense and Sensibilia (1962). Writing before the language-expanding days of the 1960s, Austin could easily argue that “real” gets its meaning from its use as an adjective: it only makes grammatical sense if it modifies an explicit or implicit object. You might have a real Roy Liechtenstein painting or a fake one, or an imitation or print. You could have seen a real Peregrine Falcon, or have been mistaken, having seen a Pigeon Hawk from a distance. Or I, arriving in the middle of your story, might think that you are talking about a real Peregrine, while you are talking about a striking film of one, or a dreamt one. What is important here is that “real” draws a contrast to one or another form of unreality. A real X is nothing more than an X, though in saying that it is a real X we emphasize that it isn’t merely something that looks like or feels like an X, something that could be confused for or used as if it were an X. Thus Austin could claim that the negative of “real”–the different forms of being unreal–shapes the usage of the positive, not the other way around. What is real depends upon the illusions or artificialities that we want to distinguish, isolate, or avoid in some particular context. Real is therefore context-dependent.

     

    “Reality,” Austin presumes, marks the same or a closely derivative contrast. To my mind one advantage of such an account of reality is that multi-dimensionality jumps out of it immediately, eliminating any possibility of a singular, ultimate reality. Austin uses a number of different examples, but the one that he uses most to show multi-dimensionality is color. The real color of some object can be the color it appears to most observers in ordinary light. But the “real color of her hair” usually refers to its natural color, not the color it appears. The problems for real colors don’t stop there, as Austin asks about, among other things, the real color of the sun, of a chameleon, and of a pointilliste painting which creates a green effect through combinations of blue and yellow dots.

     

    The case of art makes multi-dimensionality particularly clear. One can see a real Liechtenstein painting (or a print of a Liechtenstein, materially real in itself) and still ask, is it real art? For that matter, is it a real frame of a comic strip, or a fake one? Or one could see a fake Liechtenstein that is nonetheless both a real painting and real art; perhaps it is a comment on Liechtenstein, or simply an interesting derivative. The planes of real Liechtensteins, real works of art, real paintings, real comics, and the like intersect, and may have considerable overlap, but they also go off in their own directions. There are multiple realities, and any particular thing both is and is not real, depending on the reality one is concerned about. Like real things, reality is context-sensitive. This casts serious doubt on whether we could ever arrive at a substantive account of reality beyond Austin’s.

     

    We shouldn’t assume, though, that Austin’s discussion of “real” translates unproblematically into an account of “reality”; in fact to assume so would run counter to the spirit of his analysis, in spite of his coy suggestion that he is discussing the “Nature of Reality.” Austin’s focus on uses of “real” rather than “reality” has the advantage that the former is used much more often and in a wider variety of circumstances than the latter. But “reality” is an abstraction from and nominalization of “real,” and as such affords some slightly different characteristics. Whereas Austin could correctly claim that “real” was “substantive-hungry” (primarily an adjective), “reality” is itself substantive. And “reality” is much less dependent upon its negative uses than “real,” though its opposition to such non-reality as fantasy, dreaming, and hallucinating is still quite important. The translation from adjectives (and adverbs, such as “really”) to nouns does not go perfectly smoothly. Talk around VR can help to map out some of the bumps and twists in that translation, through the distinctions that VR researchers are trying to make when they claim that VR is virtual(2) (computer-based) rather than virtual(1) (in effect) reality.

     

    Paradigms and property-clusters

     

    The main lesson of Austin’s analysis is that there is no one concept of the “real,” that the word takes on meaning in relation to context and the ways of being unreal in context. Thus if we want to look for meanings of “real” we should, among other things, look to those negatives of real. Austin’s partial list includes the adjectives artificial, fake, false, bogus, makeshift, dummy, synthetic, and toy, and the nouns dream, illusion, mirage, and hallucination (71). This list is not complete, and could grow longer with the growth of methods of simulation, representation, and reproduction. If we suppose that reality is a systematic set of real things, then reading his list should convince us to give up hope on an ultimate reality. At the same time such a list provides an interesting cluster of properties of the real and the unreal. To a large extent this cluster of properties also applies to reality and unreality.

     

    One way that property clusters hang together is seen in accounts of meaning in terms of paradigms or prototypes, and their extension. The set of paradigmatic games–Wittgenstein used this example to criticize an essentialist conception of meaning–might include a counter game, like backgammon, and a more active game, like tag. Other games have some of the characteristics of the paradigmatic ones: to classify a new activity as a game is to make a, supposedly principled, extension from the paradigm. Such a picture would allow us to make sense of the fact that solitaire and football are both games even though they have little in common. For a large and complicated class like games, paradigms and their extensions might have become quite complicated, as paradigms have shifted, and new extensions have suggested some quite unobvious other ones. If a paradigm story can be told about reality, it is probably simpler than the story one would tell about games, because we have had relatively little occasion to talk about realities. Nonetheless, it would be a story that leaves a flexibility, openness, and pluralism to reality. I have already indicated how my story about reality would go: our most obvious paradigm reality is the three-dimensional space we live in, along with the most natural of the material objects it contains. This is the reality that we most often refer to when we use the phrase, “In reality.”

     

    The phenomenological tradition has a similar understanding of paradigmatic reality. For example:

     

    The world of working as a whole stands out as paramount over against the many other sub-universes of reality. It is the world of physical things, including my body; it is the realm of my locomotions and bodily operations; it offers resistances which require effort to overcome; it places tasks before me, permits me to carry through my plans, and enables me to succeed or to fail in my attempt to obtain my purposes. By my working acts I gear into the outer world, I engage it. (Schutz 226-7)

     

    Phenomenologists such as Alfred Schutz and Edmund Husserl build philosophical systems on the basis of assumptions implicit in the way that we deal with perceptions. Husserl and Schutz pare their available philosophical resources down to the level of perception, and then attempt to rebuild some of the richness of our world, particularly some of our understanding of the objectivity of our world, out of their remaining resources. “Reality” poses a special problem for phenomenologists, because before it is possible to ground objectivity in subjectivity one has to be able to distinguish among perceived worlds, to distinguish between the everyday world that will become the locus for objectivity and a dreamt world. That it is a special problem does not make it a particularly difficult one, because phenomenologists are content to draw on, articulate, and refine the resources that are normally used to distinguish everyday reality and dreams. But their pared-down resources do not allow them to say in advance that dreamed worlds are anything less than fully real, and thus they are easily drawn to talk about multiple realities (Schutz 207-59).

     

    Paradigmatic reality, in combination with other uses of the term and the debate around the status of VR, gives rise to a cluster of properties that a reality might have. These properties give us some touchstones for determining whether something is or is not a reality, or conversely, define normal extensions of the paradigm into new situations. My incomplete list of such properties has it that reality might be material, three-dimensional, immediate, engaging, objective, enduring, robust, natural, manipulable, interactive, and systematic. As the term “reality” is being used today, realities should have some, but not necessarily all, of these properties. The sections that follow briefly describe these properties, and justify them as properties of realities.

     

    An aside on the social world: Considering how objective and important the social world is, it is perhaps surprising that it is not more central to our paradigm. It is objective because, although it can be affected, it is usually experienced as a given, fixed in place by the actions of innumerable other actors. At most times change comes slowly to institutions like the legal system, gender and class structures, your local bank, and holiday traditions, because they are held in check by people’s expectations and the sanctions that occur when expectations are violated. Their objectivity is a product of their externality, their location outside of particular individuals and their actions. But this is what makes them real, things that we can count on at least as much as we can count on bits of material reality. Less firm are such small institutions as close friendships and other interpersonal relations. We routinely distinguish between real friendships and surface ones, or ones that can’t be found outside of very limited contexts; our criteria have to do with robustness, or their liveliness under pressure.

     

    Material, three-dimensional

     

    I’ve already argued that VR researchers take materiality and three-dimensionality as the core of reality. Reality’s materiality is what makes VR virtual reality, and VR’s three-dimensionality is what makes it virtual reality. But interest in those properties of everyday reality is not restricted to VR researchers: materiality and three-dimensionality are important properties marking a good chunk of everyday reality. For my purposes here I am more interested in focusing attention on other properties of potential realities.

     

    Engaging, immediate

     

    By leaving the world more abstract, versus building in more realism, Mark could draw users deeper in. Abstraction isn't a reason to reject VR worlds as being unrealistic. (Pimentel & Teixeira 151)

     

    Realism can be unrealistic. This conundrum derives from a description of the efforts of Mark Bolas, President of Fake Space Labs, to create engaging spaces, spaces into which people can easily become immersed. Engaging spaces are ones in which people can lose a sense of their normal material and social environments, usually by forgetting or ignoring the mechanisms producing their experiences–something which some well-crafted literature, film, and theatre accomplishes (Laurel, Computers 15-16). Bolas, along with most VR researchers, initially tried to make his environments into copies of material environments; in his case they were copies of offices. But the detail intended to help his virtual offices mimic material ones didn’t help to make them engaging. This suggests that, at least at the level to which Bolas could accomplish it, mimicry was the wrong strategy. Instead Bolas found that people could immerse themselves more easily into environments that were quite different from their accustomed ones. Rather than using space-filling programs to create texture he left the pieces of his virtual offices as unadorned polygons. Mimicry calls material environments into play, while anti-mimicry allows users to leave behind their material settings. Mimicry suggests mediation, because it is a representation. Anti-mimicry can create immediacy, because it is a presentation.

     

    Immediacy and engagement are related goals of all VR inventors, who want to draw users into the worlds that they create; they are even goals for such an anti-euphoric commentator as Brenda Laurel, who wants to encourage computer interface designers to create spaces in which “the representation is all there is” (Laurel, Computers 17). Immediacy and engagement are also criteria for the reality of virtual environments, among the features that make some VR “really real.” Clearly our paradigms of reality meet these criteria. Our experiences of material reality are what define immediacy, and most of us are immersed in and engaged with paradigm realities most of the time. What is interesting about Bolas’s work is that he discovered that these goals are separable from faithful representation–what we normally call realism–and they are separable from the other features of paradigm realities; this separability is something film-makers have often recognized. To make immediate and engaging environments one may be better off making them quite different from ordinary material reality. Therefore Bolas’s research concretely suggests that the qualities of reality are decomposable.

     

    Objective, enduring, robust

     

    Dreaming, fantasizing, hallucinating, and simply being wrong are some of the common ways that people leave reality. Hallmarks of the unreality of these flights are, I would claim, their subjectivity, their lack of materiality, and their transience. Paradigmatic reality is objective because it is felt and seen by many people, or could be, while paradigmatic unrealities like dreams or hallucinations are by definition subjective, being internal to the dreamer or hallucinator. In part the objectivity of reality is caused by its materiality and endurance: reality is hard and lasting while unreality is soft and fleeting. To find out whether you are dreaming you pinch yourself, and test the hardness of the world you are in. Reality bites. Even the social world is hard when real.

     

    As I am using it, robustness is a close kin to endurance and objectivity. Robustness is the ability to persevere through a variety of contexts and circumstances. The distinction between experimental artifact and experimental reality is usually made in terms of robustness. It is also a criterion we might use to discover the reality of various parts of the social world. Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann create a unitary definition of social reality around robustness when they say that what is real is what cannot be “wished away” (3); a related unitary definition is that what is real is “what resists all attempts to change it” (Taylor 353). Although I would reject all such unitary definitions, they can be put to use in the creation of a more multi-dimensional picture.

     

    Manipulable, interactive

     

    Both manipulability and interaction are characteristics that VR designers have attempted to build into their systems. All VR takes as a central goal the manipulation of the virtual environment, usually through direct bodily contact. In this it corresponds to phenomenologists’ descriptions of everyday reality. Schutz, for example, calls that reality “a world of working” because it is manipulable, even while it offers resistances. And part of working is working with other people, who are treated as actors in their own right. It is clear that VR should ultimately be multi-user: almost from its beginnings VR’s ideals have included the possibility of multiple users interacting–virtual sex, the safest of sex, is at the forefront of the public imagination of VR. The Reality Built for Two system attracted so much attention because it was a step toward multiple user VR, even while it was expensive (originally US$430,000) and limited. Of course, letting human interactions into one’s picture of reality complicates matters, because it simultaneously makes the reality that VR tries to simulate richer, and, following Vivian Sobchak, draws our attention to the escapism implicit in VR euphoria.

     

    Natural

     

    A somewhat more tricky criterion of reality is naturalness. Middle-sized natural objects such as rocks, trees, and flies are paradigmatically real things, and thus Samuel Johnson didn’t kick a wall in his attempt to pragmatically refute skepticism about material reality, but rather a rock. A real friendship is one that is natural, not forced. The real color of one’s hair is its natural color, before dyeing, tinting, and highlighting. When we contrast a real phenomenon with an experimental artifact we are aiming at naturalness, because although in the laboratory everything is artificial some things are taken as standing in for nature. And when Baudrillard and Woolley respectively celebrate and lament the passing of reality it is in part because of the increasing artificiality of our world, the increasing extent to which everything around us is human-made.

     

    Systematic

     

    We speak of different worlds having their own rules. Therefore I want to end my list of characteristics of reality with a Platonic insight, the insight that reality has qualities of coherence and interconnectedness, or systematicity. It is systematicity that allows us to talk of a reality or a world, for otherwise what would hold it together? This may seem odd, because we don’t necessarily experience our everyday reality as systematic. In the context of VR Brenda Laurel says, for example, that “the well-designed world is, in a sense, the antithesis of realism–the antithesis of the chaos of everyday life” (Pimentel and Teixeira 157). Yet despite this, design is precisely what Laurel recommends being incorporated into VR and more mundane computer interfaces, drawing from the lesson of theatre (Laurel, Computers 125-61).

     

    Our paradigms of reality, at least since Darwin, are not designed but rather accrue through the workings of chance and mechanistic laws. Nonetheless, chance and those mechanistic laws lend our paradigms a coherence, if only a postulated coherence. Our world can look unified by accepted understandings and explanations of its current state, plus the understandings that we assume could be available. It is partly for this reason that Woolley is attracted to mathematical physics as picking out and describing what is most real: physics claims to present a coherent picture, giving us a relatively small number of rules or laws under which our universe operates, and claiming that those rules are in some sense fundamental.

     

    Conclusions: So what about VR?

     

    VR promises to have many of these properties of paradigmatic realities. The effort to create three-dimensional worlds is at present what defines VR research. Researchers also hope to make these new environments immediate and engaging. At least some versions are already interactive and manipulable. Most VR will probably be quite systematic, stemming from relatively simple models, conceptions, and programs; the aesthetics of virtual environments also do not encourage contradictions. VR is objective in the sense that one virtual environment can be experienced by many people, though it is questionable that it is objective in the sense of existing in the absence of any perceivers. Yet VR is not natural or material–the point is to create an illusion of materiality–and lacks endurance in its dependence upon equipment which are external to the system. The reality of VR, then, depends upon our emphases, and upon how we are willing to project the notion of reality. For many contexts it will be perfectly reasonable to claim that VR researchers are in the business of making realities, but for some others we will want to deny exactly that.

     

    One of my points here is to take the focus off particular characteristics of reality, such as materiality, three-dimensionality, and authenticity. I want to distribute the burden of reality more evenly. For example, if we focus on immediacy and engagement, three-dimensionality appears as one tool to these ends, though perhaps not a particularly interesting one. A child with Nintendo demonstrates that three-dimensionality is hardly needed for total absorption or capture. Super Mario Brothers can capture you and take you to a fantastic world, with no more than a 2-D screen and a joystick. (As I write this, however, Nintendo is introducing “Virtual Boy,” which extends Mario’s environments to three dimensions. The player’s motions still have to be translated through a joystick and buttons, and therefore to enthusiasts the set would not qualify as a step towards VR; it merely adds a third dimension to a video game.) Quite often, film-makers capture audiences in their fictions, allowing viewers to forget the cameras, sets, and other scaffolding that hold up filmic worlds. But the point can be made without any such sophisticated equipment. A chess player explores a completely irreal, artificial environment–an idiosyncratic, spare, finite, geometric battlefield–and can become completely engrossed in the events. What is fascinating about 3-D in virtual reality is not 3-D itself, but rather the surprise of it; we are amazed by the technological prowess. In this respect it is not the realism of virtual reality that impresses, but its artificiality. Baudrillard makes a similar point, though for very different reasons: “why would the simulacrum with three dimensions be closer to the real than the one with two dimensions? It claims to be, but paradoxically, it has the opposite effect” (Simulacra 107).

     

    If my account is roughly right, then the geometry of reality is complex. If they are planes, for example, realities intersect at multiple points not always on straight lines, although some realities may intersect nowhere even while they are not neatly parallel. The planes are given coherence by some combination of characteristics, which may not be put together in exactly the same way as those of any other plane. We can extend the scope of these planes simply by manufacturing more of the stuff that makes them up, a new bit of culture, a new gadget, a new plot twist, and so on. But we are not confined to old realities, because we can make new ones by analogy–perhaps VR is one.

     

    VR does not in itself threaten more standard realities, contrary to claims made by Druckrey and others. There have always been multiple realms that could be realities, including social realities, mathematical realities, and other structures that are robust and systematic. Such realities can coexist. At the same time, they are not entirely separable, because work in one or another of these often will have substantial effects on others: our physical landscape, for example, is shaped by its being also a terrain of social interactions. Realities and the structures that make them up can leak into one another. Thus VR, and cyberspace more generally, may have concrete and profound effects on other realities, as Zizek claims. But it does so as a virtual(2) reality, not as a virtual(1) reality.

     

    I should now correct my opening claim. Right now virtual reality is a wonderfully successful misnomer. To the extent that VR is reality, there is little virtual(1) about it. Given enough time we might create environments that would be correctly called virtual(1) reality–environments that are in effect real but in some way unreal, environments that are deceiving simulations of pre-existing realities–but for the moment that seems both unlikely and relatively uninteresting. More fruitful, it seems, is to use computers and VR technologies to create new realities (virtual(2) realities), not to simulate old ones.

     


    *Thanks for commentary go to Laura Murray and three anonymous reviewers for this journal. Thanks for generous support goes to the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada.


     

    Works Cited

     

    • Austin, J. L. Sense and Sensibilia, Ed. G. J. Warnock. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1962.
    • Baudrillard, Jean. La guerre du Golfe n’a pas eu lieu. Paris: Galilée, 1991.
    • —. Simulacra and Simulation. Trans. Sheila Faria Glaser. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1994.
    • Benedikt, Michael, ed. Cyberspace: First Steps. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991.
    • Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday & Company, 1966.
    • De Kerckhove, Derrick. The Skin of Culture: Investigating the New Electronic Reality. Ed. Christopher Dewdney. Toronto: Somerville House Publishing, 1995.
    • Druckrey, Timothy. Introduction. Culture on the Brink: Ideologies of Technology. Eds. Gretchen Bender and Timothy Druckrey. Seattle: Bay Press, 1994. 1-12.
    • Eco, Umberto. Travels in Hyper Reality. London: Picador, 1987.
    • Furness, Thomas A., III. “Fantastic Voyage.” Popular Mechanics December 1986: 63-65.
    • Gibson, William. Neuromancer. New York: Ace Books, 1984.
    • —. “The Winter Market.” Burning Chrome. New York: Ace Books, 1986. 117-141.
    • Heim, Michael. The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality. New York: Oxford UP, 1993.
    • Lanier, Jaron, and Frank Biocca. “An Insider’s View of the Future of Virtual Reality.” Journal of Communication 42 (1992): 150-72.
    • Laurel, Brenda. Computers as Theatre. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1991.
    • —. “Toward the Design of a Computer-Based Interactive Fantasy System.” Diss. Ohio State University, 1986.
    • Leifer, Larry, Machiel Van der Loos, and Stefan Michalowski. “Telerobotics in Rehabilitation: Barriers to a Virtual Existence.” Presented at the Conference on Human-machine Interfaces for Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, Santa Barbara, CA, 1990.
    • Morse, Margaret. “What Do Cyborgs Eat? Oral Logic in an Information Society.” Culture on the Brink: Ideologies of Technology. Eds. Gretchen Bender and Timothy Druckery. Seattle: Bay Press, 1994. 157-89.
    • Pimentel, Ken, and Kevin Teixeira. Virtual Reality: Through the New Looking Glass. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993.
    • Rheingold, Howard. Virtual Reality. New York: Summit Books, 1991.
    • Schutz, Alfred. The Problem of Social Reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1962. Vol. 1 of Collected Papers.
    • Sismondo, Sergio. Science without Myth: On Constructions, Reality, and Social Knowledge. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1996.
    • Slouka, Mark. War of the Worlds: Cyberspace and the High-Tech Assault on Reality. New York: Basic Books, 1995.
    • Sobchack, Vivian. “New Age Mutant Ninja Hackers: Reading Mondo 2000.” Flame Wars: The Discourse of Cyberculture. Ed. Mark Dery. Durham: Duke UP, 1994. 11-28.
    • Stone, Allucquere Rosanne. “Will the Real Body Please Stand Up?: Boundary Stories about Virtual Cultures.” Cyberspace: First Steps. Ed. Michael Benedikt. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991. 81-118.
    • Taylor, Peter. “Co-construction and Process: A Response to Sismondo’s Classification of Constructivisms.” Social Studies of Science 25 (1995): 348-59.
    • Virilio, Paul. War and Cinema: The Logistics of Perception. Trans. Patrick Camiller. London: Verso, 1989.
    • Woolley, Benjamin. Virtual Worlds: A Journey in Hype and Hyperreality. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
    • Zizek, Slavoj. Tarrying with the Negative: Kant, Hegel, and the Critique of Ideology. Durham: Duke UP, 1993.

     

  • Cyberbeing and ~space

    Alec McHoul

    School of Humanities
    Murdoch University
    mchoul@central.murdoch.edu.au

     

    Shipwreck in Cyberspace © 1997 John Richardson & Peter Stuart, used by permission

     


     

    Does cyberculture–along with its new forms of equipment and, consequently, its new modes of relating to equipment–constitute a distinct and different way of being in the world from ordinary everydayness? In other words, is there a distinct mode of being peculiar to the “cyber”? Is there cyberbeing? This paper sets out to investigate this possibility, beginning with an outline of Heidegger’s concept of Dasein and moving on to look at the changes and modifications to his account that might need to be made in order to distinguish something like cyberbeing.

     

    For Heidegger (Being), what is fundamental to being-in-the-world is that we understand as. But this does not mean: objects exist primordially in themselves as pure presence and we, subsequent to that sheer presence, come along and, as it were, throw an understanding over them. Presence and understanding are not like this. What are they like?

     

    The first given of what-is is that it is part of, roughly, human socio-cultural being (or Dasein). What can be in this respect is, initially, of two kinds. The first is what is ready-to-hand (Zuhanden) as opposed to the second, what is present-at-hand (Vorhanden). What is ready to hand is part of the everyday world of practical activity and consists of equipment (hammers and promises, for example–but also the familiar means of using them). It consists of tools and methods. These come first. What is present-at-hand comes later and is only one particular way of using what is ready-to-hand: it is what comes to count as natural, objective and beyond the field of human concerted actions. In fact it is what the picture in the paragraph above mistakenly thinks of as coming first: natural, primordial, independent entities subject to such things as scientific inquiry.

     

    Two ways of being then: the ready-to-hand (cf. “culture”) and the present-at-hand (cf. “nature”). But prior to this, as we have seen, is another which Heidegger calls Dasein. Dasein is, loosely, human (as opposed to natural or equipmental) being. More precisely, it is “a being of the same ontological sort that we are” (Okrent 3). And it is ontologically prior to either Zuhandenheit or, naturally, Vorhandenheit. However, Dasein’s unique capacity is that it is the only kind of thing which is ontologically constituted such that it can work with what is ready-to-hand (in order to produce, for example, what counts as “natural” and apparently, therefore, primordial). The mistake in philosophy, or indeed in any kind of inquiry, is to begin with independent entities present-at-hand–with what might be called the merely “occurrent.” Adopting Dreyfus’s terms then, we can think of Dasein’s primordial concern with what is ready-to-hand as “availableness,” and its subsequent concern (on top of this primary layer) with what is present-at-hand as “occurrentness” (Dreyfus xi). According to this vocabulary, what is available (tools and methods) must always precede what is occurrent (apparently natural facts).

     

    These then are the main categories of being (cf. Brandom). But we have already said that the involvement of Dasein in availableness is understanding and that understanding is always understanding as. Obviously, if availableness precedes occurrentness (and can perhaps be said to produce it), then understanding, as the first involvement of Dasein in the world, cannot be something, as it were, “naturally given” to it. It cannot have to do with a mind or a consciousness, or with subjective mental states. It must have to do with Dasein’s dealings with availableness: equipment.

     

    To understand, then, is to have appropriate dealings with equipment, with tools and the methods of their use. These tools are part of the ordinary organized social fabric in which Dasein finds itself. Dasein always already finds itself amidst tools: communally sanctioned things for doing things, and ways of doing those things. When it uses equipment in the way that we all do and in the way that we all recognize as appropriate for the task in hand, and in a way which is competent for that task in hand, we say that Dasein understands.

     

    So in this account of being in the world, there is intention to be sure. But to be an intentional agent, as Dasein, is not to have a certain mental orientation towards the world and its ways. Rather it is to be a certain kind of ordinary and organized practice. Therefore Dasein does not have to do with any individual or independent actor and his internal mental states. That idea comes out of the wrong view of things that is sometimes called “representationalist” or “Cartesian.” On that wrong view there are, on the one hand, non-human objects in the world (“reality”) and, on the other, an ego or consciousness that has to apprehend them in some way: hence intention is the state of consciousness that one of these beings (the human/subjective) has towards the other (the natural/objective). On the Cartesian-representationalist view, intention bonds the subject-thinker to the object-existent.

     

    Against the Cartesian picture, we can say that understanding is a question of knowing how to do something or bring something about rather than a question of knowing that something exists or has such-and-such properties. Dasein can do this latter: it can make interpretations of what is occurrent–but it can only do so as a function of its operations with (its understanding of) what it has available. So understanding is, effectively, a kind of mastery. As Heidegger puts it: “In German we say that someone can vorstehen something–literally stand in front or ahead of it, that is, stand at its head, administer, manage, preside over it. This is equivalent to saying that he versteht sich darauf, understands in the sense of being skilled or expert at it, has the know how of it. The meaning of the term ‘understanding’…is intended to go back to this usage in ordinary language” (Basic Problems 276).

     

    Now implicit in all of this is that Dasein is always already social. It is in fact something more like “membership” than it is a “person” (who happens, after the fact of his personhood, to be included as a member). Dasein begins as membership and any particular Dasein-like thing is never not a member. In this sense Dasein cannot be separated from being-with (Mitdasein). Being-with is the social and there is no prior form of being that being-with is made up of. It begins (and may indeed end) that way. In this sense understanding is no more than how it is that any particular Dasein displays (or, for example, accounts for) its being-with.

     

    How does this practical understanding operate? In any practical activity, what is done is done for something. It is done for and goes forth or forward into some further practical activity. Hence I cut down a tree in order to get wood for the fire. The first activity produces the effect of the second. But the second activity (making the fire with the chopped wood), insofar as this is what my Mitdasein routinely does in order to warm itself, makes the first intelligible. In this sense, practices are articulated with one another and cannot be separated and inspected for their competent understandings as stand-alone affairs. I have shown one kind of competence when I select an axe for the chopping, another when I swing it in the right way so as to fell the tree, another when I cut the tree up appropriately for use in a domestic fire (which might involve leaving it to cure, for example), another when I use the wood for making a fire (rather than building a roof), another when I lay the fire properly so that the house is heated, and so on. There is a relational totality here which has nothing to do with my individual actions alone. This totality is a whole that precedes the sum of any actual empirical practices. It might be called the “plenum” or “gestalt” of practical competence. Insofar as I orient myself in the course of that plenum or, as Heidegger calls it, a “functionality contexture” (Bewandtniszusammenhang), I can be said to have understood. So understanding is always subject to a practical “as” structure, where the “as” marks an actual orientation to the ready-to-hand.

     

    In one sense, then, we might talk about the production and the recognition of social practices as constituting understanding–providing we don’t assume that either of these terms requires a primary capacity for mental acts on the part of anything that happens to be Dasein. Production means practical activities with equipment and their recognizably competent use. And this recognizing is, as it turns out, understanding as. The recognition can be done by any particular Dasein itself or by another or others. Recognition, in this sense, is the property of the Mitdasein. It doesn’t involve seeing somebody doing something and, then, after the fact, turning inwards to see that the “mind” has registered it as in accord with some axiomatic rules for so-doing. Rather it is more-than-immediate. It consists in the very production itself as having been, all along, “how we do it.” So one understands a practical activity as what is recognizably competent “for us all.” The social world (the being-with) makes sense because (a) its actions are part of the plenum of competent actions and, which is the same thing, because (b) the methods for the production and the methods for the recognition of practical actions are identical. And those methods too are shared equipment.

     

    In some fields of the study of everydayness, the identity between production and recognition methods is called “reflexivity” or “incarnateness” (Garfinkel 1). What it suggests is that this is the bottom line for anything and everything about which ontological claims (claims that they have being of some kind) can be made. We might refer to it as the “self-sustaining” property of Dasein in its direct and reciprocal relation to availableness. Brandom refers, instead, to the fact that “anthropological categories” are “self-adjudicating” (387); Rorty refers to the fact that “social practice is determinative of what is and is not up to social practice” (356). These phrases suggest that whatever else might be a candidate ground for “what is social” (things such as “nature,” “topography,” “cultural attitudes,” “psychological dispositions,” “the economy” and so on) will in fact be effects of this primordial ontological (and not “merely” or secondarily social) condition of being in the world.

     

    But what about one such obvious candidate: the occurrent, the “natural,” the realm of things apparently beyond and outside the control of “man”–what Brandom calls “the objective, person-independent, causally interacting subjects of natural scientific inquiry” (387)? As he goes on to show, even this “noumenal” domain arises out of Dasein. It does so, he claims, by virtue of a fairly special (“theoretical”) kind of practical orientation to equipment. As we saw above, the appropriate use (appropriation) of equipment constitutes a practical understanding. In taking something as something, we produce-recognize it as the particular thing it is for ourselves (for everyone in the being-with). But what happens if, instead of appropriating the tool or method, we appropriate the understanding of it? Surely this understanding is just another set of practical affairs–in fact we said as much above. But in another sense, to appropriate the understanding itself is another order of affairs. In the first instance, Heidegger calls this “deliberation,” as a particular variety of interpretation (rather than as “understanding” as such; though, as we have seen, it is ultimately no more than a variety of understanding-as-practice). As Brandom puts it, “Interpretation at the level of deliberation adds to [the] use and appropriation of equipment, the use and appropriation of equipmental understanding of particular involvements” (400). In this case, where interpretation emerges from practical understanding, we have a means of dealing with what is occurrent (“present-at-hand”).

     

    This secondary relation is a particular kind of worldly operation and involves assertion. With the equipment of assertions (and eventually inferences from assertions) we do not simply do something with what is available, we are also able to say or state things about the occurrent. This is the kind of position we take when, for example, we don’t cut down the tree for the fire but, again for example, consider the general category of trees and make taxonomies; or when we begin a biological investigation of trees; or when we count how many there are in order to study an eco-system. In fact this kind of interpretation arises whenever our interests in something are no longer practical in the direct sense. Nevertheless, since this particular “tension” of equipmental use (the use of assertions and inferences) has its root in quite ordinary practice (such that it could not exist if there were no prior ordinary understandings to take as its own particular equipment), it is still a matter grounded in the self-sustaining, reflexive, or self-adjudicating common ground of all being in the world. While there may be a “practical indifference” (Brandom 406) towards such “theoretic” matters, their ultimate grounding in practice does not, thereby, disappear. The occurrent is, as we have noted, ontologically dependent on the available. This is why, when we forget that dependence, we can be misled into the strange game of thinking that the occurrent is the first of all there is. This is the mistake of “the doctrine of pure presence-at-hand (or, sometimes, ‘Reality’),” according to Brandom, who goes on to quote Heidegger as follows:

     

    ['Reality'] in its traditional signification stands for Being in the sense of pure presence-at-hand of Things....[But] all the modes of Being of entities within-the-world are founded ontologically upon the worldhood of the world and accordingly the phenomenon of Being-in-the-world. From this arises the insight that among the modes of Being of entities within-the-world, Reality has no priority, and that Reality is a kind of Being which cannot even characterize anything like the world or Dasein in a way which is ontologically appropriate. (Being 211, qtd. in Brandom 406)

     

    Theoretical inquiry is a routine property of social existence, in this sense–but it becomes problematic when what it discovers (the occurrent) is thought to be prior to what, ultimately, allows it to be discovered, namely, ordinary practical understanding. Hence “Discovery of the present-at-hand [the occurrent] is an authentic possibility of Dasein’sBeing, instantiated by all communities ever discovered. Pure presence-at-hand [occurrence] is a philosophers’ misunderstanding of the significance of the category of presence-at-hand, and a Bad Idea” (Brandom 407).

     

    This is a unique way of handling the variety of what is. It prioritizes the social (as Dasein and availability) over the supposed primacy of the natural (the occurrent). But it does not, for all that–and even though it denies “reality” a prior ontological foothold–lapse into relativism. This is not the thesis of the “social construction of reality” by any means. But what it does begin with, and what sustains it throughout, is understanding (and later interpreting) as. The “purity” of pure occurrence is, as it were, always “contaminated” by the “as” of ordinary practice. So the question that lies before us is no more and no less than this: is there, now, today, the possibility of an alternative to that “as”? I don’t mean, naturally enough, a reassertion of, or an insistence on, pure presence (primordial reality)–for as we have learned, that would only be another effect of the game with assertions, ultimately returnable to the “as” itself. What I mean is an alternative to understanding as, as a way of being in the world–perhaps some technological supplementation of the “as” structure?

     

    Let me propose, as an initial approximation, that there is now a determinate, viable and practical way of being with equipment predicated on something akin to–but, importantly, not quite the same as–understanding “as if.” “As if” would indeed be appropriate were it not for the fact that this tension of the “as”-structure marks the space of the virtual (as opposed to the sheer “as”-structure of the actual). In this case, something between “as” and “as if” marks an indeterminate space of the possibility of being. This is the space of cyberbeing: cyberspace. But this is not necessarily a fourth category of being over and above Heidegger’s three (Dasein, availability and occurrentness). Instead, what I want to propose is that cyberbeing is a new possibility of relations between these categories–or, more strictly, between Dasein and availability, with the effect that the occurrent takes on a slightly different ontological configuration (different, that is, from its grounding in the practice of assertion).

     

    Cyberbeing, that is, would constitute a new relation between human being and equipment, to the point where the two cease to be distinct ontological categories in the strictest sense. Dasein does not use cyberequipment in the way that it uses fishing hooks and aeroplanes. Rather the two engage in a mutuality of using and being used. This can be seen from the first moment of cyberequipmental engagement. Power has to reach a computer’s motherboard and its CPU in millivolts. Standard power outlets, however, range between 100v and 260v. In order to reduce the voltage, the computer contains a power supply device. This consists of, among other things, a board with its own chips. What if this circuit is damaged in some way? Strictly, the full force of the standard voltage should hit the motherboard and the CPU and “fry” it. But there is a fail-safe device. On the power supply board is a self-checking chip. It can determine whether or not the supply is ready to receive high voltage and is capable of reducing it to the operating voltage. But how does this part of the circuit perform these tasks prior to the mains voltage reaching it? What powers this part of the circuit? In fact, it requires so little power that it is able to power on from the current generated by the change in quantum state caused by the operator’s finger turning the power switch. In this way, the user’s body provides the power for the computer’s power supply to anticipate the upcoming mains voltage. There is, from the start (perhaps even before it) a mutuality between person and computer. It is this mutuality that is cyberbeing, and it is encapsulated in this metaphor of mutual switching, turning, relaying or flick(er)ing.

     

    In Heidegger, standard availability, readiness-to-hand or the Zuhanden involves Dasein in an actual relation to equipment: the “as”-structure. The Zuhanden is actual equipment and Dasein establishes itself in community-appropriate modes of articulation with that equipment. This is coping. Coping is actual-equipmentality in its everydayness. Against this actual we might pose the virtual. Here, equipment becomes intangible and its characteristic manifestations would be in art, fiction, poetry, and all the technologies of the imaginary whose mode of understanding is understanding “as if.” And, parenthetically, this is perhaps why Heidegger’s thought undergoes significant alterations when he considers this field in “The Origin of the Work of Art.” But we must pause here. For the cyber is not identical with the virtual or the equipmentality of the imaginary–despite current usage in such terms as “virtual reality” (VR) and so on. Rather the cyber’s unique equipmentality flick(er)s or hovers between the actual and the virtual, between the “as” and the “as if.” When I use VR equipment such as a headset and an electronic “glove” to play golf, my actual arm moves as it would when addressing an actual golfball on an actual course. However, in this case, there is no actual ball or golf links. Rather the sense of their immediate existence is generated electronically, virtually. That is, I address the ball as a ball but it has its being “as if.” The ensemble or gestalt that is the game of “virtual” golf actually circulates at rapid speed between the actual and virtual. The two are brought into a single equipmental space that is cyberspace. So, the cyber is neither actual nor virtual alone; rather it resides in the ranges of space between–spaces that are neither here nor there, present nor absent, material nor immaterial, “as” nor “as if.” To understand cyberbeing “as” would be to over-normalize it; to understand it purely “as if” would be to over-virtualize it. Instead, because cyberbeings rapidly fluctuate between these actual and virtual understandings, they may be said to have the characteristics once ascribed to ghosts. And here we might be reminded that today’s dominant computer interface, the graphical user interface, is usually abbreviated to GUI, which is roughly the equivalent of the Chinese word for ghost (Koh). Cyberbeing is gui, ghostly, or, to use Derrida’s term, “spectral” (Specters).

     

    To summarize: Dasein’s everydayness addresses equipment as actual. This provides the very conditions of possibility for the imaginary/virtual that is the space of artistic play. Between the two is an unbounded space that can be called the gui or the spectral. This is cyberspace, where cyberbeing resides–and cyberbeing is defined as whatever resides in this space. Accordingly, it is composed of a family of “games” or practices in Wittgenstein’s sense. There is not just one cyberpractice but many, though each is held together by a loose kind of family resemblance–and that resemblance is the unbounded or fuzzy space between virtual and actual. Cyberbeing’s characteristic is, then, indeterminate. It has no determinate characteristic (just as, for Wittgenstein, a family is not defined by each member’s possession of a single feature–eyes, nose, gait, and so forth). Rather the resemblance of cyberpractices is identical with the inclusion of whatsoever practices in the space of cyberbeing, between the actual and the virtual. This “between” means that cyberspace is not a set, a category or a genre. Rather it is a disposition of spectral possibilities: neither actual-solid nor virtual-spirituous, but gui (gooey?). Some such practices would include:

     

    •      Cyber environments or spectral architectures where actual building materials combine with virtual surfaces to create possibilities of bodily and disembodied movements through a mutually doubled space.
    •      Cyber performances such as those of the artist Stelarc, who augments his body with invasive electronic prostheses–or, rather, augments electronic devices with the prosthesis he calls his “body”–and who occasionally connects those devices to the Internet so that remote users can make the body-machine move. {Go to Stelarc’s site}
    •      Dildonics: couplings of devices and human-body movements and reactions that might be said to “simulate” sexual activity, were it not for the fact that this is not so much a simple simulation with inert equipment (such as sex toys) as it is a relation between different bodies’ erotic capacities and the possibilities opened for them by the limitless space of the spectral.
    •      Electro-luminescent fibres (ELFs), which are used to cover the body somewhat like clothing. However, unlike the standard equipment of clothing, ELFs alter unpredictably on the basis of small charges given out by the body itself. The ELF then is more a SELF (spectro-electro-luminescent-fibre) than an inert addition to a body from which it is separate.
    •      Haptics: This includes devices such as the Phantom, invented by Massie and Salisbury at MIT. By rapidly generating and receiving up to 1000 messages per second in a feedback loop, the Phantom is able to simulate events beyond the two-dimensional visual range that is common to ordinary graphics. This allows its operators to effectively see in three dimensions and indeed to “touch” computer generated objects.
    •      Games: sometimes called “electronic” games or “computer” games, though the term is misleading and a hangover from pre-spectral thinking. Whether combined with VR technologies or not, games in cyberspace are more like interconnections and passages between humo-machinic “players.” They exist in and as these interconnections and passages rather than in the “liveware,” “hardware” and “software” that they bring together. And this is because their “rules” reside in these hovering interstices: rules that have the peculiar property of being able to alter according to the unpredictable course of play.
    •      Hyperlinks, hypertext, hypermedia: The “hyper” is only one, and perhaps a relatively unimportant, member of the family of cyberpractices. Although it was early on the scene, it maintained close links with pre-spectral forms of equipmental engagement (such as the book and, in particular, the dictionary and the encyclopedia). It was in fact a prosthetic look-up device which differed from pre-spectral look-up devices only by virtue of its ultimately digital makeup. It, in fact, provides a good demonstration of how the cyber is not coterminous with the silicon-digital (any more than Dasein is coterminous with the carbon-analogue).
    •      The Internet: here the merely hyper becomes potentially cyber since, with the indefinite nodal linking of hyper-media phenomena, truly spectral possibilities can arise. A hyper-link is merely digital. But a web of hyper-links is one constituent of the spectral–at least in potentia. That is, certain features of the Internet retain pre-spectral forms of equipmentality, e-mail being a case in point. With e-mail, we have all the familiar territory of senders and addressees, letters, mailboxes, forwarded copies, enclosures and attachments. E-mail, like ordinary mail, operates in a plane and merely substitutes, electronically, for movements that would occur on that plane anyway. As e-mail documents come to contain relative and absolute hyper-links, however, they move away from their position as a minor supplementation of the plane of written linguistic communication. They leave open, as do all webbed entities, the possibility of unforseeable coming-and-going, being-here-and-being-there, travelling without given destinations, virtual-actual transitions and the rest of the manifold ways of describing cyberbeing and ~space. What moves is no longer “information” along a “highway” (these terms are inadequate metaphors drawn from the forms of actual being which cyberbeing prosthetises). What moves on the web is the movement of the web itself. Its motion creates the sites that it is possible to move to. This deletes the distinction between space and matter that is so crucial to everyday thinking. On the web, space “informs” matter how to move and matter “informs” space how to shape itself.
    •      MUDs and MOOs–“Multiple User Dungeons/Dimensions” and “MUD: Object-Oriented”–are spectral environments where constructed identities can meet and interact. The features of the identities are not determined by those of the persons who are said to “interact” or “communicate” “via” MOOs. Rather they are doubly actual-virtual, so that these constructs can operate and cope as a community in spectral space to create further spectral spaces or objects. They might produce only possible conversations, but they might also produce possible works of art, softwares, parties, games, recipes, tools, music and so on.
    •      Norns or “virtual pets” have their origins in the quasi-spectral discipline of artificial life (A-Life) and begin as clusters of digital-genetic code (or “eggs”) that then “grow” according to less than predictable inter-effects between their code and that surrounding them in cyberspace. While their existence in A-life-based games relies on metaphors of “birth,” “development,” “nurture,” “death” and so on, the important characteristic of this member of the family of cyberpractices is that it actualizes cyber-variants of these aspects of biologically-based life, adding to it and taking away from it (in the way that Stelarc adds his body to the Internet so that it is the body that becomes parasitic rather than vice versa). Norns are less artificial life than they are prosthetic life (cf. Wills).
    •      VR equipment, as we have seen, is not strictly virtual. Rather it is virtual-actual. With it, the body supplements both electronic equipment and the imaginary spaces and possibilities it can generate; and at the same time, the equipment and its imaginary supplement the body. It is this mutual relay that, as we have seen, is the space (or spacing) of cyberbeing.

     

    This is only a brief list of possibilities, to be sure, and no doubt many other instances can be found. What we do need at this point, though, is a general understanding of the being of (these instances of) cyberbeing. One way of approaching this would be to see how the Heideggerian notion of equipmentality overlaps with (or is supplemented by) Derrida’s position on supplementation. From there, we can begin to see at least three aspects of cyberbeing itself: its relation to techno-moralities (positive and negative); its status as a highly unique meta-technology; and its particular way of generating or producing occurrence (which seems to be quite distinct from Dasein’s assertional-propositional mode).

     

    Equipmentality in Heidegger is taken up by Derrida (Grammatology 144-157) as the supplement, in the following sense. With Heidegger, Derrida holds that being cannot be simply present to itself. It does not have the characteristics of a “reality” as pure presence. Rather being’s equipmentality is the condition for the real, the present-at-hand, the occurrent. For both thinkers, then, there is no being pure and simple. Rather there is always and necessarily a “contamination”–something impure adding to and taking away from whatever precedes it as a form of being. And this adding and taking is never not in process: so we can only dream of a pure being without supplementation, without the prosthetic, without some form of equipmentality. Being has no “first” supplement, only chains of supplementation, always already in process; and so there is, strictly, no outside to the prosthetic or equipmental character of our being. At each point along these chains of prosthetization, it always only looks as if the prior technology were “more human,” “more authentic.” So, in the famous case, Plato derides the technology of writing for its negative effects on the natural human capacity for memorizing. In the nineteenth century, the streetlight was thought to corrupt the morality of the urban populace, to destroy its natural distinction between day and night, work and rest. Now computers are supposed to be destroying our natural capacities to read books, to be literate. This is one moral axis that appears to be given off as technologies come into historico-supplementational relations with one another. It sees the replace-ative aspect of the supplement and represses its cumulative aspect. At the same time though, another moral axis works in the opposite direction: writing increases the distances over which communication takes place; it opens the space of democracy and reduces the grip of the priesthood on access to knowledge. Streetlighting reduces crime and brings the leisure of the night out into the open, into a new community. Computers make instant connections to anywhere and reduce the home/workplace and work/leisure dichotomies altogether, freeing us in some sense from a long entrenched mode of production. Two moralities, then, at each point when one technology’s “set” and another’s meet in a mobile ellipse of confrontations and agreements, breakings-away and comings-together. No point then in engaging in these as far as the cyber is concerned. The cyber, as a techno-prosthetic, can perfectly well generate its own moralities as part of its being. There is no place for the analyst here. So, accordingly, delete any “approval” or “disapproval” for the cyber you may have read here already or will read below. For the point is not to praise or condemn but to begin to think the ontological status of cyberbeing.

     

    Another characteristic of the elliptical spaces where technological “sets” intersect to produce “lines” of technological flight is that they are affected (perhaps even effected) by adjacent lines. Hence the printing press is affected by the adjacent technologies of the wine press, metallurgy, cloth-making, mercantile practice and education, among others. Likewise, the computer hybridizes the adjacent lines of higher mathematics and the chemistry of silicon, again among others. As these effects pass “vertically” into the transitional technological space, they make possible new forms of equipmentality. But the “revolutionary” instances do more than this. For example, the printing press (in its supplementation of writing and its hybridizing of wine-making, metallurgy, and the rest) is not only a model for all the forms of mechanical reproduction it foreshadows, it is also a means of distributing information about such means. Since it can generate identical copies of technical manuals and schematics, for example, it can ensure that close-to-identical forms of production can exist in spatio-temporally distant locales. The importance of the cyber in this respect–and here the consequences must be enormous–is that it supplements or prosthetizes Dasein’s very capacity to supplement or prosthetize. Printing is a meta-technology in a limited sense. It permits the distribution of the capacity to supplement Dasein. The cyber, by contrast, does not simply permit or facilitate this, it also carries it out. In making the cyber possible, we have made possible an equipmental formation of equipmentality. We have, in effect, made the distinction between “ourselves” and what we have ready-to-hand utterly indistinct. One morality, of course, will see, as ever, only loss of control and authenticity. Another will only see the opening of indefinite and, eventually indispensable, possibilities of being human differently.

     

    It follows from all of the above that Heidegger’s third category of being, the occurrent, the present-at-hand (or that which is mistakenly thought by some philosophers to be pure or primordial reality) cannot, in cyberspace, be a mere effect of the equipment called linguistic assertion. That is: if the “science” that Dasein generates is propositional, then the science peculiar to cyberbeing (its interpretation of the “real”) is anything but. The assertional-propositional stems from Dasein’s localization with and within the space of the actual. The imaginary-virtual had, all along, never operated propositionally. It always interpreted the real aesthetically, via various kinds of feeling and intuition “as if.” Even in Kant, these modes of interpretation were never thought to be properly propositional. But, for the cyber, things are different again. Hyper-links, software code, silicon chips, HTML scripts, digitized images and so on: all of these are subject to a definite logic. They are fathomable and controllable by assertional-propositional techniques. But where links move and go to, cumulatively; how software codes sit alongside potentially multi-millions of others (especially as mini-apps., Java applets and so on); how chips are placed in relation to one another through networked hardwares to form inter- and intra-computers with unpredictable capabilities; what HTML scripts can do and where they can take “information” into new contexts and combinations with unforeseeable consequences; how digitized images are recycled and recombined, distorted and warped, clarified and magnified, combined, overlaid and condensed: all of these are elsewhere than the assertional-propositional. They are not, in the strict sense, virtual; they offer no aesthetic or “intuitive” opening (or production) of the occurrent. Rather they de-assertionalize the present-at-hand. They loosen it from its moorings in logic and logistics; they generate it as more than an effect of pragmata. And if they “assert” at all, they assert between the “as” and the “as if”–so that the supplementational “between” (the supplement of cyberbeing’s meta-supplementation of Dasein) marks the indefiniteness of possibility as opposed to both the definiteness of ordinary, actual assertion and the infinity of virtual “intuition.” What we now–as cyberbeing–make, care for, govern and hold to be “beyond” us (as “presence”) we still make, care for, govern and hold, to be sure. But we now always do this under the aspect of sheer possibility and potential. Presence is neither asserted nor imagined; it is possible presence, presence-to-come. And the space of that possibility and potential is the spectral, gui, cyberbeing and ~space, itself.

     

    Works Cited

     

    • Brandom, Robert. “Heidegger’s Categories in Being and Time.” The Monist 66:3 (1983): 387-409.
    • Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Trans. Gayatri Chakravort Spivak. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1976.
    • —. Specters of Marx : The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and the New International. Trans. Peggy Kamuf. New York: Routledge, 1994.
    • Dreyfus, Hubert L. Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time, Division I. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1991.
    • Garfinkel, Harold. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1967.
    • Heidegger, Martin. The Basic Problems of Phenomenology. Trans. Albert Hofstadter. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1982.
    • —. Being and Time. Trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. Oxford: Blackwell, 1962.
    • —. “The Origin of the Work of Art.” Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings. Ed. David Farrell Krell. London: Routledge, 1993. 143-212.
    • Koh, J.F. Personal communication. March 1997.
    • Okrent, Mark. Heidegger’s Pragmatism: Understanding, Being, and the Critique of Metaphysics. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1988.
    • Rorty, Richard. “Wittgenstein, Heidegger and the Reification of Language.” The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger. Ed. Charles B. Guignon. New York: Cambridge UP, 1993. 337-357.
    • Wills, David. Prosthesis. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1995.
    • Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Trans. G.E.M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell, 1953.

     

  • Notes on Mutopia

    Istvan Csicsery-Ronay

    Science Fiction Studies
    DePauw University
    icronay@depauw.edu

     

    Mutopia

     

    People move. We become refugees from violence, and exploitation, and poverty, and boredom. This has happened before. But before, we believed we would settle, or resettle, or die trying. Now we go around and around. We no longer believe there is settlement. Painful for the Enlightenment, for the point of the freedom of movement was to arrive at a destination: an ultimate home better than the birth-home. And the Enlightenment was to bring the ultimate home even to the provinces. It worked so well that now, even when folks live in one place for generations, the world migrates under them. The differences that once were ideologized into essences or principles are recognized to be mutable. High-speed computer and communications technologies have linked different peoples so closely that only “irrationally” protected cultural secrets can survive becoming currencies and stories in the information market. Fill in your own CNNtelepoliticsGoldCardtransnationalfrequentflyerhomeshoppingworldbeatprogrammedtrading HungarianhiphopcrackinBenares story. Bet on it: your parody is empirical, prime-time, your high-rez muezzins chant “in the name of Allah, The Compassionate, the Digital.”1 This is the Age of Absolute Oxymoron. Hang ten, this is a big one.

     

    Mutability is no longer about the physical body’s sad corruption, nor about the freshness of the New Thing. Enter Tao, exit Reason. To live in this flux, Zen demands mu, “unasking the question”–for the question invariably asks to preserve the unpreservable, in language of the reified present. What shall we call our culture of coping in this tide of historical samsara? Let us call it: mutopia.

     

    The Mountain of the Night

     

    When wanderings on the smooth spaces become intolerable, survivors seek magic mountains; spaces that become mountains by rising suddenly; or villages that disappear down a dead-end branch.

     

    The central plateau of southern Africa was ravaged for most of the 1820s by vast hordes of displaced peoples wandering from place to place, pillaging and devouring others to survive. The greatest of these groups, Mantatee’s Horde, numbered over 50,000. A small Sutu clan, led by their young leader, Msheshwe, was forced out of its area.

     

    Msheshwe was appalled at the destruction by which he was surrounded, and alone refused to join in the general pillaging. He gathered his clan, perhaps 2,000 people, and led them south, to the foothills of the Drakensberg (his grandfather Peete was eaten by cannibals on the way), and here he found a most unusual mountain. Thasa Bosiu--"The Mountain of the Night"--was a flat-topped hill in a deep, hidden valley with 150 acres of good pasture and a spring on the summit. The plateau was surrounded by a steep scarp with only three access trails. Msheshwe established his clan on top and supplied each trail with enormous mounds of boulders, which could be rolled down to break up attackers. Perched on this stronghold, he formed the only island of sanity in a sea of madness, and over the years was able to build his clan into the Basuto nation. He pieced it together from debris cast up in the general havoc, offering succor to the fragmented groups that eddied and swirled through the foothills. His security was greatly enhanced by a carefully planted rumor that the mountain grew to an immense height at night and subsided to its normal 300 feet during the day.2

    Solvitur ambulando

     

    The past is the natural place to look for the seeds of utopia. The future writes its record into the past. First, idealize pre-industrial agriculture–organicism, closeness to the earth, stewardship, co-operation. When it turns out that agriculture inspires oppressive customs to order settledness, the quest is for hunter-gatherness–even closer to the earth, which h-gs do not try to transform, living in happy communication with the animals, on the borders of faery. But h-gs are inclined to become herders, pastoralists, and the question of turf perpetually incites war over property and grazing privileges. Nay, the very war-machine. Where to next? Neanderthals, perhaps, long maligned, but possibly gentle giants wiped out by aggressive Cro-Magnons (i.e., us). Or even the earliest hominids in the Olduvai Eden.

     

    Bruce Chatwin, in The Songlines, reconstructs the epitome of this mobile paleo-utopia in his account of the songlines of Australian aboriginal peoples. According to Chatwin’s story, these peoples map the whole of the continent in songs that are to be sung while doing walkabouts, solitary treks that simultaneously restore the physical memory of the land to the human mind and insure that the society of spirits is kept alive and in touch with humanity. Each social group has its own songs, marking its territory–but there are peaceable overlaps: to cross another’s territory one must learn that people’s songs, languages. In essence, the aboriginal songlines both describe and contain the earth. They are a form of ambulatory Aleph, existing without cities, walls, farms or war-machines. Scarcity produces plenitude–Chatwin’s is the acme of the idealization of the desert, where each stone and creosote bush has an individuality that also helps the human mind orient itself, locate itself, and by doing so gives the world a definite location. Plums do not drop into our mouths, as in paleo-Sumer or the Abyssinian garden. In the desert, creation and art are not gifts, but work–work with gifts.

     

    My father’s castle

     

    My father’s native village, Zala, lies five kilometers from Tab, in the southwestern Hungarian county of Somogy. To reach it from Budapest, one takes a train to the resort town of Siófok on Lake Balaton, then climbs onto a county local, and passes a dozen villages until reaching the town of Tab. From there one either waits for one of the intermittent buses, takes one of the town’s half dozen taxicabs, or just walks, altogether about eight kilometers from the Tab station to the center of Zala.

     

    On a fine summer day, it is a sweet amble. The region, the valley of Little Koppány river, is a country of high, wooded hills rising out of rolling wheatfields. The road, which runs west out of Tab, is hedged with lombardy poplars. Poppies bloom in the roadside ditches. The sky is dramatic, in a homely way; Adriatic breezes mingle with the easterly winds of Europe. It’s a shady region. Even in hot summers cool, dark woods are never far away.

     

    The road to Zala is a spur off the main road, a long cul de sac ascending gradually up a gentle hill, through the tree-dense village, to the wheatfields at the northern perimeter. The three hundred or so villagers live from farming, hogs, and the vineyards; many commute to Tab for work and school. The quiet is dense, a pleasant pressure, like the cool damp when a hiker suddenly descends into a dale. The sounds don’t vary: yelping dogs, the muffled snarl of motorbikes and tractors on distant hills, the comically rhapsodic song of European robins. Enormous trees cool the air, which is heavy with the scent of boxwoods. There are no stores, no advertisements, few signs of any kind. A bus-stop, a couple traffic icons, an emblem of the national nature conservancy, and a plaque identifying the museum of the 19th Hungarian artist, Mihály Zichy, who was the proprietor of this and surrounding villages for most of the last century.

     

    The museum is Zala’s only worldly attraction. A dozen or so tourists come per week. The Zichy museum occupies about a third of the long, L-shaped, one-story manor house, which the villagers call “The Castle”; it houses Zichy’s studio, many of his paintings and drawings, his library, and objects he collected in his travels. The rest of the building was the family’s living quarters, before it was expropriated by the Communist regime in 1947. Then it was a village-council headquarters, then a cultural center, and finally, it was left alone to house the museum’s caretaker in a benignly neglected rustic hermitage. That caretaker was the artist’s granddaughter, my father’s mother, and so my grandmother. The Castle was my father’s house.

     

    In Turkestan

     

    For Chatwin, the fall is simply the decision to migrate toward the garden, the oasis, the apple orchard. If you do not go way back to the songlines, finding one’s location becomes the model of abstraction. Gurdjieff describes something like this in Meetings with Remarkable Men, in his account of a journey to a secret monastery in Turkestan.

     

    In Turkestan there are many of these monuments, which are very cleverly placed; without them, we travelers would have no possibility of orienting ourselves in this chaotic, roadless region. They are usually erected on some elevated spot so that, if one knows the general plan of their placement, they can be seen a long way off, sometimes even from a score of miles. They are nothing more than single high blocks of stone or simply long poles driven into the ground.Among the mountain folk there exist various beliefs concerning these monuments, such as the following: that at this spot some saint was either buried or taken up to heaven, that he killed the ‘seven-headed dragon’ there, or that something else extraordinary happened to him in that place. Usually the saint in whose name the monument was erected is considered the protector of the entire surrounding countryside, and when a traveler has successfully overcome any difficulty natural to the region–that is, escaped an attack by brigands or wild beasts, or has safely crossed a mountain or river, or surmounted any other danger–it is all attributed to the protection of this saint. And so any merchant, pilgrim or other traveler who has passed through these dangers brings to the monument some kind of offering in gratitude.

     

    It became an established custom to bring as an offering something which, as is believed there, would mechanically remind the saint of the prayers of the person who brought the offering. Accordingly, they bring gifts such as a piece of cloth, the tail of an animal or something else of the kind, so that, with one end tied or fastened to the monument, the other end can flutter freely in the wind.

     

    These things, moving in the wind, make the spot where the monument is placed visible to us travelers from a great distance. Whoever knows approximately the arrangement of these monuments can locate one of them from some elevated spot and make his way in its direction, and from it to the next, and so on. Without knowing the general pattern of their arrangement it is almost impossible to travel through these regions. There are no well-defined roads or footpaths and, if some paths do form themselves, then, owing to the sudden changes of weather and the ensuing snowstorms, they very quickly change or are totally effaced. So if these landmarks were not there, a traveller trying to find suitable paths would become so confused that even the most delicate compass would be of no help to him. It is possible to pass through these regions only by establishing the direction from monument to monument.3

     

    In this remarkable fusion of geography and allegory, Gurdjieff describes what Chatwin might have considered the origin of the fall–attributable less to human sin than to the restive demons of geology who created mountains, the first of the striated spaces; for in the mountains, the subtlety of the desert’s immanence and the precision of the walkabout becomes the drama of quest, transcendence and abstract monumentality. The markers are memorials to beings who have negotiated terrific ordeals and who can be mechanically induced to protect travelers who are essentially aliens wandering in the mountainous void. No singers, no songs, no step-for-step tracing and recreation of the path. Here the path is contingent, no compass can help, only the marker-monuments flapping in the wind on the promontories can guide the traveler. Gurdjieff’s own spiritual journey is congruent with his physical one. The monastery is the reward for an arduous and mysterious journey. The utopian home must be earned, by quest and ordeal.

     

    Home is homelessness

     

    Utopias may depict smiling toothpastes, sex with commodities (commodomy),4 the perfect organization of time and production, Carmelites discussing Powerbooks, radios of enlightenment, solar-powered metropoli–but they are not the same as the idyllic Land of Cocaigne. Utopias are images of home attained through rational agreement, worked-for, not merely found or granted. Post-dysfunctional. The relationship between the laws or customs of utopia and the utopians is an image of the human family, liberated from feudal violence, the Church, capitalism, collectivism, military occupation, Oedipal miseries, the recursive archetypes of mythology played out generation after generation in most families. Utopias are the image of alienation overcome. So said Ernst Bloch:

     

    Humankind still lives in prehistory everywhere, indeed everything awaits the creation of the world as a genuine one. The real genesis is not at the beginning, but at the end, and it only begins when society and existence become radical, that is, grasp themselves at the root. The root of history, however, is the human being, working, producing, reforming, and surpassing the givens around him or her. If human beings have grasped themselves and what is theirs, without depersonalization and alienation, founded in real democracy, then something comes into being in the world that shines into everyone's childhood and where no one has yet been--home.5

     

    This is the vision of bourgeois happiness, the spiritual joy of the rationalist, the terminal of history’s line. Unlike the idyll, where childhood pleasures absolve folks of adulthood, mortality, responsibility, work, self-consciousness, self-discipline, utopia is the home of enlightened division of labor, of happy abnegation of narcissism for the higher joy of collective harmony. It is life under the good father, or the good family council. Work is not only necessary, it is the highest joy of creating one’s own home constantly–redeemed production-lines replace songlines. Bloch inverts the Freudian slander that utopia is merely the sublimation of infantile erotic fantasies; for Bloch, those fantasies are merely inadequately understood messages from the telos of human existence. Nostalgia is but the anticipation of home when found.

