http://www.transformationsjournal.org/journ al/issue_19/article_03.shtml http://directory.calarts.edu/directory/arne- de-boever!ssue "o. 19 #011 $ %anci&re: 'olitics( )rt * +ense Feminism After Rancière: Women in J.M. Coetzee and JeffWall ByArne De BoeverRancière’s Political Subject In Marx, the revolutionary moment is a moment of false promises. Now that young Euro-US folks want universalism again, I am thinking about this more arefully. !Spivak in "utler an# Spivak $%&' In the “Glossary of Technical Terms” that accompanies his translation ofJacques Rancière’s The Politics of Aesthetics, Gabriel Rockhill efines !hat Rancière calls a political sub"ect as neither a politial lobby nor an in#ivi#ual who seeks a#e(uate representati on for his or her interests an# i#eas. It is an empty operator that pro#ues ases of politial #ispute by hallenging the establishe# framework of i#entifi ation an# lassifiation. !)okhill *&' In this essay, I !ill be concerne!ith Rockhill’s efinition of Rancière’s political sub"ect as an “empty operator,” specifically in the tension bet!een this empty operator an“the establisheframe!ork of ientification anclassification” that Rockhill mentions# The latter is referreto later on in the same efinition as the “police orer” $%&'# This is Rancière’s name for “an o(erall istribution of the sensible that pur por ts to pro (i e a totalisin) account of the population by pro(iin) e(eryone a title ana role !ithin the social eifice” $*%'# If the police orer is associate!ith titles anroles, !ith ientification anclassification, the emptiness of the political sub"ect breaks !ith this establisheframe!ork of istribution, thereby markin) the birth of politics#
Feminism After Rancière: Women in J.M. Coetzee and Jeff WallBy Arne De Boever
Rancière’s Political Subject
In Marx, the revolutionary moment is a moment of falsepromises. Now that young Euro-US folks want universalism again,I am thinking about this more arefully. !Spivak in "utler an#Spivak $%&'
In the “Glossary of Technical Terms” that accompanies his translation of Jacques Rancière’s The Politics of Aesthetics, Gabriel Rockhill efines !hatRancière calls a political sub"ect as
neither a politial lobby nor an in#ivi#ual who seeks a#e(uaterepresentation for his or her interests an# i#eas. It is an emptyoperator that pro#ues ases of politial #ispute by hallengingthe establishe# framework of i#entifiation an# lassifiation.
!)okhill *&'In this essay, I !ill be concerne !ith Rockhill’s efinition of Rancière’spolitical sub"ect as an “empty operator,” specifically in the tension bet!eenthis empty operator an “the establishe frame!ork of ientification anclassification” that Rockhill mentions# The latter is referre to later on in thesame efinition as the “police orer” $%&'# This is Rancière’s name for “ano(erall istribution of the sensible that purports to pro(ie a totalisin)account of the population by pro(iin) e(eryone a title an a role !ithin thesocial eifice” $*%'# If the police orer is associate !ith titles an roles,!ith ientification an classification, the emptiness of the political sub"ect
breaks !ith this establishe frame!ork of istribution, thereby markin) thebirth of politics#
Gi(en Rockhill’s characterisation of Rancière’s theory of the political sub"ect,one unerstans !hy “ientity” is not usually a term that is associate !ithRancière’s !ork# Rockhill’s escription of Rancière’s political sub"ect re(ealsinstea ho! Rancière is hi)hly critical of ientity, more precisely of the !aysin !hich ientity operates !ithin $an appears to become, in Rockhill’s
efinition, ientical to' an o(erall istribution of the sensible that Rancièrecalls the police# +o!e(er, such a escription risks for)ettin) the precise!ays !hereby, in Rancière’s !ork, the political sub"ect’s challen)e to thepolice comes about#
s Rockhill notes in the secon half of his efinition, “the manifestation of politics only occurs (ia specific acts of implementation” $%&'# The a"ecti(e “specific” appears to return some content to the empty operator that ismentione in the first part of the efinition# Gi(en the tension bet!een thiscontent an the operator’s emptiness, ho!e(er, the relation bet!een thet!o is boun to remain uneasy# This is !hy, as Rockhill inicates in theclosin) lines of his efinition, “political sub"ects fore(er remain precariousfi