     

    The idyll, even if it is the seed of utopia, is an enemy. For the idyll obviates all work but the work to create its conditions; after that, it’s all automatic–nature will nurture us. Even so, without an idyll, utopia is nothing: without a model of nature “redeemed” by care, second nature cannot be imagined.

     

    Jocoserious

     

    The dialectic of Utopia depends on a concrete ambiguity, a double introjection. On the one hand, there is social criticism, the negation of current bad social organization; on the other, an alternative model. The reader/player should feel that both are positive, concrete commentaries on social conditions and social ideals–and so they should be taken seriously, applied to conditions outside the text. On the other hand they are also parts of an aesthetic game, a playful demonstration of the limits of the conception of the real, by showing some limits inscribed in the utopian paradoxes and oxymorons.

     

    Two visions correspond to Utopia: on the one hand, a free play of imagination in its indefinite expansion measured only by the desire, itself infinite, of happiness in a space where the moving frontiers of its philosophical and political fictions would be traced; on the other hand, the exactly opposite closed totality rigorously coded with all the constraints and obligations of the law binding and closing a place with insuperable frontiers that would guarantee its harmonious functioning.6

     

    So social criticism cuts against the aesthetic game, each undermines and complements the other, neutralizing and fusing at rapid intervals. Each of these attitudes vibrates in and out of existence. No utopia appears without it, though their constructors might wish them to.

     

    Utopias allow the aesthetic and political attitudes, which are usually mutually exclusive universes of discourse, to play with each other, to spin around, and spin with each other. (Utopias are partial to circular motions. A new traveler is expected to make a circuit.) They question each other, without resolving things. They do not, even so, freeze into a reified dualism, which would merely trivialize both the aesthetic and the political by showing how pretentious they are as attitudes, each pretending to be complete without the other.

     

    A utopia is extremely serious play. It implies that there is no reduction beyond tension, beyond vibration–and that social-political action (the correction of wrongs in reality, etc.) and aesthetic constructions are both required, and the desirable reality is the one in which both will be possible and inseparable. Utopia, consequently, is only imaginable when social-historical moments converge with artistic-historical ones, when political action and art are considered equally vital.

     

    Utopia is always vanguard literature, but never avant-garde. Vanguard because it uses the most advanced contemporary concepts, aspirations, and vocabularies–cultural, social, scientific-technological, historical. Not avant-garde because is strives for clarity in its concepts; it is impermissible to fog up the intellectual game of carrying ideas to extremes with the anarchy of innovative expressions. It is the monument of times when imagination is thought compatible with political language.

     

    Changing Utopia?

     

    Can utopia change? May utopia change? In that renaissance of utopian discussions of the ’60s and early ’70s, these questions haunted attempts to articulate the goal of social revolution. Many of us would spend days and nights listening to philo-utopians talking about “utopian drive,” “utopian impulse,” “utopian energies.” The idea of a community of reason without force was displaced into the deep inner zone, the good psyche, the good unconscious, where it became a version of the life-principle. This was supposed to be a gain, moving the focus of utopia from mechanical world-historical forces or the social laws that Reason impels us to obey, to the zone of self and desire. Individual agency was restored, and utopias increasingly seemed to be about the fulfillment of the deepest personal longings. Rather than seeking to attain harmony through a rational, disciplined repression of personal desire for the higher social good–secularized caritas and agape–as was characteristic of classical utopias, good was to come of the recognition that one’s personal desires are one with others’. The logic of desire might be mystical, or psychoanalytic or Rousseauian–but from wherever the apparatus was derived, this logic pointed toward some supra-dialectical point where reason and desire meet, and the parallel lines, so long separated by the evil petty lords, would embrace and celebrate their union.

     

    Classical reason was stable, steady-state, immutable. Even if one could not inhabit its steadiness in one’s mutable body, the classical rationalist could be sure that it would not change, by definition. But desire–Dionysus and Eros–is changing and changeable. If Utopia is to be built by the contractors of desire, what is to keep desire from changing instantly to something new, dialectically “other,” unanticipated, leaving the city of accomplished love as dead as Chaco Canyon? What limits could be justified without a police force, and ultimately a police state. When will the contractors ever complete the job and just let us move in?

     

    The ’60s was a period of bona fide utopian energy–hundreds of thousands of people were actively trying to imagine an ideal society–thousands of theories, theologies, housing arrangements, mass movements for social change were created, reflecting the proliferating multiplicities of desire, and not only in advanced capitalist societies. In this milieu, utopian writing became more self-conscious and self-questioning than it had been since More. Utopian themes brought about a renaissance of science fiction (SF); the dystopian tradition that had dominated Western social fantasy for half a century now gave place to moral fantasies that engaged the dystopian critiques, and tried to create images of drastic social progress that were neither naive nor cynical.

     

    The ironic, or meta-utopias tried to imagine how the worst sins of human social life could be redeemed, while simultaneously allowing for the very faculty that inspired utopian longing in the first place: the will to change. Looking back, few of the works described as utopian from this period still strike one as utopian–the usual suspects: Le Guin’s The Dispossessed, Delany’s Triton, Russ’ The Female Man, Piercy’s Woman on the Edge of Time and the others. They seem more stories about the difficulty of conceiving an organized, self-administered ideal society than images of consummated societies. But did they ever claim to do the latter? Where would these writers–women, gays, non-Europeans–turn for such images? The utopian heyday in SF was in fact on the cusp of mutopia, when voices that had previously been excluded and utterly de-differentiated in the classical utopias undertook to write the story from the outside, to demonstrate its limits.

     

    An artist of exile

     

    My father is not an ironic man. He has had two main goals in life: to represent high liberal ideals for his nation, and to preserve his ancestral home. Despite forty years of exile in the United States, he has done well. Though he was the last heir of the ancestral lands, in the mid-40s, he participated in a major land reform, keeping only three villages, two of which, Zics and Zala, were the ancient family seats. After the end of World War II, he joined the government that defeated the Communists in open elections, and he was imprisoned with the leadership when that government was overthrown in 1947. With my mother and sister (I was not born yet) he escaped to Austria, and after wandering through postwar Europe, eventually found asylum in the US.

     

    My father was not an immigrant. For forty years he lived in the US anticipating the political changes that would allow him to return to his home. For most of my adult life, I knew him as an artist of exile. He never adopted US citizenship, preferring to be stateless. He never bought a house. He remained current in Hungarian political matters, and instructed my sister and me in Hungarian language and culture, so that when we returned we would be able to take our “rightful place” in the Hungarian elite without missing a step. He vowed not to set foot in the land until the Russian occupation troops had left. In 1989 he returned after free elections had been held.

     

    He immediately set about realizing his two goals. He became actively involved in rehabilitating the memory of the 1945-47 democratic government, and he set about recovering his house, Zala.

     

    The axis

     

    The first records of Zala’s existence, and the presence of my father’s family, date from the last years of the 13th century, but historians have projected them back at least to the Mongol invasions of 1241 and probably to the Magyar settlement of the Danube basin in 896. One can surmise that the family has owned and lived on the land in this region for about a thousand years, surviving the Mongol, Turkish, Hapsburg, and Russian occupations, and many periods of domestic chaos. The Hungarian historical ideal, which is basically the self-image of the progressive nobles who constructed its dominant narrative, is balanced between pride at outlasting historical catastrophes, and pride at constructing vibrant modernities. Putatively, Zala was a quiet and excellent model that a great artist built against historical catastrophe through his art and his stewardship.

     

    An American homesteader may be absolutely devoted to his land because it represents his personal labor and independence. But to the heir of a thousand-year old property the feeling has little to do with labor, the body, with personal will. The place is a shrine to continuity, to endurance, which with time takes on the character of necessity, even fate. The heir becomes merely a vessel of the experiment in immortality. To break the link is inconceivably shameful. The village, land and house are vertical spaces, they extend through historical time, but their axis is stronger than a backbone. The most striking thing about Zala is its population of towering chestnuts and oaks. But progressives, beyond merely preserving the past, are expected to improve it. Putatively more important than economic innovations in farming techniques was the improvement of the national mentality, and Zichy performed admirably in this respect, turning the family’s endurance into art and worldly fame. For family, nation, and class, Zala is not only a physical location, but a representative one.

     

    Tired of trees

     

    Alternatively, the thousand-year old past is a haunting. To accept it is to be elected among the ghosts.

     

    To be rhizomorphous is to produce stems and filaments that seem to be roots, or better yet connect with them by penetrating the trunk, but put them to strange new uses. We're tired of trees. We should stop believing in trees, roots, and radicles. They've made us suffer too much.7

    Big Flood, Little Flood

     

    This is a story of patrimony and patriarchy. I do have a mother, whom I love, but hers is another story, a very different one from the one I must tell you now. Yet this is less a story of maleness as opposed to femaleness, fathers as opposed to mothers, landlords versus villagers, or the nobility versus the misera contribuens plebs, than it is about the desire to establish and hold onto a place of one’s own on the banks of a world that flows like a great stream, and the suspicion that the banks are merely slower channels of the stream.

     

    But I will tell this much. My mother was born in one of the smooth spaces, the northeastern edge of the Hungarians lowlands, where a tangle of rivers feed into the Tisza. Her father died when she was very young, and she lived with her mother and six siblings in a plain village within sight of the Carpathians. As a girl, she watched the rivers overrun their banks in a great flood, submerging villages, vineyards, orchards and forests for a hundred miles around. These floods were matters of legend. Villages are named for them: Big Flood and Little Flood, for example. Ever since, floods inspire special terror and pity in her.

     

    Taidu

     

    Like nomadology, utopia is also the opposite of history. Let’s be clear, utopia is the nomads’ dream world. Here are excerpts of Polo’s description of the new capital built by Kublai Khan, Taidu, the present-day Beijing.

     

    Taidu is built in the form of a square with all its sides of equal length and a total circumference of twenty-four miles....I assure you that the streets are so broad and straight that from the top of the wall above one gate you can see along the whole length of the road to the gate opposite. The city is full of fine mansions, inns, and dwelling houses. All the way down the sides of every main street there are booths and shops of every sort. All the building sites throughout the city are square and measured by the rule; and on every site stand large and spacious mansions with ample courtyards and gardens....Every site or block is surrounded by good public roads; and in this way the whole interior of the city is laid out in squares like a chess-board with such masterly precision that no description can do justice to it.8

     

    Kublai Khan had Taidu built from scratch, across the river from the old city, from which he had much of the population transferred to the new one. The palace at the center of the imperial city shows similar symmetry. What would possess the Khan of Khans, heir of Genghis Khan and ruler of the vastest, flattest empire in the world, the Nomad chosen by God, to build a city so geometrical, regular, abstract? I have only hypotheses.

     

    We know that the Central Asian nomads organized their armies according to strict symmetries of unit number, and deployed armies in all four directions. The Huns are even said to have color-coded their armies, with whole armies riding horses of the color appropriate to the direction against which they were moving. Like Assyrian cities, Taidu was built in the image of the camp.9 Clearly this is an aspect of the war-machine. At the same time, nomads of the smooth spaces were free to build cities according to whatever design they pleased. Thus they–the Uighurs, the Mongols, others–could construct cities that were already abstractions, perfectly imagined, since very little in the steppes’ topography would force constraints. Unconstrained, the despot-nomads created utopian cities in reality. They lacked only utopian humans.

     

    World Upgrade (was: Cyborg Dreams)

     

    The cyborg is the solidest citizen of Mutopia.

     

    It has been ten years since Donna Haraway published one of the most influential essays on the postmodern condition, “Manifesto for Cyborgs.” Haraway was able, as no one else on the Left was at the time, to make radical feminists and their allies aware that the staid dualistic categories of humanist moral-political analysis were fast becoming completely obsolete. In a world hellbent on universal upgrades and recombinations, it was no longer credible to oppose the natural, the organic, and the female, on the one hand, to the artificial, the scientific-technological, and the male on the other. Politics would have to be rethought to work with machines, and with the demolition of categorical distinctions between genders, between animals and humans, between artifice and nature. Accompanying the utopianism of science into the ash-can of history would be all salvation mythologies, with their mystical plots: from innocent origin (idyll) to Fall (history) to apocalyptic salvation (Utopia or Bust).

     

    The cyborg is a perfect mythology for generations that witness not only the collapse of the corrupt cloudcastle ideologies of the Western tradition, but also all memory of the moral advantages it might once have afforded through its conceptions of equality and empirical judgment. Haraway’s Manifesto does a little bit of warning about the dangers of the cyborg-economy, and a lot of magical encouragement about the way the new technologies will liberate women from the phallogocentric God-story. Fathers and The Father play a major role in Haraway’s deeply psychoanalytic reduction of Western history. She is a forerunner, unable to enter the cyborg Canaan because she remembers her Fathers too well. The cyborg descendants (of all genders, not just female) begin with a blue screen–oppressive patriarchal super-egos are so clearly absurd that the very idea of a legitimate patrimony is farcical to cyborgs and cyperpunks. Haraway did not know how weak the walls of Utopia were. For now self-conscious cyborgs are elected to high office, and the contest for bases on which cyborgs might judge good from bad has begun. There is nothing in the cyborg that pre-programs its judgment–not families, not schools, not nations, not even the desire for survival.

     

    To be at home in Mutopia is to be a cyborg. Haraway is openly ambivalent about the cyborg-persona: it is the agent of the high-tech war-machine (a nomad persona, in Deleuze-Guattari’s terms), but it is also utopian. Its utopia bypasses the wish for the idyll, for Zala, for Taidu:

     

    The cyborg does not dream of community on the model of the organic family, this time without the oedipal project. The cyborg would not recognize the Garden of Eden; it is not made of mud and cannot dream of returning to dust. Perhaps that is why I want to see if cyborgs can subvert the apocalypse of returning to nuclear dust in the manic compulsion to name the Enemy. Cyborgs are not reverent; they do not re-member the cosmos. They are wary of holism, but needy for connection--they seem to have a natural feel for united front politics, but without the vanguard party.10

     

    The cyborg is thus a networker, able to pragmatically interface with whatever port is deemed desirable and practicable at the time. In the continuum of mutations, what god will guarantee that any good choices will be made? No guarantees. So let’s cut the smart and happy talk. Down with the Old Flesh! Long live the New Flesh!

     

    For the past ten years we have been living in an ecstatic celebration of Mutopia, an orgy of initiation. Communications media are naturally inclined to celebrate it, since they are ostensibly its prime beneficiary. Politics, science, art all feel the tidal sway. No matter what fundamentalist jihad makes itself known, in the context of mutations it can only be a test, a thrilling agon in the headlong proliferation of moiré programs, infinitely expanding hypermedia of mutually interpenetrating operational structures. Capitalism obviously thrives, since high-tech permits the doubling and redoubling of the world in the form of electronic, “informational” commodities. Far from the commodomy of adtopia, consumers now can fuse with objects as Milton said angels do with each other.

     

    Three strategies dominate: forgetting utopia, seeking constant upgrades in order to participate in the General Upgrade, and negating the negation. To forget utopia, eliminate parents, teachers, nations, children, mates, villages and mountains, romances, all desire to escape history. Eliminate retarding identity. Upgrade reality with VR; upgrade technology with AI; upgrade the body with prosthetics, vitalizing drugs, and genetic engineering; upgrade sensibilities with Simstim; upgrade choice with the materialization of the imaginary. Upgrade life with the demolition of death.

     

    I am not much of a cyborg, here between the two stools of the bourgeois imaginary and the enchanted village of patriarchy. I do not think I will be able to cross over into the digital glow of the New Flesh. But I do not think I will die out. As the inventors of the future–Freud, Nietzsche, Marx, Darwin–are systematically hyperrealized, I find myself back with Kant the cyborg–who set his life to the Königsberg clock–asking the basic questions: what do we know, what should we do and what can we hope for?

     

    The third strategy in the Age of Absolute Oxymoron: vanish from the hype.

     

    My City Was Gone11

     

    The classical and medieval city was protected from the wilderness by its walls. Outside the fortifications were the wild things: panthers, bandits, demons, weather, witches at the crossroads, Dogheaded Tartars. Inside the walls human beings set up their second nature, an environment made in the human image, a secure system of shelter for production and consumption. Civilization is city life. The Mongols were accustomed to burn down the cities of those settled people who refused to accept Mongol hegemony, usually by firing flaming arrows and projectiles into the wooden edifices. Their success was drastically limited by stone fortresses.

     

    City walls are important for Utopias. Since it is important for them to be articulated from wild cities like New York or William Gibson’s Sprawl, utopias–and dystopias, of course, which are collapsed utopias–require travelers to negotiate high mountain barriers like More’s Utopia, or true walls, like the Green Wall of Zamyatin’s We, or internal walls, as in The Dispossessed, walls of time in The Time Machine or bubble-domes, like Triton. The utopian wall is like the archaic city wall. Ur was said to have walls 40 meters thick, Babylon had walls 25 meters high.12

     

    But notice how feeble the Utopian walls are, to the point that recent utopias seem to be more about the weakness of walls than their power to shelter the great experiment. Someone is always breaking through, transgressing, making an adventure of it. Some wild thing will eventually chase us through. Triton’s walls are breached repeatedly by the dystopian Earth, which is bad news on an airless moon. Shevek exists to breach the walls.

     

    There is no protection against the sky. Hiroshima’s rad-hot desert is the starting point of the mutopian city. The new nomads, they are us, for we prefer the smoothest of all spaces for our war machine–the sky. The nomad’s milieu is the unarticulated sky. What shall we do? Build cities in the plain? Retreat into cyberspace, the Metaverse, and rebuild encryption-walls there? Or will we determine walls are useless, and forget utopia? The walls of Ur had nothing on the television sky.

     

    Work and Net

     

    An important moment in the recent development of the rational deconstruction of “humanism,” i.e., the critical rationality of the Enlightenment, came with the formulation of the difference between a work and a text.13 Work, of course, was characterized by labor and all its historical contingencies, with mythologies of individuality, authorial proprietorship, the authority of origins, the mystery of special knowledge in a particular place–a fictional, quasi-place: the pages and lines of a “work.” Text was the entire symbolic domain seen as if from the perspective of Martian anthropologists with a collective mind, unable to and uninterested in making petty proprietary distinctions. Might as well study the Earth by transcribing all the deeds in all the Halls of Record. Text is the weave of all symbolic aspects, the tapestry, the net. The Net.

     

    When we read works of art and of humanist thought in preference to hypertextual flea-hopping on the Net we act as if we are those toga-clad utopian peasants discussing the categorical imperative while digging sewers of gold. To read a work is to think as a utopian. The utopian ideal of the Enlightenment was that each book should represent the rational-aesthetic design of the universe in the mind, and that all books together would create an even greater model. The closet utopian is the one who believes if she or he can only read enough of the best works, he or she will know the truth, and understand it.

     

    The library of books is the Enlightened Empire. As a graduate student I would sometimes dream of surviving a nuclear war by living with my fellow students in the underground floors of the university’s library, raising blanket-tents in the aisles, eating from vending machines among the like-minded, and with all the time in the world to read the books in my tent.

     

    When the Enlightenment had nothing more to undermine, when church dogma and bigotry, aristocratic and chauvinistic violence, bourgeois exploitation and ideology had withered before its arguments, it turned, as it always did, against the powers-that-be. But bourgeois democratic powers justify themselves through critical reason. So the Enlightenment began to undermine reason; and so, naturally, itself. That’s the breaks. Thus begins the end of legitimacy. What matters now is not the straightness and purity of connection, but how many things something can be connected to. The library of books gives way to the Net.

     

    Textual islands rise up here and there, archipelagoes of quotations, aphorisms, fragments, and we sail from one to another, trying to connect the dots, to get something sweet to eat, to make love in the shade. That is what I am doing here and now: hopping from island to island, lily-pad to lily-pad, oasis to oasis, enclave to enclave. I am anachronistic, but what counts is: I am quick.

     

    In Mutopia it is sometimes hard to justify atavistic “humanism”–code for intellectual conservatism. The “human being,” so clearly now part of a network of mutually intersecting forces, a moiré of rhythms, cannot justifiably hold on to the notion of an integral self, just as it must jettison fantasies of utopian earthly bliss. What then am I doing here, quoting and invoking the dead?

     

    This is good advice:
    watch yourself writ terribly small,
    like beetles climbing in the mowed-through thatch.14

    Heartland Artillery

     

    My father once told me: the only good reason to leave one’s home is artillery.

     

    I am sitting in my yard in Indiana. It is late morning, early summer, unusually temperate. Clear sunlight shines on maples and green-ash trees that rise up like ygdrasails, and filters through the leaves to the grass. The treetops sway against the blue. My back yard is a half-acre, enclosed by hedges of trees and dense shrubs. I have let whatever wants to grow, I just mow it at regular intervals to keep the peace. Violets have taken over a corner–I have been advised to extirpate them; I’m told they’re weeds. But they shimmer like nothing else in nature. Where the soil is exposed to the sun, the grass is long and rich, grazing material studded with wildflowers. Where the shade is heavy, there’s variety: subtle clumping mosses, crewcut grasses, wild onions, intermittent milkweeds. I have left clusters of grasses and flowers around the bases of the trees for the fairies.

     

    The cats are lolling in the dappled light. Redpoll finches tear through space like happily demented bullets. My young son’s baseball glove lies in the grass, palm up. “Homeowners” are mowing their lawns. Children are playing in the park court–American kids, booming dub, loud, coarse, obscene, insecure and confident at the same time, dunking and flirting.

     

    I “own” this micro-Arcadia. I am the first member of my family to have actually bought a family house; my progenitors always inherited them. I am, superficially at least, an American success. I have attained a good portion of the American Dream, the realized utopia. In this tucked away fold of the midwest, in a town of 8000, my academic salary allows me, mirabile dictu, to own this plot. The town is peaceful, white, solidly Republican. It is unlikely to be surrounded by tanks, or shelled. It is unlikely that the militia will occupy the courthouse. Our street is not on the July 4th parade route. It is one-way.

     

    For the denizens of the fold it is a green black hole; the suffering of Sarajevo, Cabrini Green and Chiba City are beyond the event-horizon. For those outside, it is a fortress, an idyll, a utopia, the VR-scenario of materialized delusion. The walls of privilege and exploitation are invisible in the achieved utopia. But in mutopia, all walls are weak.

     

    Aleph in Wonderland

     

    Calvino holds that utopian textuality collapsed, losing its power as a normative organized alternative to reality, falling into SF.

     

    The vision of a universal future has been diverted from political thought, and confined to a minor kind of literature, science fiction, though here, too, it is a negative utopia that dominates, a journey into the infernal regions of the future. Thus this way of writing, which aimed to extend its arrangement of signs even to the arrangement of things, has been taken prisoner by another literary strategy, which is more immediately effective emotionally: a story of distant wanderings and adventure that is capable of giving us rapid glimpses of tomorrow but has no power to change our way of living here in this world. Did utopia ever have this power? Certainly for Campanella it did, and maybe also for the outlandish Saint-Simonians of Enfantin. Actually to see a possible different world that is already made and in operation is to be filled with indignation against a world that is unjust and to reject the idea that it is the only possible one.15

     

    Classical utopia is what Marin calls a game of space. In his Marxian-structuralist mapping of More’s book, Marin describes the way Utopia plays off a certain allegorical imaginary construction of space in the early Explorations period. Later Marin will argue with Certeau that the true modernity of utopia is in the narrative movement across spaces coded to represent an ultimate oxymoron: an infinite horizon of possibility and an abject focal point of control.16 From this perspective utopias are merely logical-mathematical fantasy machines in which infinity is contained in a point. Utopias are Alephs.

     

    No one understood this better than Borges, whose work contains the black box where utopia becomes SF, and vice versa. Katherine Hayles has described his characteristic technique like this:

     

    His strategy is seduction, for he progresses to [a revelation of the essential fictionality of the real] by several seemingly innocuous steps. The first step in his strategy is to transform a continuity into a succession of points, and to suggest that these points form a sequence; there follows the insinuation that the sequence progresses beyond the expected terminus to stretch into infinity; then the sequence is folded back on itself, so that closure becomes impossible because of the endless, paradoxical circling of a self-referential system. This complex strategy (which may not appear in its entirety in any given story) has the effect of dissolving the relation of the story to reality, so that the story becomes an autonomous object existing independently of any reality. The final step is to suggest that our world, like the fiction, is a self-contained entity whose connection with reality is problematic or nonexistent.17

     

    Thus the sequence of history is extrapolated toward infinity: this is the dynamic “future” of SF, which then folds back onto the present, enclosing but also deforming the point of origin. Stanislaw Lem offers a complementary interpretation:

     

    [Borges] never creates a new, freely invented paradigm structure. He confines himself strictly to the initial axioms supplied by the cultural history of mankind. He is a mocking heretic of culture because he never transgresses its syntax. He only extends those structural operations that are, from a logical point of view, "in order," i.e., they have never been seriously "tried out" because of extralogical reasons--but that is of course another matter altogether.18

     

    Thus for Lem Borges cannot be a true writer of SF, because the structures he works his algorithmic transformational strategy on are entirely those of received “cultural-mythical sources.” The Borgesian fantastic is an always already completed library. The SF writer should know, according to Lem, that these structures “are on the decline, dying off as far as their power to interpret and explain a world undergoing further changes is concerned.” Borges cannot offer more than play “with the sacral, the awe-inspiring, the sublime and the mysterious [received] from our grandfathers.”19Lem concludes:

     

    Even this great master of the logically immaculate paradox cannot "alloy" our world's fate with his own work. He has explicated to us paradises and hells that remain forever closed to man. For we are building newer, richer, and more terrible paradises and hells; but in his books Borges knows nothing of them.20

     

    In his cyberspace novels, William Gibson transforms Borges’s Aleph from a subversive imaginary to a diminished, simulated utopia on the threshold of Mutopia. We see in the invention of cyberspace and the cyborg an extreme development of the infinite productivity of “reality” that Baudrillard associated with the second stage of simulation, the one he associates with SF; the sampling, doubling and recombination of real bits continues apace toward the fusion of mechanical and neural reconstructions of the planes of experience. When the algorithms of simulation are part of the phenomena folks experience, when we see them in the noisy treetops or the tatoos of raccoons, then we will have phase 3 in full, reality as virtuality, in which only Buddhists and Taoists, for whom stability was always an illusion, will find their footing.

     

    In Gibson, and in most cyberpunk SF, cyberspace remains an alien world. No matter how thrilling the ride of Neuromancer, Gibson’s protagonists serve alien gods. The console-cowboy Case’s famous rejection of the “meat” is a boy-thing, and it does not last. (We hear in Mona Lisa Overdrive that he has married and has four kids.21) The other rejectors of the meat-world in Gibson’s fiction either come back to the body, recognizing the value of mortality and limits, or they are limbic freaks who offer us no hopes (Dixie Flatline, Finn, Lise of “The Winter Market”). In Count Zero, even the remainders of Neuromancer‘s Meta-AI seek connection with the meat through a “biosoft” that leads to direct interface between humans’ organic brains and the computer-cores of the data-matrix. By the time we reach Mona Lisa Overdrive, such a biosoft offers the possibility of a concretely existing pocket universe, an Aleph, in which the whole of the matrix is reproduced microcosmically in a utopian register. But this Aleph, unlike the utopian imaginary of More and Borges, is a mortal body, powered by a battery pac on the drain.

     

    In Gibson’s cyberspace trilogy we can read a full Deleuzian historical dialectic of SF and utopia, replayed in the matrix. Neuromancer’s smooth space: Case the would-be nomad. Count Zero‘s colonial space: no longer a smooth grid with cities on the plain, the matrix is chunky space, inhabited by nodes of consciousness in a web. Like cyberfarmers the cybervoodoo spirits intentionally manipulate knots of energy, and indeed appear to be beginning a process of colonizing human space, “growing” biosofts and having them “planted” in brains like Angela Mitchell’s. By a not unusual reversal, Gibson has made these diasporan spirits of former enslavement the colonial masters of the new New World.22 The empty grid is gone; in Count Zero, cyberspace is folded and inhabited. The AI empire can collapse and fade from its internal stresses, but it is no longer prey to nomads. By Mona Lisa Overdrive, cyberspace has become a sea in which pocket universes float, with mysterious neural wormholes connecting them. The Aleph that Bobby Newmark steals from 3Jane Tessier-Ashpool is an ideal world created and maintained by technological means, it is neither smooth nor chunky, but involuted and hyperreal. There can be no more nomads, hence no more utopias, since containment is total. So total there is nothing outside the Alephs. But what if the Alephs began to move, what would space be then? At the end of Mona Lisa Overdrive, the protagonists of the three novels (Finn from Neuromancer, Bobby and Angie from Count Zero, the Aleph itself from Mona Lisa Overdrive) inhabiting the Aleph climb into a limo to make an obscure rendez-vous with a like-being, another Aleph perhaps, in the constellation Alpha-Centauri.

     

    Tai-Chi Chuan

     

    It is said that the Chinese martial and meditational art, Tai-Chi Chuan, was founded by the monk Chang San-Feng, who lived during the late Yüan Dynasties and the early Ming. By applying the Taoist principles of yin and yang, Chang created an art that used softness, resiliency and balance to defeat aggression. In one legend,

     

    [t]he Mongolian royal family of the Yüan Dynasty were hunting in the Wu-Tang Mountain as Chang was picking herbs to be used as medicine. He was quite aware of the Mongolians being good archers, but he did not like their pompous attitude. While he stood there watching, the Mongols ordered him to walk away. This made Chang angry, but he spoke to the prince with a smile saying, "Your highness hunts with bow and arrow; I use my bare hands." Suddenly a pair of hawks flew across the woods, and Chang jumped some several feet high and caught them. He dropped to the ground like a falling leaf, without making any noise. The prince was shocked. Chang placed the birds on each of his palms. No matter how hard the birds tried to fly, they could not lift themselves. Chang then said, "I have mercy on living creatures; I do not want to hurt the birds." As soon as he withdrew his palms, the hawks flew into the sky. One of the prince's followers was angry and drew his bow to shoot an arrow at Chang. The master opened his mouth and caught the arrow with his teeth; then holding the arrow with his index and middle fingers, he threw it towards a tree. "I have no need of any violent weapons," said he. The arrow struck and was buried deep in the tree.23

    Autopia

     

    The US is utopia achieved. We should not judge their crisis as we would judge our own, the crisis of the old European countries. Ours is a crisis of historical ideals facing up to the impossibility of their realization. Theirs is the crisis of an achieved utopia, confronted with the problem of its duration and permanence. The Americans are not wrong in their idyllic conviction that they are at the center of their worlds, the supreme power, the absolute model for everyone. And this conviction is not so much founded on natural resources, technologies, and arms, as on the miraculous premise of a utopia made reality, of a society which, with a directness we might judge unbearable, is built on the idea that it is the realization of everything the others have dreamt of--justice, plenty, rule of law, wealth, freedom. It knows this, it believes in it, and in the end, the others have come to believe in it too. In the present crisis of values, everyone ends up turning towards the culture which dared to forge ahead and, by a theatrical masterstroke, turn those values into reality, towards that society which, thanks to the geographical and mental break effected by emigration, allowed itself to believe it could create an ideal world from nothing.24

    Losing and Losing

     

    In my late twenties I lived in New York City. To cope with my suburban anxiety in the big bad city, I studied Tai Chi Chuan with a student of the great Professor Cheng Man-ch’ing. My adulthood began on those days, when I first heard the Taoist notion that my teacher sometimes called “investing in loss” and sometimes “learning by losing and losing.” Lao Tze says: “Yield and overcome.” The rule for thriving in Mutopia: losing and losing.

     

    Nostalgia for the Imaginary

     

    There is no real and no imaginary except at a certain distance. What happens when this distance, even the one separating the real from the imaginary, begins to disappear and to be absorbed by the model alone?It is at its maximum in utopias, where a transcendent world, a radically different universe, is portrayed (in all cases, the separation from the real world is maximal; it is the utopian island in contrast to the continent of the real). It is diminished considerably in SF: SF only being, most often, an extravagant projection of, but qualitatively different from, the real world of production. Extrapolations of mechanics or energy, velocities or powers approaching infinity–SF’s fundamental patterns and scenarios are those of mechanics, of metallurgy, and so forth. Projective hypostasis of the robot. (In the limited universe of the pre-Industrial era, utopias counterposed an ideal alternative world. In the potentially limitless universe of the production era, SF adds by multiplying the world’s own possibilities.)

     

    It is totally reduced in the era of implosive models. Models no longer constitute an imaginary domain with reference to the real; they are, themselves, an apprehension of the real, and thus leave no room for any kind of transcendentalism.25

     

    Utopia is followed by SF, the realistic projection of real conditions; then SF is followed by…what? The realistic production of utopian conditions? But if the utopian imaginary is infinitely removed from reality, what is a realistic utopian imaginary? Surely it is Virtual Reality. For VR is the domain in which the model creates the experience of reality without necessarily referring to, or using, stimuli from the raw real. Utopia has been replaced by the habitable paraspace of quasi-utopian VR.

     

    Like the European Jews of the New Left, and like Calvino, (and myself), Baudrillard is nostalgic for the imaginary. Even this nose-thumber at European culture is shocked by the US, for the transgressions and atrocities Baudrillard allowed himself to imagine in the magic theater of his theoretical works appear all around him there, insistently solid and real. Either one abdicates theory by accepting the hegemony of Realization, or one resists by holding onto the virtue of irony and withdraws to the Carcassonne of the imagination and waits for the sic transit.

     

    We shall remain nostalgic utopians, agonizing over our ideals, but balking, ultimately, at their realization, professing that everything is possible, but never that everything has been achieved. Yet that is what America asserts. Our problem is that our old goals--revolution, progress, freedom--will have evaporated before they were achieved, before they became reality. Everything that has been heroically played out and destroyed in Europe in the name of Revolution and Terror has been realized in its simplest, most empirical form on the other side of the Atlantic (the utopia of wealth, rights, freedom, the social contract, and representation). Similarly, everything we have dreamed in the radical name of anti-culture, the subversion of meaning, the destruction of reason and the end of representation, that whole anti-utopia which unleashed so many theoretical and political, aesthetic and social convulsions in Europe, without ever actually becoming a reality (May '68 is one of the last examples) has all been achieved here in the simplest, most radical way. Utopia has been achieved here and anti-utopia is being achieved: the anti-utopia of unreason, of deterritorialization, of the indeterminacy of language and the subject, the neutralization of all values, of the death of culture. America is turning all this into reality, and it is going about it in an uncontrolled, empirical way. All we do is dream and, occasionally, try and act out our dreams. America, by contrast, draws the logical, pragmatic consequences from everything that can possibly be thought. It does not ironize upon the future or destiny: it gets on with turning things into material realities.26

     

    Once the real has been exhausted, you have to move on, and colonize the imagination. Just do it! Do it yourself! Autopia or Bust!

     

    Goodbye, Labor Theory

     

    I must be clear that I’m not speaking of Blois or the Hofburg, nor of Castle Dracula. The building itself is not a thousand years old, of course. Zichy renovated it in 1880 into its present form. “The castle” is in fact a small manor house built in consonance with the dominant style of peasant architecture. A single raised-story, whitewashed, roofed with red clay shingles, in the shape of an L. Inside are about ten large rooms. Indoor plumbing was introduced only about ten years ago, although power lines were brought in in the ’30s. The property attached to this modest edifice consists now only of two small parks, to the east and the west.

     

    I first saw this ancient place when I was nineteen, on my first visit to the country. For the most part, I perceived it as I have described it, as a child of emigrants might visit his father’s village in the old country, the old people, and sniff some of the ancient air. A very nice place. I have always felt some resistance to my father’s grand plan of returning to his homeland and picking up where he left off. I grew up in the States, came of age in the Sixties, became comfortable with the atmosphere of social movements, Black culture, rejection of class privilege. I used to see Zala from this perspective, allergic to any hereditary patriarchal role. In essence, I viewed my father’s project as quixotic, even if it were attainable in reality. The Restoration.

     

    It is irritating, at the end of the century of democracy and socialism, to have to imagine the archaic subject-position of the landed gentry as a positive thing. When I thought as a utopian, I knew this land and house should go “back to the people,” the ones who built and worked it. But at the end of the century of totalitarian democracy and socialism, the labor-theory of value no longer seems like the voice of God. The villagers themselves say they would like the old owner to return–suitably diminished. They too believe the place has its historical power, and in some situations class matters less than conservation. Those should own the land who care for it. And they don’t mind that someone else is saddled with the burden.

     

    My father writes that I have been named heir of this estate.

     

    In the night

     

    It is 3:30 a.m. The houses on my street have been dark since midnight, every one but ours. In the backyard, my wife is following a family of raccoons back to their tree from the porch where she had dinner ready for them, as she does every night. A ray of light from a flashlight bobs up and down in the darkness. Hoosiers despise coons, and delight in hunting them. But there are no coons in Europe, and my Hungarian wife is now a visitor to another planet, making contact with aliens.

     

    It is a mellow night. Fireflies, which are also unknown in Europe, have floated up to the treetops. It is wonderfully still. Etti (whose name is the female form of Attila) insists that the wild fauna recognize her as a friend. I, independent male, prefer to watch the beasts do their thing without interfering. I think I am an observer, but I am actually reveling. For Etti reveling would never be enough. She is intent on creating a peaceable kingdom in her yard, where the cat will lie down with the squirrel, and the possum with the raccoon.

     

    The raccoons sought us out. One night, the coon mother trundled in the back door and liberated a bag of dry catfood for her brood. Now they stay to be petted, they display distinct personalities, and they have lost their skittishness.

     

    This mild night on the edge of the woods is not much in political terms. It is not a new thing. I am sure many women, and even a few men, try to form peaceable kingdoms in the liminal zone between the wild and the house. We have come to know the raccoons’ tree-hollow and the nest of the stag beetles; sometimes we catch the new beetles, glowing like gems, emerging from the ground and radiating outward from the center.

     

    Until quite recently, Etti did not know precisely where she was born and to this day she has not seen the place. She knew the name of the town, but for a number of historically complex reasons she was not sure exactly where to look for it. She was born on the retreat, as her father’s Hungarian troops and their families were fleeing the advancing Russian artillery. Delivered while her father held the terrified Austrian obstetrician at gunpoint, she stayed no more than a couple of hours in that particular Krummau or Krumlov; in the wink of an eye she was traveling west on a military wagon, her parents driving themselves to meet up with, and surrender to, the American army.

     

    Etti’s birth town was in Bohemia, then Austria, then Czechoslovakia, then Nazi-occupied Austria, then again Czechoslovakia, and now Czechia. It did not move. Europe moved.

     

    Her migrations have brought her here, for the moment, to this night. Her child is sleeping upstairs in a cozy American house. Her flashlight beams up into the branches. The coon mother calls down.

     

    A utopia of fine dust

     

    Certainly, in recent times, my need to come up with some tangible representation of future society has declined. This is not because of some vitalistic assertion of the unforeseeable, or because I am resigned to the worst, or because I have realized that philosophical abstraction is a better indication of what may be hoped for, but maybe simply because the best that I can still look for is something else, which must be sought in the folds, in the shadowy places, in the countless involuntary effects that the most calculated system creates without being aware that perhaps the truth lies right there. The utopia I am looking for today is less solid than gaseous: it is a utopia of fine dust, corpuscular, and in suspension.27

     

    Mu.

     

    Notes

     

    1. Bruce Sterling, “The Compassionate, the Digital,” Globalhead (New York: Bantam, 1994) 65.

     

    2. Donald Morris, The Washing of the Spears: A History of the Rise of the Zulu Nation under Shakra and Its Fall in the Zulu War of 1879 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1965) 50.

     

    3. G.I. Gurdjieff, Meetings with Remarkable Men (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1969) 151-52.

     

    4. “…commodomy” used by Richard Simon, “Advertising as Literature: The Utopian Fiction of the American Marketplace,” Texas Studies in Language and Literature, 22.2 (1980): 155-74.

     

    5. Ernst Bloch: from The Principle Hope, quoted in Tom Moylan, “The Locus of Hope: Utopia versus Ideology,” Science-Fiction Studies 27 (1982): 159.

     

    6. Louis Marin, “Frontiers of Utopia: Past and Present,” Critical Inquiry 19 (Winter 1993): 403-04; 410-11.

     

    7. Gilles Deleuze-Felix Guattari, A Thousand Plateuas: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1987) 15.

     

    8. Marco Polo, The Travels of Marco Polo (New York: Abaris Books, 1982) 109.

     

    9. Horst De La Croix, Military Considerations in City Planning: Fortifications (New York: George Braziller, 1972) 16.

     

    10. Donna Haraway, “A Manifesto for Cyborgs,” Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (New York: Routledge, 1991): 151.

     

    11. Chrissie Hynde, “My City Was Gone,” Learning to Crawl, Sire Records, 1983.

     

    12. De La Croix, 15.

     

    13. See Roland Barthes, “From Work to Text,” The Rustle of Language, Trans. Richard Howard (New York: Hill and Wang, 1986): 49-55.

     

    14. Istvan Csicsery-Ronay, “The Cool Blades.”

     

    15. Italo Calvino, The Uses of Literature, Trans. Patrick Creagh (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987) 247-48.

     

    16. Louis Marin, Utopiques. Jeux d’Espaces (Paris: Les Editions Minuit, 1973).

     

    17. Katherine Hayles, The Cosmic Web. Scientific Field Models and Literary Strategies in the 20th Century (Ithaca: Cornell, 1984) 143.

     

    18. Stanislaw Lem, Microworlds: Writings on Science Fiction and Fantasy (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1984) 237.

     

    19. Lem, 241-42.

     

    20. Lem, 241-42.

     

    21. William Gibson, Mona Lisa Overdrive (New York: Vintage, 1988) 137.

     

    22. See Kathleen Biddick, “Humanist History and the Haunting of Virtual Worlds: Problems of Memory and Rememoration,” Genders 18 (Winter 1993): 47-66.

     

    23. Tsung Hwa, Jou The Tao of Tai Chi Chuan (New York: Charles E. Tuttle Co., 1980) 8.

     

    24. Jean Baudrillard, America (New York: Verso, 1989) 54-55.

     

    25. Jean Baudrillard, “Simulacra and Science Fiction,” Science-Fiction Studies 55 (1991): 309-10.

     

    26. Jean Baudrillard, America 77.

     

    27. Calvino, 254-55.

     

  • Charting the “Black Atlantic”

    Ian Baucom

    Department of English
    Duke University
    ibaucom@acpub.duke.edu

    The Sea is History

     

       Verandahs, where the pages of the sea
    are a book left open by an absent master
    in the middle of another life--
    I begin here again,
    begin until this ocean's
    a shut book....
    			--Derek Walcott

     

    Whatever else it is, this is an age of cartography. An age, perhaps, as Fredric Jameson has it, of cognitive mapping; cognitive because the territories we map (whether they are the territories of the nation, of capital, of hyperspace, or of transnational migration, to name only a few) insist on reshaping themselves, on continuously expanding or contracting, splitting and doubling, defying the abilities of their cartographers to keep pace, to commit to paper something that is not instantly belated. But “cognitive” also because, as the above list implies, the category of the mappable is itself increasingly unstable, because as our epistemologies of the local encounter the shifting ways in which local cultures, local knowledges and local narratives confront the globalizing imperatives of the nation, capital, hyperspace, and migrancy, our sense of what constitutes a cultural locale, of what can be spoken of as a discernible, perhaps even a distinct, space, is also continuously expanding and contracting. I do not presume, in this essay, to unlock the riddle of the local and the global; instead, in the spirit of the times, I want to examine one of our moment’s apparently global cultural locales. I want, that is, to ask whether it is possible to locate the postcolonial, to inquire whether it occupies or implies a discernible order of space, and to ask–if the postcolonial can indeed be located–how that space is inhabited and experienced. My suggestion is that it is both not possible to speak of the space of the postcolonial (for the fairly simple reason that India is not Nigeria which in its turn is not Jamaica which in its turn is not England) and that it is possible to do so (largely because these places are at once structurally distinct and structurally coupled); and that if we are to understand how this can be so we must turn our attention from these national spaces of belonging to the waters that separate and join them.

     

    “Where are your monuments, your battles, martyrs? / Where is your tribal memory?” an anonymous body of inquisitors demands the narrator of one of Derek Walcott’s poems. To which interrogation the poem responds: “Sirs, / in that grey vault. The sea. The sea / has locked them up. The sea is history…. / … / Sir it is locked in them sea-sands / out there past the reef’s moiling shelf, / where the men-o’-war floated down; / strop on these goggles, I’ll guide you there myself. / Its all subtle and submarine” (“The Sea is History” 1-4; 35-7). It is to that reply and that invitation that this essay responds.

     

    Suffering a Sea-change

     

    		       --all the deep
    Is restless change; the waves so swell'd and steep,
    Breaking and sinking, and the sunken swells,
    Nor one, one moment, in its station dwells.
    			 --George Crabbe

     

    Let me start with a photograph and two fragments of text. In the black and white print, a central image in Sutapa Biswas’ 1992 exhibition “Synapse,” an Indian woman and two children are standing in water, immersed to their hips, gazing directly at us.


    © 1997 Sutapa Biswas, used by permission.
    Figure 1.
    Click here to see the full image (20K).
     

    Their bodies are neither perfectly relaxed nor rigidly tense. Rather, they hold themselves as if photographed by surprise, uncertain whether to dip their dangling hands into the water, to delight in the cool shallows, or to formalize themselves, to adopt a pose, to substitute decorum for the forgettable postures of play. Photographed an instant too late and an instant too soon, caught in a moment between abandon and self-collection, the three figures also wade between genres. The image implies a camera operator who is at once anthropologist, artist, and loved one. Either a snapshot for a family album, a study for gallery display, or a document for an ethnographic treatise, the photograph encloses the bathers in a multitude of literal and epistemological frames. If the undeveloped sandy beach and the wooded coastline invoke the anthropological at its primitivizing worst, and the precise cropping of the image alludes to the primness of the gallery, then these innermost and outermost containing devices confront a third way of holding these figures, an intermediate, memorializing frame. For, as we scan the shadowy space between the landscape enclosing these untimely baigneurs and the mounted photograph’s edge, we note the enveloping presence of another female body. This fourth, barely visible figure, hands crossed at her waist, acts as a screen onto which the central image has been projected. Cradling this water scene, Mary to a Pieta in which three bathers replace the incarnation of the Trinity, this anonymous woman forces us to consider the figures broadcast on her unclad body as something more than pieces of fieldwork or aesthetic artifacts, to view them also as the spectral inhabitants of a guardedly intimate, intra-uterine space. Positioned in a multitude of framing spaces, the bathers, like the cultural locations they occupy, also inhabit a shifting series of moments. For if the gallery, the family-album, and the anthropological treatise all too frequently “make their objects” through acts of temporal displacement, through technologies of display which worship the pastness of the past, then the recollection of these three figures in the womb of the fourth discloses our bathers as subjects not only of a then and a now but of a yet-to-be.1 And it is as we attend to the serial temporality of these subjects that the two fragments of text I earlier promised begin to bear on this photograph’s charting of a distinct and uncanny region within the dispersed territories of the post-colonial.

     

    The first passage, from Joseph Conrad’s novel The Nigger of the Narcissus, parades the dispirited musings of the text’s narrator as he contemplates the unnerving presence of James Wait, a dying but not-yet-dead West Indian who has joined the crew of an English merchant ship returning to London from Bombay. “In the confused current of impotent thoughts that set unceasingly this way and that through bodies of men, Jimmy bobbed up upon the surface, compelling attention, like a black buoy chained to the bottom of a muddy stream” (102). Days before James Wait will, at last, have the good grace to die, days before his shipmates will tip his corpse into the Atlantic, Conrad’s narrator finds himself dwelling in a zone of temporal confusion. Mistaking anticipation for recollection, the postponed for the remembered, Conrad’s text here tropes the imperial uncanny not as the return of the repressed, but as the mocking and untimely resurfacing of that black subject which England has yet to submerge. If Conrad’s text, like Biswas’ photograph, casts the submarine as a space in which our senses of a “now,” a “then,” and a “not-yet” deliriously trade places with one another, then the second of those textual passages with which I wish to begin this reading of the postcolonial submarine returns to the dis-synchronicities of imperial water with a mixture of sorrow and delight.

     

    Responding to the suggestion that the Caribbean possesses a “submarine” unity, Edouard Glissant has offered the following observations:

     

    To my mind this expression can only evoke all those Africans weighed down with ball and chain and thrown overboard whenever a slave ship was pursued by enemy vessels and felt too weak to put up a fight. They sowed in the depths the seeds of an invisible presence. And so transversality, and not the universal transcendance of the sublime, has come to light. It took us a long time to learn this. We are the roots of a cross-cultural relationship.

     

    Submarine roots, that is floating free, not fixed in some primordial spot, but extending in all directions in our world through its network of branches.

     

    We thereby live, we have the good fortune of living, this shared process of cultural mutation, this convergence that frees us from uniformity. (66-67)

     

    As he negotiates a passage from the rhetoric of outrage to the dialect of celebration, Glissant models his shifting idiom on the metamorphic waters he navigates. Like Conrad, he confronts a cultural “current” setting “unceasingly this way and that,” but rather than discovering an unrepressable object of dread at the heart of this tidal wandering, he encounters a liberating principle of briny metamorphosis. Reaping the harvest of the Middle Passage’s violent seedings, he returns the time of drowning to our present time not as that which terrifies or outrages but as that which continuously transforms the contemporary. Memory here does not haunt, it translates, it fuses the time of remembrance with the time of the remembered, it joins a “now” to a “then” through the mutating wash of a sea-change which is also, always, a “yet-to-be.” Reclaiming the slave from the waters of this Black Atlantic, Glissant’s comment demands that we free ourselves from those acts of forgetting upon which the constitution of fixed identities so regularly depend, but asks that in joining ourselves to the no-longer forgotten we refuse to fetishize an alternate past and instead cultivate a vulnerability to the mutating ebb-tides of submarine memory.

     

    While this reading of the submarine again invokes a temporally dispersed subject, it equally implies a model of spatially-disseminated identity, a rhizomatic dislocation of the subject, a self which manifests itself not as an essence but as a meandering. But where the Deleuzian metaphors of the rhizome imply some rooting of the subject, Glissant’s comments can be seen to further “radicalize” our conception of the rooting of the self. For if the subject of this post-colonial submarine again manifests itself as a rootwork, and as a route-work, this subject finds itself wanderingly-grounded not “in some primordial spot” but in the uncertainties of imperial water. Where Deleuze enables us to think the self as a reticulated system, Glissant couples that heterotopic self to an equally fluid environment which, as Biswas’ photograph and Conrad’s text reveal, not only encompasses the subject but “passes through” it. Having begun with an image of three women wading between genres, temporalities, and framing spaces, we now discover these bathers standing at the edge of a submarine world in which serial locations merge with disseminated identities, sea-changing subjects occupy multiple moments, and our categories of cultural belonging, like the uncanny waters lapping over the edge of the Narcissus, shift “unceasingly, this way and that” (Conrad 102).

     

    Only Connect: Notes on an Imperial Nervous System

     

    Synapse is a metaphor.	Synapse is a place where
    two people meet.  Synapse is a place where two ideas
    meet.  Synapse is a gap across which two people's
    ideas meet. Synapse is a place.
    			       --Sutapa Biswas

     

    A photograph by a British photographer who was born in India. A snatch of text from a novel published by an author who once described himself as “a Polish gentleman soaked in British tar.”2 A second textual snippet drawn from the American translation of a Martiniquan intellectual’s book of essays. What, we might ask, do these fragments have to do with each other? On what authority can they be read through and against one another? How can they be said to plot a coincident region within the dispersed territories of the “postcolonial?” What, for that matter, is the postcolonial? Is Sutapa Biswas “postcolonial” by virtue of her birth? Are her photographs, regardless of their content, postcolonial artifacts because of their maker’s passport? Is Joseph Conrad, writing in 1897, equally or identically postcolonial, and when does his novel become such? At the moment of its writing? At the moment at which its narrator anticipates James Wait’s drowning? At the moment of our reading? Surely, as Anne McClintock has so cogently argued, we must at the very least speak not of the postcolonial but of postcolonialisms.3 Whatever the critical currency of the term, whatever the value of collecting discrete texts within an integrating theoretical framework, we must either begin to seriously address such questions or watch “postcolonialism” become a brand of critical sloganeering in which the constant injunctions to “celebrate diversity” amount to the dual fetishization and erasure of difference.

     

    If there is an apparently easy answer to such questions, if it seems obvious that we should simply abandon the collectivizing impulse and devote ourselves to the arduous business of reading for the particular, then, as with many obvious solutions, this is an answer which is deceptively simple. For one of the most valuable and most particular lessons that “postcolonialism’s” texts have communicated to us is, in Glissant’s terms, precisely the lesson of the “transversal.” The coral-become bodies of those slaves drowned in the Middle Passage do link the waters washing the coast of Martinique with an eighteenth and nineteenth century history of the Caribbean, with the past and present legacies of the triangular trade, with the Victorian and Edwardian underdevelopment of Africa, Rastafarian and Pan-Africanist narratives of return, the poetry of Aime Cesaire, Afrocentric curricula, and the commodification of Kente cloth. In Derek Walcott’s exploration of the waters of the Caribbean, the submarine further discloses itself as an expanse that is not only littered with “the bones of all [those] drowned in the crossing” (128), and with the “white memory” (129) of English sailors, but as a liquid territory parted by the keels of fishing pirogues, tourist liners, merchant vessels and slavers which, in cross-hatching the Caribbean, connect these watery deeps to the primitivizing economies of the American leisure industry, the Victorian houses of British capital, the English country mansions built off the slave trade, the imperial merchant marines chasing the Union Jack across the surface of the globe, and a Polish writer who began his career aboard one of those English merchant ships. To refuse to read these linkages is not to eschew indiscriminate acts of totalization, it is to refuse to read.

     

    If, following the lead of Fredric Jameson, we choose to conceive of our critical responsibilities not only in terms of reading but in terms of mapping, then it might be worth wondering what a cartography of such linkages might resemble, and upon what theories of knowledge and observation it might model itself. Sutapa Biswas’ photograph, the 1992 “Synapse” exhibition in which it appeared, and the surrounding body of her work with which this exhibit interacts, suggest some answers to these questions. The synaptic metaphor which gave the 1992 show its name is embodied in another of Biswas’ exhibitions from that year, “White Noise,” a multimedia installation in which the black and white image from “Synapse” reappears in a series of back-lit transparencies mounted in light-boxes whose ganglia of connecting cables the artist made no effort to hide.


    © 1997 Sutapa Biswas, used by permission.
    Figure 2
    Click here to see the full image (8K)
     

    If we wish to come to terms with Biswas’ work, while at the same time mapping the cross-currents of that cultural ecology which her exhibits explore, then we would be well served not only by lingering over this resurfacing image, but by considering its interplay with the synaptic metaphor, a metaphor that in the case of “White Noise” was embodied not in the show’s title but in that tangled circuit of video cables so visibly channeling the flow of visual information from one light box to another.

     

    Dictionaries inform us that a synapse is a “junction…between two neurons or nerve cells.” But the definition does scant justice to the marvels of the synapse, a neural complex more fully dissected in the writings of an increasingly influential cellular biologist. In a series of works which have rapidly entered the select canon of systems theory, the Brazilian biologist Humberto Maturana has outlined an “autopoetic” theory of cognition which depends, at crucial moments, on an exploration of the wandering geographies of the synapse.4 Maturana’s epistemological idiom is unabashedly structuralist and consequently, though somewhat less obviously, humanist. And though this is not the thrust of his work, nor the way in which it is generally read, Maturana’s writings can assist us in the task of sketching a map of those exchanges which collectively wire the branching networks of the postcolonial.

     

    Maturana’s darling is the cell; it is the engine of his system. In anatomizing this “second-order unity,” Maturana insists on two things. First, that the cell, or any other compound entity, exhibits a “structural determinism”–by which he means that all unities, including the human, are essentially solipsistic, assuming form not at the whim of their environment but by regulated, auto-referential, and sovereign acts of self-description. To this dictum, however, Maturana adds another which qualifies and almost contradicts the first. While the ontology of all unities depends on an internal structural determinism, each unity is simultaneously “structurally coupled” to its environment. To complicate matters still further, Maturana allows that unities and environments can exchange places as the vantage of their observers shift, i.e. that the human body can be seen as a unity autonomously within, but coupled to, a surrounding environment, or it may be understood as the environment enclosing a multitude of discrete organic unities. This “either/or, and both” epistemology recapitulates the paradox of complementarity that resides at the heart of quantum dynamics and, as Arkady Plotnitsky has recently suggested, much poststructural thinking.5 Without dwelling on the infinite delights of the uncertainty principle, it is this second founding hypothesis of Maturana’s work that I wish to examine. For in turning to those systems which regulate the coupling of unity and environment, the biologist sketches a map of our organic geographies which can help us begin our speculative charting of the synaptic wirings of the postcolonial.

     

    While at first glance Maturana’s map of the world is disconcertingly binary, the logic of the couple demands that to his cartography of the within and the without he must add a chart of the between. In most complex organisms this “between,” this interstice that at once separates and joins unity and environment, is the territory of the nervous system, with its sprawling network of neurons and synapses. If the neurons are the various headquarters of the nervous system, then the synapses are its telephone lines. Or, to adapt the metaphor to the primary concerns of this essay, if the neurons are the scattered islands in the archipelago of the nervous system, then the synapses are its shipping routes: a conceit which, if extended, allows us to identify the Atlantic as the nervous system of empire, and to describe the submarine currents tumbling Glissant’s drowned slaves as the synapses coupling the neural densities of metropole and colony. In this description the submarine emerges as neither European nor Caribbean, neither metropolitan nor colonial, neither within the “West” nor without it. Instead, the submarine locates the system of exchanges which at once acknowledges the distinct character of such “unities” and makes such distinctions meaningless. The submarine, then, is a place once again of the “either/or and both,” but a place, crucially, where such uncertainty principles manifest themselves in certain ways, where we confront not a generalized system of exchanges but a particular network of relays. Of course, as Maturana is at pains to point out, such synaptic networks are not fixed. While some patterns of connection exhibit enduring stability, others change. But they do not change at random. If the nervous system is relentlessly “performative” then its performances always occur with reference to the peculiar ontogenetic histories of the unities and environments it couples.6 Which is no more than another way of saying that ocean currents do not move at random, and that if the “Black Atlantic” houses the empire’s nervous system, then its submarine flows exhibit a synaptic intentionality.7

     

    It will be immediately apparent that there are some similarities between what, with Maturana’s help, I am calling the synaptic and what Deleuze labels the rhizomatic. Indeed, the sketches of synaptic configurations which Maturana provides in his text seem at first glance to be ideal maps of the rhizome’s geography. The illustrations of synaptic networks in his text The Tree of Knowledge depict a sprawling, branching system of lines, a reticulum that like the rhizome “stabilizes around a…parish…a capital…a bulb” (in this case, the neuron) (Deleuze 7). But while the nervous system and its synapses exhibit the topography of the rhizome, they are not rhizomatic in the Deleuzian sense. In Maturana’s description, the nervous system labors in the service of a discernible unity of which, as a border, it is a part–though, to be sure, that trafficked part which simultaneously regulates and disrupts the integrity of the unity.8 The rhizome, by contrast, occupies a purely areferential universe, “it ceases to have any relation to the One as subject or object, natural or spiritual reality…there is no unity to serve as a pivot” (Deleuze 8). While this is no negligible distinction, it is not one whose full implications I can explore here. Rather, I wish to address two additional features of the synaptic which are wholly alien to the Deleuzian coding of multiplicity. The rhizome has neither a history nor an environment. The synapse has both.

     

    On the question of time both Deleuze and Maturana are unequivocal. “The rhizome,” the French philosopher confidently asserts, “is an anti-genealogy” (Deleuze and Guattari 11). Synapses, alternately, configure themselves under the shadow of both a hereditary phylogenetic past and a continuous ontogenetic past; that is, they bear the traces of both a collective and an individual history. The consequences of this difference are immense. If we conceive of culture as a rhizomatic assemblage, then we must construct a philosophy of culture which has no use for memory. We must accomodate ourselves to inhabiting a pure present, to dwelling under the sole sovereignty of the synchronic. If, instead, our cartographies of culture are synaptic, then we must read our coupling routes not only as lines of connection but as the tracework of continuing and inherited histories. There has been much talk recently of spatializing time. The logic of the nervous system demands that we also learn to historicize space, even the performative spaces of the itinerary. But also–because the nervous system has an environment, because the synapse, unlike the rhizome, implies an encompassing territory–a synaptic map of culture depends on our willingness to read not only the sprawling topographies of the link but the coupled territories of the linked. Deleuze invites us to hypostasize the multiple, to adore the schizomorphic lines which wire nothing together, which exist nowhere, which are their own splendidly narcissistic excuse. Maturana’s writings raise the rather greater challenge of reading both a routework and the grounds which it roots, of examining both the circuity of culture and the assemblages which the circuit wires. To revert to Sutapa Biswas’ exhibition “White Noise,” where a Deleuzian analytic might devote itself solely to the electrical cables adorning the gallery’s walls, Maturana’s writings suggest that to comprehend this synaptic display we may also wish to glance at the light boxes. And if we do in fact study those boxes, we will find repeated there images of that imperial water whose currents link Biswas’ Indian bathers not only to the London Gallery in which their images were displayed but to Edouard Glissant’s charting of the transversal and to Conrad’s eternally resurfacing “black buoy.”

     

    In tracing the articulations of this nervous system which wires the colonial to the postcolonial, the Caribbean to Britain, the drowned slave to the modernist prose stylist, we must, however, do more than surrender ourselves to a metonymic order of reasoning or to an unearthing of the rich wisdoms contained in a pun on roots and routes. We must take care to prevent our critical cartographies from producing always the same map of cultural coupling. While the six-degrees-of-separation argument makes it impossible to say that not all points connect, we should nevertheless recall that those points that do join one another connect in specific and differing ways. Frantz Fanon, in a passing comment in Black Skin, White Masks, argues that “the body is surrounded by an atmosphere of certain uncertainty” (110-111). I can think of no better way of responding to those methodological questions I raised earlier than by suggesting that we incline to the insight of this aphoristic comment. Surrounded by an atmosphere of certain uncertainties, we can devote ourselves to the particular without abandoning the transversal if we will diligently map the synaptic currents which network the postcolonial submarine.

     

    Throughout this essay, I have privileged metaphors of liquidity, primarily because, with Edouard Glissant, I want to suggest that we can map the postcolonial by charting its submarine flows, and because, while the metaphors of the nervous system are certainly suggestive, the synapses I wish to trace are constituted less as a sequence of relays within the body than as a series of transatlantic lines. But I have also done so because the works I wish to discuss represent the postcolonial as a marine geography, as a geography of trans-oceanic and submarine passages. In doing so, these works serve not only to locate a postcolonial territoriality, but to generate a vocabulary particular to that global locale, a liquid vocabulary that identifies diaspora cultures and identities as flow dynamics, as processes whose formative and reformative logics can perhaps be understood by borrowing from the lexical sea-chests of oceanographic discourse a submarine metaphorics of “surges,” “meanders,” “slicks,” “spills,” “sprays,” “ripples,” and “currents.” To gaze on the waters of empire, to study the trans-oceanic routes of postcolonial migrancy, or, as Walcott has it, to “strop on” our sea-goggles, is thus not only to extend the reach of our critical cartographies but to expand our pool of key-words, to invigorate a critical discourse, which so frequently wearies its disciples by trotting out the same aging family of metaphors, through a fresh infusion of tropes.

     

    I say this with some whimsy, and much seriousness. For when reading becomes no more than an excuse for carting out the same reigning body of explanatory metaphors, we need not bother to read at all. In a world in which we inevitably discover that everything is “hybrid” we might as well close up shop, or reconcile ourselves to the fact that we really are Bouvard and Pecuchet. I am not, of course, saying that everything isn’t hybrid–I believe that everything is. But we must be able to describe how things are hybrid; imperial, postcolonial, and diaspora hybridities may perhaps best be understood–as Conrad’s, Walcott’s, Glissant’s, and Biswas’ work suggests–as a series of marine procedures. Which returns us to oceanographic discourse, and the more important point I want to make. Simply scanning a standard oceanographic treatise’s table of contents–in the text I consulted there were no fewer than seven sections, containing twenty-six sub-entries, and one hundred and fifty-two sub-subheadings–reminds us that even an object as apparently self-identical and unmappable as an ocean has its own counties, regions, and routes; that this is also a space of certain uncertainties; and that while it might require astonishingly hard work to map the waters, that this is work that can be done.9 So, without further ado, let me close by offering a map of one current within that cultural expanse I have been calling the postcolonial submarine.

     

    Modified in the Guts of the Living

     

    The whole picture dedicated to the most sublime of
    subjects and impressions (completing thus the perfect
    system of all truth we have shown to be formed in
    Turner's works)--the power, majesty, and deathfulness
    of the open, deep, illimitable sea.
    			 --John Ruskin (3: 573)

     

    In the opening chapter of The Black Atlantic, Paul Gilroy draws our attention to J.M.W. Turner’s 1840 painting Slavers Throwing Overboard the Dead and Dying. Actually, Gilroy is less interested in the canvas than in John Ruskin’s failure, in his deeply sympathetic reading of the painting in the first volume of Modern Painters, to discuss this depiction of black bodies thrown like so much surplus cargo into the sea. Gilroy sees this refusal as symptomatic of Victorian and post-Victorian failures to acknowledge that Englishness has “any external referents whatsoever” (14). Ruskin’s unwillingness to direct his reader’s attention to the drowned and drowning slaves is not matched by a disinterest in the watery medium enveloping their bodies. His discussion of the slave ship caps a long and painstaking disquisition on water and water painting which reveals that he has evidently studied rivers, lakes, torrents, waterfalls, and oceans with extraordinary care. Ruskin notices the differing movements of slow river currents, which magisterially overwhelm any source of interruption, and rushing torrents, which, in their haste, bend their shape to the impediments they encounter. He plots the disturbances caused by approaching and rebounding waves as they encounter buoys, rocks, shorelines, and recoiling currents of water. His greatest energies, however, are devoted to a discussion of liquid surfaces and reflections–a discussion which, though it precedes the reading of the slave ship by some thirty pages, helps to explain why Ruskin fails to see what is so evident on the surface of that canvas.

     

    Water surfaces, Ruskin discovers, deceive the eye. In gazing upon them we either see the surface itself, but not what it reflects, or we study the reflection, in which case the actual surface disappears. By no means, he insists, can we see both surface and reflection at once: each exists to annul the other. The task of the water painter is, then, to keep the eye of the observer constantly in play between these two mutually exclusive ways of seeing, to exploit the paradoxes of what Ruskin calls a “philosophy of reflection” (3: 545). In analyzing these two modes of seeing, Ruskin carefully excludes a third. Enjoined to devote ourselves alternately to the surface and the reflected “above,” our eyes are forbidden permission to peer beneath the water, or told that there is no beneath, that what is visible below the surface is merely an inverse image of that which floats above. Turner’s peculiar genius, Ruskin argues, derives from his brilliant exploitation of this optical ballet of surface and reflection, and from his refusal to allow us to delve beneath the water. “We are not,” Ruskin insists, “allowed to tumble into it, and gasp for breath as we go down, we are kept upon the surface” (3: 539). “We,” apparently, are not the jettisoned slaves, who have no choice but to tumble into the water, to gasp for breath as they go down beneath a surface on which a Victorian viewing public, freed from the obligation to wonder what lies beneath these waters, can see itself reflected.

     

    As the narrator of Conrad’s Nigger of the Narcissus discovers, however, the black bodies spilled into the empire’s waters refuse to remain submerged. Like James Wait they continue to bob up, disturbing a narcissistic inspection of those oceans which not only surround the island kingdom but define England as a liquid geography. In the opening pages of Heart of Darkness, Conrad again stages a scene in which his narrator peers into the waters which rim and define the boundaries of Englishness. Here, once more, an inspection of those waters which envelop and tongue the nation amounts to a complex act of remembrance.

     

    The old river in its broad reach rested unruffled at the decline of day, after ages of good service done to the race that peopled its banks, spread out in the tranquil dignity of a waterway leading to the utter ends of the earth. We looked at the venerable stream not in the vivid flush of a short day that comes and departs forevever, but in the august light of abiding memories. And indeed nothing is easier for a man who has, as the phrase goes, "followed the sea" with reverence and affection, than to evoke the great spirit of the past upon the lower reaches of the Thames. The tidal current runs to and fro in its unceasing service of men and ships it had borne to the rest of home or to the battles of sea. It had known and served all the men of whom the nation is proud, from Sir Francis Drake to Sir John Franklin.... (28-9)

     

    In a text so relentlessly and famously obsessed with the cartographic, Conrad here suggests that to map England is not to map its grounds but its waters, that Englishness, apprehended only as an object ever fully present in the past, assumes the form of a “tidal current” which leads “to the utter ends of the earth.” As England here becomes a waterway, or, to borrow Glissant’s term, a “transversality,” it also becomes a mortuary. The waters not only plot England’s liquid shape, they contain the beloved dead who collectively define the nation’s identity. Entombed within imperial waters, these great men specify what England must remember, and thus again be. In the catalogue of names which follows the passage I have cited, James Wait’s names does not, of course, appear. But if in reading England as a waterway this text opens the spaces of Englishness to cultural currents streaming from the uttermost ends of the world, in identifying England’s waters as a liquid cemetery it also reminds us that that mortuary is occupied not only by Sir Francis Drake and Sir John Franklin, but by the eternally resurfacing body of James Wait, and by the slaves drowning beneath the surface of Turner’s canvas and John Ruskin’s prose.

     

    In closing The Nigger of the Narcissus, Conrad completes the labor of forgetting James Wait by suggesting that England not remember the bodies pitched into the colonizing nation’s waters but recollect the ships which have plied the seas in the service of the flag. By the final pages of the text, England itself emerges as a vast floating vessel, “the great flagship of the race; stronger than the storms! and anchored in the open sea” (121). While England here finds itself mirrored in the image of the Narcissus, it also finds itself dying. For the Narcissus has completed her final voyage; docked, she awaits her demolition and the resale of her broken timbers. And the task of preserving English identity becomes, at last, the business of dredging the lost hull of this national allegory from the waters of the historical deep.

     

    In recent years this imaginary redemption of a submerged English ship of state has been literally reenacted. Patrick Wright has discussed the neo-nationalist celebrations which attended the rescue of Henry VIII’s ship the Mary Rose.10 And on July 8, 1995, the National Gallery in London opened an exhibition which once again imagined Englishness as a dredgework. The gallery supplemented its special exhibition of Turner’s 1838 painting The Fighting Temeraire, Tugged to Her Last Berth to be Broken Up with an array of materials designed to ensure that this canvas be viewed, in Thackeray’s words, as “a magnificent national ode.”11 The Temeraire had fought with Nelson at Trafalgar, but in 1838 it was demolished by a London ship-breaker, and its parts resold. And it is the Gallery’s interest in the fate of the vessel’s disseminated timbers, quite apart from its nostalgic reinvention of the painting as a fetish of national identity, that deserves some attention.

     

    The curators of the show reserved a room of the exhibition for a display entitled “The Temeraire Survives,” and filled that room with the collection of souvenirs the ship has become. In an age that identifies its postmodernity in those late capital economies which ensure that fragments of the downed Berlin wall are rapidly available for purchase at Macy’s, we may be tempted to view this dissemination of the ship as a thoroughly contemporary phenomenon. But such dispersals and recollections of a nation’s monuments are not exclusively recent occurences. John Ruskin concluded his lengthiest discussion of Turner’s canvas by predicting precisely such a fate for the Temeraire: imagining a “tired traveller” absently leaning against the “low gate” of “some country cottage,” Ruskin laments the wanderer’s ignorance that the gate has been cut from a beam of the glorious ship. As if in response to Ruskin’s fear that the shards of the scattered vessel might fail to invoke that absent England which the ship has come to symbolize, the National Gallery’s curators diligently gathered and displayed a vast array of the Temeraire’s enduring and identifiable fragments in the “survival” room. An altar table, an altar rail, two sanctuary chairs, and a stand for a bone ship model, all fashioned from the departed vessel’s oak timbers, accompany diverse medallions, and a portrait of a dog framed in Temeraire wood. The most prized relic, however, is a gong stand owned by King George V in which two brooding figures, carved from Temeraire beams, guard a Temeraire gong which hangs above a plaque extolling this “Souvenir of the wooden walls of Old England.” The compensatory message of this collection of knickknacks could not be more clear: acting to affirm Ernest Renan’s famous insistence that a nation is, above all else, a privileged body of collective memories and to dispel John Ruskin’s worries that England might not only forget but utterly fail to recognize that version of itself which the Temeraire had been, this assortment of splendid fragments assures the observer that the National Gallery will neither allow the Temeraire to be forgotten nor permit the wooden walls of this old England to sink, once more, beneath the tide of remembrance.

     

    If this exhibition publicly restages Conrad’s strategy for redeeming England by resurfacing the nation’s marine architectures, then a recent Birmingham exhibition has duplicated this tactic, but has done so in a way which disturbs the National Gallery’s placidly triumphalist narrative of national identity. On January 17, 1991, Keith Piper mounted a show at Birmingham’s Ikon Gallery which he entitled “A Ship Called Jesus.” The title of the exhibition alludes to the “Jesus of Lubeck,” a vessel which Queen Elizabeth gave John Hawkins in 1564 to enable him to embark on England’s first official slave-trading voyage. The irony of the slaver’s name provides the occasion for Piper’s mixed media exploration of four centuries of Black British culture. The exhibition comprises three parts: “The Ghosts of Christendom,” which examines the enslavement of West Africans and their transportation to the Caribbean; “The Rites of Passage,” which plots the post World War II migration of West Indians to Britain; and “The Fire Next Time,” which explores contemporary black urban culture. Piper addresses his Black British, and Black Atlantic, themes through a variety of media: video monitors display alternating images of cross-burnings, American civil rights activists, and immobile West-African statuary; a stained glass installation depicts Queen Elizabeth I flanked by female slaves; framed ethnographic portraits parade the bodies of naked but armed Africans; a photo montage, in the shape of a cross, reveals the outline of two black feet that have been pierced by nails; and a tombstone to the Jesus of Lubeck bears the following inscription: “In 1564 Queen Elizabeth I donated a ship to John Hawkins for the first official English slave trading voyage…the name of the ship was the Jesus of Lubeck…we’ve been sailing in her eversince [sic].”12

     

    © 1997 Keith Piper,
    used by permission.

    Figure 3
    Click here to see the full image
    (128K)
    © 1997 Keith Piper,
    used by permission.

    Figure 4
    Click here to see the full image
    (74K)

     

    Collectively, these objects and images re-create the interior of the gallery as a resonant miniature of the Black Atlantic diaspora.

     

    As it maps the configurations of this diasporic network, the exhibit also plots the transformation of those cultural entities coupled together by the perturbing currents of the slave trade. In particular, the show asks its audience to consider the ways in which black experiences of Christianity have transformed both African and Anglican identities. In his catalogue essay, Piper directs our attention to the African creolizations of Christian worship, mutations of Church experience which point “to the extent to which during this particular leg of its voyage, the slave ship called Jesus has experienced a mutiny of radical proportions. The same Africans for which the ship had been a mechanism of imprisonment had seized control of the helm and were steering the ship in a totally different direction.”13 The exhibition’s examination of this “hi-jacking” of this sacred vessel reminds us that the ship of Englishness has been similarly redirected. The National Gallery’s assured recollection of the nation amid the fragments of the Temeraire, should not, I believe, be read apart from those reconstitutions of British identity manifest in this show. Where John Ruskin instructs the viewing public not to see the black bodies tumbling into the waters of the Atlantic, and Joseph Conrad and the National Gallery substitute an image of the “great flagship of the race” for a sight of those Africans, West-Indians, and Black Britons who have been transported within, thrown from, and who have steered that repeating vessel, Piper’s work will not allow us to forget these black sailors and swimmers of British waters.

     

    Leaky Vessels

     

    I am rather attached to this piece [one of the
    works in "Synapse"], which when installed measures
    approximately forty feet in length.  It should be
    installed at an approximate eye level of five feet
    five inches to six feet, so that in viewing it the
    intention is for the viewer to experience,
    momentarily, a strange feeling of submergence.14
    
    --Sutapa Biswas

     

    At the heart of his exhibition, beneath the photo montage of a crucified, black body, Piper placed a rectangular, water-filled basin. At the bottom of this basin, under the water, he positioned a series of broken mirrors. The obvious allusion to Joyce should not prevent us from recognizing that this cracked looking-glass fragments one of the cannier aesthetic strategies for dismissing Britain’s black subjects from the national portrait gallery. For if we cast a glance at this pool of water we will realize that Piper’s submerged mirrors break the surface of Ruskin’s philosophy of reflection. Looking down into these waters, we see not simply a reflection of the agonized black body which hangs above, we see that bleeding figure as if from beneath, from below the surface of the water. Manipulating a trick of light to reverse our optic of inspection and to reposition our space of observation, Piper’s installation displaces the viewing subject, draws us beneath the water to gaze at the scene of violence played out above. The work forces us, if only for a moment, to occupy the submarine. Tumbled into this space, we see more than that submerged region of British history which Ruskin and his fellows forbid us to acknowledge, we now see from within this current of Britain’s postcoloniality.

     

    The formal achievement of Piper’s exhibit was complemented by an accidental accomplishment. Sometime during the run of the show the waterfilled basin began to leak.15 And though I hesitate to celebrate this spill of waters over the floors of an art gallery, I cannot avoid concluding by registering my delight with this act of liquid disobedience. Trickling out of the artist’s installation, meandering across the floors of the Birmingham gallery, wetting the feet of the exhibit’s visitors, spilling lazily out the door and extending its routework in all directions, this unpoliced current of the postcolonial submarine reminds us that we do indeed have the good fortune of living “a shared process of cultural mutation,” a “convergence that frees us from uniformity” (Glissant 67). To this note of celebration, I must however add a closing note of caution. If in some ways Piper’s exhibit represents not only a space within the postcolonial submarine but a postimperial version of that “fluctuating zone of instability” in which Frantz Fanon and, more recently, Homi Bhabha have begged their readers to immerse themselves, then it realizes these liquidities within a fragile and guarded moment.16 Departing the gallery we must wonder whether we can sustain this submersion. Can we, like Sutapa Biswas’ surprised subjects, wade the submarine? Or will we dry our feet as we wander back to our everyday identities?

     

    Notes

     

    1. See Johannes Fabian, Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983).

     

    2. See Joseph Conrad, Congo Diary and Other Uncollected Pieces, ed. Z. Najder (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1978).

     

    3. See Anne McClintock, Imperial Leather (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), especially 11-13.

     

    4. See Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding (Boston: Shambhala Press, 1992).

     

    5. See Arkady Plotnitsky, Complementarity: Anti-Epistemology after Bohr and Derrida (Durham: Duke University Press, 1994).

     

    6. As we move from a cartography of culture to a map of the human, the tropologies of the synapse reveal the self as that which is also simultaneously structurally determinate and structurally coupled to its environment. And as those terms at once imply and eviscerate the concepts of the without and the within, the problems of reading the material constitutions of the human are replaced by the task of plotting the synaptic networks which wire subjects and environments. If the cross-hatched Atlantic functions as the nervous system of empire, then the subject is wrapped by an entirely similar liquid skin, or, to revert to Fanon, by an atmosphere of certain uncertainties. It is this networked space, where the human is manifest alternately as subject or environment, and, simultaneously, as both, that defines the territory of a postidentitarian humanism.

     

    7. In referring to the “Black Atlantic,” I am alluding to the cultural territory sketched in Paul Gilroy’s brilliant study The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993). Gilroy is, of course, not the first scholar to investigate the cultural economy of this transnational territory. Robert Farris Thompson, Kobena Mercer, Peter Linnebaugh and Marcus Rediker have all made significant contributions to the study of a cultural expanse which did not vanish with the abolition of the “peculiar institution.” Gilory’s work is distinct, however, in the systematicity of his quasi-totalizing cartography. I discuss his work at some slightly greater length later in this essay.

     

    8. To the untrained eye of a reader whose education in the humanities revolved, too frequently, on a flight from the hard sciences, Maturana’s work seems weakest at this point. He tends to assume the self-evident character of the organic “unity” as an uncontestable starting point and fails adequately to address the tension which his readings of structural-coupling place on his doctrine of structural-determinism.

     

    9. The work in question is M.N. Hill’s The Sea: Ideas and Observations on Progress in the Study of the Seas (New York and London: John Wiley and Sons, 1962).

     

    10. See Patrick Wright, On Living in an Old Country: The National Past in Contemporary Britain (London: Verso, 1985).

     

    11. Cited in Judy Edgerton, Making and Meaning: Turner, The Fighting Temeraire (London: National Gallery Publications Limited, 1995), 10.

     

    12. These, and other images, together with Piper’s comments on the exhibition, are reproduced in Keith Piper, A Ship Called Jesus (Birmingham: Ikon Gallery, 1991).

     

    13. The catalogue is not paginated, but by my count this comment appears on page 21 of A Ship Called Jesus.

     

    14. “Frieze,” the work in question, comprises a series of some fifty rectangular panels mounted in an undulating line. The image on each of the panels is a cropped version of the photograph of bathing women I discuss above. Distributed across the walls of a gallery, and through the course of a visitor’s passage through that gallery, this image is thus encountered as an experience of repetition, with difference, across space and time, as, that is, an experience of the synaptic and the submarine.

     

    15. This information is derived from a personal conversation with the artist, July 31, 1996.

     

    16. Fanon calls his readers to this “fluctuating zone of instability” in his celebrated essay “On National Culture” in The Wretched of the Earth. Bhabha, who continues to disclose his debts to Fanon while proving himself one of Fanon’s most original interpreters, offers his reading of this moment in The Wretched of the Earth in his essay “DissemiNation: Time, Narrative and the Margins of the Modern Nation,” in The Location of Culture (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), 139-171.

    Works Cited

     

    • Appadurai, Arjun. “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy,” Public Culture 2.2 (1990): 1-24.
    • Bhabha, Homi. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 1994.
    • Biswas, Sutapa. “Artist’s Statement.” Unpublished, August, 1996.
    • Conrad, Joseph. Congo Diary and Other Uncollected Pieces. Ed. Z. Najde. New York: Doubleday, 1978.
    • —. Heart of Darkness. London: Penguin Books, 1983.
    • —. The Nigger of the Narcissus. London: Penguin Books, 1989.
    • Deleuze, Giles and Felix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Trans. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1987.
    • Edgerton, Judy. Making and Meaning: Turner, The Fighting Temeraire. London: National Gallery Publications Limited, 1995.
    • Fabian, Johannes. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object. New York: Columbia UP, 1983.
    • Fanon, Frantz. Black Skins, White Masks. New York: Grove Press, 1967.
    • —. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press, 1965.
    • Gilroy, Paul. The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1993.
    • Glissant, Edouard. Caribbean Discourse: Selected Essays. Charlottesville: U of Virginia P, 1989.
    • Helland-Hansen, B., with John Murray, John Hjort, A. Appell, and H.H. Gran. The Depths of the Ocean: A General Account of the Modern Science of Oceanography. London: MacMillan and Co, 1912.
    • Hill, M.N. The Sea: Ideas and Observations on Progress in the Study of the Seas. New York and London: John Wiley and Sons, 1962.
    • Maturana, Umberto, and Francisco Varela. The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Cognition. Boston and London: Shambhala, 1992.
    • McClintock, Anne. Imperial Leather: Race, Gender and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest. London and New York: Routledge, 1995.
    • Piper, Keith. A Ship Called Jesus. Birmingham: Ikon Gallery, 1991.
    • Plotnitsky, Arkady. Complementarity: Anti-Epistemology after Bohr and Derrida. Durham: Duke UP, 1994.
    • Ruskin, John. The Complete Works of John Ruskin. Eds. E.T. Cook and Alexander Wedderburn. London: George Allen, 1902-1912.
    • Suleri, Sara. The Rhetoric of English India. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1992.
    • Walcott, Derek. Collected Poems: 1948-1984. New York: Farrar, Strauss, Giroux, 1986.
    • —. Omeros. New York: Farrar, Strauss, Giroux, 1990.
    • Wright, Patrick. On Living in an Old Country: The National Past in Contemporary Britain. London: Verso, 1985.

     

  • Selected Letters from Readers

     

     

    The following responses were submitted by PMC readers using regular e-mail or the PMC Reader’s Report form. Not all letters received are published, and published letters may have been edited.

     


    Reader’s Report on Michael Joyce’s “Twelve Blue” (PMC 7.3):

     

    “Twelve Blue” reminded me of this excerpt from from Salman Rushdie’s Haroun and the Sea of Stories:

     

    ...the Water Genie told Haroun about the Ocean of the Streams of Story, and even though he was full of a sense of hopelessness and failure the magic of the Ocean began to have a magic effect on Haroun. He looked into the water and saw that it was made up of a thousand thousand thousand and one different currents, each of a different color, weaving in and out of one another like a liquid tapestry of breathtaking complexity; and the [Water Genie] explained that these were the Streams of Story, that each colored strand represented and contained a single tale. Different parts of the Ocean contained different sorts of stories, and as all the stories that had ever been told and many that were still in the process of being invented could be found here, the Ocean of the Streams of Story was in fact the biggest library in the universe. And because the stories were held here in fluid form, they retained the ability to change, to become new versions of themselves, to join up with other stories and so become other stories...

     

    These comments are from: Caroline Honig

     


     

    Michael Joyce replies:

     

    Dear Caroline Honig,

     

    PMC has passed along your reader’s report and I am grateful for your reminder of Rushdie’s strands and streams which, while not explicitly on my mind when I literally drew out the strands for “Twelve Blue,” cannot have been out of mind either.

     

    In his essay “In the Ocean of Streams of Story” (Millenium Film Journal No. 28 [Spring]: Interactivities, 15-30: http://www.sva.edu/MFJ/GWOCEAN.HTML), the interactive cinema artist Grahame Weinbren asks:

     

    Can we imagine the Ocean as a source primarily for readers rather than writers? Could there be a "story space"... like the Ocean, in which a reader might take a dip, encountering stories and story-segments as he or she flipped and dived? In these waters, turbulences created by the swimmer's own motion might cause an intermingling of the Streams of Story where the very attempt to examine a particular story-stream transforms it. What a goal to create such an Ocean! And how suitable an ideal for an interactive fiction!

     

    The hypertext novelist Carolyn Guyer, whose Mother Millennia project (http://mothermillennia.org) imagines its own sea of “2000 stories of mother by the year 2000” came to hypertext after imagining artist’s books where the connections among characters, themes, images, etc., would literally be threaded through the leaves of the book into cat’s-cradle-like webs of shifting forms.

     

    My own favorite memory of story strands is from a session at an educational conference where I asked people in the audience of the final luncheon to create a human hypertext (what else is there?). As they took part in the discussion I asked successive speakers to toss balls of colored yarn across the room to others in the audience with whose ideas they felt a connection. It did not take long before the audience was strewn with trails of brightly colored yarn marking the weave of shared ideas.

     

    Your note struck me as one such strand. Thank you.

     

    Michael Joyce

     


     

    Richard Crew and Arkady Plotnitsky, Exchange on Plotnitsky’s essay, “‘But It Is Above All Not True’” Derrida, Relativity and the ‘Science Wars,’” Postmodern Culture 7.2

     

  • An Exchange: Richard Crew and Arkady Plotnitsky

    Arkady Plotnitsky 

    Literature Program
    Duke University
    aplotnit@acpub.duke.edu

     

    and Richard Crew

    Department of Mathematics
    University of Florida
    crew@math.ufl.edu

     

    The following exchange between Richard Crew and Arkady Plotnitsky is in response to Plotnitsky’s essay, “‘But It Is Above All Not True’: Derrida, Relativity and the ‘Science Wars,’” which appeared in PMC (7.2) in January, 1997.

     


     

    A Response to Arkady Plotnitsky’s “‘But It Is Above All Not True’: Derrida, Relativity and the ‘Science Wars’” (PMC 7.3)

    Richard Crew
    crew@math.ufl.edu© 1998 Richard Crew
    All rights reserved.

     


     

    I read with great interest Arkady Plotnitsky’s article on the science wars and Derrida’s use of the phrase “Einsteinian constant.” I agree completely with the complaints he expresses on the superficiality with which this and other aspects of the Sokal controversy have been discussed. Nonetheless I have some misgivings about the reading he proposes for this phrase, and in the application of it he makes to that controversy.

     

    When he says, for example, that “As used by Hyppolite, the ‘constant’ here may not mean–and does not appear to mean–a numerical constant, as virtually all the physicists who commented on it appear to assume,” I cannot help feeling that his judgement is a little premature. In fact Plotnitsky characterizes his own reading as “tentative,” and admits (in paragraph 18 of his article) that “this alternative interpretation is not definitive, and no definitive interpretation may be possible, given the status of the text.” Actually, he proposes two related interpretations: the “Einsteinian constant,” in Hyppolite’s usage, should be understood as referring to either the Lorentz distance, or to space-time itself. He apparently views these alternatives as “conceptually equivalent,” since they are “correlative to the constancy of the speed of light c in a vacuum.” But if concepts that are “correlative” in this sense can be viewed as “conceptually equivalent,” then why can they not both be viewed as conceptually equivalent to the speed of light itself? Then the reading in which the “Einsteinian constant” is simply “the speed of light”–i.e., a physical constant–would be back in the game.

     

    I think Plotnitsky is right in thinking that there can be no “definitive interpretation” of Hyppolite’s “constant which is a combination of space-time” or of Derrida’s rejoinder that “the Einsteinian constant is not a constant, not a center”: there is simply too little physics here to say what might be at issue. But nonetheless the reading “space-time” seems to be excluded by Hyppolite’s choice of language; if all he meant was “space-time,” then why does he use the more complicated phrase “constant that is a combination of space-time”? Perhaps this is why Plotnitsky suggests that Hyppolite is thinking of the Lorentz distance, while Derrida has in mind space-time itself. It might be thought too finicky to point out that there is no explicit textual license to bring in either of the concepts “space-time” or “Lorentz interval” into the discussion (though raising this objection would be consistent with Plotnitsky’s dictum that the reader should construe the meaning of the term ‘constant’ “from the text itself” rather than from one’s general knowledge of physics, c.f. par 12). But whatever Hyppolite may have had in mind, Plotnitsky rightly points out that the sense of Derrida’s assertion, “the Einsteinian constant is not a constant, not a center,” has to be determined from the discussion of the term “center” in the lecture of Derrida that he and Hyppolite are discussing.

     

    Let’s now consider Plotnitsky’s reading of the “constant”:

     

    ...it appears to mean the Einsteinian (or Einsteinian-Minkowskian) concept of space-time itself, since Hyppolite speaks of "a constant which is a combination of space-time" (emphasis added), or the so-called spatio-temporal interval, invariant ("constant") under Lorentz transformations of special relativity. This interval is also both "a combination of space-time" and something that "does not belong to any of the experimenters who live the experience," and can be seen as "dominat[ing] the whole construct" (i.e. the conceptual framework of relativity in this Minkowskian formulation). (par. 17; the emphasis is Plotnitsky's)

     

    One could observe that the Lorentz distance, considered as a function on space-time, is invariant under the group of Lorentz transformations, but it is not constant in the usual sense this has for functions (i.e. that of assuming the same value everywhere). But really, this is just a quibble; slightly more serious is the question of the sense in which space-time (as opposed to the Lorentz distance) can be said to be constant. It can’t mean “not varying in time” because time is internal to space-time. It can’t mean “invariant under Lorentz transformations” since space-time doesn’t really undergo Lorentz transformations; these simply describe how certain reference frames in space-time are related to each other. But Plotnitsky’s main point is that space-time, or the invariant distance, somehow illustrates Derrida’s notions of “play” and “center”:

     

    The moment one accepts this interpretation, Derrida's statement begins to sound quite a bit less strange. It acquires an even greater congruence with relativity once one understands the term "play/game" as connoting, in this context (it is a more radical and richer concept overall), the impossibility within Einstein's framework of space-time of a uniquely privileged frame of reference--a center from which an observer could master the field (i.e. the whole of space-time). Even if my reading of "the Einsteinian constant" is tentative, the meaning I suggest for Derrida's term "play" [jeu] is easily supportable on the basis of his essay and related works. (par. 19)

     

    and later:

     

    One might, then, see Derrida's statement reflecting the fact that, in contrast to classical--Newtonian--physics, the space-time of special, and even more so of general, relativity disallows a Newtonian universal background with its (separate) absolute space and absolute time, or a uniquely privileged frame of reference for physical events. (par. 20)

     

    In fact, whether or not Derrida really had this in mind, it is an interesting idea that deserves to be examined on its own right.

     

    Let’s consider the last quotation first. One has to remark right away that the Newtonian “absolute space” and “absolute time” are not the same thing as a “uniquely privileged frame of reference.” This calls for some explanations. The sense in which space and time are “absolute” in Newtonian mechanics is the following: Newtonian mechanics assumes that it is absolutely meaningful to speak of two events as occurring at the same point of space, or at the same time. This does not imply a choice of a frame of reference. Neither do the laws of Newtonian mechanics single out a particular reference frame; this is all discussed quite clearly in the second chapter of Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity. There is no spatial “center of the universe” singled out by the laws of physics, or any intrinsic meaning to the words “up” or “down.” The laws of physics must be the same at all spatial locations and with respect to all spatial directions; Einstein calls this the “principle of relativity with respect to direction” (Meaning of Relativity 24). One next inquires if there is is a similar principle for observers that are in motion relative to each other. Here it is necessary to single out a particular class of reference frames, the “inertial frames,” and it is required that the laws of physics should be the same for any two observers moving in an inertial reference frame; this Einstein calls the “principle of special relativity” (Meaning of Relativity 25) and it is valid both in Newtonian mechanics and in the theory of relativity.

     

    The difference between classical mechanics and special relativity can be seen when we ask how different inertial frames are related to each other. In classical mechanics, as Einstein points out, this problem is solved with the aid of the unconscious assumption that phrases such as “simultaneous” and “in the same location” have an absolute meaning; this is the Newtonian “absolute” space and time. One can then write down formulas for the relation between different inertial frames; Einstein calls these “Galilean transformations” (Meaning of Relativity 26, eqn. 21). For two frames related by Galilean transformations, accelerations are the same, and since the laws of Newtonian physics are expressed as relations between forces and accelerations, they are invariant under Galilean transformations. Now the problem treated by Special Relativity arises when it is observed that Maxwell’s equations for the electromagnetic field are not invariant under Galilean transformations. It would then seem that one could detect experimentally “absolute velocities,” and not just absolute accelerations; in particular, it would make sense to assert that some object in the universe was “absolutely at rest.” And, far from being a fundamental condition of the theory, this was thought of as a surprising prediction, to be tested experimentally.

     

    The failure of such experiments led Einstein to abandon Galilean transformations, and to realize that the relations between different inertial frames must leave Maxwell’s equations invariant. By a well-known argument, he shows that the relations are given by transformations which leave invariant the Lorentz distance–the Lorentz transformations. One thus arrives at the concept of an absolute “space-time,” and of a class of inertial frames of reference “in” it, all related by Lorentz transformations. Einstein then showed that a suitable modification of Newtonian mechanics could be formulated in this setting, from which one could recover the usual mechanical laws when velocities were assumed to be small compared with the speed of light. This of course is the Special Theory of Relativity.

     

    One can summarize the situation as follows. There is a principle of relativity in both Newtonian mechanics and in Special Relativity theory; neither theory has a “privileged reference frame,” though both theories recognize a privileged class of reference frames, the inertial frames. The difference between the two lies in the relations between the inertial frames; for the Newtonian theory, these are given by the Galilean transformations, which allow an absolute distinction between space and time. In Special Relativity, absolute space and absolute time are replaced by the weaker hypothesis of an absolute space-time, in which different inertial frames are related by Lorentz transformations, and in which there is no longer an absolute distinction between space and time. In General Relativity, finally, the notion of inertial frame is abandoned, though the notion of a physically meaningful space-time is retained.

     

    We must now return to Plotnitsky’s assertion that Derrida’s remark refers to the circumstance that Relativity “disallows a Newtonian universal background… with a uniquely privileged frame of reference for physical events,” and that the concept of “play” that Derrida has worked out connotes “the impossibility within Einstein’s framework of space-time of a uniquely privileged frame of reference.” In fact neither classical nor relativistic mechanics singles out a uniquely privileged reference frame, though both of them single out a privileged class of reference frames. Now if, in the context of either theory, a “center” in Derrida’s sense is to be taken as a privileged frame of reference, and if (as Plotnitsky suggests) lack of such a frame is exactly the connotation of Derridean “play” in this setting, then classical mechanics would itself have to be described as a “decentered structure.” But Derrida’s essay makes it clear that a “classical” theory such as Newtonian mechanics has no business being a decentered structure. According to Derrida, decentered play only emerges subsequent to an event, the “rupture” that he evokes at the beginning of “Structure, Sign, and Play,” which he locates at a particular moment of European culture, roughly during decades surrounding the turn of the century, and he mentions the names of Nietzsche, Freud, and Heidegger; this is not the heyday of classical mechanics!

     

    At this point a qualification is in order. It is certainly true that many classical physicists, Newton included, assumed it was absolutely meaningful to assert that an object was “at rest” or “in motion.” Doubts about this, however, surface as early as the first decade of the 18th century (Leibniz, in the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence). But the historical record is not at issue here: the point is that theory itself does not require such an assumption. Newtonian mechanics functions in the same way, and makes the same predictions, with or without the assumption that “rest” has an absolute meaning. (In fact, one of the predictions is that it is impossible to determine experimentally if an object is “absolutely at rest”; this principle stated as early as Galileo’s Dialogues. In practice, classical physicists used whatever frame of reference seemed convenient for calculations–usually, though not always, the center of mass of whatever system of bodies was being considered. And they could do this, precisely because it was understood that the particular choice of frame didn’t matter. Now it may be that the persistence of the assumption that “rest” is absolutely meaningful, alongside of what is really the operative assumption of classical mechanics (that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames, and that no one is particularly privileged) is an example of the ambivalence between centered structure and decentered play that Derrida discusses in “Structure, Sign, and Play,” and illustrates his belief (c.f. Languages of Criticism 265) that there is no meaningful choice between the two. But again, if classical physics displays the same “obscure economy” in which the “absolutely irreconcilable” schemes of centered and decentered structure coexist, then it seems that we should have to put, alongside of Nietzsche, Freud, and Heidegger, the names of Galileo, Newton, and Leibnitz. Which was probably not Derrida’s intention.

     

    The problem, I think, is in the assumption that, at least in the context of physics, “center” must mean “privileged frame of reference,” and that “play” or “jeu” has to do with its absence. Plotnitsky does not really justify this assumption; he only says that it is “easily supportable on the basis of his essay and related works,” and gives no details; it is, however, the key point. In fact, if “center” could mean something else, then is it not possible after all that Relativity has a “center,” an “organizing principle of the structure” which “would limit what we might call the play of the structure”? One thinks, for example, of the representation theory of the Lorentz group, which classifies the various invariant and covariant quantities for the action of the group, and thus the mathematical constructions which are to be allowed as “physically meaningful.” It could therefore be seen as limiting the “play” of the structure, in the sense that it establishes what can be meaningful in the theory and what cannot. We have also seen the role played by the notion of “inertial system” in both classical and relativistic mechanics: could this be a “center,” something limiting the “play”? And if we consider, not Special, but General Relativity, then a host of concepts come in for consideration–the curvature tensor, the Ricci tensor, the scalar curvature, or perhaps the totality of Riemannian geometry–as a “ceenter,” something which limits the play of the structure by determining what is physically meaning, and physically possible.

     

    On the other hand, if relativistic mechanics is to be understood as a “decentered structure,” then this must be explained on the basis provided by Derrida in his lecture. I can’t say that I really see how to do this. Consider, for example, Derrida’s introduction of the latter concept:

     

    From then on [i.e. after the "rupture"] it was probably necessary to begin to think that there was no center, that the center could not be thought in the form of a being-present, that the center had no natural locus, that it was not a fixed locus but a function, a sort of non-locus in which an infinite number of sign-substitutions came into play. This moment was that in which language invaded the universal problematic; that in which, in the absence of a center or origin, everything became discourse--provided we can agree on this word--that is to say, when everything became a system where the central signified, the original or transcendental signified, is never absolutely present outside a system of differences. (Languages of Criticism 249)

     

    and later:

     

    This field is in fact that of freeplay, that is to say, a field of infinite substitutions in the closure of a finite ensemble. This field permits these infinite substitutions only because it is finite... (260)

     

    Is it really clear that the multiplicity of reference frames in Special Relativity constitutes “a sort of non-locus in which an infinite number of sign-substitutions come into play?” If so, why does this point of view not apply to a “classical” theory such as Newtonian mechanics? And what sense would it have to say that in the Theory of Relativity “everything is discourse”? These quoted passages call for some sort of commentary or explanation, to justify the particular application of these concepts to physics. Plotnitsky does not give any, though he criticizes Weinberg for a similar failure (par. 13).

     

    One might object that it is completely misguided to take Derrida’s text in such a literal way. But when Plotnitsky says that “these concepts, such as ‘play,’ are thought through in Derrida in the most rigorous way,” when he says that “interpretations of these statements [i.e. Derrida’s remark about the “Einsteinian constant”] are possible and may be necessary,” and when he appeals to “traditional norms of reading,” then I think that he too wants to take Derrida at his word. This would seem to be all the more necessary if he really wants to distance himself from the position that Derrida’s remarks to Hyppolite were merely “casual” and “offhand.” As far as the latter goes, I think it is perfectly consistent to view those comments as casual, or at best metaphorical, and yet hold that the conceptual scheme outlined by Derrida in “Structure, Sign, and Play” has some application to physics. But Plotnitsky has much more work to do if he wants to take on the latter task; one thing, in particular, is to clear up the meaning of “center”–a question already raised by Hyppolite in the discussion following “Structure, Sign, and Play,” and not, to my satisfaction at least, answered by Derrida.

     


     

    On Derrida and Relativity: A Reply to Richard Crew

    Arkady Plotnitsky
    aplotnit@acpub.duke.edu© 1998 Arkady Plotnitsky
    All rights reserved

     


     

    I am grateful to Richard Crew for his thoughtful commentary on my article “‘But It Is Above All Not True’: Derrida, Relativity and the ‘Science Wars.’” While critical of the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange on relativity, this commentary offers a welcome contrast to recent debates in the so-called “Science Wars.” No less significantly, Crew meaningfully uses the content of mathematics and science in his argument, rather than merely making them serve as a source of authority, as a number of mathematicians and scientists have done in the “Science Wars.” His discussion of both relativity and classical mechanics has much to offer in its own right and (perhaps contrary to his own view) illustrates the fertility of exploring the relationships between modern science and Derrida’s and related ideas. Crew argues on the basis of a substantive reading of the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange and Derrida’s work. This, too, offers a marked and welcome contrast to most recent “criticism” by members of the scientific community. I would, therefore, be glad to use this opportunity to further clarify key questions at stake in my essay, and I offer this response not in the spirit of confrontation but in the spirit of clarification. Hopefully, along with Crew’s remarks, my response will make a contribution to a broad and substantive discussion concerning the relationships between modern mathematics and science, and new philosophy, or contemporary culture as a whole. In following this approach, the best one can do may well be, as Nietzsche said, “to replace the improbable with the more probable, possibly one error with another” (On the Genealogy of Morals 18). This, however, is by far preferable to the “Science Wars.”

     

    In this spirit, let me begin by acknowledging that at several points the argument of my essay needs to be clarified and made more precise. Yet, it also appears to me that, however unintentionally, Crew has bypassed some qualifications I did make and that the essay already, in effect, responds to some of his questions. I also think that some of his comments are in fact consistent with my argument and even reinforce it, if against the grain of Crew’s overall argument. It is crucial to keep in mind what arguments and claims–and of what kind–I make in my article. It may therefore be useful to consider the nature of these arguments and claims before proceeding to Crew’s more specific comments. I shall do so in two parts, each reflecting two main aspects of my earlier argument–the ethical and the conceptual–even though these aspects cannot be seen as fully dissociable, which is a significant point in its own right. I shall designate these two parts of my response as “A” and “B.” In a final section, “C,” I will address Crew’s comments specifically.

     

    A. Ethics

     

    At the core of my argument in my article is the following point: If one wants to offer a meaningful argument concerning the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange this is how one should proceed: a) by taking into account the particular circumstances of the exchange; and b) by examining the exchange itself and, especially, Derrida’s “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” (see my par. 22, 24, 26, 27). I consider this point axiomatic–as concerns both a meaningful conceptual engagement with the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange and, especially, the ethics of academic and intellectual discussion. Indeed, this is how Crew proceeds. But, as he points out in his first paragraph above, this is decidedly not what we have seen in the discussions at issue in my essay. The latter is one of my central points. The article and all of its arguments are framed accordingly, as its subtitle, “Derrida, Relativity, and the ‘Science Wars,’” indicates. As I tried to make clear throughout, my article does not offer, and does not claim to offer, a full conceptually substantive argument supporting its readings of the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange and “Structure, Sign, and Play.” It only suggests that such readings are possible and offers some corroboration to support this suggestion. It pointedly allows for the possibility that these readings can be challenged, for example, in the way they are by Crew, within the proper protocol, as defined above. That is, my essay is more an argument about how an argument concerning the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange should be conducted than an argument concerning the meaning of any particular statement in this exchange. To a much greater extent it is an argument concerning the relationships between relativity and Derrida’s philosophy as such, on which I sahll comment in more detail presently. When I do argue about the meaning of Hyppolite or Derrida statements in their exchange, I do so tentatively and provisionally; and one must still consider what kind of arguments they are, which I shall do in part “B” of this response. As I say in my initial formulation: “I shall suggest a reading of Derrida’s statement on relativity that might help to develop more balanced and productive forms of interaction between science and the work of Derrida and other authors mentioned above” (par. 2; emphasis added). I also point out that one may be critical of the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange or Derrida’s ideas in general, or be skeptical concerning the value or the very possibility of this interaction (par. 13 and 26).

     

    I am not saying that I offered no conceptual views, arguments, or claims in my article, on which I shall comment below. My point is that these are framed in a particular way within the overall argument of the article, and that this framing must be taken into account in considering any claim made there, such as those concerning possible meanings of the phrase “the Einsteinian constant.” The reading I provided of that phrase may be plausible or possible, or “at least allowable” (par. 18), or implausible or even impossible and, hence, disallowed. This reading, however, must be considered according to the way its framed in my essay, rather than on its own. This is my only major reservation concerning Crew’s commentary. Even the conceptual, let alone ethical, argument of my article is not, as Crew appears to think, centered or anchored in, or even dependent on, any specific interpretation (there are several) of “the Einsteinian constant” suggested in my article, in particular as the Einsteinian relativistic space-time or the spatio-temporal interval invariant under Lorentz transformations. The argument of my essay would remain largely intact if one maintains other interpretations of this “constant,” including the speed of light c–although the spectrum of such interpretations is, I argue, not unlimited. Indeed, it would remain intact even if this phrase or related statements in the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange were in fact meaningless, or uninterpretable. I shall return to this point below. My point at the moment is that conceptual aspects of my argument, including its conjectural interpretations of certain passages from the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange and from Derrida’s “Structure, Sign, and Play,” are not dissociable from its ethical dimensions.

     

    I should add that it is not merely a question, as Crew says, of “the superficiality with which this and other aspects of the Sokal controversy has been discussed” (par.1; emphasis added). At stake are serious–and, once unsupported, scholarly and ethically unacceptable–accusations (far from restricted to Derrida), with considerable implications. Often it is a matter of the truth of such accusations (hence the title of my essay), such as those made by Paul Gross and Norman Levitt in Higher Superstition, on no basis whatsoever, of “Derrida’s eagerness to claim familiarity with deep scientific matters,” of which (this is clearly their point) he is in fact totally ignorant (par. 7; see also Higher Superstition, 79). Beyond being blatantly untrue, this is hardly an innocent and, if believed, inconsequential accusation, found in a book published by a major university press (n.12). Also, at stake is the work of key contemporary thinkers and its impact on the academic and intellectual life, and culture.

     

    Given the particular character, as just outlined, of my argument, the absence (which I acknowledge throughout) of a definitive argument concerning relativity and the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange or “Structure, Sign, and Play,” was, I thought, permissible, however desirable such an argument might be in general. Ethically, too, since I did not criticize, let alone attack Derrida or Hyppolite (and I do believe that there is an ethical asymmetry here), I could afford to be more tentative either concerning the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange itself or “Structure, Sign, and Play,”–provided that I made clear to the readers that my claims are tentative. This I think I did, for the most part. At the same time, I thought it important to show that there exists a view of the relationships between modern mathematics or science and new philosophy different from most positions on both sides of the “Science Wars.”

     

    B. Concepts

     

    I shall now explain what were the conceptual arguments and claims in my essay concerning both the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange and (a very different case) the relationships between Derrida’s work and relativity. From the standpoint of my article, and, I would argue, under the circumstances of the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange in general, the conceptual content and significance of this exchange lies in the degree to which it reflects the relationships between the philosophical content of modern mathematics and science, here in particular relativity, and Derrida’s ideas, such as that of decentered play [jeu]. That is, it is in relation to these relationships in Derrida’s work, in particular in “Structure, Sign, and Play,” rather than in the exchange itself, that the latter can be meaningfully considered. In short (this view governs my reading of the exchange), the meaning of the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange is the possibility of such relationships. It tells us that the philosophical content of Einstein’s relativity overlaps with and might have influenced, however indirectly, Derrida’s conceptuality of decentered play. As I stress throughout, it is only the philosophical content and implications of relativity, rather than physics itself, that is at issue here (see par.11, 14, 19, and 21-22).

     

    Accordingly, all that I claim with any definitiveness is the existence of such philosophical relationships between Derrida’s ideas and relativity–and that the possibility of these relationships is reflected in the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange. That Hyppolite’s remarks suggest the possibility of such connections is hardly in question, however little he offers to justify such a suggestion and however vague and chaotic his comments may be. Crew clearly shares my view that these factors and other circumstances of the exchange make nearly everything one has to say about his or Derrida’s comments there unavoidably hypothetical.

     

    It is in this sense that I argue that no definitive interpretation of their statements on “the Einsteinian constant” may be possible (par. 18). This need not mean that something more definitive was not on Hyppolite’s or Derrida’s mind, although their thinking was obviously far from crystallized. As will be seen, some indeterminacy of meaning at the time of the exchange, or, conversely, the fact that some meaning of certain statements determined at the time is lost now, does not mean that some statements of either type cannot be read (in the sense to be explained below). By contrast, it can be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty that Hyppolite suggests the possibility of some connections between Derrida’s ideas and relativity.

     

    How viable this possibility is may of course be questioned, as Crew appears to do in his comments. While (I hope) my essay offers more in this regard than Hyppolite’s comments, it does not offer the kind of reading of “Structure, Sign, and Play” and related works that would constitute a full argument in this respect. However, I also do not claim to offer such an argument in full measure but only suggest that it is possible to do so, which is significant for the ethical reasons explained briefly above and in paragraphs 24 and 26 of my essay.

     

    While I did not fully develop such an argument in my essay, this type of argument itself has a different status in my essay and entails a very different type of claims than that of claims advanced in my interpretations of passages from the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange. The latter interpretations are strictly hypothetical and the statements and concepts in question, such as “the Einsteinian constant,” may indeed have had a different meaning in the exchange (my article suggests several such possible meanings), or (which is not the same) might be given a different meaning in a reading, or might even be read as meaningless. I do not think that the latter is the case, even though, in part by virtue of their circumstances, some of Hyppolite’s and Derrida’s statements are vague and unrigorous. As a result the role of these remarks may well be restricted to indicating the possibility of some conceptual relationships between relativity and Derrida’s ideas. By contrast, my argument for the latter relationships is not hypothetical in the same sense. This difference is made explicit in my article (par. 21). This is also why, as I said above, even the conceptual argument of my essay is not primarily centered or dependent on any particular interpretation of “the Einsteinian constant.” It is certainly not primarily about this interpretation, as Crew appears to assume in his reading of my article. Such a reading is not preventable, but it runs against the spirit, if not the letter, of my article. By contrast, Derrida’s concept of (decentered) play is indispensable to my argument concerning the relationships between Derrida’s work, such as and especially “Structure, Sign, and Play,” and relativity. Of course, this argument, too, even if made as fully as possible, may be unpersuasive, can be argued against, or disproved, as my article makes clear (par. 26). Crew’s comments do not appear to offer (or aim to offer) a full counter-argument in this respect, however much they undermine (perhaps less than Crew claims) my suggested interpretation of “the Einsteinian constant” or other passages in the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange. Although I did not fully develop it there and will not be able to fully develop it here, this argument would in my view stand, regardless of the specific meaning of anything said by Hyppolite or Derrida during their exchange.

     

    From this perspective, whatever Derrida and Hyppolite say concerning relativity during their exchange, be it meaningful or meaningless, becomes more or less immaterial, if not irrelevant. Accordingly, questions Crew raises about their statements there are not really that germane to my argument. Crew’s more general (but similarly critical) claims concerning relativity and Derrida’s work itself are of course a different matter, and I shall consider them separately below.

     

    Derrida is in a rather enviable position here. On the one hand, he does not mention relativity in his essay (and to my knowledge anywhere in his work in any substantive way) and gives only a brief improvised response to a somewhat muddled question by Hyppolite. He might have had something in mind concerning relativity and his concept of play, quite possibly something vague and induced by Hyppolite’s question. What that was is not easily, if at all, recoverable after thirty years and is found in a text that is itself uncertain. In any event, while, as Crew observes, Derrida might indeed not have said enough or was too vague to be definitive or definitively right, or even meaningful, about relativity, he did not say enough to be (definitively provable) wrong about it either. Even if he were proved to be wrong, it would be unreasonable to make too much of it given the circumstances, as indeed nearly everyone, on both sides of the “Science Wars,” admits at this point, including Sokal, although not Gross and Levitt (Higher Superstition 93). In short, there is little ground for any meaningful criticism, certainly not for the kind of attack to which Derrida was subjected during the “Science Wars.” At most, if one is inclined to criticize, one can see Derrida’s remarks as irrelevant as far as relativity is concerned. Even in this case, however, from the ethical standpoint one has no choice but to acknowledge that in one degree or another the circumstances had contributed to the questionable character of his statement, especially given that Derrida is customarily cautious and circumspect in his statements concerning mathematics and science, and the relationships between them and his own work (par. 1; Derrida, “Sokal et Bricmont ne sont pas sérieux”). On the other hand, if one does want to suggest connections between Derrida’s work and relativity or establish them rigorously, one is free to do so. If, however, such an attempt is successful, at least some credit would belong to Derrida. In short, on the one hand, the ethics of scholarly and intellectual discussion does not leave one much space for Derrida’s critics here. On the other hand, his remark on “the Einsteinian constant” is what one can make of it by using “Structure, Sign, and Play” and Derrida’s ideas in general and their connections to relativity, which one has to establish on one’s own. One has to extract and indeed to construct a “Derridean” conceptual matrix for relativity out of materials such as the idea of decentered play and related conceptual formations of a more general philosophical nature (par. 19).

     

    As I explained above, my primary argument in the article is that there exists or, better, that one can establish–or, again, construct–significant connections between Derrida’s and related work and the philosophical problematics of relativity. My reading of the relevant passages in the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange and interpretation of “the Einsteinian constant” was “an exploration of certain possibilities and implications of these connections” (par. 21).

     

    The most likely and the most significant possibility for placing Derrida’s comment may well be suggested, perhaps more marginally than it should have been, in par. 24. Let me reproduce this elaboration here:

     

    There are further nuances concerning relativity as well, especially those relating to the difference between the centering of "the whole [theoretical] construct"--that is, as I read it, the overall conceptual framework of relativity--around the concept of space-time and the centering of the space-time of special or general relativity itself. Concentrating here on "the Einsteinian constant," Derrida does not appear to address the first question as such (or conceivably, and, again, under the circumstances understandably, conflates both questions). It may well be, however, that he intimates a negative answer here as well. For from the Derridean perspective it would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to claim any central or unique concept--the "constant"--defining the Einsteinian framework. It is, therefore, possible that Derrida has this point in mind. Invariance or stability of a conceptual center of a theoretical structure, such as relativity, is, of course, quite different from invariance of a physical constant. One might suggest, however, that in the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange a certain concept of decentering defining the space-time of relativity coincides with the idea of decentering the overall conceptual structure of the theory itself. No concept belonging to the latter, not even that of the decentered space-time, may be seen as an absolute center of relativity theory--a center invariant under all theoretical and historical transformations of this theory. That is, such conceptual centering may change from one version of relativity to another (this centering is relative in this sense), and some forms of relativity may be constructed as conceptually decentered in themselves. Indeed, there have been considerable debates among historians of science as to the relative centrality of key experimental facts and theoretical ideas of special relativity, either as originally introduced by Einstein or in its subsequent, such as Minkowskian, forms. (par. 24)

     

    I am now inclined to think about this situation in stronger terms than “[i]t may well be… that [Derrida] intimates a negative answer here as well” or “it is… possible that Derrida has this point in mind.” Given Derrida’s argument in “Structure, Sign, and Play” and the Derridean perspective on the structure of theoretical argument in general, this could have been (and would naturally have been) Derrida’s primary meaning of his statement. This meaning also allows for several meanings of “the Einsteinian constant” itself, including the speed of light c, which may indeed have been what at least Derrida, if not Hyppolite, had in mind after all, as both I and Crew suggest (see par. 17 and 20 of my essay; par. 2 of Crew’s response). As I say in paragraphs 24 and note 23, Hyppolite might have also thought of the center in the sense of conceptually centering the framework of relativity around a certain “constant” (however the latter itself is interpreted), when he spoke of the constant as “dominat[ing] the whole construct” (par.16). A certain conflation of both these levels of “(de)centering” is possible and, as the above elaboration indicates, these levels may mirror each other.

     

    Is the space-time itself of relativity decentered and decentered more radically than that of Newtonian physics (since there is a certain decentering there as well, via the so-called Galilean relativity)? Would relativity be a conceptually centered or decentered theory? To what degree the latter can be conceptualized via or metaphorized by the former? These are some among the questions posed, or at least provoked, by Hyppolite, in his reaction to Derrida’s concept of decentered play and related ideas in “Structure, Sign, and Play.” Even if not rigorously developed by Hyppolite (under the circumstances understandably), these are philosophically rigorous questions, in part made possible by Derrida’s ideas, although they are not specifically posed by Derrida either. However indirect, these connections are historically significant (par. 25). Questions of this type naturally arise in the philosophy of relativity, even though they may not be addressed by the institutional philosophers of science in the form that Derrida’s work might suggest. On occasion one does find formulations in their work that are close to those that would emerge were one to consider relativity from a Derridean perspective. Indeed, as I indicated above and as I shall further discuss below, even as he criticizes the exchange and “Structure, Sign, and Play,” Crew in effect demonstrates the potential significance of these questions for our understanding of both relativity and Derrida’s framework (see par. 5 – 11). These questions are independent of whatever was said or meant in the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange. This is why I said earlier that, in this larger scheme, whatever was said or meant in the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange itself, for example, by “the Einsteinian constant,” is nearly irrelevant.

     

    However, with these questions and Derrida’s ideas in mind, one can at least read (which, as I shall explain presently, is not the same as finding what Derrida meant or even what he might have meant by his statement at the time) his comment in the following way. Whatever is a constant–numerical, conceptual (an invariant, for example) or other–in Einstein’s relativity is likely to be a manifestation of a Derridean (or analogous) decentering, variability, play [jeu]. Such “constants” may be found either at the level of the structure of the Einsteinian space-time or at the level of the conceptual structure of Einstein’s theory itself. Both may be seen as mirroring each other in this respect, with the qualifications indicated above and keeping in mind the rigorous specificity of the mathematics and physics of relativity. In this reading the meaning of “the Einsteinian constant” itself is left open, although it cannot be seen as arbitrary (and the spectrum of possibilities is in fact not that large). “The Einsteinian constant” will refer to the relationships between many conceivable Einsteinian “constants”–numerical, conceptual, invariants, and so forth–and the irreducible decentering, variability, and play in Derrida’s sense. The former signals the latter: that is, the Einsteinian constants signal the Einsteinian variability as the Derridean or quasi-Derridean play.

     

    This is–or might have been–an intriguing insight or a lucky guess (or both) on Derrida’s part, if due primarily to his general ideas rather than his knowledge of relativity. That is, it might be that, provoked by Hyppolite’s remarks, Derrida guessed that something of that type–that is, that “constants” signal decentering, variability, play–must take place in relativity as well. If so, it was a brilliant guess. If not–that is, if this is not what he meant, or even could have possibly meant–this is still how this statement may be read. That is, one might see it as a kind of philosophical or poetico-philosophical (as opposed to strictly scientific) proposition assembled out of freely floating terms and ideas which may be read in the way just described. Even if the statement had a different meaning when produced, once produced, this statement or, more accurately, the field of interpretative possibilities thereby established allows one to interpret it in the way suggested here. This reading, however, is not arbitrary and, I would argue, philosophically rigorous–that is, the statement can be given a rigorous meaning on the basis of both Derrida’s text, specifically “Structure, Sign, and Play,” and relativity. As I said, it was likely only a lucky guess, although such guesses are, I would argue, never purely a matter of luck. At the very least, the history of Derrida’s ideas has some connections to relativity, as well as quantum physics, post-Gödelian mathematical logic, and certain areas of modern biology and genetics. As I suggest in my article, in all these theories one finds the philosophical conceptuality of the kind found in Derrida and thinkers, such as Bataille, Blanchot, and Levinas, who influenced him. Of course, one finds related philosophical problematics in the history of philosophy itself, extending at least from the Leibniz-Clarke debate, as I mention (par. 25) and as Crew suggests as well (par. 10). The Leibniz-Clarke debate must have been on Hyppolite’s mind.

     

    What I tried to do in my article, then, was to suggest such general connections, whether perceived or not by Derrida himself, between Derrida’s ideas and the philosophy of relativity. As I said, one must take the responsibility for this reading and claims, be they ultimately right and wrong, since Derrida makes none of them. I am perfectly happy to take this responsibility and a degree of credit, if any credit is due, for establishing these connections. Indeed, as I suggest in that essay and as I argue elsewhere (in particular, in Complementarity) more radical ideas than those found anywhere in contemporary philosophy (with a possible exception of Niels Bohr’s work) may ultimately be at stake in the problematics of modern physics (par. 22). As I said, if I am right, part of the credit will have to go to Derrida. If I am wrong, the fault, as the saying goes, is all mine.

     

    The above considerations are part of what I refer to in my article as “the problem of reading,” the problem that has many dimensions (par. 1). What I have specifically in mind here is a reading of Derrida’s comment (and via that comment, of a certain portion of “Structure, Sign, and Play” and a certain portion of the philosophical structure of relativity) as an engagement of shared and mutually enriching conceptualities between theories in different domains, more or less proximate, or more or less distant. It is out of a combination of Derrida’s conceptuality and that of (the philosophy of) relativity that the above propositions, such as “constants of Einstein’s relativity are manifestations of variability, decentering, and play (in Derrida sense),” are produced.

     

    Is the claim of that nature–that is, that Einstein’s relativity is a Derridean theory in this sense–supportable? I think so, even though I cannot further elaborate upon this here. At least this engagement of Derrida’s and other new philosophical ideas in the context of modern or indeed postmodern thought and culture appears to lead to important philosophical questions concerning both. At the very least this suggestion can be put on the table, and it would, I think, be difficult to criticize one for doing this.

     

    C. Counterpoints

     

    Both my article and this exchange are, in my view, best seen as invitations to a rigorous and sustained investigation of the problematics in question, whatever one’s view of Derrida’s and related ideas about modern science, and whatever the outcome of such an investigation may be as concerns the value and significance of these ideas. With this consideration and the preceding discussion in mind, I shall now comment on some of Crew’s specific points. The title of this section–“Counterpoints”–refers more to the sense in which this term is used in music than in an argument.

     

    Crew, par. 2-4

     

    I was, I admit, a bit too loose in using the terms “correlative” and “conceptual equivalent” so as to make them appear more interchangeable than they should be. What I meant and what I should have said in my article is that “two Einsteinian constants,” space-time itself and the Lorentz distance (both correlative to the constancy of the speed of light, and to each other), allow for two conceptually equivalent philosophical conceptualities of relativity. This qualification does not appear to me to undermine the substance of my argument. I do think that Hyppolite might have had space-time itself in mind, in spite of his, indeed somewhat odd expression, “a combination of space-time,” correctly questioned by Crew (par. 3). The special circumstances of both the exchange itself and of its translation, transcription, and so forth appear to me to have played a role here.

     

    I did indeed suggest that “the Einsteinian constant” may have been c, the speed of light, after all, in part for the reasons just indicated or those (more or less the same) indicated by Crew. This follows from my discussion, especially in paragraphs 19-21, although it may need to have been stated more explicitly there. My point was that conceptual (rather than numerical) interpretations that I suggest are “more plausible” (par. 17). I do not think that reading “the Einsteinian constant” as c undermines my argument in the article either. The particular interpretation of “the Einsteinian constant” as c is clearly more likely than those proposing other numerical constants that can be associated with Einstein’s name (par. 15). When I criticize those who used c in the “Science Wars,” I did not meant to suggest that this interpretation is impossible. I meant rather to emphasize, first, that other interpretations are also possible and perhaps more likely, which decision requires a more careful examination of the text. Secondly, I argue that the treatment of the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange by some who used this interpretation is unacceptable on ethical and intellectual grounds. I may overstress the primacy of the conceptual interpretation of “the Einsteinian constant,” and they should have been more nuanced in this respect. However, my overall interpretation of the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange on relativity allows for reading “the Einsteinian constant” as c, since it is primarily about relativity and/as a decentered play (par. 11), which concept easily tolerate this reading, as Crew observes (par. 4). So, if Crew is right that c makes more or even most sense for “the Einsteinian constant” (and this argument is not uncompelling), it would not change my main argument. As I have stressed from the outset, the key aspects of my conceptual, let alone ethical, argument do not fundamentally depend on two particular interpretations of the phrase “the Einsteinian constant,” as Crew appears to think. Crew’s reservations concerning the difference between the terms “constant” and “invariant” are justified, especially as concerns space-time. I have pondered this point myself while writing my article. I do think, however, that the space-time interval, invariant under the Lorentz transformations, could have been assimilated by Hyppolite into his “constant” as referring to something invariant in the sense of remaining constant. In addition, Hyppolite’s propositions in his statement concerning the nature of this “constant” (as the one that “does not belong to any experimenters who live the experience,” or “dominates the whole construct”) appear to me to support my reading.

     

    All of the above possibilities would satisfy my suggestion that “constants” of relativity signal its decentered play in Derrida’s sense, whether one considers it in relation to the relativistic space-time or in relation to the conceptual matrix of relativity. This does not mean that one is authorized to say anything about this phrase or other statement on relativity in the Hyppolite-Derrida exchange, for several reasons. Thus, while, as I say in par. 25, Hyppolite had extensive general knowledge of modern mathematics and science, some candidates for “the Einsteinian constant” or, similarly, some of Crew’s elegant suggestions concerning possible conceptual “centers” of relativity (especially once he moves to general relativity) are far too technical for Hyppolite to have had them in mind. Indeed, given the nature of Hyppolite’s and Derrida’s work and their audience (which were for me significant factors in interpreting “the Einsteinian constant”), two conceptual possibilities that I suggest and the speed of light just about exhaust all likely candidates. Even the spatio-temporal (Lorentz) interval may be a bit of a stretch, although it is virtually certain that Hyppolite was aware of the concept. I am less certain about Derrida, who is, however, certainly aware of the concept of space-time, and other general philosophical ideas of relativity, as I indicated (par. 19-20). Mathematically and conceptually appealing as they are, Crew’s suggestions clearly reflect his technical knowledge of relativity, which contributes to the effectiveness and elegance of his commentary, but would not likely be available to Hyppolite or Derrida. Of course, if one has this, more technical, knowledge, one can apply some Derridean ideas to relativity. This is what I had in mind in saying earlier that one can connect more rigorously the philosophy, if not physics, of relativity and a Derridean or related philosophy, although, as I said and as Crew argues (par.13), one needs to do much work in order to adjust both accordingly. Obviously, neither Hyppolite nor Derrida do–nor, importantly, claim to do–so.

     

    Crew, par. 4 – 13

     

    I find this discussion especially appealing. As I said, in some respects, perhaps contrary to Crew’s intentions, it is richly suggestive of the potential relationships between relativity and the Derridean or (the term one might prefer) quasi-Derridean problematics of decentered play. The original version of my essay contained a discussion of Galilean relativity, along the lines similar to Crew’s. The reference to the Leibniz-Clarke debate (par. 25) is a remnant of this discussion and indicates some of the topics that Crew discusses. I see this part of Crew’s commentary as for the most part consistent with and helping my main argument, as described in section “B” above, rather than undermining it. I have a few counterpoints which I hope will also explain why I think that the latter may be the case.

     

    It is clear from the my statement that Crew cites in par. 14 that the question of “a Newtonian universal background with its (separate) absolute space and absolute time” is at least as significant for my argument as that of “a uniquely privileged frame of reference for physical events” (par. 20). These two concepts are indeed different, as Crew says (par. 5). The significance of this qualification is that it indicates that my essay offers a broader field for “centerings” in classical physics than Crew attributes to it. My “or” in the above sentence does not mean equivalence of two configurations, but rather either “one” or “the other,” or possibly both. All three philosophical views are in principle possible interpretations of classical physics. As Crew indicates, although there is no spatial center of the universe even in the Newtonian space, this decentering takes place against the fixed flat background of space and is governed by absolute time. The Galilean relativity does not change the latter feature. In addition, as Crew points out (this is also Minkowski’s point) space and time are absolutely meaningful in the Newtonian picture, at least in the classical interpretation. There was, at least for a long time, no space-time picture for the Newtonian world, although one can recast the Newtonian gravity in this form as well, as Elie Cartan did, in the wake of Einstein’s general relativity. In any event, the Newtonian world cannot in my view–and this was my point–be seen as the world of the radical play in Derrida’s sense (par. 20).

     

    Accordingly, I do not think that “classical mechanics could itself be described as a ‘decentered structure,’” which Crew suggests as a possibility (par. 9), at least not in Derrida’s radical sense. This may not be possible even if one recasts classical mechanics along the lines Crew suggests, in more Leibnizian terms, although this recasting poses rather interesting and complicated questions. It may be argued that, once one tries to take this program to its proper limits, one will inevitably arrive at something like Einstein’s relativity, rather than Newtonian physics. As is often observed, one sometimes gets an impression in reading the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence that Leibniz “read” Einstein. These nuances are important, and I refer to the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence myself in this particular form: “Many discussions of the Leibniz-Clarke debate in philosophical literature, known to Hyppolite (or Derrida), consider Einstein’s relativity, both speci[al] [typo in the text] and general theory, as a culmination or at least a crucial point in the history open by this debate” (par. 25).

     

    From this perspective, Crew’s discussion may, again, be seen as supporting both my argument and Derrida’s historical point in “Structure, Sign, and Play.” While Derrida does indeed speak of and considers a certain “rupture” in “Structure, Sign, and Play” (par. 11), this “rupture” cannot be seen as absolute. The concept of absolute rupture is itself subject to Derrida’s critique, along with absolute origins, ends, and so forth. This is suggested even by the way in which the very term “rupture” is introduced in Derrida in conjunction with the “event” at issue in “the history of the concept of structure.” (“Event” is already used in quotation marks in Derrida’s opening paragraph.) Derrida writes: “What would this event be then? Its exterior form would be that of a rupture and redoubling?” (Writing and Difference, 278; emphasis added). This would hardly seem to suggest a simple or unequivocal rupture, at most something whose exterior form appears as and has an effect of a rupture, and this effect is important. Overall, however, a much more complex historical model, involving both continuities and rupture, is at stake. On this point I permit myself to refer to my book In the Shadow of Hegel (84-95, 380-88). A very long history of continuities and ruptures (around the idea of structure) is at stake, as the second paragraph of “Structure, Sign, and Play” suggests (Writing and Difference, 278). From this perspective, one should expect some intimations, anticipations, and so forth, of the “event” at issue, sometimes quite radical and striking, as to some degree, in Leibniz or indeed Galileo, and there are much earlier cases, for example, in Plato. “Derrida’s intention[s]” in “Structure, Sign, and Play” were likely of that nature, rather than those that Crew suggests (par. 10).

     

    And yet, at the same time, a kind of (“decentered”) understanding of even the Newtonian physics that Crew suggests does not come into the foreground in any significant measure before precisely the historical period suggested by Derrida, in particular around Nietzsche’s time. If there could be a unique designation of the moment of the emergence of the concept of radical play or “the central figure,” it would be the moment and the figure of Nietzsche (Writing and Difference, 292). Derrida’s key concept of “the play of the world,” considered in my essay (par. 20), Of Grammatology, 50) is equally associated with Nietzsche. Nietzsche, however, was a contemporary of Maxwell, and his thought belongs to the period of Maxwell’s physics and other developments which eventually culminated in relativity. True, “these were not the heyday of classical mechanics” (par. 9). The point is, however, that a decentered understanding of classical mechanics, to the degree that it is possible, is also–and decidedly–not what governs the heyday of classical mechanics. Crew seems to locate the decentering possibilities of interpreting classical mechanics, ahistorically, in classical mechanics itself (par. 10). (Let us assume for the moment that these possibilities are viable even if taken in Derrida’s radical sense.) There are reasons for doing so, since already with Galileo certain key features necessary here were in place. However, the history of classical mechanics in this respect is for the most part a history of physically and philosophically centered theory, prior to relativity or developments that led to it, from Maxwell on. So Derrida’s genealogy is on the mark and not at all in conflict with the decentering possibilities of in interpreting classical physics, to the degree such possibilities are available (par.10). Galileo and Leibniz are, to some degree, exceptions, but exceptions consistent with the overall picture just presented. Actually Leibniz did not have (mathematical) mechanics, unlike Newton, which was of course a crucial factor in the history at issue. I have to leave Galileo’s case aside, even though some of his philosophical ideas are in fact rather modern. Overall, then, as I said, Crew’s argument here appears to me in effect in agreement with and reinforces the argument of my essay and “Structure, Sign, and Play,” rather than constituting an argument against them, as Crew seems to see it (par. 9).

     

    Conversely, it is not inconceivable (and I do not claim in my article that it is) that relativity is a centered theory after all, in one respect or another, either at the level of the space-time itself or at the level of its theoretical structure. This is what Hyppolite in fact asks, and Crew’s ideas here are most suggestive (par. 12). I do, of course, suggest otherwise, especially in paragraph 24 which in fact addresses the kind of points that Crew raises here. It is true that I have not shown or indeed really justified the assumption, formulated by Crew, that “”center’ must mean ‘privileged frame of reference’” (par. 11). But I also never make this assumption. In fact I argue otherwise, especially again par. 24. In short, there are significant questions here as to what degree and how (scientific, philosophical, and so forth) the “play” of the structure of relativity as theory can be limited. In a way, one can see it as one of the interesting and significant areas of potential investigation arising from a Derridean or Nietzschean philosophical perspective, as is especially suggested by the conclusion of “Structure, Sign, and Play,” where different concepts of play–centered and decentered–and of their irreducible entanglement are considered. Thus, Crew’s elaborations, again, appear to suggest that Derrida’s ideas can be meaningfully applied to relativity.

     

    As I said, one can, if one so wishes, only extract/construct the Derridean philosophical matrix of relativity by combining Derrida’s ideas and (the philosophy of) relativity itself. It is true that neither my essay nor this response fully or convincingly proves that such a possibility is viable. Much further work is indeed necessary here, as Crew says (par. 13). But, once again, I never claimed otherwise. In this respect Crew’s comment on my comment on Weinberg (par. 12) does not appear to me justified, even leaving aside that, as I have discussed in “A,” ethically, our positions are very different, since, unlike Weinberg, I do not criticize Derrida. All I claim is that “those unfamiliar with Derrida’s ideas would need a more extensive reading of Derrida’s essay [“Structure, Sign, and Play”] and a more comprehensive explication of its terms, and more patience and caution may be necessary before one is ready to agree, with Weinberg’s conclusion. ‘It seemed to me Derrida in context is even worse than Derrida out of context’” (par. 13): This is all that I claim. I do not claim that my essay offers a sufficiently extensive reading of Derrida or a full explication of his terms. Crew, of course, is right that further explanation of some of my own assertions concerning the relationships between Derrida’s ideas and relativity are necessary to give a full argument, and indeed I say so myself (par. 26). The question of the viability of these connections indeed may remain open. However, as is suggested by Crew’s argument concerning the “centering” of the theoretical matrix of relativity in the representation of the Lorentz group and related elaborations (par. 12) or indeed his discussion of centering and decentering in classical physics and relativity as a whole, at least some possibilities appear to be viable and even promising. Crew is finally right: there is plenty of work to do.

     

    Works Cited

     

    • Derrida, Jacques. Writing and Difference. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1978.
    • —. “Sokal et Bricmont ne sont pas sérieux.” Le Monde. 20 Novembre 1997
    • Gross, Paul R., and Norman Levitt. Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1998.
    • Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Vintage, 1967.
    • Plotnitsky, Arkady. “‘But It Is Above All Not True’: Derrida, Relativity and the `Science Wars.’” Postmodern Culture. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/pmc/v007/7.2plotnitsky.html
    • —. Complementarity: Anti-epistemology After Bohr and Derrida. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 1994.
    • —. In the Shadow of Hegel: Complementarity, History and the Unconscious. Gainesville, Fl.: UP of Florida, 1993.

     

  • Peripheral Visions

    E. Ann Kaplan, Looking for the Other: Feminism, Film, and the Imperial Gaze.New York: Routledge, 1996.

     

     

     

    •      Looking for the Other responds to the charge that white feminist film theories, especially psychoanalytic ones, neglect issues of race. In this ambitious project, E. Ann Kaplan defends a psychoanalytic approach to the racialized subject through examinations of gender and race in mainstream and independent film. Targeted at liberal arts students, the text is a useful introduction to these issues within film, women’s studies, and postcolonial/cultural studies. Unfortunately, Kaplan sometimes sacrifices quality of critique for quantity, and subtlety of argument for scope, in an attempt to satisfy her audiences. The result is a text which ultimately surveys and summarizes more than it stakes out new ground in the ongoing debates about whiteness and feminist film theory.

       

       

    •      The book is divided into two main sections. Part I, “Theories of Nation, Psychoanalysis and the Imperial Gaze,” primarily explores the male and imperial gazes in Hollywood film. Part 2, “Travelling Postcolonialists and Women of Color,” examines the ways in which independent film offers the alternative of “inter- and intra-racial looking relations.” Throughout, Kaplan argues by analogy, risking oversimplification of a number of key concepts. For example, Chapter 1, “Travel, Travelling Identities and the Look” depends on the assumption that race, like gender, operates through internalized binary oppositions. She offers examples from Fanon, DuBois, hooks, and Appadurai which support theories of “a network of diasporic black peoples dislocated around the globe in the late twentieth century who share experiences of the alienating gaze” (10). Kaplan’s theory layers colonialism on top of discourses of the gaze initiated by Laura Mulvey. Thus situated non-dialectically, racial difference becomes little more than another instance of split subjectivity. Combined with the constant deferral of her explanation to later sections in the book plus numerous editing errors, such oversimplifications undermine her argument.[1]

       

       

    •      Chapter 2, “Theories of Nation and Hollywood in the Contexts of Gender and Race” surveys “male theories” of nations as modern, industrial concepts linked to the rise of literacy and popular culture (29). Kaplan continues her reliance on binary oppositions, countering these male ideas of nation with a feminine sphere of culture. Most significant for her later analysis of Hollywood film is the concept of nation as a fiction, and of America as a construct divided between European cultural allegiances and American national ones. Kaplan relies on Jane Flax to support a claim for a womanly perspective on global history, one in which “problems might not be framed as debates about First, Second or Third Worlds but rather in terms of ongoing struggles to connect or not connect with an Other,” to juggle public and private roles, to link local and global concerns, and “to make oneself a subject within national struggles” (46). These are important questions, and Kaplan offers a sampling of fascinating alternatives to the narrow conception of national identity at work in Hollywood film. However, we wonder why her discussion of these alternatives runs to three pages, in comparison with the eighteen or so pages of “male theory.” If it is because, as she states, “the problematic relation of ‘woman’ to ‘nation’… urgently needs more research” (46), we would add that the binary opposition of male nation to female culture also needs deconstructing.

       

       

    •      In Chapter 3, “Hollywood, Science and Cinema: The Imperial and the Male Gaze in Classic Film,” Kaplan tackles D.W. Griffith’s Birth of A Nation, notably its anxieties about the black man’s rape of the white woman, to illustrate interlocking structures of masculinity and whiteness in the imperial gaze. According to her reading, stereotypes of lascivious black men and pure white women “image forth” white supremacy and male supremacy respectively. Through these stereotypes, the film appeals to Southerners to see themselves as part of an American nation preparing for World War I (68). Similarly, masculinity and imperialism collude in a series of 1930s ape movies–King Kong, Tarzan the Ape Man, and Blonde Venus. Devices such as the map of the “dark” continent penetrated by the explorer/hunter, the sexual objectification of the white woman, and the feminization and oversexing of the black man illustrate Hollywood’s continuing attempts to manage America’s sexual and racial anxieties. Kaplan also notes that these films may be seen as attempts to come to grips with national guilt about slavery, or to console “a generation of white males without sufficient opportunities for heroism” (74).

       

       

    •      Kaplan also discusses interesting complications of the stereotypical view that the imperial gaze is solely male. In looking at Black Narcissus (1946) and Out of Africa (1985), she notes that “white women become the surrogates for men when there is a need to show male power waning” (81)–in this case British power in India. The white nuns in Black Narcissus are bearers of the imperial gaze on their mission into Nepal, but that gaze is destabilized by the orientalized sensuality of the place: the nuns’ repressed sensuality emerges at the same time that their strength and independence from men begins to crack; a heterosexual narrative asserts itself. Kaplan argues, following Laura Kipnis, that the construction of “colonialism as female megalomania” rationalizes colonialism’s failures (88). Here, Kaplan participates in ongoing critiques of white womanhood and its interlocking privileges as shown in the work of Jane Gaines, Mary Ann Doane, Rey Chow, Donna Haraway, and others.

       

       

    •      How disappointing then, to read that the main difference between the stereotypes in Black Narcissus and the less offensive depictions in Out of Africa seems to be a matter of characterization: Karen Blixen “cares about [Africans] as individuals” and her “main servant is individualized” and allowed to return her look (89). Kaplan’s assumption that this treatment remains a viable alternative to stereotyping troubles us in its allegiance to liberal humanism. She notes that “something else is going on in these films in regard to images of white women” and wonders “how can [white] feminists enjoy their empowerment” through these images “at the expense of women of other colors?” (92). One answer may be the rewards and pleasures of individualism which structure the major liberation movements of the West, including white liberal feminism. Nevertheless, Kaplan makes an important contribution in Chapter 3 with her understanding that these films forge American identity through European colonial narratives.

       

       

    •      Chapter 4, “Darkness Within: Or, The Dark Continent of Film Noir” further investigates the effect of psychoanalysis on American film when dealing with issues of “othering” that cross race and gender. The chapter starts by briefly describing the possibilities of psychoanalytic readings of film, especially the value of British transcultural psychiatry, and summarily explaining the racist, sexist, and homophobic origins of psychoanalysis. Kaplan then performs a close reading of Home of the Brave, Pressure Point, Candyman, and Cat People. Oddly, considering the chapter’s title, only the latter falls within the normal definition “film noir.” All four films use psychoanalysis within their plots; especially important to this reading is the claim that psychiatry is a “science,” the authority of which is either supported or destabilized by these films. Kaplan attempts to analyze the psychoanalytic readings both of and within these films, which all blur, or attempt to blur, characters’ race and gender. However, Kaplan’s readings rely heavily on plot and character description, possibly because, as Kaplan notes, these older films are likely not to have been seen by her readers.

       

       

    •      Black and white interaction in mainstream film sets up Kaplan’s ensuing discussion of independent films. Before Part II, “Travelling Postcolonialists and Women of Color,” she clarifies her use of psychoanalysis and reads its use in film to construct the white subject. Kaplan argues that “the formation of the white subject as white, as it depends upon difference from blackness, is one area for study” (129). Though not theoretically innovative, Kaplan’s readings of film related to this question and her working through the problematics of psychoanalysis facilitate entry into the second part of Looking for the Other.

       

       

    •      Kaplan asserts that Part II intends “to open a window on how women directors imagine and create fictional worlds about issues of sex, race and the media. And how, in so doing, they dramatically challenge Hollywood male and imperial gaze structures to begin the hard work of moving beyond oppressive objectification within the constraints of inevitable looking structures” (16). Kaplan selects Hu Mei, Claire Denis, Mira Nair, Pratibha Parmar, Alice Walker, Trinh T. Minh-ha, Julie Dash, and Yvonne Rainer for discussion in Part II because, though they all deal with sex, race, gender and class in “cinematic forms deliberately in opposition to classical commercial film” (16), they approach their projects differently.

       

       

    •      Yet Kaplan only partially delivers on her promises for Part II. In Chapter 5 she explores the relationship between white theorists/theories and China. Stressing that cross-cultural exchange is possible both from West to East and East to West, yet not ignoring the power differential, Kaplan uses Trinh T. Minh-ha’s concept of “approaching” to assert that there is a way if not to “know” the Other, at least to “speak nearby.” In her discussion of the relationships between Western and Asian critics and their views toward Western readings of Asian culture, she summarizes the debate between Fredric Jameson and Aijaz Ahmad regarding the possibility of the West “knowing Chinese or Indian culture and politics (17).” Jameson’s construction of three worlds in which First-World texts are related to the public/private split while in Third-World texts all libidinal desires are politicized, is critiqued by Ahmad who posits only one postcolonial world constructed of economic, political, and historical links. Kaplan rereads this debate to show that both Jameson, particularly in his comments regarding allegory’s inherence in Third-World texts, and Ahmad, in underlining Western critics’ arrogant assumption that they can understand an Other culture through partial knowledge, make valuable contributions to the discourses of “knowing the other.” She locates herself between her readings of Jameson and Ahmad, but directs her criticism more strongly toward Ahmad, whose position she calls an “overreaction.”

       

       

    •      From her assumed position of subject-in-between, Kaplan’s second focus in Chapter 5 addresses criticism of her 1989 article “Problematizing Cross-Cultural Analysis: The Case of Woman in the Recent Chinese Cinema.” She argues effectively that in this essay she attempted to position herself as an “outsider” whose readings might untangle one of many strands of meaning to be found in Chinese film texts. Included among Western critics censured for perpetuating cultural colonization, Kaplan reads Yoshimoto Mitsuhira’s criticisms as a reconstruction of Asia as feminine or victim. By turning to the complexities of subjectivity, as many feminists do, Kaplan stresses the possibility of showing “how resilient peoples are to such cultural and capitalist ‘invasions,’ and how they find strategies to divert their impacts” (152). Kaplan is constantly aware that histories of colonization and appropriation cannot be ignored. Her consistent attention to the complexities of the history, economics, and politics of intercultural “knowing” creates, at times, an apparently disjointed argument, but one worth teasing out by engaged readers.

       

       

    •      Kaplan’s selection of Denis’ Chocolat, Parmar and Walker’s Warrior Marks, and Nair’s Mississippi Masala to search for an answer to the question “Can One Know the Other?” is most appropriate. All three non-American films illustrate her desire to explore the possibilities of inter-racial looking and to challenge the dominance of the male and imperial gazes. These challenges contribute to a form of looking which exemplifies a desire to know rather than to dominate. Kaplan astutely explores the processes of looking that occur between spectator and film and between characters within films. In these “looking relations,” Kaplan indicates ways in which women directors alter the subject-object binary; when traditionally subjugated characters look back, stereotypes are challenged, and the gaze, with its inherent anxieties and domination, becomes a mutual process of looking.

       

       

    •      Kaplan states: “There has surely to be a way between the alternatives of an oppressive Western application of humanism to the Other and surrendering any kind of cross-cultural knowing” (195). She sees that for women travelling outside their cultures, the best way to accomplish cross-cultural knowing is “speaking nearby.” She explores Trinh’s Reassemblage and Shoot for the Contents with emphasis on ideas that inter-racial looking relations should be reconstructed as a meeting of multiple “I’s” with multiple “I’s” in the Other. For Kaplan, the women’s bodies that Trinh presents are not objectified but instead become sites for discussions of subjectivity, nationhood, and transnational feminism. She looks conscientiously at the work of Hu Mei, Denis, Parmar and Walker, Nair, and Trinh, all women “in postcolonialism travelling to foreign cultures” (216), revealing ways in which imperial and male gazes are and can be disrupted, finding new ways of knowing, of seeing, and of looking for the Other.

       

       

    •      Chapter 8, “‘Healing Imperialized Eyes’: Independent Women Filmmakers and the Look,” continues to explore how women filmmakers rework the “look” in an attempt to redefine colonial images. Kaplan reads two of Julie Dash’s films, Illusions and Daughters of the Dust, as attempts to redefine audience perceptions of blacks in film and films’ assumptions about audience. Kaplan then moves on to examine Mi Vida Loca, a film on Chicana “gang girls,” by white director Allison Anders. Finally, she argues that Yamazaki Hiroko’s Juxta uses themes of generation and immigration to complicate racialized images.

       

       

    •      Kaplan argues that these films do not confront the imperial and male gazes in an attempt to reverse or undo their effects, but instead involve themselves in an entirely different project: “Other films I call ‘healing’ because they seek to see from the perspective of the oppressed, the diasporan, without specifically confronting the oppressor’s strategies” (221). She suggests that these filmmakers occupy the position of the hybrid, furthering her argument for the subject-in-between. Caught between cultures, their films concern themselves in constructing “‘intra-racial’ looking relations rather than inter-racial ones” (222). Kaplan asserts that while white women suffer from “too much visibility” in Hollywood, black women remain largely invisible or consigned to a narrow range of stereotypes. Her inquiry into Dash’s Daughters exposes the construction of black images that step outside the Hollywood mainstream: Dash creates a strong intelligent matriarch to oppose the traditional “mammy” image. At stake in the idea of healing, therefore, is the possibility that seeing from the perspective of the oppressed produces new points of identification for film audiences.

       

       

    •      Kaplan also notes that formal devices can be used to challenge imperial and male gazes. From film speed, to narrative structures, to genre mixing, these films often reposition their audiences in order to step outside the hegemony of Hollywood film. Kaplan reads all four of these movies, sensitively drawing out how this feat is accomplished. She also notes that these films do not necessarily share the same tones: some are celebratory while others are melancholic. The importance of these films is that they do not reproduce the imperial gaze, but rather strive to find power in “healing” its alienating effects.

       

       

    •      In Chapter 9, “Body Politics: Menopause, Mastectomy and Cosmetic Surgery in Films by Rainer, Tom and Onwurah,” Kaplan detours from film criticism to medical discourse. Her review of plastic surgery texts reveals how parallel constructions of age or race become associated with disease and deformity. Relying on ideas of nation from Part I, she posits a norm of womanhood: young and white. Though we cannot argue against her notions of this norm, we do note that it relies on a collapse of Western thought into an exclusively American “look.” With this assumption, Kaplan reads Tom’s Two Lies and Rainer’s Privilege in terms of a conflict between an “authentic” immigrant body and the American body assimilated through surgical intervention. Her argument recognizes that the “casualties” of the American look need further attention.

       

       

    •      Another important contribution is Kaplan’s argument that aging white women either fall into Hollywood’s typecast characters or do not appear at all. Always careful to acknowledge that these women do not lose all their privileges in aging, Kaplan does however point out that aging further complicates women’s positioning by the male and imperial gaze. By drawing affinities between menopausal white women and women of color, Kaplan invites further discussion of generational differences and their implications for women’s studies.

       

       

    •      Kaplan’s research into plastic surgery and aging reveals intriguing concepts in relation to American film, but her sweeping statements often hinder her arguments. For example, she states, “It is in male interest to keep alive the myth that after menopause women have no particular interest and therefore can be passed over for younger women who still depend on men” (286). Like the “male theories” of Part I, the assumption of “male interest” once again collapses a complex argument into a traditional gender category. Throughout her book, Kaplan attempts not to essentialize various groups while arguing that dominant film does; occasionally she missteps and her statements reinscribe the generalizations which she seeks to critique.

       

       

    •      The risk of reinscription is addressed in the “Afterword” as Kaplan attempts to negotiate the tricky gaps between white and non-white positions on the emerging field of “whiteness studies.” Cautioning her readers not to conflate varieties of alienation, she insists that it is essential that “one recognizes that whites are not necessarily reinscribing whiteness but taking the lead from the peoples whites have oppressed” (294; original emphasis). Is Kaplan prescribing a point of view here, or offering an anti-colonialist strategy? The ambivalence continues in the statement, “Because of white supremacy, it seems to me that it is the responsibility of whites to start the process of recognition of the Other as an autonomous subject” (299). Does this imply that the process has not yet begun outside of “whiteness studies”? Does the notion of responsibility imply a conferring of subjectivity or authority? We are uncomfortable with the vagueness of such “responsibility” because it implies that if whites do not begin this process of recognition, it will not be done at all. In fact, Kaplan hazards misrecognizing the Other when she concludes her book by asserting a belief “that black women may have an incredibly important role to play at this historical moment…. Hopefully, this is a moment when white women can listen” (301). Having just warned readers not to conflate varieties of alienation she subsumes all non-white women under the term “black women.” In this ostensibly conciliatory gesture, Kaplan falls back on a black-white binary that grounds her global survey in America.

       

       

    •      Future discussions surrounding Kaplan’s new work will need to complicate its layered relations between race and gender by adding the undiscussed categories of class and sexuality. Her conception of the imperial gaze largely ignores the dynamics of capitalism within patriarchal and racist structures, and discussions of gay and lesbian contributions are cursory. Nevertheless, we applaud Kaplan’s commitment “to the idea… that the level of signification can impact on the imaginary and produce change in subjects reading or viewing texts” (xv). It is through this ability of texts to change subjectivity that Kaplan sees a possibility for prejudices based on race, ethnicity, color, age, sexual orientation, and gender to be deconstructed. For her, perhaps the best route to change is through the work of women directors of all colors (including white). The value of her text lies in the attention she pays to these women directors, their films, and their changing audiences.

      Department of English
      Universities of Calgary and Victoria
      lhowell@mtroyal.ab.ca
      rrickey@acs.ucalgary.ca
      klaverm@cadvision.co

      Postmodern Culture

      Copyright © 1998 NOTE: Readers may use portions of this work in accordance with the Fair Use provisions of U.S. copyright law. In addition, subscribers and members of subscribed institutions may use the entire work for any internal noncommercial purpose but, other than one copy sent by email, print, or fax to one person at another location for that individual’s personal use, distribution of this article outside of a subscribed institution without express written permission from either the author or the Johns Hopkins University Press is expressly forbidden.

      Notes

      1. The editing errors are frustrating. For instance, in Chapter 1 Kaplan claims she will discuss six directors, though seven are listed (15-16); likewise, she announces that Anders’ Mi Vida Loca will be discussed in Chapter 6, but it appears in Chapter 8.

     

  • Looking Forward to Godard

    Hassan Melehy

    Department of Romance Languages
    University of Vermont
    hmelehy@zoo.uvm.edu

     

    Wheeler Winston Dixon, The Films of Jean-Luc Godard. Albany: SUNY Press, 1997.

     

    At a time when Hollywood is as formulaic as ever, when the representatives of French cinema we receive in the U.S. seem to be attacking critical thought (Luc Besson’s The Fifth Element [1997] could by itself constitute a Ministry of Anti-Education), it is refreshing to read a book that considers with seriousness and a highly contemporary disposition the work of this enigmatic and brilliant director. Jean-Luc Godard took French and international cinema by surprise in the sixties, yet today may easily be relegated to the status of a quaint intellectual from a bygone era. Wheeler Winston Dixon opens his book with quiet applause for Godard’s relentless pursuit of the social and political implications of cinema aesthetics, convincing this reader that even Godard’s early work is far from exhausted and still poses major challenges to both criticism and cinematic practice. Paradoxically, Dixon also faces with full rigor the French director’s pronouncements, beginning with Le Week-end in 1967, of the death of cinema.

     

    This “death” is what makes the cinema impossible as a critical experience, and yet it is precisely such experience that Dixon demonstrates is at the heart of Godard’s filmmaking from first to last. The studios offer “blockbuster films” (1) that aim for the “lowest common denominator”; (2) while at the same time, visual entertainment is given over to the relentlessly expanding worlds of cybernetics, multimedia, and cable TV. Nothing that risks the disturbing, insistent involvement with the image that Godard has continually worked at may make an entrance for more than a moment or two. In this book that very adeptly combines biography, history, description and summary of films, theoretical analysis, and a vast knowledge of the film industry, Dixon situates Godard’s films as both objects and projects in the present situation, through the perspective of how this situation has taken shape over the last forty years. He offers an explanation of capital as it manifests itself in the film industry–a favorite target of Godardian critique–to show how it was in the fluctuations of capital itself that Godard was first able to present his images to the public.

     

    The exigencies of 1960s theatrical film distribution constituted a series of paradoxically liberating strictures; for a film to make a profit at all, it had to appear in a theater.... Thus distributors were forced to seek the widest possible theatrical release pattern for even the most marginal of films, and it is this way that Godard achieved and consolidated his initial reputation in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Such a project would be impossible today. (3)

     

    In the well-wrought historical narrative Dixon provides, it becomes apparent that Godard’s work, though perhaps more widely viewed, better funded, and more appreciated by critics in the sixties, is of greater importance today. This would be true of both Godard’s early work–which tends to be better known because of its place in film studies curricula–and his more recent efforts, which bear directly on the contemporary state of cinema and television. Dixon characterizes Godard as an electronic-age prophet who saw the destiny of cinema in a global culture where the visual image dominates, and who, along with his collaborators, “seek[s] to hasten its demise” (xvi)–precisely for the purpose of educating the public as to the role of the image in their culture and its manipulating force in consumer society. “Godard is a moralist–perhaps the last moralist that the medium of cinema will ever possess” (5).

     

    Dixon lays out the major themes he wishes to illuminate–the social, political, moral, aesthetic, and pedagogical aspects of Godard’s work–in the first chapter, “The Theory of Production.” The subsequent chapters, “The Exhaustion of Narrative,” “Jean-Pierre Gorin and the Dziga Vertov Group,” “Anne-Marie Miéville and the Sonimage Workshop,” and “Fin de Cinéma,” each elaborate these themes by addressing a period in Godard’s work in which they become prominent. Dixon submits in the first chapter that the challenge to today’s situation may be found even at the beginning of the filmmaker’s career. On A bout de souffle (Breathless, 1959), Dixon is downright ecstatic, saying that “an opportunity came knocking that would permanently alter the course of Godard’s life, and change the face of cinema forever” (13). One may wonder how the cinema could be changed forever if it is dying or dead, but Dixon’s presentation of the “shattering” effects the film had on cinematic tradition is so compelling that such hyperbole is justified. The following is an example of this presentation; it also illustrates Dixon’s capacity as a film analyst, conversant with theory but not dogmatic in his concepts or vocabulary.

     

    Godard called audience attention to the inherent reflexivity of his enterprise, and the manipulative and plastic nature of the cinema. A bout de souffle is everywhere a construct aware of its own constructedness. It is a film which follows the format of the traditional narrative only insofar as this adherence serves Godard's true critical project: the "reactivation" of the people and things he photographs within a glyphic framework of hyperreal jump-cuts, editorial elisions, sweeping tracking shots which call attention to their structural audaciousness, and characters whose entire existence lies in a series of gestures, motions, appearances, and escapes, all to disguise the essentially phantom nature of their ephemeral existence. (22-24)

     

    Even though Dixon wishes to demonstrate a thematic coherency running through Godard’s work over four decades, he is careful to mark the major changes in the director’s orientations, especially those concerning his approach to politics. In response to Godard’s 1994 affirmation that “I never read Marx,” Dixon states: “In view of Godard’s total immersion in the highly charged political events of the 1960s, this statement seems disingenuous in the extreme. Godard was, in fact, changing radically as a filmmaker, becoming colder and less romantic” (84-85). From the romances of the early days–notably A bout de souffle and Le Mépris (Contempt, 1963)–Godard turns toward a pronounced political orientation in the mid-sixties, with statements on consumer society, gender politics, class relations, the student movement, and imperialism making their way into the dialogue and images of movies such as Alphaville (1965), Une femme mariée (A Married Woman, 1964), and Masculin féminin (Masculine Feminine, 1966). But already with Le Mépris, there is an examination of politics: the politics of image production, of film financing, of the studios, and of the commodification of cinema through, among other things, the imposition of reassuring narrative.

     

    Dixon begins chapter 2, “The Exhaustion of Narrative,” with an excellent account of the making of Le Mépris: its status as an international hit with Brigitte Bardot, its funding, the day-to-day events of its production, and the relation between the film’s storyline and Godard’s own work situation. The movie, Dixon states, “is about compromise, the creation of art within the sphere of commercial enterprise, the struggle to hold on to one’s individual vision in an industry dedicated to pleasing an anonymous public” (45-46). One of Godard’s major compromises in this production, funded by French and Italian groups, involved the requirement that versions of the film circulated in Italy, Britain, and the United States be dubbed: so much of the story line has to do with the miscommunication occurring in an international production, when the producers’ interests are completely at odds with the director’s and screenwriter’s. Jack Palance plays Jeremy Prokosch, the American producer whose “monolingual arrogance” suggests the cultural imperialism of Hollywood. Fritz Lang plays Fritz Lang, the director of the film-within-a-film, an adaptation of the Odyssey; he is the “moral center of Le Mépris” (47), exercising an “omni-lingual authority” (45). Many conversations in the movie are in several languages, Lang alone able to converse without the aid of the interpreter Francesca Vanini (Giorgia Moll).

     

    The “end of cinema” is here figured as the death of the megalomaniacal Prokosch, along with that of Camille Javal, Bardot’s character, in a violent car crash. (It was to the criticism of similar bloodiness in Pierrot le fou [1965] that Godard responded by saying very suggestively, “Ce n’est pas du sang, c’est du rouge–it’s not blood, it’s red.” This is one of Godard’s interesting and aphoristic invitations to consider the complex relation between reality and representation.) Dixon remarks that Godard shows only the aftermath of the accident, not the crash itself, and so takes issue with accepted narrative conventions in cinema, to the astonishment of, among others, Lang. Dixon explains, “In many ways, as we have seen, Godard works against audience expectations, showing us not that which we wish or expect to see, but only those actions and results that he deems necessary to create the world as he sees it” (51). Subsequently, with movies such as Une femme mariée and Alphaville, Dixon demonstrates Godard’s increasing focus on politics and pedagogy, as the themes extend from reflection on the cinema itself to the images of consumer society. But Dixon sees limitations in Godard’s vision at the time, which result from the director’s own situation: “Moving in a world of white, middle-class patriarchal privilege, Godard echoes the values of the society he partakes of” (62). It is with Masculin féminin that Godard begins to extend his perspective.

     

    Dixon completes his account of this period in Godard’s work, during which the filmmaker realized that his cinematic pedagogy would be most effective only with the disruption and eventual abandonment of narrative, with mention of “the revolutionary narrative of Le Week-end” (88). The following chapter treats the most intensively political work in Godard’s career, the collaborative efforts he undertook with Jean-Pierre Gorin and the Dziga Vertov group. This is the work Dixon finds the most interesting, even if it is less well-known than Godard’s early projects; at the outset of the book he remarks, “Godard, it seems to me, has always functioned best within the context of a collaborative enterprise, and another critical project of this volume was the acknowledgment of the considerable input both Anne-Marie Miéville and Jean-Pierre Gorin have had in Godard’s works” (xv-xvi). In chapter 3 we find an excellent account of the making and the significance of Le Week-end, in which Godard criticizes consumer society, the role of the cinema in it, the commodification of women’s bodies, and imperialism. May 1968 moved Godard, along with many other French intellectuals, to a primarily political orientation, from which he represented the activity of students and workers during the upheavals of that month and presented them in a way that had very little commercial viability. Dixon twice notes with a certain admiration that this project, Un film comme les autres (A Film Like All the Others; 1968), almost incited a riot at its New York premiere (95, 104).

     

    In the next chapter, on Godard’s collaboration with Anne-Marie Miéville and the Sonimage Workshop, Dixon continues his account of a Godard doing what he wishes to do, with little regard for commercial success. Even so, Passion (1982), Prénom: Carmen (First Name: Carmen, 1983), and Je vous salue, Marie (Hail Mary, 1985), some of Godard’s better-known films, belong to this period. The most interesting turning point Dixon notes in this chapter involves Je vous salue, Marie, the notorious retelling of the story of the birth of Christ in a contemporary setting that was widely protested by Christian groups from a number of different sects. Dixon writes that the charge of blasphemy and obscenity (a “porny little flick,” said one bishop who refused to see the movie on that ground alone) “seems difficult to support when one sees the film itself” (154). Indeed, Dixon believes that “Godard, the hard-line Marxist of the late 1960s and 1970s, was now in the mid-1980s re-anchoring his faith in the divine” (154). He notes that Godard undertook this project with “absolute seriousness” and “intensity” (156). A professor lectures in the film, arguing for the notion of a “divine structure to all events on earth” (158); Dixon deems that Godard is speaking through the professor.

     

    This makes the furor of the religious right in this matter all the more unfathomable; in Je vous salue, Marie, Godard performs the astonishing feat of bringing religion into the classroom, something that fundamentalist Christians have been attempting to do in recent years with great insistence. Godard here has become their ally in this effort; it seems to me altogether remarkable that so few have noticed this. (158)

     

    Dixon is not equating Godard’s attitude with that of fundamentalists, the religious right, or any organized church group, but is rather attempting to examine the ways in which Godard experiments with new perspectives from which to address the problems that have always obsessed him: “it seems that in three decades Godard has worked through the personal and the political to come back to the divine” (162).

     

    In the fifth and last chapter, “Fin de Cinéma,” Dixon makes it quite evident that Godard remains politically committed, especially to the politics of image production in cultures that are increasingly bombarded with all manner of images. Movies are always a matter of money; and if Godard wants to continue his critique of the Hollywood juggernaut and the omnipresence of “video games and CD-ROM interactive programs” (195), he must be willing to risk complete marginalization in the film industry. Dixon presents an amusing anecdote of Godard’s response to the American filmmakers who usually give a small nod to his greatness: for that quality, Godard asks them to give him $10. The only American filmmaker ever to make the contribution was Mel Brooks (207). Dixon also mentions the way that Godard assures himself an income as long as he is working, by building his salary into the budget (206). Finally, “He has transformed the cinema from a bourgeois medium of popular entertainment into a zone of study, reflection, and renewal” (209). The current system of production is one in which large profit margins are required, most if not all movies are seen primarily on video, and interest in them is usually displaced by computerized imagery–in short, in which the cinema has died. Godard nonetheless continues a cinema that reflects on and analyzes this death, looks at the old images in order to bring them into the process of reflection, and so offers a kind of rebirth for the production of the image. Dixon concludes, “Godard thus belongs to both the old and the new, the living and the dead, the sign and the signifier, the domain of the creator and the realm of the museum guide” (210). Godard offers a long and as yet continuing sequence of images through which viewers may come to grips with the functioning of the image, with the death of the cinema.

     

    The Films of Jean-Luc Godard is eminently readable and highly engaging. It will be of great interest to those who wish to learn about Godard and much of the aesthetic of the French New Wave, as well as those who are already well versed in these areas. The filmography Dixon appends to the book, covering everything Godard did from 1954 to 1995 in great detail, will be invaluable to anyone wishing to watch or study Godard’s films. The book is illustrated with numerous photos, stills, and frames from Godard’s projects; one of these is the basis for a beautiful cover design using metallic grey and black ink that thus maximizes SUNY Press’s two-color limitation. For the most part the book is well written, but there are notable lapses in copyediting: twice the word “cinematographic” is rendered as “cinema to graphic,” and there are a few overly long and not quite grammatically correct sentences. These small problems are a reflection not so much on the author as on the requirement imposed on many university presses to run on decreased subventions and increased profit margins–a situation that one may reflect on in connection with the vast commodification of artistic and intellectual activity that both Jean-Luc Godard and Wheeler Winston Dixon address so very effectively.

     

  • (Global) Sense and (Local) Sensibility: Poetics/Politics of Reading Film as (Auto)Ethnography

    Benzi Zhang

    The Chinese University of Hong Kong
    bzhang@cuhk.edu.hk

     

    Rey Chow, Primitive Passions: Visuality, Sexuality, Ethnography, and Contemporary Chinese Cinema. New York: Columbia UP, 1995.

     

    It eludes no scholar’s observation that in recent years the interest in Chinese cinema has increased dramatically. Among recent attempts to offer a theoretical approach to contemporary Chinese films, Rey Chow’s study counts as one of the most extensive and insightful contributions. Wide-ranging in its scope, Chow’s award-winning book addresses itself to a variety of critical, cultural, and aesthetic concerns of contemporary Chinese cinema. Interdisciplinary in its approach, this closely argued and valuable study seeks to examine the significance of technologized visuality for China in relation to discourses of anthropology, cultural studies, post-colonial theory, and women’s studies. A literary scholar by training, Chow reads Chinese films as cultural texts, and in many places, relates the problematics of visuality to literary issues. One of the major topics that she brings up in Part 1, “Visuality, Modernity, and Primitive Passions,” is the relationship between “the discourse of technologized visuality” and modern Chinese literature (5). Beginning with the story of how Lu Xun, the father of modern Chinese literature, was motivated into a writing career by his encounter with a “visual spectacle” in the mid-1900s, Chow goes on to explain in detail how “the sign of literature” is related to the visuality of China’s modern anxiety. Lu Xun’s conversion to writing, according to Chow, results from his “intuitive apprehension of the fascistic power of the technologized spectacle” (35). Viewing film as “a new kind of discourse in the postcolonial ‘third world’” (5), Chow also examines “the relationship between visuality and power, a relationship that is critical in the postcolonial non-West” (6). Drawing upon Western philosophers such as Martin Heidegger and Walter Benjamin, on the one hand, and postcolonial theoreticians like Edward Said and Timothy Mitchell, on the other, Chow explicates the significance of the visual sign, which is different from yet related to the “older” literary sign, for China’s modernity, arguing that “the film’s careful visual structure signals the successful dismantling of the older sign” and therefore functions as a “revolutionary mode” whereby not only “the repressions and brutalities of society are consciously ethnographized,” but also, at the same time, the “practices of ‘primitive’ cultures” are fetishized against a background of “the harsh social realities of modernized metropolises” (26).

     

    The chapters that follow the story of Lu Xun are devoted to the issue of “primitive passions” in Chinese cinema and culture. Although theoretically dense, Chow’s well-documented study of the “multiple strands of primitive passions” is clear and thought-provoking. The “primitive” in Chow’s discussion stands for something “phantasmagoric,” “ex-otic,” “unthinkable,” or an “original something that has been lost” (22). Phantasmagoria of the primitive appears at the time of “cultural crisis” when the old sign system of writing is being “dislocated” by the discourse of technologized visuality. As a figure for the origin that “was there prior to our present existence,” the primitive, which expresses a kind of nostalgia that is inclined to view the encroachment of the modern on an ancient culture, has become the “fabrication of a pre that occurs in the time of the post” (22). Chow’s discussion of primitive passions, reinforced by her frequent references to postcolonial theory, provides a new perspective upon twentieth-century Chinese culture which, in Chow’s opinion, is “caught between the forces of ‘first world’ imperialism and ‘third world’ nationalism” (23), and which demands reconsideration of the paradoxical relation between China and the West. “If Chinese culture is ‘primitive’ in the pejorative sense of being ‘backward’ (being stuck in an earlier stage of ‘culture’ and thus closer to ‘nature’) when compared to the West,” Chow explains, “it is also ‘primitive’ in the meliorative sense of being an ancient culture (it was there first, before many Western nations)” (23). Chow’s perceptive observations on the primitive suggest interesting lines of investigation into the distinctive features of Chinese culture in relation to postcolonial politics. In an ironic sense, what we see in China’s anxiety for modernization is a paradoxical primitive passion on the part of China’s modern filmmakers and opinion-makers alike who perceive China as both “victim” and “empire.” And this paradox of primitivism, according to Chow, is characteristic of modern Chinese intellectuals’ “obsession with China” (23). Making excellent use of a range of Chinese films produced from the early 1930s to the late 1980s, Chow illustrates the historical development of obsessive primitivism in Chinese cinema. With modern film technology, as Chow demonstrates, contemporary Chinese cinema continues the “uncanny ethnographic attempt to narrate a ‘noble savagery’ that is believed to have preserved the older and more authentic treasures of the culture, in ways as yet uncorrupted by modernity” (74).

     

    Primitive passions are informed as well as complicated by the issue of gender–or rather engendered–representation. In her brief review of Goddess, a silent film made in 1934, Chow associates the primitive with the oppressed woman. One of the points that Chow attempts to make is that the primitive is not necessarily to be found only in backward, pre-modern regions, but is also to be located in industrialized metropolises such as Shanghai where the rapid development of industry and technologization can intensify “our awareness of how primitivism, as the imaginary foundation of industrialized modernity, is crucial to cultural production” (24). As a fascinating drama, Goddess, with the visual power that the new film technology provides, presents a subtle story about a young woman who prostitutes herself in order to support her son’s education. Against a backdrop of modern Shanghai in the early twentieth century, the film illustrates how the spectacularized body of woman “functions as a fetish for the sexuality”–the primitive–“that a ‘civilized’ society represses” (24). What Chow tries to show in her discussion of Goddess is the “affinity” rather than the contrariety between “innovativeness of film” and “primitive passions” (25). This film, which spectacularizes the primitive in the image of the oppressed woman, “articulates this epochal fascination with the primitive in ways that are possible only with the new technology of visuality” (25-26). The tradition of using women as symbols for the primitive, according to Chow, has been revived and developed by contemporary Chinese directors such as Chen Kaige and Zhang Yimou. Although sharing the same primitive passions, contemporary Chinese directors exhibit different notions of primitives/women and experiment with various visual representations. In Chen’s films, which tend to be symbolic, the primitive “is incorporeal–the real primitive is the ‘goddess’ who cannot be seen or represented and who has no place in this world” (47). What Chen’s films present is the “invisible” cultural tradition that has been buried deep in the past and disembodied as the “absence”; and audiences are encouraged to see through the visualized corporeality to grasp an incorporeal cultural experience. Zhang’s films, different from Chen’s, appeal to the immediacy of experience by drawing audiences’ attention to the image itself, rather than to what is hidden behind it. In Chow’s words, “Zhang’s primitive, also woman, is what can be exhibited. The woman’s body becomes the living ethnographic museum that, while putting ‘Chinese culture’ on display, is at the same time the witness to a different kind of origin” (47).

     

    In a sense, contemporary Chinese films are “phoenixes from the ashes” of the crisis of representation that existed in Chinese cinema after the Cultural Revolution. When China re-opened its door to the West in the 1980s, new modes of self-representation were desperately needed. Viewed from a broad perspective, contemporary Chinese cinema can be seen as embodying an autoethnographic attempt to present “China” anew before the West and, therefore, it provides an opportunity to re-examine China’s cultural identity in relation to Western pre-conceptions. As Chow asserts, a third-world nation’s cultural identity is often an overdetermined discourse that has been constructed from the Western perspective. In the case of Chinese cultural identity, Western sinologists and anthropologists have played an important role in setting up an Orientalist epistemological frame in which the intellectual locus of ideological control does not lie inside but outside China. For a long time, the third-world cultures come to be represented by virtue of the first world interpreters who have the privilege as well as the authority over their research subjects/objects. In her discussion of film as (auto)ethnography, Chow, regarding film studies as “an opportunity to rethink other modes of discourse in the twentieth century” (26), presents some important observations on the issue of representation and interpretation between cultures. Reading film as ethnography, as it were, demands an interdisciplinary approach that embraces not only the anthropological methodology and theory, but also a cross-cultural resistance “against the active imposition on the relations between West and non-West of an old epistemological hierarchy” (27). Historically, this “epistemological hierarchy” was established by Western anthropologists who, while studying the primitive cultures of third-world nations, imposed consciously or unconsciously a Western conceptual system upon their “primitive texts.” In terms of visuality, the West tends to see other cultures as “an endless exhibition” in which everything is arranged and interpreted from a Western point of view. What Chow attempts to achieve in her book is to take an anthropological approach to Chinese cinema without falling into the trap of a Western conceptual system. Chow opines that “film–especially film from and about a ‘third world’ culture–changes the traditional divide between observer and observed, analysis and phenomena, master discourse and native informant, and hence ‘first world’ and ‘third world’” (28). In the autoethnographic discourse of Chinese cinema, we find a new subversive and challenging “exhibition,” which is not set by the West, but by the Orient itself, which is conscious of the Western gaze and thus attempts to make use of this gaze for economic, political, or other purposes. “After demonstrating the bloodiness of the Western instruments of vision and visuality,” Chow questions, “how do we discuss what happens when the East uses these instruments to fantasize itself and the world?” (13). In Chow’s opinion, “since ‘the other’ has always already been classical anthropology’s mise-en-scène, this necessary dialogue between anthropology and film cannot simply be sought in the institutionally othered space of an oppositional stance toward ‘alternative’ or ‘third’ cinema,” but rather “in the shared, common visual spaces of our postcolonial, postmodern world” (28). In other words, “when the conventional epistemological division between ‘third world’ and ‘first world’ breaks down,” “the mediatized image of an ‘other’ becomes an index to primitive passions not only in the West but in China as well” (28).

     

    After laying down theoretical foundations concerning the complex issues of primitive passions and cross-cultural interpretation, Chow goes on to perform the difficult task of reading contemporary Chinese films in an interdisciplinary context of postcolonial, cross-cultural politics. In Part 2, “Some Contemporary Chinese Films,” Chow marshals a wide range of film texts to argue that “contemporary Chinese cinema is fascinating because it problematizes the facile notions of oppositional alterity that have for so long dominated our thinking about the ‘third world’” (57). As we know, since the mid-1980s, Chinese films have enjoyed a phenomenal success in the West, and their success has evoked heated discussions of “Oriental’s orientalism.” These Eastern-flavored films are both criticized for “pandering to the taste of foreign devils” and praised for their defiant spirit in unthinking Eurocentrism. The interpretative conflict, on the one hand, raises some interesting questions about cross-cultural politics of reception, and on the other, reveals a paradoxical correlation between the global and local discourses ironically inscribed and enacted within the technologized visuality of China’s primitive. For Chow, “Chinese films that manage to make their way to audiences in the West are usually characterized, first of all, by visual beauty” (57); this “visual beauty,” however, needs a wide array of unmakings. Chow seems to get most upset by what she views as the naive reading of third-world cinema as “national allegories,” arguing that such readings “cannot sufficiently account for the ‘breaks and heterogeneities’ and ‘multiple polysemia’ of ‘third world’ texts” (57). These “heterogeneities” or “impurity” beneath the surface of exotic alterity is what we must pay attention to today. One “way of defining this impurity,” Chow maintains, “is to say that the ‘ethnicity’ of contemporary Chinese cinema–‘Chineseness’–is already the sign of a cross-cultural commodity fetishism” (59). Chow’s discussion raises a series of interesting yet complicated questions: To what extent, do third-world nations have the opportunity to speak and gaze back not as the “Other”? How shall we construct a new global-local dialectic, as both the first world and the third world are rapidly fragmented and diluted? And as the self-conscious “ethnic” filmmakers start to question and negotiate with the imperial, colonial, and capitalist “master discourse,” who would assume the “authority” to produce appropriate discourse about “otherness” in today’s intellectual world market? Caught between two modes of ideological signification–the West and the Chinese–contemporary Chinese films are situated in an awkward in-between zone of global/local interaction where they are subject to the forces of two ideologies which more often than not conflict with each other. Almost all the films made by the so-called “Fifth Generation” directors (who are the focus of Chow’s study) are produced locally, and their subject matters are mainly based on local stories. However, different from the novelistic versions of the stories that are written solely for the domestic readership within China’s home market, the cinematic versions have been made addressing both Chinese and Western audiences; in some cases, the major intended markets are American-Western countries. Therefore, one of the most important features of these films is the “worldwide orientation,” which distinguishes them from the early local-oriented movies made in China. Chow’s illuminating observation highlights the “sharp distinction between the often grave subject matter and the sensuously pleasing ‘enunciation’ of contemporary Chinese film–a distinction we can describe in terms of a conjoined subalternization and commodification” (57-58). This distinction, ultimately, “points to the economics that enable the distribution and circulation of these films in the West” (58).

     

    Among China’s internationally acclaimed “Fifth Generation” directors, Chen Kaige and Zhang Yimou have managed to attract the West’s continuous attention. Different from the locally consumed Chinese movies, their films are much more graphic and photographic so that the power of visuality can provide the opportunity for non-Chinese audiences to naturalize the filmic discourse easily in a cross-cultural context. However, the filmic discourse is at the same time highly figurative, symbolic, and ambivalent; it emphasizes “surface” while suggesting profound and often mysterious depths of ‘Chinese’ culture. In such a hybrid discourse, Chen’s and Zhang’s films can translate and transform unique stories of local culture into globally consumable and marketable experiences. Contextualizing Chen’s and Zhang’s films in the “processes of cross-cultural production,” Chow argues that “the insistence on an original ‘Chinese’ culture is the insistence on a kind of value that is outside alienation, outside the process of value-making” (64). Chow associates “the process of value-making” with what she calls “the labor of social fantasy” that “the Chinese can have part of the West–technology–without changing its own social structure” (73). This “social fantasy” characterizes the “uncanny ethnographic attempt” to present the primitive through the modern film technology. Technology, in a sense, has enabled Chinese filmmakers to translate their local culture into visual products that can be consumed globally. In recent years, almost all Chinese films that have well been received in the West are ethnographic presentations of the remote landscape of China’s primitive. In such films as Yellow Earth and Judou, the audiences are taken to “backward villages in remote mountains” where the primitive–“the older and more authentic treasures of the culture”–is supposed to exist. In these films, as Chow observes, the modern film technology presents not only “visual beauty,” but also, more important, the “other-looking” image of China’s primitive. Chow notes that the primitive has a status of double otherness: It stands for “China’s status as other to the West and the status of the ‘other’ cultures of China’s past and unknown places to China’s ‘present self’” (75). Contemporary Chinese cinema, in Chow’s opinion, reveals a “structure of narcissistic value-writing” that “explains the current interest on the part of Chinese filmmakers to search for China’s ‘own’ others” (65). Films directed by Chen and Zhang, for example, often go back to the materiality of China’s primitive culture to explore the origins of modern China’s problems. Facing a complacent and narcissistic civilization that has produced Confucianism, Taoism and Maoism, one cannot but feel that there must be a historical yet mysterious “origin” inside Chinese culture. Contemporary Chinese films, in a sense, “partake of what we may call a poststructuralist fascination with the constructedness of one’s ‘self’–in this case, with China’s ‘self,’ with China’s origins, with China’s own alterity” (65). The paradox that Chow sees here is that “in the wish to go back to ‘China’ as origin–to revive ‘China’ as the source of original value–the ‘inward turn’ of the nationalist narrative precisely reveals ‘China’ as other-than-itself” (65).

     

    In films made by contemporary Chinese directors such as Chen and Zhang, we can find a practice of “self-gazing”–the attempt to see through the surface and to explore what is inscribed/enacted in the mise-en-scène. What these films present, apart from and beyond the exotic surface, is a self-gazing exploration into Chinese culture. This “self-gazing” indicates a modern anxiety to make sense of the obstinate sensibility of Chinese traditional culture by disengaging the symbolic order from the primitive relics and to search for a historical relationship between the Cultural Revolution and something buried deep in Chinese culture. Chen Kaige says, “I’ve always felt that what accounts for the Cultural Revolution is traditional culture itself….The Cultural Revolution repeats, continues, and develops this traditional culture” (qtd. in Chow 92). In this regard, contemporary Chinese cinema inscribes a self-reflexive and self-analytical perspective upon Chinese culture. These films, which present the remote cultural landscape of China, to a certain degree, have “defamiliarized” the primitive “China.” As Chow observes, quoting a native Chinese critic: “To the average urban Chinese, these landscapes are equally alien, remote and ‘other-looking,’ as they presumably appear to a Western gaze” (81). They demand we re-read the hieroglyphs of China’s cultural history and re-examine what kind of impact the misguided forces of an old cultural tradition can make upon modern life. In an age of postcolonial cultural diaspora, Chen’s and Zhang’s self-gazing exploration of Chinese culture is, unfortunately, mistaken for a Westernized gaze, and this superficial cognition generates numerous misunderstandings, which almost exclusively criticizes these directors for “betraying” Chinese culture. Actually, the self-gazing mode interrogates a complicated cultural system by means of a split discourse that both presents and questions what it presents simultaneously. This split discourse, in Scott Nygren’s words, “foregrounds the necessary distorting process of the Imaginary or Other as a means by which difference can be conceived” (182). The interaction between gazing and self-gazing enacts a double writing process in which Chinese traditional culture is both presented and questioned. In Chow’s words, these films have played a “self-anthropologizing” role in their attempt to re-write an auto-ethnographic account of China; and these filmmakers have “taken up the active task of ethnographizing their own culture” (180).

     

    When contemporary Chinese cinema started to stage itself in the global cultural market in recent years, conflicts and confrontations between different ideological interpretations seemed to be inevitable. Quoting E. Ann Kaplan, Chow points out that cross-cultural readings are “‘fraught with dangers.’ One of these dangers is our habit of reading the ‘third world’ in terms of what, from our point of view, it does not have but wants to have” (83). Moreover, there seems to be a “tension between the ‘raw material’ of the filmic text and the ineluctability of the Western analytic ‘technology’” (85). It is both natural and ineluctable that Western audiences–including Western scholars–always “gaze” at Chinese culture from a Western perspective, but the problem is that the “gazee” is not always passive. What Chow tries to show in Part 2 is that Chinese culture, which has been aggrandized by the powerful cinematic apparatus, does not merely appeal to the Western gaze, but more important, it also challenges, questions, and displaces the gaze. In a postcolonial age, when Western audiences go to cinemas to watch films made by the West-conscious Chinese directors with “a technology that is, theoretically speaking, non-Chinese” (87-88), the intercultural power relation between the gazer and the gazee has been changed. In other words, Chinese or third-world cinema may purposely offer what the first world “wants it to have” or wants to see. In such a situation, the relationship between the gazer (first world) and gazee (third world) should be re-examined. In Christian Metz’s psychoanalytical terms, when the whole system of knowledge is provided by the gazee-analysand, the gazee may also become the gazer-analyser, which can generate a counter-discourse to the intended spectatorship. “As in political struggles,” Metz writes, “our only weapons are those of the adversary, as in anthropology, our only source is the native, as in the analytical cure, our only knowledge is that of the analysand, who is also (current French usage tells us so) the analyser [analysant]” (5). In this regard, the films made by contemporary Chinese directors do not simply set up an “exhibition” of an exotic culture, but rather, they open up a new space in cinematic discourse in which different kinds of “gazing” and “gazing-back” are re-negotiated. In Chow’s words, by “showing a ‘China’ that is at once subalternized and exoticized by the West,” contemporary Chinese cinema “amounts to an exhibitionism that returns the gaze of orientalist surveillance” (170).

     

    The third and the last part, “Film as Ethnography; or Translation between Cultures in the Postmodern World,” offers a perceptive summary as well as a theoretical extension of what Chow has previously discussed, thus completing this triptych volume in a satisfactory way. One of the most fascinating aspects of this part is her discussion of Chinese filmmakers’ struggle with the politics of “translation” and their experience as cross-cultural translators. “In dazzling colors of their screen,” Chow describes, “the primitive…stands as the naive symbol, the brilliant arcade, through which ‘China’ travels across cultures to unfamiliar audiences. Meanwhile, the ‘original’ that is film, the canonically Western medium, becomes destabilized and permanently infected with the unforgettable ‘ethnic’ (and foreign) images imprinted on it by the Chinese translators” (202). Cultural translation, therefore, is not “a unidirectional, one-way process,” but a mutual delivering action–or to borrow Benjamin’s words, “a ‘liberation’ that is mutual and reciprocal between the ‘original’ and the ‘translation’” (188). The tension produced by the paradoxical relation of both conflict and convergence between globalization and localization is an important feature of postmodern cultural diaspora in which various cultural presences constantly translate themselves. In the last part of her book, Chow attempts to refigure some new models for cultural translation in terms of a global/local dialectic. The issue she raises is how the demand for self-translatable cultural products has increased as a consequence of global/local interaction. In Chow’s opinion, cultural translation suggests a kind of global consciousness that undermines the rigid compartmentalization of cultural consumption. In order to share and exchange in a global market, opinion-makers and filmmakers of different cultures must translate their cultural products into terms that are interculturally accountable. Cultural translation will not lead to dissolution of local cultural difference; on the contrary, it demands vigorous re-examination of the changing mechanism of the international flows of various national and local cultures. This re-examination, as Chow has demonstrated, can help us perceive how “the less powerful (cultures) negotiate the imposition of the agenda of the powerful” (201). By linking filmmaking with translation, Chow emphasizes that contemporary Chinese films are cultural translations, which provide a process that “we must go through in order to arrive–not at the new destination of the truth of an ‘other’ culture but at the weakened foundations of Western metaphysics as well as the disintegrated bases of Eastern tradition” (201). Cultural translation, therefore, informs a paradox of global/local interaction in the postcolonial, post-third-worldist critical moment. In order for Chinese local primitive to be understood and accepted, the Chinese filmmakers and opinion-makers alike must fight their battle over its global sense with the same paradigms/technology. What we can see in the battle is the emergence of a new global-conscious localism in film as well as in scholarship that correlates with the current international racing of cultural re-location, in which the ironic “self-anthropologizing” discourse starts to challenge what Arif Dirlik calls “EuroAmericans’ privilege of interpreting China’s past for the Chinese” (38). In this sense, far from being the art of exotic seduction, contemporary Chinese films are self-staged in the world market as a new form of cultural resistance against the Western hegemonic power in the age of cultural diaspora. The primitives that contemporary Chinese cinema presents, in Chow’s final analysis, are translated and translatable “‘fables’ that cast light on the ‘original’ that is our world’s violence, and they mark the passages that head not toward the ‘original’ that is the West or the East but toward survival in the postcolonial world” (201-02).

    Works Cited

     

    • Dirlik, Arif. “The Global in the Local.” Global/Local: Cultural Production and the Transnational Imaginary. Eds. Rob Wilson and Wimal Dissanayake. Durham: Duke UP, 1996. 21-45.
    • Metz, Christian. The Imaginary Signifier: Psychoanalysis and the Cinema. Trans. Celia Britton, Annwyl Williams, Ben Brewster and Alfred Guzzetti. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1982.
    • Nygren, Scott. “Doubleness and Idiosyncrasy in Cross-Cultural Analysis.” Otherness and the Media: The Ethnography of the Imagined and the Imaged. Eds. Namid Naficy and Teshome H. Gabriel. Langhorne, Pennsylvania: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1993. 173-187.

     

  • The Grim Fascination of an Uncomfortable Legacy

    Mark Welch

    Department of Nursing and Health Studies
    University of Western Sydney
    ma.welch@nepean.uws.edu.au

     

    Eric Rentschler, The Ministry of Illusion: Nazi Cinema and its Afterlife. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1996.

     
    The subtitle of Eric Rentschler’s latest book, The Ministry of Illusion (1996), gives a strong clue to its real purpose. He speaks of the Nazi Cinema and Its Afterlife, and as well-researched and referenced a work of film history as this book is, it is really about what the Nazi cinema means to us today, and why it has such an enduring allure.

     

    It is illuminating but unsurprising that he should open his preface with a confessional note. He would not be the first and will not be the last young student to be grimly fascinated by what was an epoch of major importance for the development of the cinema. What changed for Rentschler, and what can be gained from his book, is a realization that the films he saw as “so reviled and yet so resonant” were profoundly meaningful for our contemporary understandings of the cinema, both as an artistic and a socio-cultural medium. In particular, Rentschler’s work has much that is valuable to say about how cinema helps us to construct a sense of reality, and the role the Other plays in the legitimation of our identity.

     

    The figure of Goebbels is absolutely central to Rentschler’s argument and, in one of many extraordinarily detailed footnotes, he cites a report of a closing address given by Goebbels to the International Film Congress in 1933 (239). To a contemporary ear, many of the seven theses on which Goebbels expounded may sound very familiar. It is necessary, he said among other propositions, for film to recognize that it has a language of its own that is different from that of other art forms, and to develop it; while film must free itself from the “vulgar banality of a simple mass entertainment,” it must not lose its strong inner connection with people because mass taste can be educated and film has a crucial role in this; however, no art can exist without material support and the state should ensure this; film must reflect the spirit of the times if it is to speak to them; film gives expression to national identity, and in doing so creates understanding among nations; and film should develop its innermost natural essence and, if it does so, Goebbels suggests, it will conquer the world as a new artistic medium.

     

    1933 was a crucial year for German cinema. On March 11th, less than two weeks after the Reichstag fire, the Ministry for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda (Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda, RMVP), the eponymous Ministry of Illusion, was created. Two days later Goebbels was appointed as the Minister of Propaganda. Within two weeks of his appointment Goebbels had made important speeches, to both the heads of German radio stations and leading representatives of the German film industry, in which he called for radical reforms and productions with distinctive national contours. On 29 March 1933, Fritz Lang’s Testament of Dr. Mabuse was banned: it was not shown in Germany until 1951. During the next few months Goebbels made tax concessions available to approved sections of the film industry, offered attractive credit terms and began a level of engagement that by 1936 would see the Ministry involved in more than 70% of German feature films. He also instigated measures which restricted the right to work in the film industry to “true Germans,” and reorganized the professional bodies that represented the industry. In June 1933, after a blaze of activity, the seal was on the efforts of Goebbels to assume authority at every level for the RMVP. At the same time Hitler delivered a speech in which he said that the RMVP is to be responsible for

     

    all tasks related to the spiritual guidance of the nation, to the promotion of the state, culture and the economy, to the promulgation of information to domestic and foreign sources about the nation as well as the administration of all the agencies responsible for these endeavours.

     

    It was a realization of the totalitarian imagination for Goebbels, who had argued that the need for reform in the film industry was a spiritual one and must counteract the decadence of the Weimar years. With this foundation some of the most memorable, audacious, and controversial films ever made were produced in Germany over the next dozen years, films that were quite often regarded as such for the same reasons and at the same time. Rentschler notes that much of the supposed omnipotence of the RMVP has been exaggerated, and the situation may have been more confused and less simplistic than was once imagined; the RMVP was not as totalitarian nor as omnipresent as the myths which have grown around it. However, the legacy of the films’ artistic and creative innovations is still as apparent and as current as the analysis of the potential of cinema made by Goebbels.

     

    Rentschler acknowledges that the traditional image of the films of the Third Reich has been framed in the light of the political regime of the Nazis, and it was once almost taboo, or at least a guilty pleasure, to admire the aesthetic qualities in isolation from their context. Much of this can be attributed to the influence of landmark critics from the Frankfurt School such as Walter Benjamin and Siegfried Kracauer, who problematized the whole notion of a pure aesthetic. While Susan Sontag confessed, somewhat riskily, to finding Fascism fascinating, it may have been in the spirit, not so much of admiration, but, more likely, of admitting to the awful fascination of seeing what unchecked certainty and uncritical dreaming could achieve. The debt that the Hollywood spectacle has to the masterly control of image-making in Nazi cinema has either been rehabilitated or ignored. Yet, this lineage of imagery continues: as recently as this year, the opening shots from the airplane in Anthony Minghella’s Oscar-winning film, The English Patient, echo the shadow that Leni Riefenstahl showed flying across the landscape of Nuremburg in The Triumph of the Will.

     

    Rentschler, however, feels that to concentrate exclusively on themes, trends, and manifest content is to miss the significance of the films’ semiotic complexity. He suggests, not entirely fairly, that little has been previously said about the aesthetics of the Nazi films, those features that he feels make them so resonant and well regarded. He sees, and here his point should receive emphasis, a reciprocal link, at least aesthetically, between Hollywood and Berlin, and realizes that not every film produced in this era was crude propaganda.

     

    Rentschler lays out his thesis based on five premises (16-24). He suggests that

     

    • “the cinema of the Third Reich is to be seen in the context of the totalitarian state’s concerted attempt to create a culture industry in the service of mass deception.”
    • “entertainment played a crucial role in Nazi culture. The era’s many genre films maintained the appearance of escapist vehicles and innocent recreations while functioning within a larger programme.”
    • “Nazi film culture–and Nazi propaganda in general–must be understood in terms of what Goebbels called an ‘orchestra principle’” where not everyone was expected to play the same instrument.
    • “it is by now a truism that we cannot speak of National Socialism without speaking about aesthetics.” Rentschler adds that we must also speak about mass culture.
    • “when critics decry Nazi cinema as an abomination, they protest too much…. It is common to reduce all Nazi films to hate pamphlets, party hagiography, or mindless escapism, films with too much substance or none at all, either execrable or frivolous.”

     

    He argues these points with reference to a number of emblematic, significant, or representative films. He includes Das blaue Licht (The Blue Light) (Dir. Riefenstahl 1932), a mountaineering film which came from the tradition of nineteenth-century German Romanticism, which is technically pre-Nazi but gets into the frame not least because of its aesthetic, its themes, and Riefenstahl’s direction. He then considers the much more grandiose Münchausen (Dir. Von Blaky 1943) and others, wishing to show each chosen film as an exemplar in its own way. He also includes two of the most famous Nazi films, and two most often cited for their propaganda content, Hitlerjunge Quex (Hitler Youth Quex) (1933) and the quite notorious Jud Süss (Jew Süss) (Dir. Harlan 1940). Indeed, had he ignored the most well-known examples altogether he might well have been considered perverse.

     

    He defends his various theses with mixed success and sometimes it seems that his analysis is inconsistent and his method becomes a little fuzzy. While the contextual analysis of Nazi cinema is undoubtedly critical, he is still faced with the problem of the strident rhetoric of the RMVP and how the conditions of real life moderated action. He notes that many of the official statements emanating from the RMVP would appear to support his premise, yet, at the same time, he is also aware of degrees of subversion within the Ministry and the film industry itself which somehow conspire against any utopianism. Perhaps what we have come to learn of the chaos that lurks just below the surface of disintegrating totalitarian regimes in our own age can make us regard any protestations of unity and perfected order with a degree of skepticism. It seems to suggest that what can fall apart, will fall apart, and we should be regarding the hubris of those who think otherwise as simple folly. He warns against those who are dangerously sure of themselves.

     

    As other authors (Hull, Taylor, Friedlander, Schulte-Sasse) have argued, there was often a divergence of opinion about the nature and function of film between Goebbels and Hitler. Of the two, Goebbels seemed to have the more sophisticated appreciation of the ideological content of all art forms, and realized that the public’s appetite for or capacity to absorb blatant and less than subtle presentations may be limited. So Goebbels wanted to establish the film culture in the very fabric of the nation’s mind-set. He wanted a Hollywood star system; he recognized, as many in Hollywood and the world of advertising do today, that often the most powerful messages are the ones you don’t even realize are there.

     

    Apart from films, Goebbels saw the value of pageants and fetes, flags and uniforms. These all fostered a sense of identity; they signified what could be called “us,” and what was “them.” He was quick to spot any opportunity to emphasize the point, but whenever possible it was to be couched in terms of enjoyment and recreation. It is as though he believed that a content mind is an uncritical mind.

     

    The aesthetics of Fascism are said by Susan Sontag to glorify and glamorize death and the body, often together and often in a disconnected way. Rentschler takes some critics to task for adopting an attitude towards the popular culture of the Third Reich that is dismissive, almost patronizing. He wants to emphasize that popular culture was exactly that, popular. It was there in songs of the period, as Goebbels’ favorite band, Charlie and His Orchestra, sang amusing light ditties about bombing London. It was there in the ordinary household items in the shops; the pictures that appeared on tea-towels and trays were choices made within this entire context. Nevertheless, in part because of the indelible images of the great spectacles and Riefenstahl’s work in particular, the idea of Fascist art, when it is skillful, remains troublesome to the Western liberal conscience. Had he wished to, it is possible that Rentschler would have found direct descendants in the MTV videos of Michael Jackson and his uniformed chorus, or the disturbing depersonalized idealization of some of Robert Mapplethorpe’s photography. This is a topic that Rentschler does well to draw to our attention, and it is still full of unexplored possibilities.

     

    His final premise is that the critics are, in general, as totalizing in their condemnation as they think Nazi art is in its monologism. In what may be an uncomfortable equation for many, Rentschler argues that most Nazi films are as understandable in their conventions and readings as any familiar, traditional Hollywood film. The essentials of narrative and characterization are much the same and vary just as much in terms of skillful presentation or complexity.

     

    Rentschler makes an argument for a much more nuanced reading of the relationship between politics and entertainment in Nazi Germany. He is admirably careful about condemning too hastily or praising too easily. However, he does recognize that he is, as he puts it, entering a minefield of explosive issues. He notes the revisionism that has emerged since the collapse of the Eastern bloc in 1989 and the unification of Germany and, quite correctly, does not see himself as an apologist or driven revisionist. He admits that he is “mindful of the problematic postmodern relationship to the images and imaginary products of the Third Reich” (23). Nevertheless, he has made a major contribution to the literature. He has assembled a formidable collection of notes and appendices which run to over 200 pages, as much as the text itself. In a fascinating addition he includes a comparative historical listing of dates, films, biographies, and other important events and moments of the Nazi regime; one can almost feel the momentum of history, almost hear the clock ticking. Occasional errors notwithstanding, such as his quotation from the closing scenes of Fritz Lang’s M (1930) (although that could be taken from an unfamiliar source), his scholarship and the depth and breadth of his resources make the book fascinating and accessible to the interested beginner as well as the established scholar. It also makes an interesting conjunction with other well-publicized but less-than-orthodox histories of the Third Reich such as Daniel Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners or Linda Schulte-Sasse’s Entertaining the Third Reich, with which it shares many concerns.

     

    It seems he is justified in calling his final chapter, with a sense of irony and realism, “The Testament of Dr. Goebbels.” He starts out in the book by suggesting that “as time passes, the legacy of the Third Reich looms ever larger” (23). He ends, appropriately, by saying that “more than fifty years since the demise of National Socialism, the testament of Dr. Goebbels continues to haunt us” (223). This book enhances our ability to deal with that legacy.

    Works Cited

     

    • Friedlander, Saul, ed. Probing the Limits of Representation. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1992.
    • Goldhagen, Daniel. Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. New York: Alfred A. Knopf & Company, 1996.
    • Hull, David S. Film in the Third Reich: A Study of the German Cinema, 1933-1945. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969.
    • Schulte-Sasse, Linda. Entertaining the Third Reich: Illustrations of Wholeness in Nazi Cinema. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 1996.
    • Taylor, Richard. Film Propaganda: Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. London: Croom Helm, 1979.

     

  • The Art and Artifice of Peter Greenaway

    Anthony Enns

    Department of English
    University of Iowa

    anthony-enns@uiowa.edu

     

    Woods, Alan. Being Naked Playing Dead: The Art of Peter Greenaway.Manchester: Manchester UP, 1996.

     

    It is significant that the subtitle of Alan Woods’ new book, Being Naked Playing Dead, is not “The Films of…” or “The Cinema of…” but rather “The Art of Peter Greenaway.” “Artist” is certainly a more accurate description of Greenaway’s occupation than “filmmaker”; while he is widely known as one of today’s most brilliant and unique filmmakers, he has also worked in the mediums of painting, installations, experimental television, and opera. Woods’ subtitle not only indicates this fact, but also makes clear that Greenaway’s films must be considered in light of his wider body of work, and, more importantly, that his work must be considered within the context of contemporary art rather than contemporary cinema. As Woods points out: “Greenaway’s cinema requires a critical analysis which is not restricted to cinema, but draws its terms and concepts and examples both from the history of Western painting since the Renaissance… and from a base within the very different world of contemporary art practice” (87). Through his in-depth understanding of salient issues in contemporary art and his ability to decipher the wealth of influences and references at play within the works themselves, Woods distills the complexities of Greenaway’s art into a cohesive aesthetic theory, an outline for a “new cinematic language.” He constructs a fascinating portrait of Greenaway’s working method as well as illustrates a potentially new method of film criticism.

     

    Part of what makes Greenaway’s films unique is the way they address the medium of film itself. Greenaway is obsessed with the difficulties of representing reality on film, and this problem becomes focused on representations of the body. As Greenaway explains: “[there are] two phenomena I have never been able to suspend disbelief about in the cinema–copulation and death” (52). Copulation and death are the two subjects addressed by Woods’ title, and they are particularly significant to Greenaway because they mark the limit of representation, the limit of film’s ability to represent the physical world. According to Woods, naked bodies, which are ubiquitous in Greenaway’s films, are linked to mortality: “Our interest in the nude, he suggests, is more than sexual: it is also to do with our knowledge of our own mortality. Many of the bodies he shows us are dead, or at least… acting dead” (162). It is paradoxical that Greenaway’s method of addressing the artifice of film is actually a project of connecting viewers to something more genuine: the experience of their own bodies, their mortality, the human condition. Greenaway recognizes the inability of “dominant” cinema to convey this experience because of its strict adherence to narrative; narrative is unable to remind people that they are mortal, and this is why Greenaway advocates a new cinema, a “cinema of ideas, not plots.”

     

    Jorge Luis Borges once said that the short story did not necessarily require a plot, but rather a “situation,” and it is this word that appears in Woods’ text in place of plot: “the situation, however artificial, becomes difficult to bear because it must be thought about rather than consumed/resolved through narrative” (201). Narratives fail because they resolve tension, whereas Greenaway uses tension to evoke thought. Narrative relies on character identification, on the viewer’s empathy with the plight of the protagonist, but Greenaway rejects such a notion: “Empathy… prevents us from dealing with, facing up to, what is really real” (176). This repositioning of the viewer in relation to the work of art is almost Brechtian, except that Greenaway’s project does not encourage political awareness so much as an awareness of the operations of nature; according to Woods, Greenaway disrupts narrative from a “Darwinian standpoint.” However, it would be wrong to interpret Greenaway’s emphasis on nature as an attempt to evoke a spiritual or a transcendent experience. Woods describes Greenaway’s use of cinematic artifice as an attempt to combine Brechtian as well as Baroque theatricality (the Baroque aesthetic combines soul and body, the spiritual and the material): “It is not spirituality which is co-existent, doubled, with corporeality in Greenaway, but the presence of mind to imagine, to represent, as well as live out, physical existence” (200). This statement best explains the difference between Greenaway and Brecht: Greenaway demands that the viewer engage his films both intellectually and physically.

     

    Throughout his work, Greenaway connects the material to the intellectual, objects to ideas, as Woods points out: “[Objects] are at once matter and spectacle, idea and thing” (17). The distinction between symbols, words and things gradually becomes blurred. His use of naked bodies, therefore, is not simply the reduction of characters to objects, but rather the creation, through their objectification, of meanings: “What… gives his work its particular charge, individuality and excess is that… he invests all objects, all bodies, with intricate, inexhaustible meaning” (49). Greenaway also solves the problem of narrative through a similar objectification. He prefers to think of narrative not as a story but as a “sequence”: “Sequence is inevitable in cinema, but narrative might not be” (227). In other words, he is able to accomplish this combination of Brechtian and Baroque theatricality by reducing narrative elements themselves to objects, to physicality, and it is through their physical presence, in succession, that meaning is generated.

     

    This objectification of narrative elements can also be understood as the transformation of spatial meaning into temporal meaning. Greenaway not only invents a new cinematic language, he also teaches his viewers how to read it. He introduces a model of viewership based on the medium of painting rather than cinema: “When you go to the National Gallery… you don’t stand in front of the painting and emote. You don’t cry, you don’t shout, you don’t scream. Why should we demand those sorts of relationships in the cinema?” (81-2). Paintings, according to Woods, convey spatial meaning; they exist outside of time in a “continuous present.” Cinema conveys temporal meaning; meaning is created through the movement of objects in space over time, through narrative. Woods believes that “[Greenaway] retains as much simultaneous, spatial meaning as possible, and reinvents it for a temporal meaning” (123). Woods connects Greenaway’s rejection of the temporal limitations of cinema, a rejection of narrative and ephemerality, to Walter Benjamin’s essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” Benjamin was critical of film because it denies the viewer the ability to contemplate the image: the moving picture constantly distracts the viewer and controls both the direction and the duration of the viewer’s perception. Woods posits Greenaway as a potential solution to Benjamin’s dilemma: Greenaway’s films do not attempt to control the viewer’s perception, but rather, through the rejection of narrative and an emphasis on repetition and physicality, Greenaway demands that his images be contemplated: “The distancing effect involved in the picture’s treatment of the material–and, for us, in our own distance from the period in which it was painted–demands that it be considered, rather than consumed” (81).

     

    Benjamin also believed that contemplation was the experience of the object’s authenticity, its “aura”: “that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art” (221). The “aura” of the work is its physicality, its presence in time and space, which the film image obliterates. Greenaway often says he enjoys the making of films, but he is always disappointed in the result–he refers to the finished film as a “dissatisfying by-product” of the process of its creation–and what is disappointing to Greenaway about film is that it has no substance: “it is a frustration that cinema has no substance… it can have no intimacy with history” (93). Much of Greenaway’s artistic work outside of filmmaking involves exhibitions and books which chronicle the making of his films; they are an attempt, in other words, to give physicality to film: “What is unique… is his increasing interest in finding ways of reconstructing for his audience the physical realities of the set, the props, the bodies which, in film, are… insubstantial traces, reduced to light” (87). And his interest in exhibitions, in the physicality of film, also reflects Benjamin’s notion of cinema as distraction, as detrimental to contemplation:

     

    We cannot inch a little to the left, to see the dining-table from the south side... this is a deeply impoverished situation, when we know that tables can be viewed from north, west and east as well... We could use a contemplation of the phenomenon of the exhibition to improve the status of the cinema. (140)

     

    The physical presence of the film allows viewers to control their own perception of the work of art not only temporally, but also spatially. The film, embodied in the exhibition, is then able to have an intimacy with history as well as the viewers, and at the same time the viewers are allowed a greater intimacy with the experience of their own bodies.

     

    After disrupting narrative and emphasizing physicality and corporeality, Greenaway discovers the possibility of creating meaning through the repetition and referencing of objects and ideas. This can be clearly seen in an exhibition entitled 100 Objects To Represent the World, in which Greenaway attempted to list 100 objects which could represent every aspect of human culture. Greenaway’s description of this process explains how meaning is generated through objects:

     

    Since every natural and cultural object is such a complex thing, and all are so endlessly interconnected, this ambition should not be so difficult to accomplish as you might imagine. For example... the fountain-pen inside my pocket is a machine that can represent all machinery; it is made of metal and plastic which could be said to represent the whole metallurgy industry from drawing-pins to battleships, and the whole plastics industry from the intra-uterine device to inflatables. It has a clip for attaching it to my inside jacket pocket and thus acknowledges the clothing industry. It is designed to write, thus representing all literature, belles lettres, and journalism. It has the name Parker inscribed on its lid, revealing the presence of words, designer-significance, advertising, identity. (20-21)

     

    Greenaway’s films ask the viewer to search for clues, to seek out references to other works of art, and to establish links from one film to the next. These games of referencing become the meaning of the films, their physicality, their embodied narrative. These endless references are reflected in the organization of Woods’ book, which does not trace Greenaway’s career in chronological order but rather constructs a web of associations, beginning with simple topics such as “water” or “curtains,” which lead him from one work to the other and from one association to the next in an apparently inexhaustible cycle. What is truly wonderful about Woods’ book is the way it reflects Greenaway’s own aesthetic: meaning is not generated through the construction of a narrative, but rather through the associations and links between objects and ideas.

     

    What possibly makes Greenaway unique among contemporary filmmakers, and what may be the foundation of his “new cinematic language,” a language of bodies and objects rather than characters and stories, is that he rejects the emphasis on interpretation and content which pervades film criticism, as Susan Sontag pointed out in her essay “Against Interpretation.” Sontag believes the notion of content in a work of art is obsolete: “the idea of content is today mainly a hindrance, a nuisance, a subtle or not so subtle philistinism” (5). She argues for a criticism of appearances, of surfaces; for example, her description of Alain Resnais and Alain Robbe-Grillet’s film Last Year at Marienbad, a film that Greenaway greatly admires: “the temptation to interpret Marienbad should be resisted. What matters in Marienbad is the pure, untranslatable, sensuous immediacy of some of its images” (9). Greenaway’s films also offer a wealth of sensuous imagery that does not ask to be interpreted, but rather to be witnessed, to be experienced, to be contemplated. Woods believes that the language of contemporary film criticism is inadequate to discuss Greenaway’s work: “there seems to be no equivalent set of continuing dialogues between Greenaway and contemporary film directors” (13). Woods also points out that Greenaway does not see himself as following cinematic tradition: “I can think of no other director so apparently uninterested in, impervious to, almost the whole range and history of Hollywood product” (15). Woods seems to be calling for a new type of criticism to discuss Greenaway, a criticism informed by the history of Western painting and contemporary art practice, a criticism, as Sontag suggests, of surfaces rather than content. In this way, Woods’ book not only makes a compelling argument for the significance of one of today’s most challenging filmmakers, but also for a new method of applying the tools of art history to works of cinema, of valuing ideas over plot, figure over character, spatial meaning over temporal.

     

    The book concludes with two interviews with Greenaway, the latter of which was conducted during the editing of his most recent film, The Pillow Book (1996). Throughout both interviews, Greenaway struggles to articulate his concept of cinematic language, of the vocabulary intrinsic to the medium of film. He states repeatedly that film should be more than simply the illustration of text, more than simply stories told visually, and The Pillow Book stands out as a perfect example of this concept. By using multiple screens, text overlays, and changing aspect ratios, The Pillow Book is a uniquely cinematic object, and the relationship between text and image is central to both the narrative and the structure of the film. The film tells the story of a calligrapher’s daughter who is obsessed with having her body written upon. She later becomes a writer herself and uses other people’s bodies as paper. According to an article by Greenaway in Sight and Sound, the Japanese hieroglyph is the central metaphor of the film: “the text is read through the image, and the image is seen in the text–very possibly an ideal model for cinema” (15). Words are more than the things they signify; they are also images themselves. Thus the hieroglyph written upon the body illustrates the blurring of the distinctions between images, texts, and bodies, or between symbols, words and things. The Japanese hieroglyph could also stand as the central metaphor of Greenaway’s cinematic language: cinema is more than simply the illustration of text, but also text as illustration, symbol as object, image as a body itself, carved out of light. Greenaway arranges elements on celluloid as a painter would on canvas, using graphic tools to draw attention to the surface of the screen image, to the artifice of film. Like Marienbad, the images of The Pillow Book have a pure, untranslatable and sensuous immediacy, but they also clearly advertise the artifice behind them, and the importance of artifice, for Greenaway, is ultimately connected to bodily experience. Artifice pulls viewers out of the waking dream of traditional cinematic narrative; it asks them not to consume the film, but to consider it, to contemplate the screen as they might contemplate a canvas, and to recognize, through their experience, the reality of their own nakedness.

    Works Cited

     

    • Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations. Trans. Harry Zohn. Ed. Hannah Arendt. New York: Schocken Books, 1969.
    • Greenaway, Peter. “Peter Greenaway on The Pillow Book.” Sight and Sound 6.11 (1996): 15-17.
    • Sontag, Susan. Against Interpretation and Other Essays. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1966.
    • Woods, Alan. Being Naked Playing Dead: The Art of Peter Greenaway. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1996.

     

  • Looking for Richard in Looking for Richard: Al Pacino Appropriates the Bard and Flogs Him Back to the Brits

     

    Kim Fedderson and J.M. Richardson

    Department of English
    Lakehead University
    Kim.Fedderson@Lakeheadu.ca
    Mike.Richardson@Lakeheadu.ca

     

    Looking for Richard. Dir. Al Pacino. Twentieth Century Fox, 1997.

     

    Al Pacino’s Looking for Richard opens with the words “King Richard” appearing first on the screen with the other syllables necessary for completing the title being added gradually. This device not only highlights the name “Richard III,” the protagonist of the Shakespearean source for Pacino’s film, it also enlists and then encourages us to search for Richard within the film. And when we go looking for Richard, we can, if we look hard, find him, but not where we had expected and, more tellingly, not where we seem to be directed to look. While it gives us innumerable glimpses of Richard–the documentary frame of the film allows us to see Richard in America, in the Cloisters, in England, at the Globe, in theatrical rehearsal and performance, in cinematic rehearsal and performance–Pacino’s film, like Shakespeare’s humpbacked dissembler, harbors a “secret, close intent,” making Richard far more difficult to locate than his conspicuousness in the film would suggest. And once he is glimpsed, we should begin to question the film’s motives. While Pacino claims that his goal is to make Shakespeare more accessible to his public, what he, in fact, does under this typically American anti-elitist and democratic ruse is to appropriate the cultural commodity that Shakespeare has become and then use it to establish American dominance within the global market in which this commodity is distributed. Pacino does this by first undermining the hold that England has had on Shakespeare’s work, in effect repossessing the work, and then reforming it to his taste so that it may be marketed at home and ultimately abroad. In this cautionary tale about coming to America, Pacino not only hijacks the bard, but then he also audaciously offers him for sale back to his original owners. Indeed, it is only within the film’s conflict with itself, in the division between what it actually does and what it appears to do, that the character of Shakespeare’s smiling villain comes clearly into our view.

     

    One of the things this film purports to do and in fact does is to provide us with an iteration of Shakespeare’s Richard III. That Richard III offers a narrative comprised of four phases: 1) an initial state of sovereignty, presented as “true and just” and represented by King Edward IV, comes to an end as Edward sickens and dies; 2) this is followed by an act of legitimate succession as sovereignty passes into the hands of the legitimate heir, who because of his youth, is assigned a protector; 3) this in turn is disrupted by an act of illegitimate succession as the protector turns usurper, “subtle, false and treacherous,” has the rightful heir murdered, and assumes sovereignty himself; 4) finally, the usurper is displaced and dispatched and a new legitimate sovereignty is restored. Pacino’s Looking for Richard presents only a selection of scenes from the Shakespearean original, yet these scenes are carefully chosen so as to represent these major narrative phases: hence, the sickness and death of Edward IV (Harris Yulin) is enacted; the young prince inherits his sovereignty but is forced to relinquish it to the Protector (Pacino), who has his charge murdered and so succeeds illegitimately; and finally, the usurper is replaced by the new legitimate monarch, Henry Richmond (Aidan Quinn).

     

    While the major phases of the narrative of Shakespeare’s Richard III are represented in Pacino’s selection of incidents to dramatize in his Looking for Richard, the film itself, as a totality, is as conflicted as “divided York and Lancaster.” The principal source of this conflict is the film’s form. Pacino, as director of the film Looking for Richard, wraps his episodic and fragmentary performances of Shakespeare’s play in a documentary frame, in which Pacino, in the role of dramatized director of the film, explores how Richard III, which the film contends has become lost and mired in tradition, might be made “accessible to the people out there, the people on the street.” This documentary frame contains two distinct narratives, both of which replicate much of Shakespeare’s story about Richard III, but which suppress its tragic implication. The two narratives of Pacino’s frame, when taken together, create an unsettling dissonance within Looking for Richard, one which should cause us to question the film’s happy democratic sense of itself as a film that merely attempts to make Shakespeare’s play more accessible to the American public. Like Shakespeare’s character, the film may ask us to regard it as a “marv’lous proper man” (I.ii.254), but there is no mistaking that it cannot so regard itself.

     

    The first of these narratives, and strongly foregrounded at that (both in the film and in its publicity, the press kit, and interviews with Pacino, so that it has become quite clear that this is what we are expected to go looking for), is a quest romance called “Looking for Richard” in which the “authentic spirit” of the play (and of Shakespeare himself), the holy grail as it were, has been lost but is found and renewed, recovered in effect, by the modern hero, Al Pacino. The keeper of the text of the play is analogous to King Edward IV and is as responsible for maintaining the currency and vitality of Shakespeare’s text as the king is for maintaining peace and prosperity in the realm. Like King Edward, the traditions of performance have become moribund. The evidence for the death of the king/death of the text is presented via interviews with “the man on the street,” demonstrating that the American public has, by and large, no liking for, patience with, or understanding of Shakespeare. Historically, of course, the keepers of this text have been British actors and scholars–many of whom are represented in the film. The argument, then, of the manifest narrative in the film is that, in essence, these British traditions of performance and scholarship have, like Edward IV, sickened and died, lost their power to maintain Shakespeare’s vitality, leaving the artistic equivalent of a power vacuum. Pacino, the dramatized director-as-character within the film’s fictional space, offers himself as the new keeper of the text, the man who can make Shakespeare accessible once again to Everyman. This aspirant, from the young nation of America, is analogous to the Princes in the Tower, the future hope for the realm. And as the young princes have backers such as Hastings (Kevin Conway), the dramatized director also has his in the form of Derek Jacobi and, especially, Sir John Gielgud. The latter is with him throughout and, most importantly, at the end of the film is presented as Pacino’s protector and approving witness to his claim. (We know this convention from Star Wars: Obi Wan and Luke Skywalker–an aged Brit who is clearly a part of the tradition sanctions the passing on of the force to an American.) This story mobilizes many of the narrative elements and characters of Richard III, but emplots them comedically, creating a version of Richard III in which no usurper threatens the rightful claims of the new generation.

     

    Unlike this manifest narrative (the film as it wishes to be seen; the film fashioned as Richard fashions himself for Anne, to “woo” us) the second, repressed narrative is the product of a Ricardian “dissembling nature” and, like Richard himself, harbors “a secret, close intent.” This buried narrative operates with no delusions about its motives. A couple of lines from the film serve as a nice gloss on its modus operandi: “The text is just a means for expressing what’s behind the text” and “Irony is really only hypocrisy with style.” Like the first narrative, the second one represents the British traditions of performance and scholarship as moribund; the legitimate inheritors, represented by Sir John Gielgud, Kenneth Branagh, Peter Brooks, Emrys Jones, are ineffectual. Indeed Kenneth Branagh, a powerful young Prince, exiting the film like Lear’s fool, is quickly shunted offstage and Sir Ian McKellen, whose own Richard III makes him a formidable rival, is simply not mentioned at all. Pacino as dramatized director, in essence, removes or co-opts the opposition to his claims to sovereignty just as Shakespeare’s Richard does, metaphorically killing off Branagh, McKellen, Trevor Nunn, Derek Jarman, Peter Greenaway, etc. He impudently installs himself within the vacancy he himself has created, offering himself as the protector/successor, the one who should command from the throne of the Globe Theatre. Like Richard, Pacino as dramatized director is an unlikely prospect for the elevation he seeks: Richard’s physical and moral deformities become Pacino’s less than polished accent and speech, the baseball cap worn reversed, and the generally unkempt appearance.

     

    As an apparently improbable claimant to the throne, Pacino, in this narrative, must address two problems not inherent in the manifest narrative discussed above, but that are to be found in the Shakespearean original: 1) the quasi-legalistic problem of establishing the legitimacy of his claim on the Shakespearean text: By what right does the future of the Shakespearean play fall to this American actor? Where does he stand in the “proper” (i.e., obvious, expected) line of succession? and 2) the essentially political problem of winning over the public to his side, of having them shout, “The king is dead! Long live the king!”

     

    On the matter of legitimacy, Pacino’s solution is not unlike Richard’s: Richard has Buckingham imply the bastardy of the Princes in the Tower; Pacino undermines the imputed British claim to exclusive dominion over Shakespeare by a variety of tactics. First, he argues that those with the most obvious claims are the very ones that have allowed the plays to falter. The film implies that the British tradition–both its actors and its scholars–has turned the body of the bard’s play into an inaccessible, irrelevant, antiquated corpse. If Shakespeare’s fortunes flag it is because of the elitist pedantry of British scholars, and the technically precise, but inauthentic and insincere, classical dramatic training of British actors. Pacino further delegitimizes the British claimants by dissociating the play from the specificity of its language. For it is in the British sway over the language of the plays, a language that is obsessively referred to within the film as an obstacle for American actors and audiences alike, that the British contenders find their strongest argument. Masterfully co-opting his opposition, Pacino gets one of the British scholarly authorities in the film to argue that “the text is just a means for expressing what’s behind the text,” thus legitimizing the claim that Shakespeare’s essence exists separately from Shakespeare’s language. Once Shakespeare can be shown to exist outside of the Englishness of his language, the corollary can then be advanced that the essence of Shakespeare may not be English at all, but could indeed be American. A homeless man, one of the many mechanicals Pacino peoples his new world with, extols the bard’s virtues and his relevance to contemporary problems. Pacino himself argues that Richard is just like the American-style gangsters with whom he made his reputation. Once we get past the irksome “prithees” and “post-hastes,” it turns out that Shakespeare has, in fact, been hiding out in Poughkeepsie looking for Pacino.

     

    On the matter of public approbation: as Richard and Buckingham manipulate the commoners to make them cry for Richard as king, so Pacino interviews his fellow New Yorkers and foregrounds those who clearly need someone to reclaim Shakespeare for them, and then, like Richard, offers himself as the necessary successor. In this version, there is no Richmond to challenge Richard because the usurper gets away with it. He successfully eliminates his rivals by displacing Branagh, effacing McKellen, and assuming a familial coziness with Gielgud, and, finally, ascends the throne. If the play is to be reanimated, the “Barons” of Branagh and Gielgud will have to, and indeed do, pay allegiance to Pacino (while “pretenders” like McKellen apparently “flee the scene”), thus authenticating Pacino’s assertion of legitimate succession. This ironic narrative offers no fifth act because the audience fails to recognize that its smiling, redeeming hero can also be regarded as its usurping villain.

     

    And to do this, Pacino must pull off the improbable feat of seducing all and not be seen seducing any. The analogue for this achievement is Richard’s seduction of Lady Anne (Winona Ryder): just as she is seduced into transferring her affections from her dead father and husband to Richard, their murderer, so Pacino, an unlikely Shakespearean whose American “deformities” would seem to preclude his being the last best hope of the text, asks us to accept him as the one who can save the bard for us, now that the British tradition has died off. Having pried Shakespeare loose from the British tradition of performance (a tradition which has always made Americans feel themselves culturally inferior to their former colonial masters), it can now be remade to American tastes, or more precisely, to the usurping Pacino’s tastes, since the version that prevails must be his own.

     

    Pacino’s satisfaction at having taken Shakespeare to the people is compromised by the liberties these very same people will take with the bard’s texts. Interpretations proliferate: one commoner talks about talmudic Shakespeare, another talks about a rock n’ roll Lady Macbeth, and a Hamlet who’s like every kid. Pacino, dismayed by the license the commoners allow themselves, complains, “You must get me out of this. It’s gone too far. I want to be king.” Here we see that Pacino’s goal is not to bring just any Shakespeare to the people. The bard that is enthroned in majesty must be his. The scene which follows this is entitled, significantly, “Now to take the crown.” And it is charged with a double resonance: it refers to Pacino as Richard taking the crown within the performance of the play, and to Pacino as dramatized director within the frame assuming sovereignty over the text. Having displaced the opposition and staked his claim to Shakespeare, Pacino is then able to repatriate the Bard. The implicit claim goes something like this: Shakespeare, having been freed from what the film claims are the ossifying traditions of British performance, is restored to his pristine essence in America, and now, in addition to being a marketable commodity able to meet foreign competition–Branagh, Luhrmann, McKellen et al.–within the domestic economy, can also be exported and marketed abroad. Thus, in the film’s most deliciously vertiginous moment, Pacino installs himself center stage at Sam Wannamaker’s restored Globe theatre–the new American-sponsored Euro-Shakespeare theme park–and intones the opening soliloquy of the play.

     

    The frame’s two narratives (the happy manifest narrative of legitimate succession and the ironic and repressed narrative of successful usurpation) taken together create a dissonance within Looking for Richard. It is within this dissonance that Pacino the undramatized narrator looks for Shakespeare’s Richard: the frame’s doubled narrative enacts the duplicitous split between seeming and being that constitutes Richard’s character; he is both the saint of the delusionary manifest narrative and the devil of its repressed other. Richard, then, is not Pacino playing the crookbacked monarch imposter in the staged scenes, but the smiling villain, the beguiling dramatized director making the film Looking for Richard. The dramatized scenes in the film look for and find Shakespeare’s play; the film itself, however, looks for and finds its titular character, and makes him a victorious usurper.

     

    The implicit premise of the film–that Shakespeare’s work is in need of resuscitation–is, of course, completely wrong: never before have Shakespeare’s works been made so accessible to the American public–largely due to Branagh and Nunn, the imaginatively modernized productions of McKellen and Baz Luhrmann, and the experimental work of Greenaway and Jarman. The tradition is anything but ossified, and foreign Shakespeares now compete at the box office with major Hollywood productions; in short, the endeavour to persuade the American audience that the bard of tradition is dead is necessary in order to protect the domestic market from foreign competition. The key question is not whose Shakespeare, or which style of Shakespearean production, but rather who gets to keep the financial and cultural profits. If the analogy between Lady Anne and the American audience holds, Pacino/Richard’s line, echoed chorically throughout the seduction scene–“I’ll win her, but I’ll not keep her long”–speaks volumes concerning their intentions; namely, both will move on to more profitable affairs when they have had their way with the current ones. Having legitimized himself and having seduced America with his Shakespeare, he can now return to his old standbys. Thus, he appears next in Donnie Brasco and currently in The Devil’s Advocate, a film in which he finally gets to play the ultimate seducer.

     

    Although on the whole the frame transforms Richard into a successful usurper and hence does not recapitulate Act V of the play in any detailed way, there is one aspect of Act V that does make an appearance and might suggest that Pacino’s victory is not total. Just as in the final act of Shakespeare’s play, Richard is haunted by the ghosts of all those he has slain in his rise to the throne, so the British traditions that the frame declares to be dead continually haunt Pacino’s performance of the selected scenes from the play. They are, for the most part, faithful and largely derivative iterations of the text in a realistic mode à la Branagh’s Henry V; in dramatized performance, the baseball cap gives way to period costumes; Pacino’s New York accent modulates to the mid-Atlantic; there is considerable concern that the sets be realistically correct; and Pacino’s one major effort actually to rewrite the text with a view to simplifying and hence “clarifying” Shakespeare as well as asserting his own control over the script is abandoned in performance. In making Shakespeare new and accessible, Pacino gives him a very familiar and traditional face. The innovative frame notwithstanding, the film gives us none of the creative translation of the text that Luhrmann attempts in William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, nor the anachronistic restaging of the story in McKellen’s Richard III. As if haunted by the British “right” to Shakespeare, the colonial “pretender” Pacino must not only take him back to Britain, to the rebuilt Globe, but also must seek the approbation of the allegedly displaced rivals, and he does this by handing back to them an imitation of the implicitly denigrated “conventional” product. And, re-enacting the cultural inferiority complex that originated the entire project, Pacino wants his performance to be recognized and valued by the British and on British soil. The British “right” over the tradition haunts the colonial Pacino and he still seeks their approval. Gielgud, recalling his role of the butler in Arthur, nods approvingly at the end of the film. Despite talk of “method,” of a romantic communing with the essence of the text, of sidestepping the American obsession with the language of the text which acts as barrier for American players and audiences alike, Pacino keeps “turning British” as he performs. “New,” potentially censorious and hence threatening, Shakespeareans, like McKellen, are to be kept offstage. Pacino in true Ricardian fashion is less concerned with making Shakespeare accessible, or with renewing the bard for contemporary audiences, than he is with establishing his own right of succession within the tradition, with all the perquisites that that entails. But the very timidity of mounting such a conventional (though perfectly good) performance whilst surrounded in the field by many more adventuresome Shakespeareans argues for the presence of a deep-seated anxiety; perchance Pacino senses a Richmond in the wings after all.

     

  • Ersatz Truths: Variations on the Faux Documentary

    Edward Brunner

    Department of English
    Southern Illinois University
    ebrunner@siu.edu

     

    Prelinger, Rick. Ephemeral Films 1931-1960: To New Horizons and You Can’t Get there from Here. CD-ROM. New York: Voyager, 1994.

     

    Prelinger, Rick. Our Secret Century: Archival Films from the Dark Side of the American Dream: Volume 1: The Rainbow is Yours with Volume 2: Capitalist Realism; Volume 3: The Behavior Offensive with Volume 4: Menace and Jeopardy; and Volume 5: Teenage Transgression with Volume 6: The Uncharted Landscape. CD-ROM. New York: Voyager, 1996.

     

    When W. H. Auden supplied the foreword to John Ashbery’s first book of poetry in 1956–Some Trees, which Auden had chosen for publication in the Yale Younger Poets series that year–one of the few poems he singled out for attention was “The Instruction Manual.” Ashbery’s speaker was so bored with his task of writing a technical manual that he instead daydreamed of a trip to Guadalajara, Mexico. Auden praised the poem for its contrast between the speaker’s “historically real but profane situation, doing hackwork for a living” and “his sacred memories of a Mexican town,” and quoted from these lines near the poem’s close:

     

    How limited, but how complete withal, has been our
         experience of Guadalajara!
    We have seen young love, married love, and the love 
         of an aged mother for her son.
    We have heard the music, tasted the drinks, and 
         looked at colored houses.
    What more is there to do, except stay? And that 
         we cannot do.
    And as a last breeze freshens the top of the weathered 
         old tower, I turn my gaze
    Back to the instruction manual which has made me dream 
         of Guadalajara.

     

    “Reading this,” Auden remarked, “I who have never been to Mexico nor wish to go there translate this into images of the happy life drawn from quite different cities.” Yet it seems all too obvious that Ashbery, exactly like Auden, had also never been to Mexico nor had he any wish to go there. This “tour” has all the earmarks of a cheap travelogue, the kind of thing one might have dozed through as part of a double bill in movie theaters in the 1940s. As a conveniently-located band plays excerpts from Scheherazade, Ashbery sweeps us from one side of the public square to the next. If, at first, the sights seem suitable enough, though a bit mundane–“Around stand the flower girls, handing out rose- and lemon-colored flowers, / Each attractive in her rose-and-blue stripe dress (Oh! Such shades of rose and blue), / And nearby is the little white booth where women in green serve you green and yellow fruit”–by the time we enter a “typical” household to be introduced to family members (“Let us take this opportunity to tiptoe into one of the wide streets” where an “old woman in gray sits… fanning herself with a palm leaf fan”) we realize we have by now been trapped wholly in the realm of the cliché, the unreal, the “picturesque.” The colors that play throughout each description–as pushy as any technicolor print–give an impression of “detail” and individuation even as they relentlessly neutralize any information, reducing each scene to a play of picturesque tints, as is evident when we look out from the church tower: “There is the rich quarter, with its houses of pink and white, and its crumbling, leafy terraces. / There is the poorer quarter, its homes a deep blue.” (These particular colors are precisely weighted, but it takes a moment’s pause to recognize Caucasian skin coloring and the hue of despair associated with poverty.) Ashbery understands the daydream perfectly, of course; it is precisely an exercise in looking without seeing. So we never have left home–we never have even escaped the simple rigidity of the instruction manual. As “the last breeze freshens the top of the weathered old tower,” we should realize how often we have been at this same juncture in the closing images of a slipshod documentary. This old tower has been in need of a freshening breeze for a long time indeed.

     

    Auden had a particular talent for misunderstanding Ashbery that has not gone unnoticed. “Remarkably disaffected” is how Richard Howard summarized Auden’s foreword. In fact, Auden had decided that no manuscript submitted to the Yale series in 1955 merited publication, and only the intercession of his companion Chester Kallman prodded Auden into reconsidering two manuscripts from writers in the New York gay subculture. (Ashbery won over Frank O’Hara’s Meditations in an Emergency.) Still, the question arises: how could Auden have so completely mistaken Ashbery’s send-up for a solemn work of poetic art? One answer might be that Auden came from a generation with a heavy investment in the authority of the documentary. Arguably, documentary was the form that originated with and was nurtured by the generation of the 1930s. Auden himself worked in 1935 with the Film Unit of the General Post Office as assistant director, writing texts for half a dozen documentary films, including the much-heralded “Night Mail” (music by Benjamin Britten). To Auden, it must have seemed natural for the speaker in Ashbery’s poem to jog memory by drawing upon images that might have been at home in a documentary. To Ashbery, however (about to embark on a career as an art critic for the International Herald Tribune), some documentary embodiments of “reality” could be so maladroitly organized that they were not just profoundly suspect but even objects of lampoon.

     

    I.

     

    While postmodernist Ashbery was able–even ready–to regard the form of the documentary with distrust, as though the stage-management of the “realistic” visual image in film was already complicit with a form of commercialization, a modernist poet such as Auden, who came of age with the documentary, must have found it difficult to conceive of the extent to which others might violently abuse it. Yet almost from its inception, the film documentary perfected in the 1930s was understood by business, professional and government interests as a particularly enticing form that lent itself to manipulation in ways from which they could profit both directly and indirectly. Any doubts about this are thoroughly dispelled by Rick Prelinger’s invaluable assemblage of industrial, promotional and educational films that are available on a one-disc CD-ROM, Ephemeral Films, 1931-1960, and on a series of two-disc sets that will eventually be six in number appearing under the overall title Our Secret Century: Archival Films from the Darker Side of the American Dream.1 These are films that we are sure to believe we have seen at one time or another, though we cannot precisely remember their details. Rather than remembering the films, we are likely to remember the circumstances under which we first saw them, for these films have been designed essentially to lack presence, to blend into the circumstances that surround them as if they were incontestably representations of the ordinarily “real.” What places, then, do these films return us to? Watching “Safety Belt for Susie” (1957), which uses first a doll, then human-scale crash dummies, to demonstrate the value of safety belts, will evoke driver education classrooms in second- or third-rate public high school in the 1950s or the 1960s. “A Date with Your Family” (1947), which suggests that happiness in families is a learned behavior, and family-members who begin to play the role of the happy child or happy parent may eventually find it easier and easier to fall into that self-assigned part, will recall the brightly-painted basements and metal fold-out chairs of well-meaning suburban churches where such films might be shown as part of a catechism class. The Union Pacific Railroad’s use of three unhappy examples of injudicious behavior to dramatize how feckless judgment could have lasting repercussions, in “The Days of Our Years” (1954), will remind employees of large corporations of “Safety Week” or some other program with a promotional slogan and extended lunch-hours with time set aside time for worker incentives. A half-hour production such as “Freedom Highway” (1957), sponsored by Greyhound, which extols the patriotic lessons to be gleaned by traveling from the West Coast to Washington by bus–as well as the pleasures of such a luxurious mode of travel–will recall the tarnished elegance of long vanished theaters of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s with their double bills and the “short subject” interspersed between the coming attractions and the cartoon. And “Design for Dreaming” (1957), which ends with an array of the General Motors automobiles of the future, vehicles built in prototype but never actually put into production, like the turbine-powered Pontiac Firebird II, may remind some of us of an early autumn ritual for families in the 1950s, the annual visit to the showroom of the local automobile dealer for the unveiling of the “latest models.” (Bouquets of flowers, a variety of hors d’oeuvres, and a professional pianist softly playing “standards” in the background were all elements that my father, who owned a Packard franchise in New England in the 1950s, deemed essential when he plotted the stagecraft for the new arrivals, including his own custom-stylized one-of-a-kind variant on a 1954 Packard, the “Monte Carlo.”)

     

    It is easiest, perhaps, to think of these films as Americana, as fragments of settings and circumstances and rituals that have long been materially erased. But they are a good deal more than that, as Prelinger’s illuminating introductions always succeed in demonstrating. The rich vein of primary materials that Prelinger has reconstituted recommend themselves at once as potential texts for scholars in a number of disciplines–cinema, history, literature, popular studies, cultural studies, sociology or anthropology. Like a collector who realized that the coming of the LP threatened the preservation of the music on fragile 78s, he began in the 1980s to rescue from obscurity, and from outright destruction in some cases, those reels of film by small commercial filmmakers that no one could imagine a use for. (In a 1995 interview, he estimated he had around 90,000 cans of such film stored around the country and in his own Manhattan archives–a small portion of the 600,000 marginal films that he estimates were produced between 1920 and 1960.)2 He has culled the most suggestively complex of all the films in his collection, and he has deployed the resources of the video disc as ingeniously as anyone could wish. Not only has he grouped the films in categories and in sequences that present something of the range that exists in sub-genres that may seem to be inordinately constricted, but he has also bundled alongside many of the films a slew of additional documentation, including excerpts from other films, contemporary interviews, segments from popular books, articles from trade journals, related advertisements, and (for one film) the front-page illustration from service station road maps of the 1950s (it is in itself a valuable brief anthology). Each CD contains approximately 100 minutes of viewing. But the time to be spent among these archives is extended immeasurably by the remarkable amount of extra data that Prelinger makes available.

     

    The films Prelinger places before us are peculiar artifacts, half-familiar, half-alien. The experience of seeing them might recall another experience, that of discovering the pleasures in hearing musical recordings from decades past that we are better poised to appreciate than the audiences for whom that music was performed. Will Shade’s Memphis Jug Band must have seemed, to a street corner audience in Memphis in the 1930s, just one more hodge-podge band of blacks working with outrageous instruments (jugs, washboards, kazoos along with guitars and banjos) to play their “hokum” music that most audience members would associate with traveling medicine shows. To an audience listening sixty years later, however, Shade and his band represent an astonishingly complex moment in the evolution of American jazz as a vernacular African-American art form. To us, their recordings occupy a point midway between a just-about-outmoded rural blues tradition with its solo guitar and an about-to-be-invented urban jazz with its leanings toward group improvisation and orchestrated sequences. And to us, their instruments, while unbelievably crude, demonstrate the interplay possible between music built upon the regularities of the western diatonic scale and music driven by an attentiveness to sheer sound, in which timbre and tone are no less important than pitch. Their songs are clearly not yet jazz, but they are far more intricate than the Delta Blues, even as they borrow freely from the commercial music of their own time, even venturing unhesitantly into novelty effects. They were considered popular musicians in their own time, and they were relatively successful as entertainers. Only later is it possible to appreciate the complicated strands that they were mediating to perform their music and to understand the degree of inventiveness in their decision-making.

     

    Prelinger’s films can be regarded with a similar zest. There is both pleasure and scandal in viewing these films. The pleasure lies, in large part, in being placed as late-coming viewers who are in the powerful and superior position of looking over, around, through, and beyond these films. The only subject position never inhabited by the present-day viewer is that of the gullible audience-member who would take them at face value. These films carry within them, almost as a defining element, the husks of the audiences for whom they had been previously intended. And an added pleasure is the level of sharp and critical engagement that is always elicited by the category of the “bad.” At some level, Plan 9 from Outer Space and Last Year at Marienbad are similar in that both works encourage us to see there is more than one version of a story, more than one way to narrate events, for no scene can appear in Plan 9 without us seeing at once how it might have been presented in another way. The pleasure of bad art is that it so invites the play of our ingenuity (a pleasure that, it is true, can exhaust itself with dangerous speed). At the same time, these films are never merely laughable. They are scandalous examples of how thoroughly the media environment has been penetrated by schemes for social engineering.

     

    Prelinger has a devastating eye for a telling detail. Our Secret Century dazzles most when he arranges his material to disclose the cultural and historical framework within which the films sought to nestle. Consider one example: what may be one of the most straightforward of the discs, Volume 2: Capitalist Realism, which places on display the corporate mentality of a time (the late 1930s) and a business (General Motors) as represented by a single firm, the Jam Handy studios of Detroit, the largest and by all accounts most lucrative of the commercial filmmakers. By turning to “the Archives” section of the disc, we can read six accounts of Handy’s developing career, all plucked from a slew of hard-to-uncover trade publications, beginning with “Motion Pictures–Not for Theaters” from the February 1940 Educational Screen to “Jamison Handy: Master of Show ‘Em” from the March 15, 1963 issue of Sales Management. Handy even talks for us in excerpts from a 1961 TV interview (in which he explains that the first moviemaker was Christ because he used images to illustrate his parables). Handy began as an editor of newspaper comic strips (he discovered Popeye’s creator, E. C. Segar) but found himself drawn into the volatile marketing strategies of the early 1920s that centered around various alternate designs for projecting slides and short moving pictures. Handy understood that salesmen had to be equipped with inexpensive movie projectors if films were to become successful merchandising devices, and he bankrolled the development of cost-effective models. Handy’s shrewdest move, though, was to center his operations in Detroit and take advantage of a friendship with Richard H. Grant, a General Motors executive who carried Handy with him as his own star rose (he eventually became President of the Chevrolet Division). Linked strongly with GM–he wisely rented space in the new General Motors building downtown and used the opportunity to proselytize–his fortunes grew rapidly. By 1936 he was employing 400 people, including eight directors and twenty-eight writers.

     

    Capitalist Realism features two examples of Handy’s work from the 1930s, “Master Hands” (1936) and “From Dawn to Sunset” (1937). Both reveal how elaborate the sponsored film could be. Both are extended operations, thirty minutes in length, with striking visual presentations. At the same time, the limits of these films are also evident. Both represent a corporate position toward labor that is subtly demeaning. These two films also indicate how deftly Prelinger has chosen his examples, for the first was filmed just before and the second was filmed just after the 1936-1937 sit-down strikes by assembly-line workers that forced major concessions from GM. Two rather different attitudes toward workers, then, can be read back into each film. Indeed, the first often views the workers in settings that heroize them–enmeshed within the intricacies of the modern factory, manipulating formidable and mysterious slabs of machinery. The image of the worker borrows heavily from socialist realism films. In the second film, however, the worker is represented as first and foremost a consumer. As Prelinger notes, the film dwells on the worker receiving a paycheck, often through images of disembodied hands reaching out. With references to plants in far-flung areas (Buffalo, St. Louis) instead of celebrating a single plant in Flint, the film reminds workers that overall prosperity depends upon nation-wide cooperation.3

     

    These two Jam Handy films are offset in Capitalist Realism by a third, but this is a project that might better please Auden. Willard Van Dyke’s “Valley Town” (1940) offered a view of the devastation wrought by unemployment in New Castle, Pennsylvania. Subtitled “A Study of Machines and Men,” the film was intended as part of a series to be produced by the New York University Film Institute that would publicize the effects of automation on American life.4. (The series was, in fact, bankrolled by a foundation spearheaded by Alfred P. Sloan, then chairman of GM, who withdrew his funding of the project shortly after viewing “Valley Town”). Although it ultimately delivers a compact little message–the solution to automation is educational programs that will teach displaced workers new skills–it does so after a series of powerfully disturbing scenes. The shots of workers in “Valley Town” contrast pointedly with those in “Master Hands.” Van Dyke’s workers speak back and forth to one another as they toil. Their conversational exchanges imply that work is an extension of social life. Yet the drudgery and routine of laboring in a steel mill is not downplayed. Shots of disembodied feet move back and forth in a dance-like shuffle. Still, while such repetitive motions indicate the mechanical pressures of assembly-line operations, they also convey how a worker can embody a particular rhythm that can be imposed over and against the demands of the job. These images, however, of active, satisfying labor belong to New Castle’s past. (The footage was actually assembled from a visit by the crew to prosperous Lancaster, Pennsylvania.) When the mills in New Castle began to reopen–European rearmament was just under way–they reopened as state-of-the-art operations whose automation cost hundreds of jobs. Current shots in the modern New Castle mills show glowing slabs of steel floating mysteriously over mechanized rollers, and in the rare moment when a worker appears, he is only a disembodied face.

     

    Van Dyke’s documentary is sharply distinguished from Handy’s pseudo-documentaries through its use of numerous narrators and multiple points of view. Handy sets out to construct a single voice, a corporate voice, that speaks for all workers. Van Dyke lets a range of voices speak for the worker and indeed, his project sets such voices free, for it concludes with scenes in which a group of workers are openly discussing their predicament, without any final position dominating. Before that conclusion, moreover, Van Dyke has used voice in unusually compelling ways. At the opening of the film, a single voice narrates, that of the mayor who functions as an objective chronicler. But at its midpoint, when the film shifts to investigate the unemployment caused by automated mills, the job of narrator transfers to a young husband reluctantly returning home after unsuccessfully searching for a job. At home, the governing narration passes to the voice of his young wife who, in a strikingly effective shift, not only speaks but sings–and sings in words and music composed by Marc Blitzstein.5 Everything, in short, demands that we attend with care to a range of different voices, each representing a view by a worker in this film, beginning with the thoughtful public official, moving on to the unemployed husband, then to the young housewife (who also is configured as a worker in that she must provide a meal without adequate financial resources), to flourish with the musings of the unemployed at the end. Because of the importance accorded to voice, one of the most powerful passages in the film turns out to be a long scene at the kitchen table where the unemployed husband, the wife, and their small child eat their meager fare–in silence. Poverty has robbed this family of speech, that communal interchange that is the basis of so much that the film reveals as positive.

     

    Capitalist Realism as a volume is somewhat atypical insofar as its supplementary source material is exceptionally rich. Other items that Prelinger posts for our usage include a statistical map that dramatically indicates where supplies of tear gas had been shipped from 1933 to 1936 (most went to the industrial belt as manufacturers prepared for labor unrest); a 1940 article from Harper’s, “War and the Steel Ghost Towns,” and a 1936 article from Barron’s Weekly, “Detroit: the Commercial Hollywood.” What is typical, though, is the care with which this volume establishes a framework and helps provide a groundwork for later films. These 1930s films, the earliest from Prelinger’s archive, foreground issues that will return, notably inflected, in later films, including: an aesthetic based on appearing as up-to-date as possible, as if the need to take continual surveillance of one’s position should be a source of continual anxiety; the prestige-value of the documentary approach and its co-option by corporate enterprise; the appeal of “education” as a concept that invites endless redefining; the search for a strategy that will define the identity of the worker to the worker; the difference between the worker figured as an element in a working class community and the worker figured as a consumer moving upward into a middle class; the predominance of a male point-of-view; and the utterly complete erasure of even a hint of the existence of the African American or, for that matter, any substantial minority presence. The WPA guidebook to Michigan, in Prelinger’s excerpt, mentions that “Negroes form the largest racial group” in Flint, the setting of “Master Hands.” Not one is in sight in the film.

     

    II.

     

    Capitalist Realism is also atypical in that the comparisons it offers between its films (between Jam Handy and Willard Van Dyke) are quite pointed. In part this is an offshoot of a subtext in this volume, profiling the early days of the Jam Handy Studios. But Jam Handy is a sort of mini-mogul of commercial films; his jobs turn up on almost every disc. His relentlessly bland commercialism becomes a standard against which other commercial filmmakers come to be defined. Indeed, if there is a hero who emerges from the first six volumes of Our Secret Century–a foil to Jam Handy–it would have to be Sid Davis, whose productions dominate Volume 5: Teenage Transgressions. Davis specialized in films about youth in trouble. Working closely with actual figures from the judicial establishment who appear with all their disapproving gruffness intact, Davis captured an ominous and menacing Southern California environment in which youngsters were the victims of drug-dealing sharpies and sexual predators or of broken families or of neighborhood gangs. The script he commissioned for “Gang Boy” (1957) even went so far as to acknowledge ethnic differences between Chicanos and Anglos at the base of L.A. gang violence, though the shooting script altered the original script so that “Emilio” became “Martin,” “Luis” became “Larry,” “Gabriel” “George,” and “José” “Joe.” If the films sometimes seem immersed in a cop’s eye-view of the world, the mask-like and toughened faces that regularly appear among the main figures (the credits for “Gang Boy” offer thanks to members of “the following clubs:… Red Hearts, Red Dragons, Sharkies, Vikings, Lancers”) testify to a pervasive brutality that is more than simply a mark of the street-wise. 1950s popular culture was notorious for being unable to decide whether the Juvenile Delinquent was a psychopath or a Byronic hero and thus opted for a combination of both, in the character fleshed out by Marlon Brando in The Wild Ones or in the adulatory sketch of Dean Moriarty in On the Road.6 Davis’s gritty films expose the unlikelihood of such elegant archetypes. Relentlessly recording an irredeemably harsh environment–not only in the visages of participants but in the backlot locales, in the littered streets and noisy rail yards, in rooming-house interiors, and last but not least (especially in “The Dropout,” 1962) in the frenetic fourth-rate jazz that careens irritatingly through the background–these films offer persuasive testimony that no one person can survive as larger-than-life in this environment. Everyone gets beat. Merely to survive in such hard and cruel circumstances requires stamina, good luck, and most important of all but hardest to convey to teen-agers–a willingness to cooperate with others.

     

    The pivotal figure in Davis’s films is the dedicated professional–the case worker or district court judge who understands that a troubled youth may be, in fact, a sensitive youth. But that professional, perhaps not surprisingly, is apt to be a bit crusty. No one could mistake the air of chilly disapproval that clings to the chambers of Judge William B. McKesson of the Los Angeles Juvenile Court, as he soberly recalls, in “Name Unknown” (1951) and “The Terrible Truth” (1951), the errors of judgment by innocent teens that led to drug addiction, rape, and murder. Indeed, the most terrifying faces in these films are not worn by the miscreants–they often seem remarkably vulnerable, their faces open and wide–but by the adults in the police department into whose hands these kids eventually fall.

     

    It is almost a signature of a Sid Davis Production that the forces of authority will be associated with brutality, especially in “Gang Boy” and “Age 13,” both written and directed by Arthur Swerdloff. Andrew, in “Age 13,” has been unable to mourn the loss of his mother. In his case, his mother has died abruptly of unknown causes, though even this small detail is a mark of the sensitivity evident in these films: it is most important that the central character should suddenly experience an absent parent and a broken home, and it is not necessary to supply a scandalous version of that loss. Andrew’s behavior is ultimately explained as stemming from his difficulty in working through anger and mourning, but before the film reaches this conclusion it has presented so many examples of truly dark and quirky behavior that the explanation seems all too simple, even optimistic. Andrew seals up his father’s favorite cat, who had been competing with Andrew for his father’s affection, in the boxcar of an outgoing train and watches stonily as it departs–a scene that is not simply illustrative of Andrew’s anger but, as filmed, stands as a deviant mock burial that replays the voyage into the unknown of his lost mother. Andrew’s efforts to comprehend her loss lead him to the master bedroom where he sniffs perfume from her cosmetics and examines the room with her hand mirror, which shatters when he drops it (startled by his father’s cat). His father’s dismissive comment on the accident–“More bad luck!”–only dramatizes to Andrew his father’s ignorance of his mother’s sacred status. Scenes so disturbing lodge firmly in the viewer’s mind, as do similar kinds of images in “Gang Boy” which traces the social networks that a Chicano male learns to rely upon even as a youngster, all of them tests of endurance and courage that confer “manhood”: standing by the edge of the railroad tracks without flinching as a train bears down, high-diving into the depths of a treacherous quarry. The sheer amount of violence that the central characters experience on an everyday basis undermines even the modest message of hope that the film wants to deliver at its end.

     

    Fifties-culture fantasizing about the Teen Rebel may suggest that the films in Teenage Transgression that cite the dangers of adolescence are exclusively the product of areas of social anomie like southern California. (Various Sid Davis films credit the police departments of Santa Monica, Inglewood, Pomona, and Los Angeles for aid with the production.) But the notion of the postwar teenager as a troubled figure turns out to be a durable concept that translates into a wide variety of situations. All the films in Volume 3: The Behavior Offensive, present teens whose situations and whose problems are light-years distant from “Gang Boy” and “Age 13.” In these films, there are no gangs, unless we count the girls who invite Barbara over after school (in “Habit Patterns,” 1954) for such conversation as

     

    First Girl: I didn't even want to go to my first concert because I thought it would be too long-haired. Oh, but the music is wonderful! Now I want to go to the whole series!


    Second Girl: My mother had to drag me to the museum. They have a wonderful costume exhibit there. I got an idea for a new dress!

     

    And moms don’t vanish from these households–they stay in them all day, bedecked in tasteful jewelry, outfitted in heels ‘n’ hose, planning and cooking the six-course meal that father, sister and brother will gather over at nightfall, to make amicable small talk. These, in short, are fantastic films, positing ideals of social harmony that would be barely attainable except under the most affluent situations. The unreality of this set of films is itself a striking testimony to the ambitions of a postwar America that, in fact, fell far short of realization. Most of the films were made between 1946 and 1955, and they assume that within a short generation the upward mobility fostered by advances in technology, wide access to education, and the elimination of cultural problems thanks to the advice of sophisticated social scientists will result in a country that is astoundingly prosperous, wonderfully stable.

     

    Were these films trying to keep the lid on social change by rigidly proscribing the rules for middle-class behavior or were they promoting successful upward mobility by openly instructing a new audience in social protocols that might otherwise remain mysterious? One might ask the same question of Evelyn M. Duvall’s Facts of Life and Love for Teenagers (1950), segments from which Prelinger places alongside two films, the somewhat menacingly-titled “Are You Popular?” (1947) and “Shy Guy” (1950). Duvall addresses awkward topics–under what circumstances might a girl telephone a boy, the occasion on which a “first kiss” is appropriate, the distinction between fondling and “petting.” Her comments do indeed establish definite boundaries that curtail the range of the discussion (no category exists beyond “petting”) but her frankness also serves to demystify taboo topics.7 The films divide along similar lines. They always set out to address a specific problem. (For a sample, just consider films by Coronet alone that Prelinger cites in his selected readings under “W” : “Ways to Good Habits” (1949), “Ways to Settle Disputes” (1949), “What Makes a Good Party?” (1950) [I think the question mark in this title is absolutely essential], “What To Do on a Date” (1950) and “Why We Respect the Law” (1950). By always setting out to address a specific problem, the films give an illusively narrow range to social contact; they reduce behavior to a matter of strategy and awareness. Social problems can be solved through better guidance. The idea that there might be significantly larger problems in need of attention is never considered. Instead, the films instruct individuals in how to adjust their attitudes. What is being cured, then, is the impression that a problem exists. That a problem may have root sources seems to be unthinkable.

     

    The assumption that social problems can be cured by a strategic shift in public attitude rather than through large-scale alterations of the political, social, or economic system is probably the one theme constant to all these films, but it surfaces most consistently in the films in Volume 4: Menace and Jeopardy. As Prelinger notes, “We Drivers” (1936), produced for General Motors in 1936, with updated versions released in 1947, 1955 and 1962, places the burden for road safety directly on the shoulders of the drivers. With no consideration given to lobbying county engineers to redesign dangerous curves, we are that much further removed from thinking automobile manufacturers might shift their resources away from styling innovations to safety improvements. And the corporate underwriting of these films almost guarantees a variety of subtexts will co-exist. Prelinger suggests that one of the agendas at work in “Last Clear Chance” (1959), produced for the Union Pacific R. R. and displaying the vivid cinematography of Bert Spielvogel, is to shift the responsibility for safety at unprotected highway grade crossings from the railroad to the motorist. “Why are so many grade crossings unprotected?” Prelinger asks. “Obviously gates and signals cost a lot of money.” But a more substantial subtext in “Last Clear Chance” is even more obvious: the extraordinary hazards of travel by highway. The film is narrated by a Highway Patrolman who is recounting the terrible accidents he has witnessed, and they occur even under the most up-to-date of roadway conditions. The 4-lane open highway lends itself to “inattention,” and “another hazard of our superhighways” is the tendency of lax motorists to drift from one lane to the next. Indeed, improvements in roadway engineering turn out to have increased the dangers of driving: “Those narrow two-lane country roads that used to be so peaceful are now several lanes of high-speed traffic.” To be sure, the overt message works to shift responsibility to the operators of vehicles (“everything in the world of transportation has improved,” the patrolman growls, “–everything except the drivers”), but surely the covert message–rendered about as penetratingly as a text can be and still remain subliminal–is that if one must travel the best way to do it is by train. After all, one reason why grade crossings pose hazards is they are traversed by high-speed trains delivering people rapidly (and without danger) from one spot to another. Spielvogel’s eye for a sharp design cannot entirely account for why most of the trains shown are passenger-and-mail combinations in the distinctive yellow colors of the Union Pacific.

     

    Subliminal messages can easily nestle in these films about safety because the films themselves are so distracting. Unlike other sponsored films, these always have a series of climactic moments in which danger strikes and violence explodes across the scene. Prelinger is typically insightful when he points out that our anticipation of these dramatic pay-offs inevitably shift attention from the safety habits we are supposed to be internalizing. What we may internalize instead is that the world is a place of endless dangers–the very point Thomas Hine developed in his New York Times book review of Our Secret Century, entitled “Disaster Is Imminent, So Plan Ahead.”8 The conservative mind-set that dominated the early and mid-1950s was deeply indebted to a similar conviction, but these “menace and jeopardy” films also work against their own agenda of caution by cultivating an appetite for explosive moments. One of the films that seems to be especially allied with the devil’s party is the deliciously bizarre, almost voluptuous “Time Out for Trouble” (1961), produced through the ingenuity of the University of Oklahoma General Services Extension Division. The film purports to deliver an important 3-step message that will help us avoid accidents, viz.: “Face Your Feelings,” “Beware of Boredom” and “Watch for Danger.” But these rubrics are so hopelessly bland that their vast parameters free the filmmakers to concoct any number of peculiar episodes to illustrate them. In addition, it is never clear just what the specific danger is that is under scrutiny. One episode involves the courting and marriage of Jeff and Martha, which begins with the camera lasciviously eyeing from the waist down the provocative strut of a tight-skirted female, a shot that melts into a close-up of the upper half of a female torso swiveling to display breasts enclosed in a form-fitting sweater–scenes that will be used to explain why Jeff sits alone in a tavern, drinking one of many whiskies. Jeff is by himself, we are told, because his relationship with Martha was based only on physical attraction. (And we can easily see how this might have happened.) After the two of them were married, a female narrator purrs in a disarmingly throaty voice, “only then Jeff found out there was just one thing wrong with Martha: she didn’t have anything in that pretty head of hers but buckwheat batter.” So Jeff, apparently bored by mere erotics, compensated by having more than one too many at his local, until that fatal night when, as the filmmakers show, he staggered outside to walk in front of an oncoming car. He will live, though crippled, and ironically even more dependent on Martha’s buckwheat batter personality. The question that remains, though, is what danger exactly is this episode a warning against? Excessive drinking, one might think, or possibly even jaywalking. But so many dangers surround this brief episode that the mind boggles. What about the danger of drunken driving (would Jeff have survived once he started driving under the influence)? And of course there is the danger of the femme fatale: isn’t Martha indirectly culpable, by being only an attractive woman? Or is that our schools have failed by letting some students fall into the role of bimbo? Once we begin to look for dangers, the horizon recedes. The film itself, however, is prepared to state directly why Jeff was maimed: it was due to his boredom, to extensive boredom (the second, we now recall, in that list of alliterated warnings: beware of boredom). Perhaps the hidden agenda in “Time Out for Trouble” is that films themselves should strive to be entertaining or at least startling enough to ward off boredom. This gives new life to the title, which no longer functions as a shorthand piece of advice but denominates a site in which the filmmakers themselves take time out in order to play around with trouble. This wildly unfocused film (it is also narrated at times by a talking clock with vicious designs on humans), with organ music improvised by one Baird Jones in a vernacular manner reminiscent of a score for a Fellini movie, remains for me a high point in sheer loopiness and a superb example of how a text that sets out to be restrictive can unwittingly sanction permissive (and even subversive) behavior.

     

    III.

     

    The University of Oklahoma film is about as far from a Jam Handy Production as one can get, even as it moves in a direction very different from that of Willard Van Dyke or even Sid Davis. Yet it is Jam Handy whose influence seems most pervasive in the other two volumes. This should not be surprising, given the commercial nature of this enterprise. Handy always followed the money, producing everything from one-minute infomercials in the 1930s for Singer Sewing Machines (in the 1938 “Three Smart Daughters” [in Ephemeral Films], the social life of three beauteous teens is saved when they are directed to a Singer Sewing Center where they can hand-craft elegant dresses for an upcoming party) to thirty-minute epics that sought in the 1950s to associate the future of America with the fortunes of Chevrolet. Of course the Jam Handy film was by definition bound to be elaborate. Typically, it always wore a double disguise: it was crafted to imitate the look of the moment, to appear as if it was a production undertaken simply to entertain its audience, precisely to mask the fact that it was film with a sponsor. The extent to which “American Harvest” (1951)–one of the Jam Handy films in Volume 6: The Uncharted Landscape–is an advertisement for General Motors is by no means evident. It appears to set out to celebrate the abundance of American life at mid-century. Only about halfway through its thirty minute run does it settle on the concept that the nation is bound together by “air-lanes” and steel rails and highways, all of which are also the avenues through which corporations guarantee the distribution of abundance. By film’s end, all that “America” represents to the film’s audience is conflated with the automobile, represented here by the Chevrolet. Indeed, in a concluding movement, it seems that, in some peculiar way, America is actually brought to us by Chevrolet. As the melody of “See the USA in a Chevrolet” plays softly, the camera tracks across a variety of landscapes–a cliff-side view of the ocean, Independence Hall in Philadelphia, masses of people walking quietly toward a looming factory–and a voice-over (the astonishingly oily voice of John Forsythe) declares:

     

    And so it is that all of us in interdependence live independently on wheels. And all this far-reaching interdependence is the great secret of why it is possible to put America's automobiles within the reach of so many people. And all America, all its rockbound beauty, all its pleasant vistas, all its historic shrines, and all its ways of living, all its sports and recreations, all its scenic grandeur, along all its far-flung highways, within the reach of all.

     

    The referent of “its” begins to get a bit fuzzy as this unending no-verb sentence rolls onward. “It” is America, but it also lends itself to the automobile (“its far-flung highways”) and the automobile is always Chevrolet–as the very air of the landscape itself testifies, with its strings that sigh out the Chevrolet theme song.

     

    As the films in The Uncharted Landscape indicate, big business found it easy to regard the whole of the country as a blank slate upon which corporations could inscribe their own standards. Few of the productions are as lavishly narrativized as Greyhound’s Freedom Highway (1957), in which a transcontinental bus becomes a stage for a drama that links patriotism and marriage in parallel plots. Riders who happen to be sharing a coast-to- coast journey, the Attractive Babe and the Old Curmudgeon, will find their lives changed. The Attractive Babe (a young Angie Dickinson) will find true love: traveling back to her New York fiancé, she will coincidentally meet on the bus a Handsome Football Player who is just plain more virile than her fiancé (we are sure of this because her fiancé’s name is Waldo). And the Old Curmudgeon will find his faith in his country restored: traveling to Washington with bitterness in his heart, to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor awarded posthumously to his son, he will meet on the bus a Mysterious Stranger who will open his eyes to the need to sacrifice the lives of young men for the country to continue. These two narratives intertwine. At issue is no less than the continuation of the human race in America. For the contest over the body of the Attractive Babe is (as Jam Handy’s scriptwriters might say) “in interdependence” with a contest for the body of America. Virility triumphs in both instances, restoring a balance that had been perceived to be threatened: as the Attractive Babe enters the protecting orbit of the Football Player (and rescued from the effeminate Waldo), so America is saved by its military conquests (and protected from the encroachments of alien enemies). As the bus travels across country and the Football Player makes his pitch for the Attractive Babe, so the history of America is recapitulated, thanks to an Inquisitive Young Boy, whose questions always provoke a response from various passengers, remarkably knowledgeable about American history from a military perspective. (“Have you ever heard of the Alamo, boy?” inquires the latest passenger, Country-and-Western Star Tex Ritter as he reaches for his guitar.) But then American history in this film is always already military history–the Alamo, the Battle of New Orleans, the Battle of Gettysburg. These battles, in fact, stand for the history of America, or more accurately, they signify its scarred yet beloved body. The story of liberty is a story of armed aggression. The Mysterious Stranger who directs the Old Curmudgeon to Gettysburg (and who allows the filmmakers to recall the spirit of sacrifice that Lincoln consolidated in the Gettysburg Address) and thus transforms the Old Curmudgeon into the Solid Patriot–that Stranger turns out to be a ghost: the ghost of the Unknown Soldier, no less (Tex Ritter says to him as they disembark at one bus stop: “Now I know where I’ve seen you! Weren’t you in my old outfit, the Second Division?”). This ghost is presumably driven to walk the land (or nowadays, ride the bus) when unpatriotic sentiments begin to flow. “America” exists as a great battlefield, over which we can now travel in comfort and safety, thanks to sacrifices like that of the Old Curmudgeon’s son. Their deaths allow America to continue, always ready to fight the next necessary battle (in which some day no doubt the Inquisitive Young Boy may have a chance to become a player).

     

    It would be difficult to determine at what point to be most offended by “Freedom Highway,” though the profound anti-intellectualism that underwrites every moment in the film would be a fine place to start. (When Waldo meets his fiancée at the New York bus terminal, he greets her with words whose bookish vocabulary paint him as a man who reads: “Welcome, thrice welcome! I trust you feel completely rejuvenated!”–though Angie is most offended, it turns out, when he plants a very wet smooch on her kisser: or is she just flabbergasted at the blatant pretense of a man so effeminate?) Prelinger has arranged a particularly eloquent counter-response to these corporate expropriations of the territory of America by concluding The Uncharted Landscape with an unusual example of “home movies”–brief clips of life on Main Street in Britten, South Dakota, as filmed in 1937 and 1938 by the owner of the town’s movie house, Ivan Besse, who then screened them as a kind of local newsreel. Besse’s films portray Main Street as a space where ideology is in recess, the very opposite of the interlocking and coercive narratives produced for Greyhound and Chevrolet. Santa’s arrival in a pickup truck becomes an occasion for the whole town to turn out, even though closeups of “Santa” reveal just how casually he had been dressed for the part. One might surmise that simple poverty, or worse yet, lack of basic imagination, could explain the rather flimsy attempt at disguise. But a better explanation suggests the disguising was deliberately sketchy. Surely everyone in Britton over age twelve knew who would be playing “Santa” that year–it would have been a topic of discussion throughout the town. Besse’s film immediately instructs us in the intricacy of an everyday life in which rituals have been localized, in which a community delights in the inflections its members bring to their various roles. By contrast, the rigidly “interdependent” narratives that regulate every technicolor moment in “Freedom Highway” reveal a desire for control and order that verges on the terrifying.

     

    Exactly as this sixth volume of films demonstrate that the American landscape, or the concept of “America,” was palpably reconfigured by corporate interests seeking to impose their designs upon it, so the films in Volume 1: The Rainbow Is Yours reveal the female body to be under a similar siege. Of course no filmmaker ever went broke (to paraphrase P. T. Barnum) by playing fast-and-loose with the female body. These films offer no exception to that dictum. Indeed, The Rainbow Is Yours is a veritable anthology of instances in which the female body is strategically repositioned to glamorize and eroticize objects to which it is supposed to be adjacent, beginning with the opening film, an excerpt from Jam Handy’s “Looking Ahead Through Röhm & Haas Plexiglass” (1947). Prelinger has chosen to reproduce just the technicolor portion of a longer film, but the panes of brightly colored plexiglass that no doubt guided the transition from black-and-white also invite us to peer voyeuristically through colored transparencies that effect ingress to a young lady’s boudoir. Even more dramatically, the young lady herself is in that boudoir–and deeply within it, lounging on a bed (reading a book, lonely thing), for we must peer past a plexiglass door to behold her. In one sense, she is dressed modestly, in a floor-length robe that is worn, open and belted, over a floor-length peignoir. In another sense, however, her dress spectacularly triggers voyeurism: the peignoir is orange-red, the robe is the color of tanned flesh, and the robe is belted open to present a frontal zone of vivid color that defines the body space from below the neck to the feet. The young lady detaches herself from her bed ‘n’ book, and as a voice-over declaims the virtues of plexiglass, wanders intriguingly from one area in her boudoir to the next, from her shower stall to her dressing table, all the while fondling plexiglass doors, shelves and drawers. She is willing, it seems, to reveal her inmost cosmetic secrets (or perhaps it is the transparency of plexiglass, so effortlessly framing these metonyms for her body, that put her in the mood for exposure). Seated at her dressing table, she opens drawer after drawer as the narrator murmurs approvingly: “on one side the pedestal swings open to reveal plexiglass trays for cosmetics, hose and lingerie.” Plexiglass not just refines intimate space but frames it so it becomes an arena for evocative display. Who would object to such gentle penetrations? This selective accessibility to private areas suggests an elaborate manipulation of sexual desire–a point of interest not only to the audience of tradesmen and contractors but, arguably, to the postwar woman as well.

     

    Not all the films are willing to go quite this far in eroticizing a product (though the others lack the advantage of a product depending directly upon sight), but this group of films–most are from the mid- or late 1950s–is heavily committed to glamorization, and their sense of glamour takes its cues from a smarmy eroticization of the female body. In Jam Handy’s “American Look” (1957), something of a sequel to “American Harvest” in The Uncharted Landscape, the insuperably vacuous Jam Handy rhetoric begins its clog-and-choke procedure once again (“By the way things look as well as the way they perform, our homes acquire new grace, new glamour, new accommodations, expressing not only the American love of beauty but also the basic freedom of the American people which is the freedom of individual choice”) but before the numerous anvils it sets out to juggle while saluting the flag and simultaneously whistling “The Stars and Stripes Forever” cause it to collapse under its own weight, it gestures fleetingly toward linking the streamlined quality of well-designed products with adjectives associated with the performance of the female body: “In form, proportion, rhythm and variety, the stylists leave their own unmistakeable marks on everyday conveniences, in flowing lines and graceful shapes which we as Americans may enjoy”; “[modern packaging] brings festivity to the marketplace–tempting, hinting, and revealing.”9 When MPO Productions, working for General Motors, staged a lavish musical to introduce the 1957 automobile models in “Design for Dreaming,” it arranged a young lady to appear alongside each new car as it appeared, allowing the announcer to introduce not only “the Eldorado Town and Country Cadillac” but also to add “ensemble by Christian Dior–of Paris.” In one sense, of course, GM was merely underscoring the resemblance between its line of products and haute couture fashion; in another sense, GM was suggesting everything from the fantasy that each new car somehow included its own lithe paramour to the notion that if a man couldn’t easily trade in his old wife… (The wife, to be sure, could fantasize quite differently, as in all these films, associating with a product whose glamour would never threaten but only enhance her own attraction.)

     

    Prelinger demonstrates how prevalent such concepts were when he juxtaposes an elegantly licentious four-minute dance routine excerpted from “Frigidaire Finale” (1957) with ads from 1957 and 1958 promoting something called “The Sheer Look.” “Frigidaire Finale” is at once the most erotic and the wittiest of these glamor pix, choreographed with a boy-seduces-girl/girl-seduces-boy narrative that integrates presentations of stoves, washer-and-dryers, and refrigerators. At first, boy and girl simply dance about appliances, opening oven doors, picking up sample pots, and generally framing the appliances with their own graceful movements. That their role could be something more is brought into the foreground in a sequence that centers on a single dark-hued refrigerator. (All the rest of the appliances had been white.) This curious dark interloper seems to signal or permit transgression, for the girl, instead of taking her usual place on the opposite side of the appliance, now jumps to its top and perches there, stumping her companion who cannot comprehend where she has gone. As he opens the refrigerator’s upper door and then its lower door, looking in as if to expect her to be inside, this redirection of his gaze from her to the appliance comes to seem a hint or clue he is offering to the audience as he models an act of transference. After all, she is not invisible to us but perched fetchingly (yet outrageously, transgressively) on top of the refrigerator, barely able to contain her vivacious glee, leaning her front over its front, eagerly dangling her legs along its side, swirling her body provocatively–all the time in a kind of oneness with the appliance. (The appliance may even be seen as eliciting her sexual glamour; at the very least, it is that which she transforms into an occasion for flirtatious play.) The more deeply he looks into the refrigerator cabinet, the more visible a presence she becomes to us. When he finally spots her, the reunion is joyous: a flirtation is definitely underway.

     

    That this new flirtation is inseparable from the refrigerator is underscored in a follow-up scene in which she opens the door of the first in a series of refrigerators, then rushes behind it to the next, leaving her male companion to search for her by closing the door, at which point she has already stationed herself by the second refrigerator, whose door she now opens and so forth. This hot pursuit ends with her bestowing a peck-like kiss on his lips. This then escalates into even more direct foreplay that boldly centers on further exposure and display of the refrigerator. Now the girl pauses to run her hand down the length of a refrigerator door in a sweeping gesture that seems to enflame the lad who cannot help but rush toward her, arms wide open. She rebuffs him pertly, by detaching a tray from a compartment in the door and handing it to him and dancing off. Left holding that tray, his shoulders sink as if under a burden and he flips over the contents–spilling about four dozen eggs. But as the eggs fall, he looks briefly into the camera, with the flash of a satisfied smile.10. A conquest has been made. The facade has been deeply penetrated an exchange has occurred, and he has spilled (on?) the eggs. In final frames, the dancers join together, her legs happily twirling in a vivid display of new-found energy.

     

    Only in a Jam Handy production, I suppose, would we get a money shot that is configured through the contents of a refrigerator. But the idea of equating the female body with a refrigerator cabinet is paralleled in Frigidaire’s own “Sheer Look” campaign of 1957, whose visual signature of a woman holding her arms (both encased in elegant shoulder-length evening gloves) up at a 90-degree angle was rendered so that the white space below her, where her body actually was, could be equated with the white space of the refrigerator. The glamour that Frigidaire associated with the refrigerator, by placing a model in evening dress in each of its ads, depended on transferring the appreciative gaze ordinarily directed toward the impeccably-dressed woman to the refrigerator cabinet. To open a refrigerator door, then, becomes as charged a moment as an act of undressing. But everything about “The Sheer Look” crackles with sexual innuendo. Why is the woman looking at us? Why is her face not visible? Her frank stare encourages us to come back with a gaze that is equally frank. Her face need not be visible because (a) we can fantasize about its particulars and (b) a face that is absent displaces attention to hair, eyes, and glove-encased arms-and-hands: all visual centers that signal the erotic.

     

    For me, it is was with “Frigidaire Finale” that one of Prelinger’s ephemeral films attained a point of genuine sublimity. Here is a text that appears now to be both elaborately orchestrated and ridiculously crude, elegantly sophisticated and hopelessly vulgar, intricately convoluted and transparently clear. Who would have imagined that there could be so inspired a blend of commodity and sexual fetish? Prelinger has provided us with documents that offer epiphanic glimpses into the heart, soul, and pocketbook of America in the middle third of the twentieth century.

     

    Notes

     

    1. Only the first three of the 2-disc sets of Our Secret Century were available when research for this review began. Two more 2-disc sets have since been issued: Volume 7: Gender Role Call (films that instruct in gender distinctions) with Volume 8: Tireless Marketers (the evolution of the brief commercial from movie theater bills to TV); Volume 9: Busy Bodies (educational films about sex) with Volume 10: Make Mine Freedom (patriotic films). The final two collections, Volume 11: Nuts and Bolts (films about high-tech machinery) and Volume 12: Free to Obey, (extreme versions of social control) have been announced.

     

    2. See Richard Gehr, “Rick Prelinger’s Ephemeral Films” at http://www.levity.com/rubric/prelinger.htm.

     

    3. Here as elsewhere Prelinger’s supporting data is exemplary. As added material, he offers not just an account of the 1936-1937 sit-down strikes from the 1941 WPA history of Michigan but an excerpt from Mary Heaton Vorses’s Labor’s New Millions, a 1938 report from a left-wing perspective. He also includes an excerpt from a worker testifying before the 1937 Senate commission led by Robert LaFollette, whose charge was to investigate corporate violations of free speech and the rights of labor. That in turn contrasts with the prize-winning essay in a 1948 General Motors competition, “Why I Like My Job,” an explanation by 67-year-old Calvin H. Dunlap of the virtues of being loyal to the corporation.

     

    4. Van Dyke went on to have a distinguished career as a conscientious producer of documentary and informational films that were supported by commercial sponsors, according to a 1960 article by Ralph Caplan in Industrial Design that Prelinger bundles with the first volume. According to Caplan, Van Dyke preferred to work as independently from his sponsors as possible, aiming to retain some of the integry of the explanatory documentary. In one example, a film devised in collaboration with poet Norman Rosten–a writer with strong left-wing connections to the 1930s whose The Big Road (1946) was an epic poem documenting the importance of the roadway in western European history from its inception to the apogee of the recently-completed Alcan (Alaska-Canada) Highway of 1942–for an unnamed manufacturer of communications was eventually modified to its detriment by the sponsor who added a three-minute prologue. In a second more triumphant example, Van Dyke produced “Skyscraper” under the sponsorship of Reynolds Aluminum, Bethlehem Steel, Westinghouse Elevators and York Air Conditioning; the film, which depicted the construction of a New York skyscraper, went on to win two first prizes at the Venice Film Festival, an award of merit from the Edinburgh Film Festival, and first prize for short subjects at the San Francisco Film Festival. Van Dyke’s independent operation, on a scale far smaller than Jam Handy’s 500-plus (in 1960) employees, became a successful alternate to large-scale producers who (in the case of Handy) were essentially the extensions of their influential corporate sponsors.

     

    5. Obtaining Blitzstein’s services for Valley Town was an impressive coup: he was fresh from the Broadway triumph of The Cradle Will Rock (1937) and hard at work on No For an Answer (1941 ). It was a project, of course, for which he was eminently suited. The left-wing opera Cradle was set in “Steeltown, U.S.A.” And the musical form he was developing for the center of No For an Answer was the recitative. The song that the young housewife recites and sings in Valley Town, then, is something like a heretofore missing link between the operatic mixes in Cradle and the more vernacular-oriented recitatives in Answer. In an interview with James Blue in 1973 (that Prelinger has included in his disk), Van Dyke recalled the recitative as the high point of the film, the portion that he always listened to with the greatest emotion. (Still, Van Dyke may misremember how his alliance with Blitzstein occurred. He recalls that it was his admiration of Blitzstein’s work on No For an Answer that compelled Van Dyke to ask Blitzstein to contribute to Valley Town. But Valley Town, which premiered in May 1940, was completed before No For an Answer, which premiered in January 1941.) A condensed discussion of Blitzstein’s music in the 1930s is in Michael Denning, The Cultural Front (New York: Verso) 285-295.

     

    6. “It was remarkable,” Kerouac writes in On the Road (1957), “how Dean could go mad and then suddenly continue with his soul–which I think is wrapped up in a fast car, a coast to reach, and a woman at the end of the road–calmly and sanely, as though nothing had happened” (qtd. in The Portable Beat Reader, ed. Ann Charters [New York: Viking, 1992] 18).

     

    7. A more accurate title for Duvall’s book might have been Facts of Life and Love for Teenage Girls. In addressing the problem of how to sustain a boy-girl conversation on a date, Duvall’s solution is for one of the member s to play the role of an interlocutor:

     

    He: It's a great night, isn't it?
    She: Wonderful. Did you ever see such a moon?
    He: Isn't that what they call a Harvest Moon, or is it the Hunters' Moon?
    She: Hunters' Moon? That sounds interesting. Do you hunt?

     

    Though both boy and girl interrogate, Duvall’s comment suggests she conceives the audience for her advice to be primarily female: “There you are from the weather to his pet hobby in four little steps, simply by adding a question to every answer.” A “conversation” on a date, Duvall seems to be suggesting, is not intended to be a “dialogue.”

     

    8. See www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/0915book-century.htm for the September 15, 1996, review.

     

    9. An anecdote that Handy recalls in his 1961 TV interview suggests that distracting clothing was perhaps improper, at least between men, though close friends were just barely able to touch upon the subject. He recalls one of the incidents which taught him to dress with an appropriate modesty when speaking with upper-level executives: “‘Jam’–I was on a first-name acquaintance with him (well, I think I may say it was none other than Tom Watson, Jr., of IBM)–he said: ‘Jam, would you mind starting all over again? I have been so interested in that beautiful tie that you’re wearing that I haven’t heard a word you said.’” It is not exactly clear whether the full import of this anecdote can be quickly exhausted; at its basis it is attesting that image distracts from meaning, that the “beautiful tie” overwhelms actual discourse.

     

    10. Or at least I think he appears to wear a satisfied smile. The quality of reproduction is such that one cannot be sure. And here is perhaps the place to mention that some viewers of films on CD-ROM are dismayed by the look of films operating under the QuickTime program. Hine for one complained of the indistinct images and said he’d “much rather be watching these on a videocassette recorder, with the comments and supporting documents in a book.” I can’t agree. The disadvantage of the QuickTime program is that images do seem to be jerky, their tonal values broken into Seurat-like pointillistic ensembles. But the advantage is the arrangement of the screen allows one to freeze a film in mid-frame, back up or move ahead a set of frames at a time, and easily replay narrative; by dragging a bar, it is possible to fast forward or fast backward. These positives outweigh the negatives, for me. Prelinger distinguishes between the movie on CD-ROM and the movie in a theater this way: “It’s not an immersive experience like going to a theater and being wowed by a powerful movie. But these are not immersive movies. You know, immersive means evasive, and QuickTime allows you as an individual, maybe with one other person, to look not at a movie, but at a picture or rendering of a movie. It’s much easier to look at a movie critically on your computer, to see it as a document with a context” (qtd. in Richard Gehr, “Rick Prelinger’s Ephemeral Films,” an interview dated April 24, 1995).

     

  • Digital Archives and Sibylline Fragments: The Tempest and the End of Books

    Peter Donaldson

    Department of Literature
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    psdlit@mit.edu

    Introduction

     

    In these pages I trace how Peter Greenaway’s film Prospero’s Books reads The Tempest anachronistically, as a play about the end of books and the advent of electronic forms. Greenaway finds The Tempest relevant to this shift because, as he puts it, we are living in the early years of “the second Gutenberg Revolution,”1 in which the ambitions of the Renaissance magus with his magic books are being realized, in part, through digital technologies.

     

    Prospero’s Books is an anticipatory or proleptic allegory of the digital future, figuring destruction of libraries and their rebirth as “magically” enhanced electronic books. It is set in the past, and extrapolates from the several passages in the play in which Prospero’s books are mentioned the story of twenty four wonderworking books through which Prospero achieves his magic; yet, by calling attention to the digital special effects by which these books have been created on screen–digital painting and photoprocessing applications, computer animation, multiple screen overlays–Greenaway suggests that the magically enhanced codex volume is as much a part of our future as our past.

     

    And perhaps that is so: the “expanded book” CD-ROM is one form that moves in this direction (though it is not a book), experiments with ink that reconfigures itself in response to computer instruction, and with “hot” links embedded in ink on paper may move us futher in the direction of such a future, retaining something like the form of the book but amplifying its powers.

     

    Like Prospero’s Books, this essay itself exists in a transitional form (networked hypertext with linked images and brief video citations), and like Prospero’s Books it imagines future forms and depends on them. It is relatively linear in its form and bounded in its contours, presenting a small number of textual and visual citations. Yet it asks its readers to imagine that they are exploring a path, one particular path, through an immense networked digital archive.

     

    Such an archive would include the complete film Prospero’s Books–as well as all other Shakespearean film adaptations, linked to relevant lines of text; which would include all extant copies and page fragments of the Folio text of The Tempest, and an extensive library of commentary; which would be linked as well to extensive collections of anatomical illustrations from the Renaissance forward, and to texts and images that illustrate the motif of the “end of the book” in the late twentieth century.

     

    With such an archive in place,2 the role of the critic or interpreter would be at least a double one. One task would be to create a bounded exploratory hypertext, a “collection within a collection,” by specifying a number of linked resources relevant to the subject. The other task would be the marking of a path through that mini-archive, by choosing and commenting upon examples, as I do here. In such an environment, one could follow my path or break off to explore one of the text and image collections of which it is contructed. To borrow, at third hand, a phrase of Wittgenstein’s, interpetive hypertext would allow for “travel over a wide field of thought, criss-cross in every direction.”3

     

    An essay within a digital archive–such a form might expand the resources that can serve as context for an interpretation, extend them to include several media, and create marked and unmarked paths to traverse. Such a form might also foster a documentary tendency, a style of interpretation in which the critic’s work always includes comprehensive access to the work discussed, to its sources, and to digital records–text, film, image–of the historical and material evidence relevant to the work under discussion. These digital documents might illustrate the rich and complex traditions from which an artist like Peter Greenaway (whose films are themselves encyclopedic and archival) draws his material. But their function would not be limited to illustration. The hypertextual and documentary aspects of such an essay would, perhaps, converge insofar as documents–virtual or material–always tell their own stories, or incite us to tell stories about them; encourage us, that is, to follow paths other than those plotted by artist or critic. Documents also ask us to ponder, if never fully to answer, the impossible yet sometimes urgent question of the relation between our stories and what is real.

     

    · · · Begin End of Books · · ·

     

    Section Notes

     

    1. Peter Greenaway, Prospero’s Books (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 1991) 28.

     

    2. Such an archive now exists in part, in the Chadwyck-Healey Full Text Database, in the Arden Texts and Sources CDROM, in the University of Pennsylvania’s posting of Folio and Quarto facsimiles on the Web, in Michael Best’s plans for Internet editions, in the work of the Shakespeare Database group in Munster, and in the work of my group on the MIT/Folger Shakespeare Electronic Archive.

     

    3. Gunnar Liestøl, “Wittgenstein, Genette, and the Reader’s Narrative in Hypertext” p. 87 in Hyper/Text/Theory, ed. George Landow (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1994) 87-120, citing Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (London: Blackwell, 1953) vii.

     

  • Singin’ in the Rain: A Hypertextual Reading

    Adrian Miles

    Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
    amiles@rmit.edu.au

     

    This work presents a hypertextual reading of a key sequence, the song-and-dance number “You Were Meant for Me,” from Kelly and Donen’s 1956 musical Singin’ in the Rain. The sequence is read as characteristic of the film’s general semiotic principles, which combine several levels of seduction to establish an aesthetic claim for a properly musical cinema.This reading represents an experiment or heuristic exercise meant to discover possibilities for interpretation (not just of film but of any complex text) in multi-linear, hypermedia presentation. Forced into an artificially singular sequence, the components of this reading might seem elliptical and repetitive; they are designed to be explored from various perspectives and in differing combinations. Though it has an argument and an interpretive agenda, this is not so much an essay as a text in the deepest sense: a fabric of ideas deeply and multiply connected.There is of course always more than one way to read a hypertext. All the components of this text are listed in the table at right. You could begin with the numbered pages at the top of this list, begin instead with the collected presentation of the sequence, or choose some other point of entry. (You may want to bookmark this index page for later reference.) On the component pages you will find a large number of textual links representing various lines of connection and development.

     

    This hypertext incorporates film extracts in the form of QuickTime movies. To view these extracts you must have QuickTime installed on your computer, and the QuickTime plug-in installed in your Web browser. If you do not have the plug-in installed, the movie extracts will have to be downloaded to your machine and played using a helper application.

     

    If you have both the plug-in and the QuickTime system resources in place, the clips will play within the browser window. The clips are designed to need an 8Kb stream (easily supported by most modems). This will provide 1 frame per second and sound.

     

    Extract pages also include a download link to a more economical version of the same material, sampled at 5 frames per second for faster transfer. These files require an appropriate helper application for QuickTime and will play in a separate window.

     

    Many pages are illustrated with images from the film. Each in-line illustration is linked to a larger version of the same image.

     

    It is recommended that you use Netscape or Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.x or later. QuickTime is available for Macintosh and Windows from the Apple QuickTime Web site.

    Component Files

     

  • The Madness of Images and Thinking Cinema

    William D. Routt

    La Trobe University
    w.routt@latrobe.edu.au

     

    Abstract: This article attempts a preliminary understanding of the experience–or sensation–of place evoked in the cinema, based on some of the earliest films and their spectators. It exposits certain ideas contained in Vachel Lindsay’s The Art of the Moving Picture and finds a delirious resemblance between these ideas and some in Gilles Deleuze’s two Cinema books. Perhaps the piece suggests that madness is a property of the sensation of place in the cinema. Animated GIF files, maddening their sources, offer a crude supplementary patchwork commentary.–wdr

     

     


    Proceed to Hypertext…
     

     

  • Casablanca’s Régime: The Shifting Aesthetics of Political Technologies (1907-1943)

    Jorge Otero-Pailos

    School of Architecture
    Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico
    jotero@mit.mit.edu

     

    …the concept of reality is always the first victim of war.

     

    –Paul Virilio, paraphrasing Kipling (War and Cinema 33)

     

    Vacillating Realities

     

    At the corner of the bar a man in a white suit, probably an American business traveler, asks for more coffee and looks intently at a young professional woman who, seated across the room, is slowly sipping a Martini. The bartender notices his stare and quietly smiles while drying off the sparkling glassware. The room is dimly light by wall sconces that cast a pale glow over posters of Bogart and Bergman in Casablanca. “As Time Goes By” is playing almost imperceptibly in the PA system. Five clocks on the wall mark the time in L.A., New York, Paris, Moscow, and Tokyo. He could be anywhere in the world. The napkin under his drink has a familiar logo that reads “Rick’s Café,” and through the front door he can see the Hotel receptionist. The man finishes his coffee, walks slowly to the front door of the Hotel, and exits. He pauses for a moment to light a cigarette and to look around. An immense boulevard lies before the building dividing a row of modern structures from an old masonry city wall. “Is this really Casablanca? It looks nothing like the movie,” he murmurs. It is a typical scene inside Casablanca’s Hyatt Hotel.

     

    Figure 1: Rick’s Café (postcard).

    Figure 2: Hyatt in Casablanca (photo by author).

     

    Hyatt’s version of Rick’s Cafe is the only place in Casablanca where one can find a designed and direct reference in the real to the imaginary scenes of the Film. And yet the city owes much of its international fame to the Hollywood movie. Most people can picture Casablanca, although they might have never been there, as a city of tight sinuous streets, claustrophobic markets, parrot vendors, hookah pipes, picturesque locals, and filmic foreigners. What is shocking when we set foot on the real streets of Casablanca is that they bear no resemblance whatsoever to the movie: they are ample boulevards lined with modern low rise structures and harboring a bustling metropolitan life. Inside the old Casbah walls there are no wooden trellises overhead, signs like those outside of the “Blue Parrot Club” have been replaced by advertisements for Levis, and the French administrative buildings–which are crucial in the spatialization of the old city in the film into the Café-Police Headquarters-Airport triangle–are nowhere in sight–they are, as it turns out, outside the Casbah in the “modern” city.

     

    Arriving in Casablanca as a Western traveler/movie fan, one feels strangely betrayed by the city’s reality. The movie had placed an emphasis on its own adherence to reality with the authority, and transparent objectivity, implied by the war documentary style of its introductory scenes, where the very real struggle of European refugees in World War II is superimposed on a map of Northern Africa and views of the city.

     

    Figure 3: Still from Casablanca.

     

    To buttress this blurring effect, the film was released in New York on Thanksgiving Day 1942, just eighteen days after the Allies landed in Casablanca, in an obvious attempt to benefit from the international attention the city was receiving. The army’s use of “Rick’s Place” as a pseudonym for Casablanca throughout the war just goes to prove the film’s effectiveness at conflating the imaginary and the real. In fact, ever since the premiere of the motion picture, the virtual and the real cities of Casablanca have coupled in the collective imaginary of the West. It is therefore understandable that, when confronted with a city that looks and feels nothing like what we might have been led to expect by the movie, we experience in Casablanca a strange perversion of the horror vacui which, according to Umberto Eco, emerges when “the ‘completely real’ becomes identified with the ‘completely fake,’” and “absolute unreality is offered as real presence” (7). A similar feeling would pervade us if, arriving in Paris, we all of a sudden realized the Tour Eiffeldid not exist, outside of post cards and films, and that in its place was just a wonderful six-lane highway.

     

    One could speculate about the reasons why Director Michael Curtiz might have chosen to construct the city out of revamped props of Warner Brothers’ 1942 version of The Desert Song, and shoot in the company’s Burbank Studios rather than on location. First there was the economic factor. Moving the crew to Casablanca was certainly more expensive than working in California. Second, the world was at war, and after Pearl Harbor it was clear that US interests were not safe abroad. Traveling to Morocco could mean endangering the crew. Can the significant gap between the filmic and real cities be the result of these unfortunate logistic imperatives? But what about all the other “flaws” of the film; can they be attributed to the same cause? Certainly not. Logistics had nothing to do in the wrongful depiction of uniformed Germans in Casablanca. Studio writers knew that the German Army did not set foot in Casablanca during World War II, just as they knew that such things as Letters of Transit signed by Général Charles de Gaulle did not exist, and that neither American nor French troops entered Berlin in 1918 (Robertson 79). Another exterior pressure was driving writers and producers to exaggerate and distort the real, one that demanded political effectiveness over historical accuracy: the war. And, in the name of this effort, reality would have to be betrayed by virtuality, and turned into ideology.

     

    It is widely known that Casablanca was a war film aimed at sedating the general American opposition to US involvement in World War II. If a number of historical flaws are consciously present, it is because they were deemed necessary in order to

     

    Figure 4: The fighting French march
    outside of New York’s Hollywood
    theater, 1942 (from Miller, Casablanca:
    As Time Goes By–50th Aniversary
    Commemorative.

     

    accomplish this objective. By depicting fictitious Germans, Americans, Frenchmen, and Resistance leaders in simple exchanges, and encouraging the spectator to synecdochally associate each character and his/her actions with his/her nation and its international policies, the film effectively transfigured a complex international political situation into an easily understandable set of social relationships. The successful resolution of the movie’s crisis thanks to an American expatriate’s involvement in the affairs of a number of Europeans, and his ability to retain his autonomy and freedom in the end, were narrative mechanisms geared to convince American audiences that it was possible for them to fight in the war and maintain the unencumbered relation to Europe that had stood as the basis of their identity and freedom. In re-presenting Casablanca, the film industry rendered the all too gray world of international politics in vivid chiaroscuro, dividing, beyond reasonable doubt, the light from the dark, the good from the bad, radically affecting the audience’s perception of the real, and consciously attempting to sway public opinion towards a homogeneous support of the war. It is difficult to assess the exact extent to which Casablancaalone influenced the American body politic in deciding to engage in the war. We do know, however, that it was the most widely acclaimed of the enormous volume of war films produced by the major Hollywood studios during the 1940s, and that its premiere caused a number of pro-war demonstrations, including the 1942 parade of the Fighting French outside of New York’s Hollywood Theater.

     

    A little known fact is that just as war and its contingencies were at the root of the film’s production, so too was armed struggle the basis for the modern city’s construction by the French, next to the old Medina. Indeed, the principal importance of both objects resided in their ability to serve as political technologies which helped mobilize the population as a single unit towards war. In the late 19th century, German and French imperialistic interests clashed in Morocco, turning control of the West-African country into a veritable arm-wrestle where military force, and the ability to rapidly mobilize troops and armament, were measured up before an imminent conflict. The monumental effort to erect the “modern city” and to overhaul the old Casbah was carried out, not out of a magnanimous will to “share” modernity with Morocco, but out of a necessity to demonstrate France’s military response time, strength, and administrative expediency. But this “show” was not staged just for foreign powers, it was (as was the movie in America) devised to quell national anxiety and low self image before the increased strength of the German Empire. The new city’s main objective would not be to adhere to the forms and spatial configurations of Moroccan architecture and urbanism with archaeological precision, but to construct and project an alternate reality where the French might find a compelling, almost mythical, image of their own mettlesome nature, their industrious spirit, their benevolence towards the colonized, and their republican stability. This effort would entail a necessary manipulation of the city’s reality (which prefigures Hollywood’s later distortions).

     

    Political Technologies of Control: The Idea of War

     

    Although the film and the city bear no visual resemblance, this is not to say that they have nothing in common. As we shall see, they share a number of particulars which, understood historically, cast new light onto the performative potential of architecture and film as social practices in contemporary society. To begin let us return to the most obvious commonality: the blatant interpretative liberties (not to say disregard) that both objects exhibit towards their pre-existing context. French designers, far from employing or referencing local typologies in their plans, imposed a Beaux Arts spatiality to their new cities, which they then adorned, if ever so slightly, with simulated Moroccan motifs (Koranic script is conveniently erased in the French versions).

     

    Figure 5: Casablanca’s Palais de Justice (Joseph Marrast, 1925), in Casablanca’s Grand Place, now Place Mohammed V (photo by author).

     

    In turn, Hollywood’s productions designers chose to present a wholly fictitious city, where not a single building of the French or Moroccan town is present.

     

    Figure 6: Scene from Casablanca; the film’s version of Casablanca’s Palais de Justice can be seen in the background.

     

    It would be impossible to attribute this attitude towards design to a designer’s whim, to time constraints, or to mere logistics. Both architecture and film are intensely decision-based artistic practices, and solutions are contingent on approval by the designer or director, the client or producer, the financing institutions, the prospective user’s or audience’s preferences, etc., so that such basic considerations are not likely to be the result of mere oversight or typical contingencies. In fact, we know that French administrators amassed large reference libraries of photographs and drawings documenting existing Moroccan buildings and cities,1 and that Hollywood production designers used photographs of French Casablanca as a reference in their work.2 We might contend that if the motivations for the construction of these objects were political, decisions concerning their final appearance were also political, and we should therefore turn, not to architecture or film, but to the art of politics, to ask why disavowing the real in representation might be an effective and desirable practice. Now, if only for a moment, we make a backward leap to the fourth century B.C. to ask this very question.

     

    In his construction of the Ideal Republic, Plato describes rhetoric as a fundamental technology of politics. It was the art used by the orator in convincing an assembly that a particular course of action was good and virtuous. Of course for Plato, this orator, a man capable of persuasion, should also be a man capable of discerning right from wrong and of determining what goals and public policies might ensure or enable the individual happiness of all citizens–i.e., a philosopher. Rhetoric’s political value lay in its ability to make the members of the assembly (a group of individuals including those daltonic non-philosophers unable to perceive the subtle shades of truth) see actions and situations in a particular light, to sharpen their awareness of what was virtuous as the camera focuses our attention with its depth of field, to penetrate reality and represent its essence. Already in the Republic it is clear that the notion of representation is a prerequisite for the very existence of politics.

     

    Unfortunately, Plato–who was as we know a fine orator–had more than a few difficulties carrying on his self-appointed mission as politician in the public sphere. His mentor Socrates, another able speaker, had already met an untimely death for not holding his tongue before the state. War, in this case the Peloponnesian War, combined with the instability of the 403 B.C. counterrevolution, had radically transformed the operations of the Athenian State from a forum for debate to a mechanism for homogenizing thinking and legislating ideology. The visions of death and destruction that plagued the minds of Athens’ democratic rulers turned all considerations of good and evil on a single axis: winning the war. The Idea of War was a specter so powerful it could fracture and dismantle any rhetorical presentation constructed by philosophers. This for Plato was the root of all the social evil of his time. Thinking men, concerned with the able exegesis of the real, had been cast off from politics by men of action in the name of the war. A new technology of politics, the spectacle of war had befallen every transaction of state affairs, threatening to subvert any attempt to understand the real by simply establishing a new reality (by decree).

     

    If the goal of politics is to conduct the public affairs of a body of people, it is also necessarily to exercise control over the agency of individuals in the name of efficiency. State affairs are deemed too complex to explain to everyone, yet they must somehow meet with the support of all affected by them if the government is to function effectively. Therefore, policies and directives, once resolved at the legislative level, must be presented as the best and most desirable solutions, and communicated to the socius in simple but persuasive terms. This aspect of politics–the interface between government and individual–is all about representation, about wheedling, about influencing the public’s understanding of reality. In this sense, war is a perfect political technology: It exercises its political strength by placing an emphasis on difference, and rallying a particular and otherwise heterogenic socius into a cohesive unit–within which difference is not tolerated. It is a condensation of complex diplomatic relations into a simple and understandable right and wrong: either you are in or out; it is a matter of life or death. Plato himself, however against men of action, recognized political virtue in war, and sought the unification of dissenting Greek states by projecting the Idea of War against the Persians onto the minds of his interlocutors. But he knew full well that in order for these thoughts to develop into sinister specters they needed to excite a dreadful imagery of death and destruction, and so Plato advocated the practice of sending children and women as spectators into the field of battle so that “in that way they will get a good view of their future business” (170). In this way, when the children-turned-adults would hear of a possible battle, they would be so stricken by fear that they would rally together to protect themselves against the oncoming perils.

     

    The Idea of War, as prospect or memory of bloodshed, can be stimulated in the socius as pure representation, functioning as a political technology more efficiently, permanently, and economically than war itself–armed conflict as a political practice is, as

     

    Figure 7: The “body of the town,” anthropomorphic city with fortress (Francesco di Giorgio Martini, Architettura, ingegneria e arte militare. Late fifteenth century. Turin, Codex Saluzzianus 148, fol. 3).

     

    we know, not infinitely sustainable. Historically, during times of peace, the tools employed in war (walls, fortresses, shields, armors, weapons, and banners) served as its mnemonic symbols in public spectacles (i.e., in parades, architectural ornaments, sculptures, paintings, etc.), keeping the threat of bloodshed alive in the minds of spectators to buttress various forms of government. For instance, the political power of wall circuits, constructed around cities up until the 19th century, went well beyond their physical resistance to projectiles. These military structures established, in a simple spatial language, those that stood outside or inside the body politic, and served as permanent reminders to both inhabitants and visitors of the threat of aggression. When describing these walls in 1452, Alberti would point out that they were founded with “the greatest religion” to protect a city which was “continually exposed to Dangers and Accidents; just as a ship which is tossed on the sea” (133). The idea of the encircling wall generated theoretical discourses and images of anthropomorphic cities that buttressed the notion of a collective body struggling for survival, and emphasized the concept of allegiance between citizens. Not surprisingly in these representations the noblest part of the city was the military fortress. City walls are thresholds to the polis, moments which, for phenomenologists such as Christian Norberg-Shultz, represent “the ‘rift’ between ‘otherness’ and manifest meaning, it embodies suffering and is ‘turned to stone’” (133). Indeed these objects exercise their communicative capacity by manipulating the material reality of the world, but there is more. A military wall will, at one level, be understood as separationprimarily because it divides us from each other, but, at another level, the wall will always be exercising a deictic reference to war, for it is only because of armed conflict that its existence is justifiable.

     

    Efforts such as the French and American versions of Casablanca were conceptually similar to the fortress wall insofar as they were, first and foremost, visualization technologies aimed at propagating a homogeneous, orderly, politicized world view. The Idea of War was mobilized in both as a means of internal control, as a kind of endogenous war where victory was determined not by fire power but by persuasive ability, since they aimed not at killing but at rallying supporters for a particular political platform by affecting their perceptual fields. To answer our original question, the extent to which the film and the modern city manipulated perceived notions of reality was directly proportional to these political aims. As political technologies, both objects could only be effective if they paid careful attention to establishing a play on the real that remained within the parameters of the dominant perceptual modes of the times, that is, within the general field of what reality was understood to be. We have intentionally begun by discussing a simple vertical plane (a city wall) which performed simultaneously as a tool to apportion space, as a military defense, and as a vehicle of propaganda, to stress the convergence of architecture, war, and politics around a notion of reality that was centered on territory, space, and time. Architecture is, ontologically, a field of endeavor concerned with the manipulation of space in time. Understandably, so long as the realm of the real has been circumscribed by these two concepts, architecture has stood as the prime tool to manipulate it. What concerns us in this essay is to expose how, as industrial and technological developments of the first half of the 20th century shifted the (conscious or subconscious) dominant perception of reality away from time and space, architecture became increasingly obsolete as an effective political technology, and was displaced by tools, like film, whose nature coincided with new notions about the makeup of man’s perceptual environment.

     

    The Urgency of Order

     

    There are striking similarities between the social conditions that prompted politicized institutions to use Casablanca city and Casablanca film as propaganda vehicles for the Idea of War. The years preceding both works are times when internal crisis, social strife, and discord menaced the prevailing order of things. Consider the following descriptions of conditions in France in the 1890s and the United States in the 1930s:

     

    Aesthetic disarray and moral decay shared the same root, in that both seemed to reveal fundamental weaknesses, most notably a pervasive apathy, in French society itself. From University lecterns, church pulpits, and town council halls came repeated calls for "rejuvenation," "moral education." New voluntary organizations vowed to break the debilitating lethargy afflicting both the state and the older, established social groups. (Wright 16)

     

    Among intellectuals and in centers of political power, the importance of cultural myths to social stability was a seriously debated topic.... The widespread doubt about traditional American Myths threatened to become a dangerous political weakness. In politics, industry and the media there were men and women... who saw the necessity, almost as a patriotic duty, to revitalize and refashion a cultural mythology. (Sklar 195-9)

     

    In either scenario the prevailing sentiment was one of generalized disillusionment with the present. The cacophony of divergent opinions resulted in the perception that traditional values were being lost, and that a once-united socius had fallen into disorder and degeneracy. A central, recurring theme in both countries was an understanding that people’s lack of direction, and lax value systems were conditions that could spur uncontrollable, debilitating mass spasms. The crowd’s fragmentation was conceived as a dangerous symptom of political feebleness before other world powers. To avoid this, recreating the illusion of a single body politic became a national priority. The imperative for both nations was the same: to steer the masses, as a cohesive unit, back to the values that had traditionally stood as symbols of national identity and pride. Just as before World War I, France’s urbanists labored earnestly to provide new mechanisms of establishing social order, so too did Hollywood’s film industry carry out its self-appointed mission in the 40s to congeal the American socius into a single block. Needless to say, this was a conservative effort, a folding back onto safe ground, a regrouping of the troops to gather new strength.

     

    France’s low self esteem was exacerbated when its efforts to gain control over Morocco were stemmed by German initiatives. Hostilities were ushered in when, in an overt attempt to undermine France’s prospective territorial score, German Emperor William II exacted his theatrical proclamation of Moroccan independence and integrity from his yacht on March 3rd 1905 while visiting Tangier. Two marked international crises ensued, one in 1905-06 and one in 1911, which almost resulted in an early start to World War I. In 1907, as a result of the first face-off, Colonel Hubert Lyautey was instructed to take an army unit from Western Algeria into Morocco and establish a “definitive French presence” in Morocco.

     

    Figure 8: Général Lyautey and Général D’Amade inspect the “Général Drude” command post in Casablanca, 1908 (from Marcelin Flandrin, Casablanca Rétro)

     

    To carry out his orders, the French official would need a vehicle not only capable of carrying the message, but in itself the verifiable proof of the message. Concerned with making visible the new territoriality, he fashioned the request for presence on a millenary tradition of staking out the ground: architecture. He resolved to erect French buildings on Moroccan soil and to make Casablanca his first test case. With Casablanca, the French responded to Germany’s aggression by superseding it theatrically and thus dwarfing Emperor William II’s gesture. From the outset, the city was understood as a weapon deployed in the theater of inter-national and intra-national warfare. It was a counterattack to Germany that simultaneously marshaled the Idea of War before the French socius, binding it together in the common cause of national defense. Lyautey understood that exercising political and military power was not “a matter of destroying [people], but transforming them” (qtd. in Wright 16). Lyautey’s self-declared infatuation with urbanity was rooted in a conviction that cities, in their ability to partition the space of social exchanges, constituted a “pacifist arsenal” capable of segregating, harmonizing, and reconstructing social structures and ways of life. The Colonel was not alone in his thinking. In fact, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the work of French scholars, like the vastly influential 1894 book by Jean Izoulet, La cité moderne et la métaphisique de la sociologie, had focused on achieving social order through careful urban design and strict social policies. “Issues as varied as the low national birthrate, poor industrial productivity, class antagonisms, inadequate housing stock, and a perceived decline in national prestige since the humiliation of the Franco-Prussian war, all these had urbanistic implications” (Wright 17). Whereas the tenuous political strength of regional administrators in France prevented these theories from being implemented on French soil, the pressing need to control Morocco made the Western Mahgreb a fertile culture for experimentation. Constantly referring to his initiatives as progressive and contrasting them with the intransigence and torpidity of legislature in the métropole, Lyautey sought to demonstrate how French inventiveness and power, if nourished by a strong political system, could continue to stand at the forefront of the world. The French needed only to secure their traditional values through new, clearly planned cities, a spirited and forceful government (like his own), and a consolidated socius, in order to become, once more, a great nation and empire.

     

    The colonization of Morocco, decided in the privacy of a government office, could only perform as an image of French strength and stability if it was cast in the realm of the visible and offered up for the world’s consumption. Lyautey knew his primary task was to produce evidence of his administration’s ability to maintain a “definitive presence” in Morocco–in other words, of his capacity to control space in time. Many options were initially shuffled, from tourism to magazines, but none could be mobilized without having an object to “show.” At a fundamental and symbolic level, even before considerations of urbanity as a tool to mold social patterns, architecture was a perfect vehicle to carry out Lyautey’s orders, insofar as its relationship to the ground responded to the 19th century’s technology of war–one that emphasized victory as the permanent acquisition of territorial gains. Architecture offered Lyautey a means to guarantee the extended temporal presence of France in North Western Africa.3

     

    By grounding French structures in Casablanca, Lyautey was very consciously making visible the new status of the Moroccan geography. The first military barracks, erected around the old medina, were quickly followed by a full blown national Architecture and Urbanism program that legislated the growth and aesthetic character of all major Moroccan towns. French architects like Henry Prost, Joseph Marrast, Adrien Laforgue, and Albert Laprade were handpicked, summoned to serve as functionaries of the state, and charged with all the public commissions. In their hands lay the responsibility of transforming the physical milieu to convey the new political order. The approach seemed to yield positive results. On November 4, 1911, after much haggling with Germany and Spain, France was “given” rights to a protectorship over Morocoo in exchange for ceding parts of French Congo to Germany and revising Franco-Spanish borders in the Mahgreb. Nonetheless, international tensions continued, and, in 1912, Poincaré had promoted Lyautey to Résident-Général of Morocco and head of the Army, so long as he could channel and mold social and economic desires and consolidate the success of the French occupation.

     

    To control architectural production, Lyautey immediately set up two government offices that would wield uncontested command over Moroccan cities’ patterns of growth, infrastructure, and aesthetic character. In 1912 he founded the Bureau of Fine Arts, appointed Tranchant de Lunel as director, and “granted him unprecedented powers, greater than anywhere else in the French-speaking world, to regulate new construction and restore existing buildings in the Moroccan medinas and mellas (Wright 130). In addition, in 1913, Lyautey established the Architecture and Urbanism Department under the direction of Henry Prost, to devise master plans for the new towns, draft zoning ordinances, and design all public structures, and canonize styles. The effect was the production of perfectly controlled urban environments. Casablanca sprang up as a veritable phantasmagoria, in perfect communion with the aims of the state.

     

    Perception is Reality

     

    Prost and Lyautey were convinced that their city would soon become the New York of Africa, through a convenient marriage of architectonic aesthetizations of politics and iron-fisted socio-economic policies. Unfortunately, the main objective of their collaboration–to make an international presentation of the solidity of the French Empire to the world in the face of imminent war–was dramatically behind schedule. By 1917, when Prost’s team finished drafting the master plan for Casablanca’s monumental central square (the Grand Place) World War I was well underway, placing enormous economic burdens on France and its colonies. Architecture, as an effective visualization technology of politics, had been rendered outmoded by the speed of war: There were simply no funds to build Casablanca. However, instead of postponing construction until the finances were made available, colonial administrators opted for increasing the speed of construction at all costs. Lyautey, under the battle cry “every quarry spares me a battalion” (Marrast 54), ordered the acceleration of building projects on course, and the immediate initiation of new works. The result was Prost’s “architecture en surface” where only the facades of buildings were constructed to create the “appearance” of a coherent city. The rest would be “filled in” when funds were made available. The intention was clear, and it was quite obviously Haussmanian: the surface of architecture would be spread over the city like a varnish to cover its discontinuities. A surface rendition of unity, a new reality, spreading over the dismembering city. The foremost task of architects was shifting from their traditional role as organizers and distributers of programmatic activities in space, to a new and awkward responsibility to produce the stage sets of a photographically ordered, almost two-dimensional, city.

     

    Such was the rush to get from design to finished city, that in documents such as Prost’s Grand Place plan, certain key structures, like the edifice facing the Hotel de Ville, were simply blocked out, but contained no indication of what program they were to house.

     

    Figure 9: Master plan for the Grand Place Casablanca, Henry Prost and Jean Marrast, 1914-1917 (from Wright, The Politics of Design)

     

    Designing on the run, architects valued aesthetic clarity over content. What initially seemed a strategic refusal to accept reality was actually a deliberate effort to construct an alternate reality, which was deemed essential for the survival of the empire. Architecture was marshaled to represent France’s ability to endure war with spirited confidence and full command. Lyautey could not turn back. Forced to keep up with the pace of war and to design at an accelerated rate, architects had to draw from conventions and ready-made solutions, to install meaning rather than to excavate it, to produce the real. When Lyautey was called back to France in 1925, he left behind a Casablanca that had nearly tripled its population, and that boasted a new “ville moderne,” and a scenographically remodeled Casbah.

     

    Figures 10 and 11: Aerial views of Casablanca taken in 1907 from a reconnaissance balloon by Lieutenant Bienvenue, and in 1928 from an airplane by Marcelin Flandrin (from: Flandrin, Casablanca Rétro).

     

    Notwithstanding the strategically choreographic maneuverings carried out in Morocco to demonstrate military superiority without physical confrontation, World War I broke out in 1914. It took the death of millions of men, three years of trench warfare, and the near exhaustion of the industrial production machine (the Allied effort almost came to a halt a year into the conflict due to scarcity in munitions), to make commanders realize that the technological advances of weaponry had transformed the logics of battle beyond their comprehension. Soldiers who had initially been sent into battle in bright uniforms (offsprings of the 17th and 18th century when smoke in the field made it difficult to discern your friends from your foes), were rapidly clothed in earthly tones to blur their contours against the desolate topography of no-man’s-land. To look beyond to the other trench meant being seen, and whatever was visible was the potential target of artillery and snipers. These limitations on the utility of human vision and hand-to-hand combat prompted the production of technologically mediated images of the battlefield, inducing a transformation of the dominant field of perception and space/time conceptualizations.4 The increased replacement of the battlefield’s topography with reproductions, the necessary reliance on imaging devices given the inability to depend on the soldier’s direct vision in conflicts where targets were literally out of sight, had a noted effect crucial to our understanding of Casablanca: The diminished relevance of the territory (of space in time), and the increased importance of speed (which collapses space and time into motion, as does cinema) as a primary register of reality.

     

    Already during World War I, photographic technology had proved quite attuned to the new perceptual exigencies of the war machine (there were regular air reconnaissance operations carried out, especially by the US expeditionary corps, to document troop movements). A veritable coupling of the art of war and the art of chronophotography was being achieved that rapidly turned film into a weapon. According to Paul Virilio, the possibility of this amalgam was rooted in the similitude of space-time distortions produced by technological advances in modern war and in cinema:

     

    [T]he military voyeur is handicapped by the slowness with which he scans a field of action overstretched by the dynamic revolution of weaponry and mass transport.... For the disappearance of the proximity effect in the prosthesis of accelerated travel made it necessary to create a wholly simulated appearance that would restore three-dimensionality to the message in full.... [T]his miniaturization of chronological meaning was the direct result of a military technology in which events always unfold in theoretical time. As in cinema, what happens is governed not by a single space-time principle but by its relative and contingent distortion, the capacity of repressive response depending upon the power of anticipation. (59-60)

     

    As the cataclysmic events of the Great War unfolded, the trust placed on the ability of spatial technologies to control the crowd was put into crisis: The inertia of physical barriers could not match the explosive power of new projectiles. However, French officials insisted on the relevance of urbanity. But, because of the exigencies of the war, they were forced to rely on the image of urbanity over its real presence, to convey the idea

     

    Figure 12: Poster for the 1917 exhibit of Morroccan art organized by Lyautey’s administration in Casablanca. The profits went to benefit wartime construction.

     

    of France’s long term presence in Morocco. Prompted by the critical importance of convincing the world that French Casablanca was a reality, even if it was not a finished product, the colonial government deployed an aggressive publicity campaign, hiring travel writers, photographers, poster artists, and filmmakers. As early as 1908, journalists, like Reginald Rankin of the London Times, were regularly sent to the city to report on current events. The Franco-Moroccan Exposition (1915) held in Casablanca with the intention to “demonstrate France’s determination to maintain the white city” (Cohen and Eleb 19) triggered the first comprehensive photographic documentation of Moroccan buildings and cities–other similar exhibits would follow regularly. Official journals like La Renaissance du Marocwere founded with the objective of disseminating the image of French Morocco, and of lauding the work of French professionals (architects were deliberately compared to renaissance masters, salvaging and re-interpreting the Islamic past). In this and other similar periodicals, French-built cities were continuously described as generating the kind of civic morality needed in France at the time.

     

    Just as the city wall had at once been a physical instrument of military deterrence that literally contained the socius, Casablanca had been constructed as a spectacular deterrence mechanism that would unite France under a single effort. But it was becoming increasingly evident that the political task of the city was being carried out in other fields of endeavor. The gap in temporality between the political commission and the architectural delivery was being filled in, almost imperceptibly, by photographs and written accounts that were twice-removed from the real. But in these photographs, the memory of the Idea of War was alive, much more alive than in the actual cities. In fact, photography could already be classified as a military weapon. Photography, as a medium, was not only the primary source of military surveillance, but also the new synthetic battlefield. Children would no longer have to be sent to view the spectacle of war. It could be delivered to them with the same intensity as it was experienced by military commanders behind the lines: in pictures (and, not much later, in moving pictures). Under the camera’s eye, architecture fused into the new simulated territories, no longer as a material substance, but as an ethereal phenomenon symbolically designating ownership, and certifying the verity of the new representations. Conspicuously, writers such as Pierre Mac Orlan would describe Casablanca not as a physical presence, but as an essence, a symbol of French prowess: “Endowed with all that modern industry can provide, this spontaneous phenomenon of French energy [is Casablanca]” (qtd. in Cohen and Eleb 19). But the spectacular construction was not as spontaneous as the French writer would have liked: its production required such a slow gestation that the city’s “presencing” in the real would only come after the Great War it was meant to deter, as a kind of flashback of it. Mac Orlan’s prose, published in 1934, veiled the fact that the city’s construction had been 27 years in the making, and that many official buildings were still unfinished.

     

    Figures 13 and 14: View of the corner of Bouskoura and Galiéi Streets towards the Grand Place in 1926 and 1928 respectively. The Hotel des Postes can be seen terminating the axis, but most structures remain unfinished (from: Flandrin, Casablanca Rétro).

     

    Lyautey had originally thought of the flourishing tourist industry as a means to exhibit his urbanistic prowess and to boost the economy. His contention was that “since the recent, intense development of large-scale tourism, the presentation of a country’s beauty has taken on an economic importance of the first order. To attract a large tourist population is to gain everything for both the public and the private budgets” (qtd. in Wright 134). Tourism had the added advantage that it effectively held the tourist’s sight captive, from official monument, to canonized local quarters, to scenographic French boulevards and plazas. To create a desire for the French public to visit Morocco, Lyautey sent his architects to Paris to reconstruct fragments of the Empire. In 1925, Tranchant de Lunel would design the Moroccan section of the North African Pavilion for the Arts Déco exhibition, and in 1931 a large architectural display was erected at the 1931 Colonial Exhibit. But tourism was still too selective and expensive, entailing long trips from Marseilles to Oran and then to Casablanca. However, the touristic gaze could be molded, controlled, and allowed to perceive the colonies, without actual travel, through representation. The added advantage was that the surface rendition of unity ushered in by Prost’s architecture en surface could be made to appear whole and complete. With the disappearance of the “proximity effect,” there was a window of opportunity to move from the prolonged constructive temporality of Architecture, to wholly simulated, instant environments that could fill in the discontinuities of the real city. It was becoming increasingly evident that architecture could no longer serve either as a primary means of military deterrence nor as a sufficiently expedient political technology. As “Countries, including Britain, would down their traditional means of defense and concentrated on research into perception” (Virilio 50), Lyautey would invest in alternative means to propagate the idea of order embodied in his Casablanca. He invited Jean and Jérôme Tharaud, acclaimed travel writers of the 20s and 30s, to Morocco, so that they might, through their work, foment the touristic visions of Morocco. The Tharauds willingly came under the mandates of the colonial administration–probably thinking they were helping bring morale back to the disconcerted French socius–and produced a wealth of popular accounts on Moroccan cities. The two brothers traveled much of the Mahgreb (and the globe for that matter) in military planes, peering down at the work of the empire from the sky, as their compatriot fighter pilots had targeted objectives with their guns and cameras during World War I. What is interesting in the work of the Tharauds is that, as Emily Apter has pointed out, they repeatedly described their aeronautic eye as a cinematograph panning across the landscape, evidencing the fact that filmic vision had already become the predominant perceptual mode of their era.

     

    In 1930 Josef Von Sternberg released his film Morocco, and in his footsteps, a multitude of filmmakers were enticed to use Lyautey’s theatrical cities as backdrops to their scenes. During the 30s, “the film crew had become such a commonplace appearance in the Moroccan landscape that Wyndham Lewis dedicated an entire section of his jaundiced Moroccan Travelogue Journey into Barbery to a pastiche of what he called ‘film-filibusters,’ industry magnates who ‘send their troupes (not troops) merely to afford their sham-sheiks a Hispano-Mauresque photographic setting’” (Apter 22). The residual components of an unfinished Casablanca were being reconstituted according to a new cinematic logic which defied single space-time relationships, and which was increasingly independent of the ground, of space, and of architecture. In his 1921 essay entitled “Grossissement,” Jean Epstein theorized this displacement from space to cinema as rooted in the cinematograph’s ability to subject time to technical manipulation–a quality paralleled by spatial technologies. Giovanni Pastrone, the Italian Futurist filmmaker, contemporary of Epstein, saw the camera not as an instrument to produce realistic portraits but as an instrument to falsify dimensions. With film cameras the spectator’s viewpoint could be mobile, in communion with the speed of moving objects. Epstein dreamt of being inside his characters, of moving with them and seeing what they saw. For Virilio, what Epstein and Pastrone saw as manipulation was in effect the production of a new kind of understanding of reality, one that would no longer be based on space/time conceptualizations, but on speed:

     

    [W]hat was "false" in cinema was no longer the effect of accelerated perspective but the very depth itself, the temporal distance of the projected space. Many years later, the electronic light of laser holography and integrated-circuit computer graphics would confirm this relativity in which speed appears as the primal magnitude of the image and thus as the source of its depth. (Virilio 16)

     

    With World War II this new conception of reality became predominant, as the globe’s geography became increasingly commensurate with cinematic samplings, and millions of attentive viewers lived the terror of battlefields, once scattered across the globe, now perceived simultaneously, collapsed onto the silver screen via news reels and war propaganda. By the time the next world war was brooding, it was clear that speed of communication (the kind of speed that Architecture could not deliver) was a determinant factor in victory. In speed lay the new possibility of military superiority. Up until the nineteenth century, permanent military fortifications had produced the effect of surprise with the help of booby traps, ditches, and moving gates or walls. Where the enemy was once startled by spectacular architectures, now he would be paralyzed by the sudden appearance of images and signs on monitor screens that simulated the field of battle. As the world’s reality was supplanted by surrogate military technologies, cinema came under the category of weapons, not because of its ability to depict battles, but because of its capacity to create surprise.5 In Lyautey’s mobilization of Casablanca as a vehicle of the Idea of War, where architecture was inevitably superseded by cinema, we find a rare film-city, a strange hybrid prefiguring the transformation in political technologies from architecture to film, from physical space to filmic time/space simultaneity, and finally to speed. Here we find evidence of how architecture, serving outdated political technologies of territorial conquest, proved inefficient and was supplanted by more effective mechanisms of propaganda: war films.

     

    Ordering the New Reality

     

    In the late 1930s and early 40s, when the US felt the danger of war approaching, and fears of unpredictable mass actions causing social breakdown began to resurface, spatial technologies could no longer be considered as viable solutions to curb internal political weaknesses. With the pressing need to wake its population to the new reality of industrialized production and destruction, the political machine turned not to architects but to movie producers. Whereas French architects and urbanists had sought to present a new world order to their compatriots by attempting to actually change the world, the American moviemakers focused on altering people’s perception of reality in order to achieve similar goals. The Hollywood studios, understanding that their own distribution networks and economic survival were at stake, answered the call to arms with a rich assortment of war movies that focused on bringing the aspirations and desires of the population closer to the political goals of the state. The particular attraction of film was that it comfortably slid under the skin (or should we say pupils) of a socius increasingly accustomed to equating reality with their cinematic perceptions of the world. Film, as a technology of politics, was unburdened by the immobility and territorial constraints of architecture. It was almost instantaneous, affecting the entire population simultaneously, and offering as commodities pure emotions and ideas.

     

    With lines as unburdened by sophistication as Ferrari (Sydney Greenstreet)’s “My dear Rick, when will you realize that in this world, today, isolationism is no longer a practical policy,” Casablanca informed American audiences about the new contingencies of international affairs. The message reached the entire population almost instantly. Between 1930 and 1945 Hollywood’s film industry dominated the American socius’ field of perception with its visual entertainment products. Eighty million citizens, more than half of the US population at the time, crowded movie houses every week, drawing 83 percent of the total spent on recreation by Americans. Television, still in its infancy, remained a luxury for the majority–only 8,000 US homes had TV sets in 1946 (Ray 25-26, 132). Hollywood held distribution networks that spanned the world, making the profits reaped internationally by Casablanca upon release roughly equal US takings–the production, which had cost little over a million dollars, made almost six million dollars at the box office.

     

    Casablanca‘s emphasis was, again, not on depicting the spaces of the original (the French city), but on creating a new city that could generate simple emotions in the spectator thanks to elementary scale contrasts (small, tortuous city streets to

     

    Figure 15: Warner Bros. 1942 poster

     

    express confinement, against a vast airport, which, occupying a space comparable to the entire city, stood as the allegory of freedom). The world was at war, and Casablancawas fired at the population to reinforce the idea of a collective project, and of particular values and codes that stood in contrast to those of other nations. The film was aimed at uniting the nation, rallying it against the forces that endangered traditional societal bonds. It was clear to producers that the film’s potential strength would not come from its photo-realistic depictions of the city, but from its ability to surprise the general public. When, on November 8, 1942, the allies landed in Casablanca, final touches on the film were dropped to speed up release and divert the public’s attention away from the real events and into the movie houses. Eighteen days after the incident, American movie houses were playing the film, and newspapers were filled with advertisements reading “Warner’s Split-Second Timing! ‘Casablanca’: The Army’s got Casablanca–and so have Warner Bros!” Inside the dark theaters, the camera’s lens became America’s prosthetic eye, and where there once was an incomprehensible and chaotic world, now a clear image of right and wrong came sharply into focus.

     

    The stamina exemplified in the building of Lyautey’s city and Curtiz’s film drew its lifeblood from an understanding that war “consists not so much in scoring territorial, economic or other material victories as in appropriating the ‘immateriality’ of perceptual fields” (Virilio 7). This is an archetypal military concept, yet, in Casablanca, its logic appears to us in relation to the delirium of industrialized production, and acquires new meaning and relevance. What is fascinating, and at the same time terrifying, about the American and French mobilizations of Casablanca is that they used aesthetics that were fundamentally militaristic as a means to solve socio-political problems. Both summoned the Idea of War as a reductivist filter of state affairs, where clear distinctions between what is correct and good, and what is deviant and bad were established and propagated, by responding to political demands with the theatrics of warfare. The surprise that befell on French colonial administrators when they realized their city was not ready in time to prevent war, was matched by the impotence and frustration of French generals, when, unable to break the enemy’s trench lines, they failed to understand that the strategies of 19th century offensives had become obsolete with the advent of long-range automatic weapons. Industrial production had delaminated the human senses, and projected them beyond time and space, subverting the old ways of experiencing the world. If reality is perception, the impulses sent by the new photographic eyes of the armies to the minds of their fellow men were visions of a whole new universe. Architecture, as a structure that, in a strange double motion, casts the condition of the ground in the visible by standing over it and veiling it, could not stand on top of this new, infinitely expanding dominion. Cinema, however, by technologically collapsing time/space relationships in terms of speed, was capable of delimiting and describing this new topography, and rendering it in the visible. As in architecture, the ability of cinema to perform its exegesis of the new ground could only be carried out by covering it, by concealing the original. Theoreticians like Virilio have read this phenomenon as causing the “disappearance” or the “disintegration” of “things and places,” but we must differ. Just as the ground remains under buildings allowing them to stand, territories and space remain under the surface of film as its supporting scaffolding. In Casablanca one can perceive the sequence unfolding, from ground to architecture to film, as a function of war. Each vehicle of representation, forged in accordance to the conditions of reality, was superseded when the general perception of that reality changed. The thread that guides us through this protean sequence is politics, for the changing perceptions of reality ushered in with each evolution of communication technologies threatened chaos and instigated the need to establish order. The political deployment of the Idea of War in architectural or filmic vehicles, as a means to structure disorder, marks the extension of perceptual realities that characterize our contemporary condition. Casablanca, as rendered in stone or film, does not exemplify the ending and the beginning of mutually exclusive realities, but the buttressing simultaneity of perceptions that constitute our understanding of the world today, from the immediacy of the spaces we live in, to the poliverses of overlapping global territories we inhabit.

     

    Notes

     

    1. The Rabat headquarters of the Bureau of Fine Arts, for example, boasted a collection of 25,000 photographs of various Moroccan buildings. See: Gwendolyn Wright., The Politics of Design in French Colonial Urbanism (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991) 133.

     

    2. Some of the original photographic and textual references, provided by the Warner Bros. Research Department, and used as background for the film’s writers, designers, and director, are presented in Frank Miller, Casablanca: As Time Goes By–50th Anniversary Commemorative (Atlanta: Turner Publishing; [Kansas City, Mo.: Distributed by Andrews and McMeel], 1992) 45.

     

    3. The dependency of a building to its site is perhaps better understood in philosophical terms. Philosophy is the construction of propositions characterized by their ability to stand up. However, the exercise of that capacity is dependent on the ground’s condition, on the structure’s supporting presence. In any case, “standing up through construction makes visible the condition of the ground” (Wigley 8). In The Architecture of Deconstruction, Mark Wigley references Heidegger’s propensity to address philosophy as a kind of architecture, and metaphysics as an “edifice” with firm “foundations,” laid on stable “ground” that must first be prepared to receive the structure. “Heidegger argues that philosophy’s original but increasingly forgotten object, ‘being’ [Sein], is also a kind of construction, a ‘presencing’ [Answesenheit] through ‘standing.’ Each of philosophy’s successive terms for ‘ground’ [Grund] designates ‘Being,’ understood as ‘presence.’ Metaphysics is the identification of the ground as ‘supporting presence’ for whatever stands like an edifice” (Wigley 8). Wigley’s analysis draws our attention to relationship between architecture and its ground in an oblique fashion: by demonstrating how philosophy, in order to perceive itself as a construction concerned with the exegesis of the structure of Being, must first perceive itself metaphorically as an architecture that renders the status of its ground perceivable, we come to understand that architecture is, in part, a technology to visualize the state of the ground.

     

    4. See Paul Virilio, War and Cinema: The Logistics of Perception (London and New York: Verso, 1989). Also see Stephen Kern, The Culture of Time and Space, 1880-1918 (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1983).

     

    5. See Virilio 7-9, 72.

    Works Cited

     

    • Alberti, Leon Battista. The Ten Books of Architecture. Trans. Giacomo Leoni. London: Edward Owen, 1755; New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1986.
    • Apter, Emily. “The Landscape of Photogeny: Morocco in Black and White.” Architecture New York 16 (November 1996).
    • Casablanca. Dir. Michael Curtiz. Perf. Ingrid Bergman, Humphrey Bogart, Sydney Greenstreet, Paul Henreid, Peter Lorre, and Claude Rains. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., 1942.
    • Cohen, Jean-Louis, and Monique Eleb. “The Whiteness of the Surf: Casablanca.” Architecture New York 16 (November 1996).
    • Eco, Umberto. Travels in Hyperreality: Essays. San Diego: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1986.
    • Kern, Stephen. The Culture of Time and Space, 1880-1918. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1983.
    • Marrast, Jean. “Maroc.” L’oeuvre de Henri Prost: Architecture et Urbanisme. Ed. Académie d’Architecture. Paris: Imprimerie du Compagnonnage, 1960.
    • Miller, Frank. Casablanca: As Time Goes By–50th Anniversary Commemorative. Atlanta: Turner Publishing (Kansas City, Mo.: Distributed by Andrews and McMeel), 1992.
    • Norberg-Shultz, Christian. Genius loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Place. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., 1986.
    • Plato. Republic. Trans. Francis Macdonald Cornford. New York and London: Oxford UP, 1967.
    • Ray, Robert B. A Certain Tendency of the Hollywood Cinema, 1930-1980. Princeton N.J.: Princeton UP, 1985.
    • Robertson, James C. The Casablanca Man: The Cinema of Michael Curtiz. London: Routledge, 1993.
    • Sklar, Robert. Movie Made America: A Social history of American Movies. New York: Random House, 1975.
    • Wigley, Mark. The Architecture of Deconstruction. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, 1993.
    • Virilio, Paul. War and Cinema: The Logistics of Perception. London and New York: Verso, 1989.
    • Gwendolyn Wright. The Politics of Design in French Colonial Urbanism. Chicago: The U of Chicago P, 1991.

     

  • Presenting the Cyborg’s Futurist Past: An Analysis of Dziga Vertov’s Kino-Eye

    Joseph Christopher Schaub

    Department of Comparative Literature
    University of Maryland

    Joseph_C_SCHAUB@umail.umd.edu

    Introduction

     

    Contemporary discussions about gender in cyberspace often rely on assumptions about the immanently liberatory potential of technology.

     

    Animated image constructed by
    author using Man With a
    Movie Camera
    production stills.

     

    Undoubtedly much of this enthusiasm for technology has been generated by Donna Haraway’s “A Cyborg Manifesto,” the foundational essay on cyborg subjectivity. Haraway embraces technology’s disruption of such previously stable borders as that between the organism and the machine. She is making “an argument for pleasure in the confusion of boundaries… an effort to contribute to socialist-feminist culture and theory in a postmodernist, non-naturalist mode and in the tradition of imagining a world without gender” (Haraway 150). But amid all the enthusiasm for a postgender cyberspace, it is important to remember that Haraway is not the first to imagine a world without gender in the coupling of humans and machines. The writers of the Futurist movement of the early twentieth century precede her vision, but to achieve it they called for the elimination of the feminine.

     

    In an essay entitled “War, Sole Hygiene of the World,” the premiere theorist of the Italian Futurist movement, F. T. Marinetti, “specifies that the ideal universe remains devoid of women, consisting only of men and machines” (Orban 56). The passage creates a troubling obstacle for theories of the cyborg which attempt to establish a connection between the disappearance of the techno/organic boundary and the disappearance of gender. Perhaps for that reason, the Futurist roots of the cyborg have been largely ignored in the hope that the technological advances which have made the cyborg “our ontology” (Haraway 150) have eliminated Marinetti’s misogyny.

     

    Instead of ignoring the Futurist roots of the cyborg, I have chosen to explore alternatives to the misogyny inherent in Marinetti’s writings on Futurism. The Russian Futurists, for example, though their platform was very similar to the Italians’ in their hatred of bourgeois conventions, differed remarkably in two areas which the Italians saw as fundamental for escaping those conventions: the glorification of war and the demonization of women. Particularly in the work of Dziga Vertov, filmmaker and theorist of the early Soviet era, the anti-feminist stance of the Italian Futurists is rejected in favor of a representational strategy that privileges women as filmic subjects without reinforcing patterns of visual pleasure that support bourgeois patriarchal ideology. In what follows I will examine the traces of Futurism that inform Dziga Vertov’s Man With a Movie Camera (1929) and discuss the way that Vertov’s cyborg construction, the Kino Eye, destabilizes the gender hierarchy that underlies bourgeois capitalism without eliminating women from the world of the text. By foregrounding its own process of production, and displaying both men and women involved in creating the film, Man With a Movie Camera radically departs from the bourgeois conventions which all Futurists despised; but it does so without scapegoating women.

     

    Man With a Movie Camera is the result of Vertov’s ten-year effort to work out a theory of technologically-assisted vision. “Kino-Eye” is the name he gave to his the ory, and it involves not only a disappearance of the border between the camera and the eye but a dissolution in the stages separating the process of film production as well. Vertov’s cameraman and brother, Mikhail Kaufman, appears in the film as often as Vertov’s editor and wife, Elizaveta Svilova. As a historical representation of the cyborg that promotes strategies for minimizing the hierarchical stratification of gender, the film serves as a model for contemporary discussions of postgender cyberspace . Rather than eliminating one or both genders in a human/machine merger, Vertov balances the masculine and feminine contributions to the production of meaning in what may be the first revolutionary cybertext, Man With a Movie Camera, with th e first revolutionary cyborg, the Kino-Eye.

     

    The Futurist Roots of the Cyborg

     

    After being conquered by Futurist eyes our multiplied sensibilities will at last hear with Futurist ears. In this way the motors and machines of our industrial cities will one day be consciously attuned, so that every factory will be transformed into an intoxicating orchestra of noises.

     

    –Luigi Russolo

     

    Donna Haraway’s “A Cyborg Manifesto” outlines a number of boundaries that have been broken by the late twentieth century in the United States. For discussions of the cyborg, the most important of these is the distinction between organism and machine which she says is now “thoroughly ambiguous” (152). As Haraway notes, “Our machines are disturbingly lively, and we ourselves, frighteningly inert” (152). In creating a postmodern cyborg subjectivity, Haraway acknowledges changes in our conception of the various binary structures which modernist notions of subjectivity were founded upon. High modernist works such as The Scream illustrate the split in the subject, a division between the subject’s inside and outside, which the modernists define as alienation. This division and its implications “are no longer appropriate to the world of the postmodern,” as Fredric Jameson notes (14). Strict distinctions between signifier and signified, subject and object, reality and representation have collapsed in the wake of the late twentieth century’s poststructuralist critique. Haraway’s extension of this critique into the line dividing organic and inorganic matter is as much a product of postmodern/poststructuralist thinking as a contribution to it. Likewise, when Haraway states that “the cyborg is a creature in a postgender world” (150), she acknowledges the fragmentation of gender as a binary structure, as well.

     

    The early Futurists would have found it difficult to engage in this particular border dispute. As modernists they were thoroughly entrenched in the kind of binary thinking that separated organic from inorganic and masculinity from femininity. As a result their conception of the cyborg is only apparent through their pairings of men and machines in their art. In “The Founding Manifesto of Futurism,” Marinetti makes clear that man with machine is the subject of the future. “We want to hymn the man at the wheel, who hurls the lance of his spirit across the Earth” (21), Marinetti writes in point number 5. This follows the oft-quoted statement in point number 4 which affirms that a roaring motorcar is more beautiful than the Victory of Samothrace. For Marinetti the future was guaranteed to “Man” by his insoluble bond to machines. Woman and femininity belonged to the past, to the 19th century. The connection with women and institutions of the past is made obvious in point number 10, which reads, “We will destroy the museums, libraries, academies of every kind, will fight moralism, feminism, every opportunistic or utilitarian cowardice” (22). The future belonged to men.

     

    The Russian Futurists were different, though, like the Italians, they disdained the past and the various institutions which preserved it. Their founding manifesto reads, “The Academy and Pushkin are less intelligible than hieroglyphics. Throw Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, etc. overboard from the Ship of Modernity” (B urliuk et al 51). But Russian Futurism and Italian Futurism were never as closely aligned as their common name would suggest. In his 1927 article, “We Are the Futurists,” Osip Brik acerbically states, “Russian Futurists arose long before Marinetti becam e well known in Russia. And when Marinetti came to Russia in January 1914, the Russian Futurists met him with complete animosity (252-252). Still, Brik concedes that the Russian Futurists “have made use of certain of the Italian Futurist’s slogans…”(Burliuk 252). He goes on to list the points which the Russians had adopted from Marinetti’s founding manifesto. The list contains points 1 through 4. It skips points 5 and 6, then includes points 7 and 8, but leaves out 9, 10 and 11 (Burliuk 252).

     

    The points Brik repudiates in this crucial essay reveal the stark differences between Russian and Italian Futurism. Point number 5, which hymns the “man at the wheel,” has already been discussed, as has point 10, which vows to destroy feminism, as well as museums, libraries, and academies. Perhaps the most objectionable notions, though, are contained in point 9. It reads: “We will g lorify war–the world’s only hygiene–militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman” (Marinetti 22). The Russian Futurists never relied on the glorification of war or misogyny to advance their platform celebrating humanity’s union with technology. The intention behind Russian Futurist art was “not the hymning of technology, but its control in the name of the interests of humanity” (Mayakofsky 35).

     

    In the work of Dziga Vertov, we can see how the Russian Futurists recuperated the essentially cyborg notion of combining technology and humanity from the misogynist trap into which the Italians fell. Vertov’s cyborg construction was originally conceived as a device for enhancing human optics, as this 1923 statement sug gests: “I am kino-eye, I am a mechanical eye. I, a machine, show you the world as only I can see it” (17). But Kino-Eye’s first person address already suggests a merger between human and machine, something that would be further explored and complicated i n Vertov’s later writings.

     

    By the time Man With a Movie Camera was made, Vertov’s conception of the Kino-Eye was divided into the three stages of the production process that he and his collaborators used to create their films. In 1929, Vertov wrote: “Kino-eye = kino-seeing (I see through the camera) + kino-writing (I write on film wit h the camera) + kino-organization (I edit)” (87). These three stages correspond perfectly to the three positions occupied by Elizaveta Svilova, Dziga Vertov, and Mikhail Kaufman, collectively known as “The Council of Three” (12).

     

    After Vertov, Kino-Eye.

     

    As the camera-man, and Vertov’s brother, Mikhail Kaufman fulfilled the kino-seeing function, Vertov himself, as director, was responsible for what was shot, the kino-writing, and Elizaveta Svilova, Vertov’s wife, edited their pieces.

     

    The Kino-Eye, then, is a cyborg construction that contains multiple positions for the production of film meaning. Those positions were obviously chosen so that equitable contrib utions could be made from representatives of each gender. (The apparently uneven number of males and females in the Council of Three will be explained later, in light of the importance of editing in Soviet filmmaking, relative to the other stages of pro duction.) It is the first example of a theory of the cyborg that does not rely on a misogynistic eradication of the feminine in order to unite man and machine. In order to see how the Kino-Eye works in a film text we must now examine Man With a Mo vie Camera.

     

    Man With a Movie Camera

     

    After Vertov, Kino-Eye.

     

    As the last of Vertov’s silent films, Man With a Movie Camera stands at the peak of the Soviet avant garde film movement of the twenties, and extends the most thorough vision of Vertov’s understanding of the combination of the human and the machine implicit in the term Kino-Eye. The subject of Man With a Movie Camera is the cyborg; it is not “man.” Vertov ass ociated man as subject with the bourgeois filmmaking he hoped to supplant with Kino-Eye filmmaking. In a polemical treatise reminiscient of the early Futurist writings, Vertov attacks the mainstream tradition of the narrative “film-drama” which draws upo n previous bourgeois conventions, such as the romance and psychological novel. Vertov writes, “the ‘psychological’ prevents man from being as precise as a stopwatch; it interferes with his desire for kinship with the machine.” In banishing the conventio ns of bourgeois cinema, Vertov also eliminates the human character, as he acknowledges in this statement: “For his inability to control his movements. We temporarily exclude man as a subject for film” (7).

     

    Vertov’s exclusion of “man” as a subject for film has a double meaning. Not only does it allude to the need for a filmic subject able to transcend the imprecision of the traditi onal psychologically motivated narrative, but this same subject must not be gendered in a way which implicates the viewer in the logic of the look so essential to maintaining power relationships in patriarchal culture. It is the look, or “gaze,” and its obvious association with scopophilic pleasure, which Laura Mulvey has discussed as essential to maintaining patriarchal power relationships. Mulvey writes:

     

    Woman... stands in patriarchal culture as a signifier for the male other, bound by a symbolic order in which man can live out his fantasies and obsessions through linguistic command by imposing them on the silent image of woman still tied to her place as bearer, not maker, of meaning. (15)

     

    This is where Man With a Movie Camerapresents the greatest challenge to mainstream filmmaking. While excluding man as subject of the film, Vertov also includes woman as maker of meaning.

     

    Man With a Movie Camera begins with a shot of a movie camera, facing the viewer, and from out of the top of the camera a miniature Mikhail Kaufman climbs with his camera and tripod, aims it at the offscreen space to the right, and begins to crank. A cut reveals the top of a building, which, according to the conventions of mainstream narrative cinema, where the spectator identifies with the look of a character, is presumably the object the came raman is filming. But already this simple association begins to subvert those conventions it appears to follow, as Judith Mayne points out in her analysis of this segment:

     

    Production stills, Man With a Movie Camera.

     

    The “how” precedes the “what”; the image is designated as a product of the cinematic process, and not as a reflection of a world outside that of the film. The following two shots repeat a similar pattern with slight differences. In shot three, the cameraman is seen at an increased distance; and the angle of shot four, a la mppost, is slightly different from the angle of shot two. A puzzling reversal occurs as well: the off-center but nonetheless continuous match between shots one and two is impossible between shots three and four, since in shot three the cameraman picks u p his equipment and moves off-screen. Thus a sense of continuity is established and violated at the same time (Mayne 159).

     

    Following these four brief shots, we see the cameraman, now in scale with his surroundings, entering the movie theater through the curtains and heading to the projection booth. He then threads the projector with what the logic of continuity driven cinema would have us believe is the film he has just exposed. This completely elides the processes in between shooting and screening a film.

     

    Here the particulars of the filmmaking process are not hidden to disguise aspects of the film’s production as in mainstream narrative cinema, which does not wish to jeopardize th e viewer’s pleasure, but rather to avoid the possibility of showing that process so completely that a narrative centered on filmic production might arise from the very attempt to subvert traditional narrative. Again, a sense of continuity is established and violated. This pattern of foregrounding the process of production appears again and again throughout the film, because “the film aims to take the spectator from a position of unreflective consumption of cinema to one of actively producing the film’s meaning” (Crofts and Rose 15). This is a crucial point, and will be returned to shortly, but I will first address a problem regarding the opening sequence.

     

    Reading the opening sequence as a narrative preliminary to the rest of the film sets up the cameraman as the central character which would then appear to violate Vertov’s exclusion of “man” as a subject of film, and reinstitute the gendered hierarchy which Mulvey critiques. However, it soon becomes apparent through scenes such as the one in which a young woman’s eyes blinking are intercut with venetian blinds opening and closing that there is no central characte r to this film. In fact it is possible to determine this even before the venetian blind scene as Mayne displays in stating:

     

    From the very beginning... the centrality of the cameraman's vision is put into question, since he moves out of frame in the third shot of the film. In other words, the cameraman cannot be equated with a central character, or even the central narrating i ntelligence of a narrative film, since visual perspective is not localized in a single figure, but dispersed through multiple perspectives. (162)

     

    This notion of the visual subject dispersed through multiple perspectives is as fundamental to an understanding of the Kino-Eye as an essentially cyborg construction as the combining of human and machine, which is also seen throughout the film.

     

    The Kino-Eye, then, can be understood as an ideological weapon, a cyborg combination of human and movie camera, which both creates and depends upon multiple perspectives for its interpretation and communication. In taking the spectator from the position of passive consumer to active producer of cinematic meaning, the K ino-Eye functions as a contagious “virus,” contained in the film text. Once infected by it the viewer becomes Kino-Eye, “challenging the human eye’s visual representation of the world and offering its own ‘I see’” (Mayne 21). Through a new form of visua lization it begins to destabilize the various hierarchies which patriarchal capitalism depends upon for maintaining hegemonic dominance.

     

    Animated image constructed by
    author using Man With a
    Movie Camera
    production stills.

     

    The most prevalent hierarchy destabilized is gender. Several writers have commented on the complex way that gender is questioned in Man With a Movie Camerasince most of the subjects of the camera are women. Kaufman is the human figure who appears most frequently in the film, but he never appears in close-up, thereby making character identification quite difficult, and he never appears without his camera, which suggests that he is not gendered male, but cyborg. In other words he is not man as bearer of the look, but man, bearer of the camera. Even more important, though, is the presence of Vertov’s wife and editor, Elizaveta Svilova, at the editing table creating cinematic meaning from ribbons of celluloid.

     

    Svilova appears about 21 minutes, or one-third of the way into this 66-minute film, seated at her editing table, with scissors in hand, cutting the film and cement-splicing it into new patterns. About one minute before she appears a series of freeze-frame stills, beginning with a horse pulling a carriage and ending with close-up faces of people, appears for the first time in the film. S ince Man With a Movie Camera uses all manner of camera and editing techniques, the use of freeze-frames isn’t unusual. But in this instance the stills prepare us for a pseudo-identification with Svilova’s “gaze,” since she sees the film firs t as an extensive strip of separate images. In some of the images we even see the perforated sprocket holes at the edge of the frame, completely demystifying the illusion of cinematic continuity as well as mimesis.

     

    Svilova’s appearance as the editor in this film is somewhat more complex than Kaufman’s appearance as cameraman because of the place that editing had in the hierarchy of Soviet s ilent film theory. In numerous articles advanced by Eisenstein, Pudovkin, Kuleshov, and Vertov, editing, or “montage,” was given prominence as the most important aspect of filmmaking. Pudovkin’s famous quote that, “the film is not shot, but built, built up from the separate strips of celluloid that are its raw material” (Leyda 211), serves as a not-so-subtle reminder of the place of editing, and of cinematography in the filmmaking process of the early Soviets. However, it may be pointed out that the fi lm is entitled Man With a Movie Camera, not “Woman With a Pair of Scissors.” The important thing here is not so much whether the cameraman or the editor serves as the privileged locus of signifying practice, rather it is the way in which the gender hierarchy is destabilized by the Kino-Eye, which must now include the eyes of the editor as part of its totality.

     

    Further examples of the way that gender is destabilized by the Kino-Eye include the ambiguous nature of the eye itself when reflected in the lens of the camera. Lynne Kirby, in “From Marinetti to Vertov: Woman on the Track of Avant-Garde Representation,” argues that the eye we see superimposed over the camera lens is not Kaufman’s, but rather the eye of a woman who is awakened by a train passing over the cameraman who lies on the tracks. According to Kirby, “The association of the camera lens and shutter with the woman’s eye is the most frequently cited example of the self-reflexive operations of Vertov’s film. That this is first a woman’s eye, however is often overlooked” (313). For Kirby, the Kino-Eye is a feminine machine set in motion, or awakened by the passing of a train over the body of the cameraman. But I see a more gender-neutral identity for the Kino-Eye. In the sequence of shots Kirby cites (approximately eight and a half minutes into the film), the cameraman does appear to be run over by the train at the very point when a woman wakes and begins to look around. But immediately following the shots comprising his being run over, which include close-ups of his feet and head on the tracks, quickly spliced between shots of the train rushing by, the cameraman gets up unscathed and walks back to a car waiting to drive him away. The fact that the cameraman is completely unharmed by his encounter with the train rules out any possibility of perceiving this sequence as strictly violent. Kirby, however, argues that the train, the woman awakening, and more specifically the shots of her dressing which follow constitute “the setting in motion of a sexual imaginary…” (313). Indeed there are erotic undercurrents pervading this film, which doesn’t hesitate to display in fragmented form semiclad bathers at the beach, the slow motion bodies of both male and female athletes performing various feats, even a woman giving birth. But the eroticism is always mitigated by the gender-neutrality of the Kino-Eye, which does not indulge in the kind of scopophilic fantasy narrative so common in mainstream Hollywood cinema.

     

    The erotic undercurrents in Man With a Movie Camera are impossible to explain using theories in which desire is either masculine or feminine, but theories of the cyborg explain the eroticism in this film quite adequately. William R. Macauley and Angel J. Gordo-Lopez, in their article “From Cognitive Psychologies to Mythologies,” discuss seduction and technological abandonment of the body through the performance artist, Stelarc: “He claims that mutilation of the body is an obligatory passage point for our communion with technological webs” (435). In light of this quote, the initial train scene, in which Kaufman appears to be run over, can be viewed as the obligatory passage point for the cameraman’s transformation into the Kino-Eye, awakened by the “mutilation” of Kaufman’s body. But in Man With a Movie Camera, the merger that occurs is as much with the awakened woman as it is with technology.

     

    This is the real source of the erotic undercurrent in Man With a Movie Camera. The Kino-Eye is neither masculine nor feminine. Vertov emphasizes its hybrid nature both as a techno/organic and as a postgender creation. In her analysis of the film Kirby even suggests this by attempting to locate a “di–v ision… between a feminine and masculine voyeurism” (309). By hyphenating the word, “di–vision,” Kirby appears to be searching, not so much for two separate types of voyeurism, which the word “division” would imply, as two related types–a double visio n. Understanding the Kino-Eye as a gender-neutral, or more appropriately, androgynous human-machine construction, makes this di–vision, a scopophilic desire to understand other cyborgs, or as Vertov would put it, “the sensory exploration of the world th rough film” (14).

     

    Conclusion

     

    While Man With a Movie Camera has been closely examined as a Marxist and constructivist text (most notably in Stephen Croft’s and Olvia Rose’s “An Essay Towards Man With a Movie Camera”), the film’s value as a cybertext has gone largely untapped. This comes as a bit of a surprise since Dziga Vertov’s depiction of the Kino-Eye in Man With a Movie Camera has much in common with the postmodern cyborg that Donna Haraway has theorized in the “Cyborg Manifesto.” Like Haraway’s cyborg, the Kino-Eye is not dependent upon an organic ontology, an d its multiple perspectives closely resemble the heterogenous points of entry which characterize Haraway’s conception of cyborg subjectivity.

     

    Italian Futurism glorified the union of man and machine, but Vertov’s Kino-Eye escaped this binary perception of gender which lead Marinetti to efface the feminine. The Kino-Eye embraces the feminine perspective and represents woman as maker of meaning in Man With a Movie Camera. Vertov’s decision to completely foreground the production process was a bold move even for an avant-garde filmmaker, since many of his contemporaries were still working largely within the narrative tradition. No less bold was his decision to emphasize the contribution of women. Man With a Movie Camera presents these two separate agendas seamlessly in a direct reversal of the Classical Hollywood style which hides the process of production. Classical Hollywood Cinema also presents woman as spectacle for masculine pleasure. The pleasure in Man With a Movie Camera begins with liberation from gender hierarchy.

     

    Production still, Terminator 2: Judgment Day.

     

    In contemporary discussions of gender in cyberspace the equitable representation of women is not a foregone conclusion. The cyborg has done as much to reify existing stereotypes about gender as it has to eradicate them. Hyper-masculine cyborg creations potrayed by Arnold Schwarzenneger in the Terminatormovies suggest that the dream of the Italian Futurists, a world devoid of women, leaving only men and machines, rules Hollywood today. For this reason it is even more important to seek out historical representations of the cyborg that promote strategies for minimizing the hierarchical stratification of gender. In this paper I have tried to suggest that there is a wealth of relevant theory in the revolutionary work of the Russian Futurists. Vertov’s Kino-Eye is one applicable example of a responsible paradigm for managing the merger of technology and humanity.

     

    Works Cited

     

    • Burliuk, D., Alexander Kruchenykh, V. Mayakovsky, Victor Khlebnikov. “Slap in the Face of Public Taste.” Russian Futurism Through its Manifestos, 1912-1928. Ed. Anna Lawton. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1988. 51-53.
    • Crofts, Stephen, and Olivia Rose. “An Essay Towards Man With a Movie Camera.” Screen 18 1 (Spring 1977): 9-58.
    • Haraway, Donna J. “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century.” Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Women. New York: Routledge, 1991. 149-181.
    • Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, Or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke UP, 1991.
    • Kirby, Lynne. “From Marinetti to Vertov: Woman on the Track of Avant-Garde Representation.” Quarterly Review of Film Studies 10: 309-323.
    • Leyda, Jay. Kino: A History of the Russian and Soviet Film. London: Ruskin House, 1960.
    • Macauley, William J, and Angel J. Gordo-Lopez. “From Cognitive Psychologies to Mythologies: Advancing Cyborg Textualities for a Narrative of Resistance.” The Cyborg Handbook. New York: Routledge, 1995. 433-444.
    • Marinetti, F. T. “The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism 1909.” Futurist Manifestos. Ed. Umbro Apollo nio. New York: Viking Press, 1970.
    • Mayakovsky, Vladimir. The Bedbug and Selected Poetry. Ed. Patricia Blake. New York: The World Publishing Company, 1960.
    • Mayne, Judith, Kino and The Woman Question: Feminism and Soviet Silent Film. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1989.
    • Mulvey, Laura, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Visual and Other Pleasures. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indian University Press, 1989. 14-26.
    • Orban, Clara. “Women, Futurism, and Fascism.” Mothers of Invention: Women, Italian Fascism, and Culture. Ed. Robin Pickering-Iazzi. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1995. 52-75.
    • Russolo, Luigi. The Art of Noises (excerpt). Futurist Manifestos. Ed. Robert Motherwell. Trans. Caroline Tisdall. New York: Viking Press, 1970.
    • Vertov, Dziga. Kino-Eye: The Writings of Dziga Vertov. Ed. Annette Michelson. Trans. Kevin Obrien. Berkeley: U of California P, 1984.

     

  • Simultaneity and Overlap in Stanley Kubrick’s The Killing

    Stephen Mamber

    Department of Film/TV
    University of California at Los Angeles
    smamber@ucla.edu

     

    …the cinematographic image is in the present only in bad films.

     

    –Deleuze

     

    Stanley Kubrick’s racetrack robbery caper film The Killing (1956) is a conceptual exercise in time travel.[1] Using a narrator reminiscent of Dragnet, or the impersonal narrators of Kubrick’s later films, the film goes forward in time most often in overlap, by first going backward to pick up the thread of another character’s movements earlier than where we are currently placed. There is no progress in the film, because wherever you go returns you to where you’ve already been. Once again, an early Kubrick preoccupation is evident–exactly the same might be said of The Shining or Full Metal Jacket and most of his circularly organized constructions.

     

    Rather than stress the intimations of early Kubrick in The Killing, I want to explore what it does rather strikingly on its own terms–to express temporal notions of simultaneity and overlap. The ingenious, complex narrative structure is worth some examination in its own right. The Killing might be called a flashback film with no flashbacks (with one exception, as I shall discuss), an expression of the idea Deleuze has expressed so well in Cinema 2: The Time Image: that awareness of the past doesn’t depend upon flashback constructions. The Killing goes backward from the very beginning, and its end is where we start, so the entire movie is a series of elliptical goings-back.

     

    To illustrate this strategy, let us resort to a chart:

     

    The chart is of roughly the second half of the film, which all takes place in one day–the day of the robbery and the subsequent capture of Johnny, the leader (or should we say recapture, as a week earlier, at the start of the film, he had just been let out of jail). Each horizontal line of the chart represents the character announced by the narrator, always in terms of where they are at the start of a sequence and importantly, what time of day this action is taking place. If a segment shifts location or time, the narrator generally offers us the particulars, and most sequences end as well with another announcement of time (“Nikki was dead at 4:23”). By following these indicators, we can construct the chart. Each colored rectangle represents a narrative sequence; the gaps indicate temporal breaks. To “read” each line from top to bottom is to go through all of the film on the day of the race. Ordinarily we would have to line up the sequences in time, as shown in this chart. When do we go backwards? By a lot or a little? And more importantly, when do we go back over time we have already seen elsewhere or by some other point of view? To see that on the chart, one must construct vertical time slices after we’ve seen all the pieces. When we do, as we might expect, the overlap and the expressions of simultaneity are considerable.

     

    The film has some interesting means to express simultaneity, generally through repetition, which perhaps keeps it from being completely impossible to follow. However, its genius lies in the conceptual nature of this enterprise, the glimpses of a grand design which are far larger than the simple signs that can initiate the investigation.

     

    Easy-to-read repetitions obviously include the racetrack announcer, who can tell us that the seventh race is about to begin or a horse is down. Others include repetitions of dialogue, such as Maurice the Wrestler’s staged racial epithet as he begins to cause a scene. When these repetitions occur, we know we are back where we’ve been, free now to see another piece of the puzzle. Some use of this kind of construction is not unique to The Killing. What is unique is the extent to which it becomes the organizing principle of the work. One clear predecessor (as for so many movies) is Citizen Kane, whose flashback structure also has pointed overlaps–Susan’s opera debut being shown twice would be one instance among many. It’s not for nothing that Kane and The Killing both make overt use of the jigsaw puzzle metaphor, as both films also make clear that their pieces aren’t going to fit. Also, what constitutes a “piece” becomes a nice problem, as particularly in The Killing, we often might not be sure where and how the overlaps are coming. There is, in fact, only one true flashback in the film, tossed in like one of those moments in a jazz improvisation where the melody is played straight, to show that the person breaking the rules knows what they are. That one flashback occurs in a scene in which most of the gang are still alive and are back at their rendezvous-apartment. There they recall how the money bag had been thrown out the window to land at the feet of Randi the Cop–an action we had already seen from inside during one of Johnny’s sequences. In The Killing we lurch back and forth in a manner that only comes to make sense retrospectively.

     

    Along with the narrator, the failed mastermind Johnny warns us of this difficulty in seeing the big picture. Johnny is that combination of grandiose, power-mad genius and dumb sap so familiar in Kubrick–in no small ways, something like both God and a film director. The linkage between the artist and the gangster is made perhaps too explicit in a near incomprehensible speech by the heavily-accented Maurice,2 but importantly, while Johnny has come up with the grand scheme, he doesn’t motivate or control it. Johnny is under the thumb of the narrator as completely as all other characters, and while he gets somewhat more attention (see the chart again), he has no privileged position. The king on the chessboard is still a piece, and still as vulnerable to attack.

     

    An important consequence of this temporal strategy is spatial isolation, although we could as well reverse the equation–the sequences of isolation lead to the temporal overlaps (the small diagram below seeks to represent this notion). Members of the gang during the course of the robbery rarely see each other. They can occupy the same space briefly, Johnny going in a door as Maurice is dragged away by a gaggle of security cops, but only as they go in different directions (and/or to their deaths). As such, the little boxes of the chart have a counterpart in the separation of spaces. Even though most of the film takes place at one racetrack, our view of it is greatly fragmented. The task of filling in the spaces, as it were, is just as conceptual as the temporal ordering. In both cases, the filling in is a mental activity on our part of grand designs Kubrick suggests through his ingeniously fragmentary construction. We as much have to figure out a temporal ordering as a spatial arrangement; the two, of course, strongly depend upon each other.

     

    In his useful new biography of Kubrick, Vincent LoBrutto reports (very thoroughly, but without all the irony it deserves) that Hollywood was less than pleased with Kubrick’s temporal experiment. Attempts were made, fortunately to no avail, to see if the film could be recut and presented in a more classical manner (LoBrutto 123). That would be rather like Michael Powell trying to do The Red Shoes in black-and-white, taking the film’s reason for being and seeing if it could be eliminated. These last-minute fears about intelligibility have, of course, dogged Kubrick throughout his career.

     

    Back at the racetrack, let’s add some spatial considerations to our temporal ones. In a simple reconstructed overview, let’s visualize the space of the film as follows:

     

    Even in so simple a view, some things become apparent a bit more easily. For one, the space of the film is extremely limited (maybe not much bigger than the Overlook Hotel in The Shining, say). Even though nobody hardly ever sees anyone else, you’d think they’d have a hard time not doing so. If Nikki’s shot at Red Lightning were to miss, he’d as likely hit Johnny or the easy target of Maurice. In other words, temporal isolation enforces spatial separation. Also, the spaces are used as isolated fragments. Even though no more than a door or a window may separate two spaces, they are as likely to be shown to us in separated temporal segments. Johnny going through a door in one episode won’t come out the other side until much “later” in another sequence. (The same can be said many times, of money bags, girl friends, cops.)

     

    Seen as a construction in this manner, The Killing becomes something like what it already is, a grandly conceptual vision that perhaps can be expressed in something like a video game as much as a movie, or as much a chessboard filled with game pieces as a jigsaw puzzle. To that end, I have taken the visual pieces included here and put together a way to explore the film which uses space and time to explore each other. Clicking on the chart above would take you to the appropriate point in the film, together with a model of the space in question and an indication on an overview of where this moment/place belongs. It’s only by visualizing this linkage between isolated spaces and temporal overlaps that one begins to appreciate the conceptual complexity of Kubrick’s film. To that end, a few of the 3-D recreations are included here, and it will be left to the reader to see where they would belong in the earlier time chart, though it’s not feasible to include the corresponding video clips here as well.3

     

    Click here to see the 3-D images
     

    To look at one key moment in a bit more detail, we can examine the all-important shooting of Red Lightning, which signals the delay (Johnny using a wise Kubrick strategy) that allows the money to be in one place long enough for Johnny to steal it. While this is only one instance of temporal overlap, it gives a pretty good idea of how the rest of the film also works (Johnny getting in the door during Maurice’s diversionary fight, finding a way to get the money out of the park, and the gang shootout are a few other examples of the same narrative strategy). We can take a little “time slice” of one hour and see how extensive the overlap becomes–pieces of the same hour are shown during five separate sequences.

     

    In virtually every one of the episodes, not everything goes according to plan, but it goes smoothly enough to keep the whole enterprise lurching forward. Nikki shoots the horse as he was hired to do, but is himself killed. Earlier when accepting the assignment, Nikki has theorized what the effects of his act will be, but Johnny characteristically insists upon the importance of his remaining in the dark. Ironically, however, Nikki’s horseshoe-aided demise seems to be the result of his own human deficiencies and not Johnny’s plan. (Like Major Kong in Strangelove, the guy who delivers the goods is the first to go.) We get an inkling of simultaneity when the “horse is down” announcement is heard while Johnny dons his disguise just before bursting into the money-counting room. In another near screw-up, after sending the money through the window, Johnny escapes as planned, but only because the drunken Marv has ignored his instruction to stay away from the track and is there to bump into a returning security guard. Are we seeing unplanned contingencies or major errors? Is there a grand design? The horse-shooting suggests the general orientation–the isolated pieces fit in terms of a strategy, but the foul-ups can never be fully accounted for. Somebody’s always going to fight in the War Room.

     

    Click here to Get Quicktime File – 3-D Model of Betting Area
     

    In John Huston’s great earlier version of the grand caper, The Asphalt Jungle (also starring, of course, the wonderful Sterling Hayden), the plan falls apart because of human weaknesses of the participants involved. The Killing seems to offer a similar conclusion, but it veers into more complex territory. The ability to conceive the exploit, like the bone-becoming-weapon in 2001: A Space Odyssey, carries both the brilliance of the plan and with it the capacity for self-destruction. (The title 2001, by the way, is also a nice temporal indicator.) By the time Johnny’s plan has fallen apart in at least a dozen ways, one almost begins to adopt Johnny’s own bit of philosophy in the film’s last line: “what’s the use?”. The problem lies in the difference between the elegant conceptual construction and the need to use human beings to execute that construction. What makes The Killing particularly brilliant is that its own daring construction exposes that process so extensively.

     

    Notes

     

    1. This article assumes the reader has already seen the film, so no summary is provided. For one very useful breakdown of the film, see Falsetto 100-123.

     

    2. Quoted by Falsetto, 106-107.

     

    3.The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions of one of his students, Kevin Scharff, to the 3-D model.

     

    Works Cited

     

    • Deleuze, Gilles. Cinema 2: The Time-Image. Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Robert Galeta. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1989.
    • Falsetto, Mario. “Patterns of Filmic Narration in The Killing and Lolita.Perspectives on Kubrick. NY: G.K. Hall, 1996. 100-123.
    • The Killing. Dir. Stanley Kubrick. Perf. Vince Edwards, Jay C. Flipper, Coleen Gray, Sterling Hayden, and Marie Windsor. United Artists, 1956.
    • LoBrutto, Vincent. Stanley Kubrick: A Biography. NY: Donald I. Fine Books, l997.

     

  • Transnational Cinema, Hybrid Identities and the Films of Evans Chan

    Gina Marchetti

    University of Maryland and
    Nanyang Technological University
    tgmarchetti@ntu.edu.sg

     

     

    Figures 1 and 2: Posters for To Liv(e) and Crossings.

     

    Introduction

     

    This article looks at the changing shapes of global Chinese cinema through the works of Hong Kong/New York filmmaker Evans Chan. As Chinese films cross beyond traditional borders, they move in directions and among audiences far removed from the Hong Kong, Taiwan, Southeast Asian, and “Chinatown” markets that transnational Chinese cinema addressed from its inception. From the edges of Hong Kong’s traditional markets, there emerges a new kind of film culture, mingling more freely with Taiwan and the PRC, drawing on the overseas Chinese experience, produced by filmmakers who often live outside Asia. This give and take between Hong Kong (or China) and the world necessitates a new way of thinking about film culture that transcends the linguistic and cultural determinism of national cinema as well as the aesthetic strictures of established auteurs, genres, and styles.

     

    Thinking Beyond Culture

     

    The politics of multiculturalism has recently been hotly debated within American society. However, few efforts have gone beyond the “smorgasbord” approach to culture. A “taste” of African music, a sampling of Latin American literature, an appreciation of a Chinese holiday represent tokenism at its worst or the frustrations of identity politics seeking to convey the essence of a culture to the broader body politic with little more than a tourist’s gaze. Scholarship coming from a variety of disciplines has sought to engage this problem (see Shohat and Stam). How can culture be looked at within the context of a national body politic when that body is divided by race, ethnicity, class, gender, and sexuality? Postcolonial theory has contributed the notion of hybridity to these debates, and a call to place all notions of an “essential” identity into question within the multiple identities available within the postmodern metropolis (see Bhabha and Chow). Others call for a “radical” multiculturalism that refuses to conceal the issues of power and struggle behind the “melting pot” veneer of contemporary culture (see West). Within these debates, the centrality of the economy and globalization of the culture industry cannot be neglected. Filmmakers, for example, may live in one country, make all their films in a second country, and find financing in a third, while hoping to address a global, polyglot audience with a localized narrative. Because of the transnational nature of these films, a new, “transcultural” politics of representation needs to be elucidated.1.

     

    The oeuvre of Evans Chan can be taken as a case study of the difficulty and the necessity of developing a transcultural approach within film studies. Chan is a New York-based filmmaker, born in mainland China, bred in Macao, educated in Hong Kong and America, who makes independent narrative films primarily for a Hong Kong, overseas Chinese, “greater China” audience. His films straddle the gulf between the international art film and Hong Kong commercial cinema, and thus have also attracted some international art film viewers.

     

    To date, Chan has completed two features, To Liv(e)2 (1991) and Crossings3 (1994). Both these films openly address issues that find only a marginal voice in the mainstream cinema of Hong Kong and the United States. With one foot in the United States and the other in Hong Kong, Chan can freely address diverse issues. His films look at Hong Kong’s return to China in 1997 and the legacy of June 4th in Tian’anmen Square. Both examine the role of women in the world economy (in the “official” economy and the “informal sector” that can include prostitutes and traffickers in narcotics). Each film looks at the processes of immigration and dispersal involving the Chinese globally. While fears of censorship arising from Hong Kong’s laws and the unofficial censorship of the marketplace in the United States place a boundary around what can be said in the cinema, Chan, with his transnational production team, manages to seriously explore controversial topics. In this way, Chan creates a transnational, transcultural discourse through the medium of the motion picture, pointing to a new type of cultural sphere that must be noted within film studies (see Lu, Franncia, and Fore).

     

    Determining Indeterminacy: To Liv(e) and Crossings

     

    In The Geopolitical Aesthetic: Cinema and Space in the World System, Fredric Jameson devotes a chapter to Edward Yang’s Terrorizer. Jameson notes that the film is poised between the modern and the postmodern:

     

    What we must admire, therefore, is the way in which the filmmaker has arranged for these two powerful interpretative temptations--the modern and the postmodern, subjectivity and textuality--to neutralize each other, to hold each other in one long suspension in such a way that the film can exploit and draw on the benefits of both, without having to commit itself to either as some definitive reading, or as some definitive formal and stylistic category. Besides Edward Yang's evident personal mastery, the possibility of this kind of mutually reinforcing suspension may owe something to the situation of Third-World cinema itself, in traditions in which neither modernist nor postmodern impulses are internally generated, so that both arrive in the field of production with a certain chronological simultaneity in full post-war modernization. (151)

     

    To Liv(e) and Crossings can be looked at in a similar way. They can be seen as works suspended between the modern and the postmodern; indeed, their textual strategies rely on this deeply rooted indeterminacy to explore people and issues that are themselves difficult to determine.

     

    Like Yang, Chan is profoundly influenced by European cinema. The English title, To Liv(e), for example, conjures up both Godard and Gorin’s Letter to Jane as well as Ingmar Bergman’s many works with Liv Ullmann. Chan characterizes the film as “inevitably a response to both Bergman and Godard” (Chan 6). Chan’s film can be looked at as part of the international New Wave discussed by Robert Kolker in The Altering Eye. In her insightful essay on the film, “The Aesthetics of Protest: Evans Chan’s To Liv(e),” Patricia Brett Erens outlines the various ways in which the film draws on Godard. As Erens observes, To Liv(e) favors an aesthetic sensibility rooted in a Brechtian tradition of dramatic distance and political engagement.

     

    Peter Wollen’s approach to Godard’s political films as “counter cinema” can be used here to further elucidate this legacy in both To Liv(e) and Crossings. To Liv(e), for example, is organized around a series of letters addressed to Liv Ullmann. These letters admonish Ullmann for her criticism of Hong Kong’s deportation of Vietnamese “boat people” in December, 1989. Ullmann fails to mention Hong Kong’s own uncertain future when it becomes part of the People’s Republic of China, still bloodied from the events of that June. Rubie (Lindzay Chan) composes these letters, which are sometimes read as voice-overs and sometimes read by the character directly addressing the camera. The letters run parallel to other plot lines involving Rubie’s lover, family, and circle of friends.

     

    The impact of Godard is clearly apparent in the scene in which Rubie reads her first letter to Liv. Over a shot of boats used as a transitional device, the tinny, hollow sound of a recording of Cui Jian’s “Nothing To My Name” comes up on the sound track. The camera pans across an audience; Rubie is seated in the auditorium. A dance performance “Exhausted Silkworms” [3 MB Quicktime Clip], inspired by the events of June 4th, takes place on stage. Three male dancers, dressed simply in white shirts and black pants, tear their clothes to form gags and, later, nooses. A red scarf is pulled out of one dancer’s shirt like spurting blood. As “Nothing To My Name” ends, one dancer falls, as if shot. Suspended for a moment with a freeze frame, he finally lands on the ground, as the audience applauds.

     

    This performance is layered by the inclusion of Rubie’s first letter as a voice-over. As the dancers perform, Rubie’s address to Liv Ullmann (and, through her, to the world at large) adds another dimension to both Cui Jian’s rock music, which says nothing explicit about “democracy” or politics at all, and to the performers’ reenactment of the Tian’anmen demonstration and its suppression. As the dancers act out this violence, accompanied by Cui Jian’s harsh and direct vocals, Rubie likens Liv Ullmann to a respected, distant portrait that comes to life and slaps her in the face with accusations of cruelty and indifference. Rubie not only complains of Ullmann’s ignorance about the Hong Kong situation that her statement about the Vietnamese displays, but also questions her timing. Speaking just months after Tian’anmen, an event that was taken by many in Hong Kong as a barometer of what to expect after 1997, Rubie reminds Ullmann that the population of Hong Kong may soon find themselves in the same boat, so to speak, as the Vietnamese.

     

    In this scene there is a juxtaposition of two visual planes. One features Rubie as the originator of the letter. Close-ups of her face accompany the voice-over presentation of the contents of the letter, grounding the letter in the person of Rubie as a fictional character. The other visual plane, using the same images, features Rubie as a spectator, clearly moved by the dance presentation. There are also two audio planes: Cui Jian’s music and the sounds of the auditorium on one, and Rubie’s voice-over letter to Liv on the other. In this fragmented presentation of narrative information, all the elements of “counter cinema” come into play. Narrative intransitivity comes to the fore in the casual introduction of an evening at the theatre for Rubie’s character; time is thrown out of synch because Rubie writes the letter heard in the voice-over at another time and in another place away from the theatre. There is an estrangement from the character of Rubie as she becomes a mouthpiece for the people of Hong Kong, addressing an actual person about actual events, in addition to being a fictional character involved in other plot developments. Her address is not to other fictional characters, but to Liv, and to the world at large represented by the film audience. Foregrounding occurs as the film spectators are invited to see themselves as witnesses to the dance performance, and, by extension, the events in Tian’anmen, and think of themselves, with Rubie, as something more than spectators. Watching Rubie look at a political work of art foregrounds To Liv(e)‘s own status as a similar work of political commentary. The diegesis splits, featuring a self-contained performance work within the film. Aperture must be noted, since an understanding of the references in the dance depends on a familiarity with the mass media spectacle of June 4th, including photos of the demonstrators standing together in the square, Cui Jian’s presence, etc. The unpleasure of the breaking of classical conventions is self-evident, as is the non-fictional basis of the entire scene as a commentary on actual events; i.e., the expulsion of the Vietnamese, Ullmann’s trip to Hong Kong and public condemnation of Hong Kong’s action, the events of June 4th in Tian’anmen, etc. Fictional and non-fictional realms overlap.

     

    However, it would be wrong to conclude that To Liv(e) is simply an imitation of Godard. There is another element to this scene that takes the film in a radically different direction. While Rubie is presented as an agent addressing Ullmann, a spokesperson for Hong Kong, and as a spectator of a dance piece (and, by extension, a political event), Rubie is also depicted as distracted. Near the beginning of the scene, she looks at her watch and looks around the auditorium. Later, the fact that Rubie is waiting for her brother, Tony (Wong Yiu-Ming), is revealed. Rubie’s relationship with her brother, his fiancée, and her family propels the film into another, totally different arena, i.e., the realm of the love story and family melodrama. Rubie may be the voice of Hong Kong, but she also plays the roles of daughter, sister, lover, and friend in other parts of the narrative. Her distraction as a character points to a more general “distraction” found within the narrative itself. To echo Jameson, the “textuality” of counter cinema meets the “subjectivity” of the melodrama, the “woman’s film,” and the love story.

     

    Figure 3: Rubie’s brother Tony (Wong Yiu-Ming) in an intimate pose with his financée, Teresa (Josephine Ku), in To Liv(e) (production still).
    Figure 4: Tony with Teresa (production still).

     

    There is a similar sense of distraction in Crossings. While less directly indebted to the European New Wave, Crossings still bears the marks of cinematic modernism. Again, fiction and non-fiction overlap as actual footage of Tian’anmen 1989 is cut into newscasts in which fictional characters appear. Dance presentations divide the diegesis further into self-contained fictional realms. Characters again function as mouthpieces for policies or ideas as well as fictional creations involved in narrative events. Rubie (again played by Lindzay Chan) reappears to serve this function again, appearing on New York television as the public voice of the Chinatown community and, through voice-over excerpts from a diary, as the personal voice of the Hong Kong emigrant. However, while To Liv(e) has more clearly demarcated divisions between the various layers of the discourse, Crossings, closer to Yang’s Terrorizer and other works of the Taiwanese and Hong Kong New Wave, experiments with time and space to a much larger degree. Distraction, in fact, becomes disorientation, since from scene to scene it is often difficult to figure out whether the location is New York or Hong Kong.

     

    In one scene, for example, Mo-Yung (Anita Yuen), the film’s female lead, has just finished a meeting with Rubie in Central Park. She walks past a shop window displaying a model airliner. The film cuts to a shot of clouds passing over the moon, followed by a graphic match on a toilet bowl. Mo-Yung is vomiting. Members of her family come back from a shopping trip and notice the smell of the vomit. In this case, the transition from New York City to Hong Kong and earlier story events is quite abrupt. The shot in the bathroom offers no clue to Mo-Yung’s whereabouts. Rather, this disorienting presentation of time and place mirrors the contemporary experience of immigration. Unlike previous generations of explorers, pilgrims, colonialists, pirates, and other travellers, contemporary wanderers travel according to a different set of rules and restrictions. Instantaneous communication via international telephone lines connects the spaces again in a different way. (Later, in the scene mentioned above, Mo-Yung receives a call from her boyfriend Benny [Simon Yam] in New York, again reorganizing the sense of space presented in the film.) Jet travel condenses the time and space between New York and Hong Kong even further. If the spectator is disoriented following the character’s disorientation, then the fictional world simply reflects a postmodern experience of time and space.

     

    Here, Jameson’s difficulty with Yang’s Terrorizer as both modern and postmodern begins to make sense for To Liv(e) and Crossings as well. While both have elements of counter cinema and both fit within the generic parameters of Hong Kong commercial film as love stories, crime stories, and melodramas, they seem to be doing something that adds up to more than just the sum of these modernist and commercial parts. They have a “schizophrenic” quality that can be seen in their titles. The English title, To Liv(e), is a deconstructed play on words referring to Liv Ullmann, Letter to Jane, and a heartfelt desire for the people of Hong Kong to somehow endure and “to live.” The title in Chinese, roughly translated as Love Songs From a Floating World, refers to the other face of the film that deals with romantic relationships and a Chinese tradition of misdirected and/or impossible love.

     

    Crossings offers a similar case in point. The English title conjures up images of immigration, exile, nomadism, the modern metropolis as a “crossroads,” while the Chinese title, Wrong Love, refers to unhappy affairs of the heart. As the titles imply, these polyglot films offer a multiple address and, potentially, a multiple interpretation, or at least a divided ordering of narrative hierarchies, for the English-speaking, art film audience at festivals and art cinemas globally, for the expanding circle of Asian American film spectators, and for the Chinese-speaking audience looking at the films in relation to the standard Hong Kong commercial product.

     

    However, it is wrong to look at the films as split discourses in this way, because another possible address needs to be taken into consideration. Rather than operating as a dialectic between the art film and the commercial love story, between English and Chinese, the films can be taken as palimpsests where the elements overlie one another, obscuring meaning for some, illuminating a different kind of meaning for others. A new meaning is not created through the clash of contradictory discourses, as can be seen in the work of Godard. Rather, layers sit on top of one another, some (almost) postcolonial in English, some diasporic and accented in American English, some (almost) post-socialist in Chinese, some modern and part of the tail end of an international New Wave, others postmodern and part of contemporary global cinema culture.

     

    Although To Liv(e) and Crossings are quite different, more than a single director links the works together. Taken as a set, they comment on certain common themes (e.g., Hong Kong 1997, immigration, changing family and social relationships in “Greater China,” etc.) from two different temporal and spatial perspectives. To Liv(e) primarily looks at the edginess of Hong Kong residents who are able to leave, but may or may not leave before July 1997. Crossings looks primarily at newly transplanted Hong Kong émigrés in New York City, i.e., at immigration as a fait accompli rather than as a possibility. Two anchors hold these two films together. One is a contemplation of June 4th in Tian’anmen Square, and the other is Rubie. The first represents a common location away from both Hong Kong and the world beyond the People’s Republic at a specific point in time that galvanized the world’s attention on China. The other represents a certain face and voice that embody the socio-political as well as the personal, psychological issues addressed by both texts. Both Tian’anmen and Rubie are difficult to pin down, and it is the indeterminacy of both that forms the heart of this analysis of these films.

     

    From Tian’anmen to Times Square

     

    There has been a great deal of recent discussion of location within film and cultural studies circles (see Kaplan). Issues of where a scholar is located geographically, politically, and otherwise come up as concerns for evaluation of research. However, the positioning of any intellectual brings to bear many problems. As Rey Chow points out in her work on Chinese intellectuals, looking for an “authentic” voice or a “native” position presupposes an Orientalist belief in a pure and distinct other and represents a desire on the part of the critic rather than anything or anyone that actually exists (1-26).

     

    To Liv(e) and Crossings are both positioned in a similarly mercurial way. While characters move around Hong Kong and New York City and talk about places as diverse as Australia, Canada, Scandinavia, Italy, and South Africa, the films inevitably come back to Beijing, specifically to Tian’anmen, as a starting point. While footage and still photos of the May-June 1989 demonstrations appear, no plot action occurs in Beijing. Indeed, very little is said about the demonstrations at all.4 (See Hinton.) Rather, Tian’anmen anchors the slippery identities of the films’ characters as well as the slippery identities those characters represent as citizens of Hong Kong or as immigrants elsewhere.

     

    One scene in To Liv(e) brings to the fore this question of identity in relation to Tian’anmen. Rubie and her activist friend Trini have a snack in a Hong Kong noodle house after seeing an anti-nuclear performance. The scene begins as Trini talks about her family, resettled in England, and her white British husband. She is not keen to immigrate to England, however, because of the treatment she received from the British embassy while in Beijing during the demonstrations. She goes on at length about her experiences. At one point, she contacted the embassy to help some Hong Kong students escape arrest as “counter-revolutionaries.” The reply from the embassy was: “This should teach them a lesson. They should have thought twice before interfering with other people’s business.” On another occasion, Trini contacted the embassy for an escort to the airport. Her request was denied by the same staff member because her party was travelling on documents issued by the PRC government, implying that the bearers were considered Chinese citizens. Trini sums up the situation as follows:

     

    The first time he denied us help was because we're non-Chinese and he advised us to "think twice before interfering with other people's business." The second time he refused to help was because we are Chinese. We're Chinese subjects travelling with our re-entry permit. Either way we lose! What does he want us to be? My conclusion is we're not British subjects. We're probably British objects--to be freely disposed of. (Wong 35)

     

    In To Liv(e), Tian’anmen is filtered through the experiences of a number of characters. All of these experiences of Tian’anmen have one thing in common: the positioning of the characters as spectators. Rubie watches in the audience as dancers perform “Exhausted Silkworms” about the events in Tian’anmen. The newsreel footage of Hong Kong demonstrations in support of the Tian’anmen demonstrators illustrates one of Rubie’s letters. She listens as her friend, Trini, acting as an activist/journalist during the demonstrations, finally concludes that she was an outsider in Tian’anmen, a spectator rather than a participant. Trini notes, “We’re only onlookers. There’s no question about that.” Rubie also listens as Elsie Tu, a white resident of Hong Kong, a former missionary and social activist (playing herself) describes her reaction:

     

    The Tian'anmen Massacre has thrown everything into a dilemma for me. On the one hand, I can't be disloyal to China. On the other hand, I can't accept what happened. I wonder, am I going to see the people I've been living with all my life be massacred if they speak up? In any case, I do plan to stay in Hong Kong till the end.... I've devoted all my life trying to make Hong Kong a better place and I, too, would like to know what happens here after 1997. (Wong 49)

     

    Rubie, Elsie Tu, and Trini are all caught up in the problem of identity. Neither Chinese nor British, they are activists and onlookers uncertain of what they can or should be doing to help themselves and, by extension, Hong Kong.

     

    In Crossings, the use of Tian’anmen as a point from which identity may or may not be determined continues. Here, the shift is from Hong Kong to New York’s Chinatown community. During the credit sequence, Rubie appears on a television news segment discussing apathy in the Chinese community on the anniversary of June 4th. Introduced by an image of the “Goddess of Democracy,” a woman newscaster remarks: “Almost five years after the Tian’anmen Square Massacre, amnesia seems to have set in New York’s Chinatown. Is the United States foreign policy toward China still obsessively based on a tragedy that has no bearing on today’s reality?” Rubie appears as an expert to answer this question. However, her reply is non-responsive: “I feel that China and America are intimately connected.” She continues as an off-screen voice, “Did you know the boots Chinese soldiers wore to put down the demonstrators were made in America and the gloves American medics wear to protect themselves from AIDS are made in China?”

     

    Here, America is brought into the equation and implicated in the Tian’anmen events. However, the connection, like the connection of Rubie to the students and other demonstrators with whom she empathizes, remains vague. As Rubie comments on the anniversary of Tian’anmen off-screen, another character, the psychotic American, Joey (Ted Brunetti), laughs hysterically on screen, enjoying a joke with some imaginary cronies. Rubie’s observations on the political dimensions of the global economy are juxtaposed with Joey’s lunatic obsessions with Asia and Asian women.

     

    At this point, Tian’anmen comes closer to another square, Times Square, as the center for New York’s sex trade. Times Square takes up as a spatial reference where Tian’anmen leaves off. The painter John (Fung Kin Chung), Rubie’s boyfriend in To Liv(e), laughingly mentions that he can always work as a street artist in Times Square, like his mainland counterparts. Indeed, struggling Chinese painters can be found on the streets of New York, Paris, and other cities, trying to eke out a living painting portraits and caricatures of tourists. John fears, though, that he is not as tough as these other artists. Later, a shot of Times Square appears in Crossings, but no artists are present. In this scene, Rubie compares New York to Chang An (Xi’an) during the Tang Dynasty as a “crossroads” of civilizations. From the Goddess of Democracy to the Statute of Liberty, from Tian’anmen to Times Square, the “crossroads” of China and America, specifically New York, point to an unsettling dislocation.

     

    From Organic to Diasporic Intellectual

     

    Contrasting the “traditional” with the “organic” intellectual, Antonio Gramsci saw the former as educated to maintain the status quo of the powers ascendant at that time, while the “organic” intellectual rose from the ranks of the subaltern classes in order to act as a mouthpiece for their concerns and empower them with a voice in the larger body politic. The idea of the “organic intellectual” has been influential in the thinking of many theorists since Gramsci. More recently, another view of public intellectuals has become current, i.e., the “diasporic” intellectual. Unlike the organic intellectual who remains rooted in the community from which he/she emerged, the diasporic intellectual moves between nations, cultures, languages, and other “positions.” Indeed, the “position” as well as the “location” of the diasporic intellectual is often difficult to pin down.

     

    From the scattering of the Frankfurt School, to the postcoloniality of Said, Spivak, and Bhabha, to the work of Stuart Hall (see Chen) in cultural studies, the diasporic intellectual works from the perspective of exile and/or immigration, from the pain as well as the freedom of displacement.

     

    In the character of Rubie, To Liv(e) and Crossings create a fictional representation of the process of transformation of a concerned, educated, “organic” intellectual into a “diasporic” intellectual. Like the activist Elsie Tu, who appears in To Liv(e) as the disillusioned British missionary/housewife turned urban activist, Rubie in Crossings leaves behind her roots in Hong Kong to take up the role of community activist and spokeswoman in New York City.

     

    In this way, the character of Rubie (played by Lindzay Chan in both films) acts as the other bridge that links To Liv(e) and Crossings. Although it is never made explicit that a single, unified “Rubie” is exactly the same character in both films, the two Rubies clearly function in the same way in both texts and in most ways can be taken as a single character.

     

    However, the possible identity of the two Rubies does not belie the fact that the character is presented as a conflicted, often contradictory presence in the two films. As such, she represents all those conflicts of identity central to the thematic dynamics of both films. On the one hand, her roots are found among the poorer quarters of Hong Kong society. During a scene depicting a rather uncomfortable family gathering, her father digresses on the family history as squatters selling groceries, moving from one temporary housing development to another, threatened by floods and ravaged by fire, as well as by corrupt officials demanding kickbacks for a business license. The family is taken under the wing of Elsie Tu, who uses her influence to set the family up in a legitimate shop.

     

    From these lower middle class, small merchant roots, the children emerge as full-fledged members of Hong Kong’s professional/intellectual sector. Rubie is a journalist who becomes a community activist/social worker in New York. Her brother Tony is a highly skilled radiologist, and the eldest brother has successfully established himself in Canada. Unlike their parents, the children have the education and skills to move outside a Chinese environment into a global, English-based, diasporic community of post-colonial professionals and intellectuals plying their trades along the path of the former British empire–from Canada to Australia, the United States, and South Africa. They come from an impoverished China, but they move now in other circles. Ironically, it is the experience of colonialism (here embodied by the personal patronage of former British missionary Elsie Tu) that makes this movement and this upward mobility possible.

     

    At one point, Rubie pays a visit to her family home and shop. It is filled with the details of a marginal, small merchant’s existence, including the outdoor tables and shop, the bare floor of the main living room, the worn table used as part of the elevated family shrine, the special, round table top brought in for the family gathering, the padded, old-fashioned vest and trousers worn by her mother. It becomes clear Rubie has not always led a solidly bourgeois existence. It may seem that the casting of the Eurasian actress Lindzay Chan in this role and the inclusion of her reading from the lengthy series of letters to Liv in English contradicts this picture of Rubie’s humble origins. Not only does this contradiction alienate the spectator from the character, but it also serves to highlight the indeterminate identity and position of the people of Hong Kong as Chinese British subjects, as educated and superstitious, as Western and Asian, as poor and struggling and established and well-to-do.

     

    Rubie speaks in two voices–in fluent Cantonese and in impeccable British-accented English. Like Hong Kong itself, sometimes she looks Western, British, white and sometimes she looks Chinese and Asian. For example, in To Liv(e), she reads several of her letters directly addressing the camera in medium shots, seated against a British union jack, the American stars and stripes, and the flag of the People’s Republic of China. Interestingly, when she is shot in front of the Chinese flag, the lighting of her hair accentuates its reddish highlights. The light allows her to blend in with the flag at the same time it emphasizes her distinctiveness as a Eurasian performer. Rubie sometimes plays the role of a British subject, the role of an ethnic Chinese, the role of an Asian American immigrant, and, most importantly, the role of a character of an indeterminate identity.

     

    In Crossings, Rubie tells another story about her origins. She explains her features as a throwback to the Tang Dynasty when she must have acquired some European ancestor from exchanges on the Silk Route. The fact that Rubie’s ethnic and cultural hybridity needs to be explained at all is itself telling. Addressing the reception of To Liv(e), Evans Chan has commented on critics who demand an “authentic” Hong Kong subject:

     

    One controversial issue the film does occasion seems to be the establishment of 'the (post-)colonial subject,' hence the problematic status of the letters which are written in English.... I can understand the film's identity being characterized as schizophrenic, however, the notion that English is alien to the film's yet-to-be-post colonial identity is curious. After all, English is still primarily the official language of Hong Kong, where three major English dailies and two English TV channels permeate the everyday life of the educated class. Legal proceedings are conducted in English and Chinese politicians make speeches in English at the Legislative Council. If an average Hong Kong citizen speaks little English, that proves how linguistic schizophrenia may turn out to be a colonial legacy that will take some time, provided the will, to eradicate. ...That Hong Kong is a linguistically hybridized being is a fact that the film is not obliged to transcend. (5)

     

    Rubie functions as the voice of Hong Kong, expressing, through her letters in To Liv(e) and her diary and appearances on the television news as an “expert” insider in Crossings, the hopes and fears of her community. Her identity and the identity of that community may be difficult to pin down as they slip among Britain, America, Hong Kong, and China, between the lower small merchant classes and the upwardly mobile professionals, between a “traditional” older generation and a more urbane younger one. Rubie, however, manages to embody this cacophony of “voices.”

     

    Rubie is more than a “mouth,” however; she is also an “ear.” Throughout To Liv(e), the “ear” appears again and again as a motif associated with both Hong Kong as a place and Rubie as a character. Near the end of the film, the painting John has been working on throughout is revealed to be a picture of an ear. To break the tension of her brother’s departure, John orchestrates a Vincent Van Gogh practical joke with a bloody cloth over the side of his face and a fake, severed ear. Still unsteady from having just prevented her brother’s attempted suicide, Rubie faints at the sight of the phony severed ear and falls into a dream in which the ear reappears.

     

    Figure 5: Dream sequence with the severed ear featuring John (Fung Kin Chung) and Rubie (Lindzay Chan) in To Liv(e) (production still).
    Figure 6: Dream sequence featuring Tony (Wong Yiu-Ming) and Teresa (Josephine Ku) as Rubie imagines them as a self-destructive and troubled couple.

     

    In her last letter to Liv, Rubie refers to George Bernard Shaw’s trip to Hong Kong in 1933:

     

    Hong Kong 1933 didn't seem to exist for Bernard Shaw, except as a bad ear messed up by the British for communication with China. And an imperfect ear we've always been--as a bastardized link between a China weighed down by tradition and the clamorous demands of modernity. (Chan 61)

     

    Throughout both films, Rubie is this same kind of “bastardized” ear, understanding English (and, through that, the perspectives of the British, American, and international community represented by Liv Ullmann) and Chinese (through Cantonese, she understands the Hong Kong Chinese and, through Mandarin, she understands the “greater China” community). Her trained, cultivated ear can appreciate experimental satiric theatre as well as Italo Calvino and the films of Ingmar Bergman. Like the organic intellectual, she can “hear” the marginalized and dispossessed as well as the bourgeoisie. Like the diasporic intellectual, she can “hear” the subtleties of the official and unofficial proclamations of various governments and other institutions.

     

    Indeed, Rubie moves in a social world that is marked by this cultural and linguistic hybridity. This “floating world” of transnational, petit bourgeois labor includes artists, professionals, activists, journalists, among others, who are young, educated, culturally astute, and mobile. Although business people, artists, theatrical performers, and professionals like lawyers and doctors find their way into commercial popular culture, intellectuals seldom make a serious appearance in the cinema (see Ross). To Liv(e) and Crossings, therefore, are unusual.

     

    In both To Liv(e) and Crossings, Rubie’s circle is rich in characters who are involved in a variety of artistic and intellectual endeavors. Again, like Bergman and Godard, Chan favors educated, thoughtful, cultured protagonists. In To Liv(e), Rubie’s boyfriend John busily works on his paintings and reads to Tony from Calvino’s Invisible Cities; Rubie attends experimental dance performances (“Exhausted Silkworms” on Tian’anmen, “Nuclear Goddess” on Daya Bay, China’s first nuclear power plant, constructed in suspiciously close proximity to Hong Kong); Rubie’s brother’s girlfriend, Teresa (Josephine Ku), relaxes as an experimental video piece plays on her television; Rubie quotes George Bernard Shaw and The New York Times in her letters to Liv.

     

    Figure 7: “Nuclear Goddess” performed by Karen Suen and South ASLI dancers (production still).
    Figure 8: Rubie and her artist boyfriend, John in To Liv(e) (production still).

     

    This world is not only cultured but cosmopolitan. Rubie’s friends and relatives are part of a global society. In addition to Rubie’s elder brother in Canada and younger brother on his way to Australia, Rubie’s circle includes the interracial couples (Chris and Leanne, Trini and her husband), ex-patriots like Elsie Tu, overseas Chinese like Tony’s old flame Michelle, on a trip back from the United States, and many others.

     

    Crossings extends Rubie’s circle even more. Again, Rubie functions as a bridge between various groups. Rubie befriends Mo-Yung (Anita Yuen), who is an illegal visitor to New York in search of an errant boyfriend. In this case, Mo-Yung acts as a fulcrum with Rubie on one side of the scale and Mo-Yung’s gangster boyfriend, Benny (Simon Yam), on the other side. Rubie and Benny battle over Mo-Yung. Rubie tries to divorce her from her destructive relationship with Benny, and Benny tries to find Mo-Yung either to use her to get to a cache of drugs or to take possession of her heart.

     

    Artists, writers, and filmmakers have a long history of using criminals and gangsters as more than objects for social or psychological studies. Indeed, filmmakers as diverse as Godard, Bresson, Fassbinder, John Woo, and Ho Hsiao-hsien have used petty gangsters as cinematic “alter egos,” articulating more than the concerns of petty hoods. The character of Benny is crafted in this tradition. It is difficult to tell whether Benny is a drug trafficker and pimp masquerading as a fine art photographer or a sensitive artist doing a photo-essay, “Countdown to 1997,” who toys with a gangster identity. The photographs Mo-Yung spreads on her bed are as concrete as the drugs Benny’s other girlfriend Mabel cleans on their dining room table. Both serve as visual manifestations of Benny’s character, although it must be granted that the white powder carries more narrative weight than the photographs.

     

    Since the silent era, the gangster has been used in film to concretize and contemplate economic relations. He is an outsider who serves as a mirror for the society he haunts. Like the intellectual, he has been produced by and has arisen out of a certain milieu, but he is deviant, an implicit critic of the society that produced him. At this point in time, the gangster increasingly functions as an emblem of transnational economic relations. In Crossings, the comment is made that Marco Polo brought two elements of Chinese culture to Italy, i.e., pasta and the Mafia. Both food and crime continue to cross borders to exert their influence transnationally. The gangster is a sinister citizen of the world. He has become part of the Diaspora–along with intellectuals, legitimate merchants and business people, students, skilled workers and professionals (particularly in medicine), etc.

     

    Benny is a hybrid, a gangster-intellectual. Like Rubie, he has humble roots in Hong Kong’s underclasses; however, he transcended his origins through the drug trade rather than through painting like John, the medical profession like Tony, or journalism/social work like Rubie. He is a fitting object for Mo-Yung’s “wrong love,” since the uncertainty of his relationship to her finally comes out on the side of genuine emotion. After using her to smuggle drugs and denying any feelings for her to Mabel, he gives up his freedom and takes a police bullet in the back when he realizes Mo-Yung is having a miscarriage because of his reckless attempt to escape from the law. More than the tenderness in his relationship with Mo-Yung elevates him within the narrative, however. Crossings portrays Benny as a pensive gangster who can appreciate African traditional art, who has a certain flair for fashion, and who looks at his trade in historical terms as a response to the British push to sell opium in China that occasioned the Opium Wars. Since America supposedly encouraged the trade further through its involvement in the politics of the Golden Triangle, Benny justifies his trade as a political act of resistance–getting back at American imperialists by poisoning the population through the drug trade. When Rubie meets Benny in prison, however, he has again taken on the persona of the hardened criminal, the face he used in his interactions with Mabel. Aside from a few brief moments with Mo-Yung, Benny never manages to voice a substantial social critique.

     

    Figure 9: Mo-Yung (Anita Yuen) bundled up against the cold in Crossings (production still).

     

    The character of Mo-Yung comes a bit closer. Unlike Benny, Rubie, and her relatives, Mo-Yung was born in Suzhou, in mainland China, into an educated family, descended from unassimilated non-Han invaders centuries ago. Her father, an engineer, was forced to kneel on broken glass during the Cultural Revolution. Taking the family away from the excesses of China’s political campaign, Mo-Yung’s family found itself downwardly mobile in Hong Kong, the father finding work as a carpenter. Mo-Yung’s name marks her as a mainlander, as specifically from Suzhou. When she asked to change it as an adolescent, her father questioned her desire: “Are you so eager to conform? To assimilate?” Thus, even in Hong Kong where she grew up, Mo-Yung is an outsider. The fact that she will leave is taken as a given by most in the film. Her family pushes her to marry a Canadian immigrant to ensure another escape from the People’s Republic after 1997. She has already rejected a plan for her to emigrate as a nurse, since she fears that, as a foreign nurse, she will be required to work exclusively with AIDS patients, under conditions she fears will not preclude her being infected. Finally, following Benny, Mo-Yung becomes an illegal alien in New York, sucked into his world of transnational trafficking in drugs and prostitutes. Mo-Yung is left to drift in New York until she meets her tragic end.

     

    As in To Liv(e), the voice in Crossings is given to Rubie. Divorced now (presumably from John) and with a child left in Hong Kong, Rubie has been severed from her roots in Hong Kong’s lower middle classes to find herself administering to a similar community of overseas Chinese in New York. At one extreme, in her work in a community clinic, Rubie sees illegal immigrant women brought in to work in the sex industry in New York, including some who become infected with AIDS. She also becomes involved in the edges of the illegal drug trade through her relationship with Mo-Yung. At the other extreme, Rubie moves in a very different social sphere represented by one of her close male friends, a Mandarin-speaker. This character is gay, with a white boyfriend. He does experimental dance, dressed as a female character from Beijing opera, to a pop music beat, in a disco frequented by Asian transvestites. He speaks in Mandarin, she responds in Cantonese, and both translate for the American boyfriend in English.
    These two cultural spheres overlap throughout the film, and come together most dramatically at Mo-Yung’s funeral. In this scene, the dancer performs a piece in which his defiantly thrown back shoulders, high aerial kicks, and simple male attire work in concert with wreaths denouncing violence against Asians from various community groups. Looking at this scene in conjunction with the scene featuring a similar dance performance, “Exhausted Silkworms” in To Liv(e), underscores the two extremes used to position the characters and events in both films. “Exhausted Silkworms” reenacts the violence of Tian’anmen and the funeral performance memorializes Mo-Yung, not as a victim of “wrong love,” but as a victim of random anti-Asian violence in the United States.

     

    Here, the position of the global Hong Kong community hits two violent terminal points: one in the political fear prompted by the suppression of the 1989 Tian’anmen demonstrations and the other in the social fear of racial violence in New York City. Caught between these two violent extremes, Rubie tries to sort out her own position and identity. At one point in Crossings, Rubie is on an elevated train platform, putting on lipstick. Taking the position of a stalker, the hand-held camera moves in on Rubie. When she is framed in a close-up, Rubie turns and runs. The camera then turns to reveal Joey (Ted Brunetti), who addresses the camera directly, “Blood must flow. What if I push you on the tracks?” The film cuts away to a street person screaming on the sidewalk as the elevated train screeches in the background. A frightened Rubie is shown escaping on the train; a musical bridge connects this scene with a scene of Rubie writing in her journal in her apartment. She recalls a similar incident that happened the week before. The flashback shows Rubie reading the paper on the elevated platform. In this case, rather than taking the point of view of the stalker, the camera takes Rubie’s perspective as an African American man directly confronts the camera (i.e., Rubie) and lashes out at her, “Man, I hate you Japs….” He rambles on incoherently about a blood reckoning to be paid. Back at her apartment, Rubie continues in her diary: “Would it have helped if I’d told him I’m not Japanese, but a Chinese from the British Crown Colony of Hong Kong? Where would I have felt protected? Britain? China?”

     

    While the cosmopolitan world of Hong Kong or New York promises a certain freedom associated with the hybridity of the metropolitan experience, it also represents a world in which identity is cast adrift and there is no safe haven. Joey’s psychosis, which these parallel scenes show is not uncommon, revolves around a mis-recognition of the Asian woman. This mis-recognition operates on several levels. Joey stalks Rubie, but, under the assumption that any Asian woman would satisfy his blood lust, he kills Mo-Yung. Joey is driven into this delirium by an encounter with an Asian transvestite, whom, in M. Butterfly fashion, he mistakes for a woman. Indeed, Joey mistakes all the Asian women he encounters, from his prostitute girlfriend in Thailand to the newly arrived mainland Chinese prostitute he visits in a New York massage parlor, for his “dream girl,” submissive, compliant, subservient, and posing no threat to his own uncertain sexuality. In his delirium, Joey even mistakes Mo-Yung for a dummy, raving happily about passing the “test” to see if he could tell the difference between a real person and a mannequin. His racism levels all identity, turning all Asian women into objects. When Joey’s sister tries to explain her brother’s mental illness to Rubie at Mo-Yung’s funeral, Rubie’s only response is, “It could have been me! Don’t you see, your brother was stalking me. It could have been me.” Between Trini’s analysis of her position as a “British object” in To Liv(e) and Joey’s interchangeability of Asian women as objects in Crossings, the voice of the diasporic intellectual becomes silent. If Rubie’s role as an intellectual is to listen and speak for her constituency, she (and, perhaps, the filmmaker who created her) ends up silent in between two worlds marked by violence.

     

    It can also be noted that Joey does not inhabit a world totally dissimilar to Rubie’s. As a public school teacher in New York, he is like Rubie part of a class of educators, social workers, media workers, etc., who can be loosely grouped as intellectuals. He has a secure job; the principal of the school laments the fact she cannot fire him, even though he alternately brutalizes and ignores his students, because he has tenure and is “competent until proven incompetent, sane until proven insane.” He has disposable income to travel to Thailand. Also, like Rubie, he seems to be upwardly mobile, living with a sister whose accent and demeanor point to working class roots. If Benny represents the intellectual as gangster and Joey represents the intellectual as madman, Rubie represents the intellectual as something different; i.e., as a woman within the Diaspora.

     

    The Ear Is Attached to a Woman

     

    If, as noted above, Rubie functions in both films as a public, intellectual ear that is able to hear and validate the various voices that present themselves, she also serves as a private, personal ear. In her Crossings diary, she speaks to herself as well as to the film’s spectators. In both films, Rubie listens to an array of personal problems voiced by those in her circle of family, friends, and acquaintances. With few exceptions, all the film’s characters talk to Rubie, and Rubie listens. As this narrative ear, Rubie holds the plots of both films together, giving them a structure, logic, and certain order.

     

    Many directors are known for establishing ongoing relationships with actresses who represent the filmmakers’ concerns and give entree into other realms involving women, the female psyche, and issues concerning feminine subjectivity. Bergman’s relationship with Liv Ullmann comes immediately to mind. In this case, Chan develops a rapport with Lindzay Chan in these two features that allows him to explore not only issues of cultural hybridity but also issues involving women and their concerns. Moving from the textuality of the political discourses of the films to the subjectivity of the “women’s film,” To Liv(e) and Crossings, in their stylistic and generic hybridity, highlight issues that go beyond newspaper headlines and immigration statistics. Although Chan works with a Brechtian/Godardian alienation from his characters, using them often as types to illustrate particular points, the filmmaker also uses these characters in more conventional ways, underscoring their individuality, allowing them to speak as distinct entities as well as representatives of ideological positions and abstract social categories.

     

    To illustrate this point, it might be instructive to look at two parallel scenes, one from To Liv(e) and the other from Crossings. Both scenes involve Rubie having a tête-à-tête with another woman. Each scene points to the intimacy between the women. Each features a discussion of the situation of women drifting between countries, roles, and emotions, adding to narrative information, but also standing alone as discourses separate from the public pronouncements of Rubie’s letters or her appearances on American television.

     

    In To Liv(e), Rubie meets with her brother’s fiancée, Teresa (Josephine Ku), at Victoria Peak, overlooking the Hong Kong skyline. The two are seated near a ledge, on opposite sides of the frame, with the cityscape between them. Teresa voices her concerns about going to Australia. She also talks about her divorce and difficulties maintaining a relationship with her son studying in the United Kingdom. On a short visit to Hong Kong, the son went shopping with his father rather than taking time to see his mother, Teresa. Because of her divorce and the death of her mother, Teresa feels cast adrift emotionally. Rubie listens and sympathizes with Teresa. The sounds of the city below can be heard throughout the scene. Rubie moves from her position screen right to sit close to Teresa; the camera slowly moves in to frame them close together on the ledge. When Rubie tries to reassure Teresa that there will be plenty of Hong Kong emigrants to befriend in Australia, Teresa counters that she and Tony want to escape Hong Kong to get away from its people (i.e., those, like Tony and Rubie’s parents who disapprove of a union between a younger man and a divorced, older woman). The camera moves out again, to show Rubie and Teresa in relation to the city, as the two embrace each other at the scene’s conclusion.

     

    In Crossings, Rubie meets Mo-Yung in a café near Times Square. The camera is positioned outside as the scene begins, then moves inside to frame Rubie and Mo-Yung silhouetted against the café’s window as the traffic of New York passes by outside. Throughout the scene, the camera moves between the two women, using a vase with dried flowers on the table as a pivotal point.

     

    Figure 10: Mo-Yung (Anita Yuen) in Crossings (production still).

     

    Mo-Yung talks about coming from Suzhou; Rubie talks about her features and the imagined Silk Route ancestor. Both laugh that they are “two barbarians invading New York.”

     

    Figure 11: Mo-Yung in Crossings (production still).

     

    The camera cuts away to a shot of Mo-Yung framed through the café window, and the mood changes. They wonder about Mo-Yung’s missing acquaintance, Carmen, who had also been involved with Benny. Rubie fills Mo-Yung in on her own situation, and her desire to get a green card and open America as a possibility for her son. Mo-Yung asks, “What if your son doesn’t like America and blames you?” When Rubie replies that he can always go back, Mo-Yung counters, “Do you think you can recreate the past just like that?” The scene ends on a close shot of Mo-Yung putting out her cigarette in an ashtray near the dried flowers, flanked by the empty coffee cups.

     

    These two scenes highlight elements that move the narratives into the realm of the women’s film. In these scenes, the emphasis is on the relationship between women, their solidarity in the face of the trials of immigration as well as in the face of changing sexual mores and family relationships. Here, as friends, mothers, lovers, ex-wives, fiancées, and confidantes, Rubie, Teresa, and Mo-Yung illustrate the personal dimension of the political concerns of 1997. Women experience a different type of “crossing” than men. Traditional roles for women dissolve in the Diaspora. Families become unhinged, scattered; romantic relationships become more fleeting. Cast adrift by a desire to escape from rigid families, ex-husbands, and the feeling of being alienated from the traditional world in which they were born and bred, these women move off to Australia and New York with a different sense of loss, different fears, and for reasons that go far beyond the political dynamics of 1997. Following Rubie as the “ear,” the camera in both scenes invites the spectator to share these intimate moments.

     

    These two scenes are not unique in either To Liv(e) or Crossings. Rather, they form part of a pattern of scenes in which women’s issues are voiced and Rubie listens to her girlfriends’ concerns. In To Liv(e), for example, Teresa will only discuss her fears of death and abandonment with Rubie; Tony must eavesdrop outside the bedroom door. In Crossings, female characters as diverse as the unnamed, unseen AIDS-infected prostitute at the clinic, Joey’s sister, and a next-door neighbor seek out Rubie as an ear for their stories. Mo-Yung tells the story of her family to Rubie rather than Benny. These acts of speaking and listening among the female characters propel both films out from the orbits of the political essay or the crime story.

     

    Figures 12, 13, and 14: Mo-Yung (Anita Yuen) and Rubie (Lindzay Chan)
    in Central Park in Crossings (production stills).

     

    Looking at the films from this perspective, as love stories and family melodramas, To Liv(e) and Crossings fit within three related subgenres that have become quite popular in Hong Kong after Thatcher’s visit to Beijing. The trend picked up even more after June 4, 1989. One subgenre features romantic entanglements and family problems that arise in Hong Kong around the issue of emigration; e.g., Shu Kei’s Hu Du Men/Stagedoor (1996). To Liv(e) fits squarely in this subgenre. The second subgenre involves the trials and tribulations faced by new immigrants to America, Canada, Australia; some examples include Stanley Kuan’s Full Moon in New York (1990), Peter Chow’s Pickles Make Me Cry (1987), Clara Law’s Floating Life (1996). Crossings tends more toward this subgenre, although, like Allen Fong’s Just Like Weather (1986), it really blends the two. The third subgenre is hinted at through Mo-Yung’s story; it involves mainland Chinese abroad in Hong Kong. Examples include Mabel Cheung’s Illegal Immigrant (1985) and the recent hit, Peter Chan’s Comrades: Almost a Love Story (1996) (see Law Kar.)

     

    In these subgenres, the relationship between stories about the overseas Chinese and stories about Chinese or Asian Americans becomes more problematic. Another set of categories begins to dissolve as filmmakers born in Hong Kong, trained in the United States, living sometimes in Hong Kong, sometimes in America, make films about people who are themselves between Hong Kong and America. Indeed, the Hong Kong/American connection, including figures like Bruce Lee as well as filmmakers as diverse as Tsui Hark and Evans Chan, is not unique along the edges of what is usually described as Asian cinema. Ang Lee, Peter Wang, and Edward Yang represent a Taiwan connection, and Chen Kai-ge is the best known of those from the mainland who have settled in the States. Ho Quang Minh connects Vietnam and Switzerland, while Anh Hung Tran with Scent of Green Papaya (1993) has given the world its most critically acclaimed film in Vietnamese about Vietnam, totally set in Vietnam, without leaving France.

     

    Like the in-between, transnational, transcultural characters they depict, To Liv(e) and Crossings also defy easy classification. However, while identities may be uncertain and fluctuating, the issues these characters embody remain concrete and disturbingly fixed.

     

    Endings

     

    To Liv(e) concludes with cautious optimism on two fronts. In her last letter to Liv Ullmann, Rubie ends with the hope that China, Vietnam, and, by extension, Hong Kong will improve their respective situations so that all, including Rubie and Liv, will be able to meet as friends. Rubie concludes the film on a note of good humor. In fact, she signs her letter, “Love, Rubie.” The last image of the film shows Tony and Teresa, saved from near suicide and break-up, alight from their taxi at the airport, baggage in hand, on their way to Australia.

     

    Crossings, on the other hand, ends on a pessimistic note. Rubie burns incense in memory of Mo-Yung on the subway platform where she was murdered. The last shot shows a graveyard in Hong Kong. Earlier, Benny and Mo-Yung had had a tryst near that graveyard, and Benny told the story of his mother being buried there after working herself to death to support the family. Rubie has promised to return Mo-Yung’s bones to Hong Kong, presumably to that same cemetery.

     

    While To Liv(e) ends with death averted and hope in the future, Crossings concludes with the finality of death and the uncertainty of Rubie’s future. She returns to Hong Kong with Mo-Yung’s bones, but it is not certain whether or not she will return to New York, stay in Hong Kong, or go elsewhere. Since, after death, even bones continue to drift between continents, Rubie’s continued “Crossings” between roles and professions, between nation-states, and between Asia and the West also seem to be one of the few certainties in a very uncertain, fictional world. That global filmmakers themselves will continue to drift and make films about this “floating world” of displacement and hybridity also seems fairly certain. To bring Chan’s pessimism back around to a more hopeful note, we might consider this from Bhabha’s “DissemiNation: Time, Narrative and the Margins of the Modern Nation:”

     

    For it is by living on the borderline of history and language, on the limits of race and gender, that we are in a position to translate the differences between them into a kind of solidarity. (170)

     

    Notes

     

    1. Recently, the term “transcultural” has begun to replace a number of related terms (e.g., “cross-cultural,” “international,” “multicultural”) in a number of disciplines (particularly medicine, psychology, and education). Film studies has begun to follow suit. While following on the widespread use of the concept of “transnationalism” by political economists and sociologists, the use of “transcultural” by scholars in the arts, humanities, social sciences, and cultural studies also seems to point to the inadequacy of these other terms in analyzing the increasing globalization of culture.

     

    2. Plot synposis of To Live: Rubie (Lindzay Chan) lives in Hong Kong with her artist boyfriend, John (Fung Kin Chung). In December 1989, Rubie becomes angered by a statement made by Liv Ullmann about the inhumane treatment of Vietnamese refugees by the Hong Kong authorities. In the wake of the events in Beijing that June, Rubie questions Ullmann’s timing in a letter she composes and addresses to the Scandinavian actress. Passages from the letter punctuate the rest of the film as Rubie must decide, along with members of her family and circle of Hong Kong artists and intellectuals, whether to stay or leave Hong Kong before July 1, 1997. Throughout the film, Rubie talks to a range of people about their feelings regarding the turnover.

     

    Rubie’s brother Tony (Wong Yiu-Ming) prepares to immigrate to Australia with his fiancée, Teresa (Josephine Ku). Teresa, however, has mixed feelings about the departure and about her relationship with Tony. Older, divorced, and estranged from her son, Teresa is prone to morbid thoughts and depression. She is thoroughly disliked by Tony and Rubie’s parents, and she fears loosing the younger Tony to another woman. The stormy relationship comes to a head when Tony threatens suicide after a jealous scene at a party.

     

    3. Plot synopsis of Crossings: A red shoe, symbol of romantic happiness and the joys of marriage in traditional Chinese lore, is all that remains of Mo-Yung (Anita Yuen), a victim of a stalker’s violence on a New York subway platform. Mo-Yung had come to New York, against her parents’ wishes and illegally, to pursue her boyfriend, Benny (Simon Yam). Mo-Yung thinks Benny is a photographer, but he is actually an international drug smuggler. Pursuing Benny, Mo-Yung rubs against the seamier elements of New York as she unsuspectingly plays cat-and-mouse with a shipment of Benny’s contraband. Rubie (Lindzay Chan) is a social worker in New York, who befriends Mo-Yung. Joey (Ted Brunetti) is a psychotic school teacher, who has a fetish for Asian women. Joey stalks Rubie, whom he has seen as a community spokeswoman on television. Mistaking Mo-Yung for Rubie, he kills Mo-Yung on a subway platform.

     

    4. Neither film discussed here makes any pretense at investigating the events in May-June, 1989, in Tian’anmen. For the most insightful treatment to date in any medium, see Carma Hinton’s controversial documentary film and Web site, Gate of Heavenly Peace.

    Works Cited

     

    • Bhabha, Homi. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 1994.
    • Chan, Evans. “Forward to To Liv(e).Evans Chan’s To Liv(e): Screenplay and Essays. Ed. Tak-wai Wong. Hong Kong: U of Hong Kong, Department of Comparative Literature, 1996.
    • —. Crossings. Perf. Ted Brunetti, Lindzay Chan, Simon Yam, and Anita Yuen. Riverside Productions, 1994.
    • —. To Liv(e). Perf. Lindzay Chan, Fung Kin Chung, Josephine Ku, and Wong Yiu-Ming. Riverside Productions, 1991.
    • Chen, Kuan-hsing. “The Formation of a Diasporic Intellectual: An Interview with Stuart Hall.” Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. Ed. David Morley and Kuan-Hsing Chen. NY: Routledge, 1996.
    • Chow, Rey. Woman and Chinese Modernity: The Politics of Reading Between West and East. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1991.
    • —. Writing Diaspora: Tactics of Intervention in Contemporary Cultural Studies. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1993.
    • Erens, Patricia Brett. “The Aesthetics of Protest: Evans Chan’s To Liv(e).Evans Chan’s To Liv(e): Screenplay and Essays. Ed. Tak-wai Wong. Hong Kong: U of Hong Kong, Department of Comparative Literature, 1996.
    • Francia, Luis. “Asian Cinema and Asian American Cinema: Separated by a Common Language.” Cinemaya 9 (Autumn 1990): 36-39.
    • Fore, Steve. “Golden Harvest Films and the Hong Kong Movie Industry in the Realm of Globalization.” The Velvet Light Trap 34 (Fall 1994): 40-58.
    • Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. NY: International Publishers Co., 1971.
    • Hall, Stuart. “New Ethnicities.” Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. Ed. David Morley and Kuan-Hsing Chen. NY: Routledge, 1996.
    • Hinton, Carma. The Gate of Heavenly Peace. http://www.nmis.org/gate/
    • Jameson, Fredric. The Geopolitical Aesthetic: Cinema and Space in the World System. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1995.
    • Kaplan, Caren. “The Politics of Location in Transnational Feminist Practice.” Scattered Hegemonies: Postmodernity and Transnational Feminist Practices. Eds. Inderpal Grewal and Caren Kaplan. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1994.
    • Kar, Law, ed. Overseas Chinese Figures in Cinema. Hong Kong: The 16th Hong Kong International Film Festival, 1992.
    • Kolker, Robert. The Altering Eye: Contemporary International Cinema. NY: Oxford UP, 1983.
    • Lu, Sheldon, ed. Transnational Chinese Cinemas: Indentity, Nationhood, Gender. Honolulu: U of Hawaii P, 1997.
    • Ross, Andrew. No Respect: Intellectuals and Popular Culture. NY: Routledge, 1989.
    • Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism. NY: Random House, 1994.
    • Shohat, Ella and Robert Stam, “The Politics of Multiculturalism in the Postmodern Age.” Unthinking Eurocentricism: Multiculturalism and the Media. London: Routledge, 1994.” 338-362
    • Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. The Post-Colonial Critic: Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues. Ed. Sarah Horasym. NY: Routledge, 1990.
    • West, Cornel. “The New Cultural Politics of Difference.” The Cultural Studies Reader. Ed. Simon During. NY: Routledge, 1993.
    • Wollen, Peter. “Godard and Counter Cinema: Vent D’est.” Readings and Writings: Semiotic Counter-Strategies. London: Verso, 1982.
    • Wong, Tak-wai, ed. Evans Chan’s To Liv(e): Screenplay and Essays. Hong Kong: U of Hong Kong, Department of Comparative Literature, 1996.

    Related Web Sites

     

     

  • Editor’s Introduction

    Robert Kolker

    University of Maryland
    rk27@umail.umd.edu

     

    This issue of Postmodern Culture grew from a conviction that the critical and scholarly study of film could make more use of computer-based image technologies. In our discipline (as in any other humanities undertaking) quotation and illustration constitute proof and demonstration. In the past, we have been restricted in our ability to quote and illustrate because our source material was limited to (at worst) publicity stills from films and (at best) frame enlargements from the films themselves. In all cases, those illustrations were only stills. We wrote about the moving image and offered only the still image as proof.

     

    The ability to digitize still and moving images has broadened the scope of our work and enabled us to enter an intimate relationship with the images that are the source of our study. We can choose the stills we want and need, and, most importantly, we can show the moving images themselves. This, coupled with networked publication and the hypertext capabilities of the Web, makes possible new kinds of thinking about film, new textualities in which the work of the critic and the work of the film assume different kinds of relationships, new flexibilities of thought, expression, and publication.

     

    The work that appears in this issue represents an extraordinary range of thought and execution. It not only demonstrates how digital technology can be used to open critical perspectives, but how critical thinking about film is changing, with and without technology. In other words, all of the essays advance our thinking about film and culture, and many exist as unique digital events.

     

    Gina Marchetti’s “Transnational Cinema, Hybrid Identities and the Films of Evans Chan” concerns a filmmaker whose work is a meditation on national identity, national boundaries, and their dissolution. Because Chan’s work is rarely seen in commercial venues, the inclusion of stills and moving-image clips not only opens Marchetti’s analysis and anchors it in the work itself, but makes that work visible to the reader perhaps for the first time.

     

    In “Simultaneity and Overlap in Stanley Kubrick’s The Killing,” Stephen Mamber doesn’t use stills from Kubrick’s early gangster film, but creates schematic diagrams and a 3-D fly-through to visualize its complex chronology. Time and space are merged, and The Killing’s mise-en-scène, once thought of as split between what was seen on the screen and heard in the voice-over narration, are understood and visualized as integral.

     

    Dziga Vertov was a revolutionary Russian filmmaker who reflected upon the mechanical nature of his art in his cinema. He adumbrated cyborg theory by understanding that the movie camera was a mechanical, perceptual extension of the political and historical imagination. Joseph Schaub, in his “Presenting the Cyborg’s Futurist Past: An Analysis of Dziga Vertov’s Kino-Eye,” traces lines of development between Vertov, the Italian Futurists, and contemporary cyborg theory, and sees them in gendered contexts.

     

    Jorge Otero-Pailos, in “Casablanca’s Régime: The Shifting Aesthetics of Political Technologies (1907-1943),” examines the city of Casablanca, and the film that most famously represents it to Western eyes. Otero-Pailos sees the city and its history from a political, post-colonial, and architectural perspective. The essay examines the political architecture of the city; the images that accompany the essay help plot the axes of its analysis.

     

    Since the mechanics of perceptual fabrication in early cinema are a central concern of William Routt’s “The Madness of Cinema and of Thinking Images,” it is appropriate in a symbolically symmetrical way that the author employs the mechanics of digital fabrication to visualize his analysis about the image in early cinema. Routt uses digital technology to see the history of the spectacular image from a number of critical perspectives.

     

    Adrian Miles turns an exploration of Singin’ in the Rain into a hypertext of interrelated moving-image clips, critical analyses, thematic and structural associations. This piece rethinks the linearity of critical writing on film and creates a work that can only exist in a digital environment.

     

    So too does Peter Donaldson’s “Digital Archives and Sibylline Fragments: The Tempest and the End of Books.” Working from the base offered by Peter Greenaway’s film Prospero’s Books, Donaldson speculates on the relationship of images and archives, text, countertext, and hypertext.

     

    Speculation is very much the key to all the essays in this issue. The writers want to know about the history, textuality, and culture of the films they write about and how the writing and their analyses are changed through technologies that offer new ways of seeing and (in both senses of the word) reading. The technologies aren’t perfect. Pushing moving-image files across the Internet is still an event that requires much patience. If you read this issue through a 28.8 modem connection, it will take a while to get some of the images downloaded. Perhaps this belies the myth of the instantaneous that is so much a part of Internet culture. Things aren’t always immediately available to the eye, which is one of the things the authors are thinking about.

     

    Many thanks to Stuart Moulthrop and Anne Sussman for the markup and production editing that made this complex issue of Postmodern Culture possible.

     

  • Notices

     

     

    Every issue of Postmodern Culture carries notices of events, calls for papers, and other announcements, free of charge. Advertisements will also be published on an exchange basis. If you respond to one of the ads or announcements below, please mention that you saw the notice in PMC.


    Publication Announcements

    • Year Zero One Forum, Issue #3
    • Hiding, by Mark C. Taylor
    • TechnoSurrealist Manifesto
    • The Almanac of Psychoanalysis
    • Simultaneita
    • South Atlantic Quarterly

    Conferences, Calls for Papers, Invitations to Submit

    • (Re)Visions: Feminist and Gender Theory at the Turn of the Century
    • Feminist Studies Graduate Essay Award
    • International Essay Prize Contest
    • “Self Help” special issue, edited by Cindy Patton

    General Announcements

    • Art and Technology Project
    • Gen Art needs Summer Interns
    • CyberStage Update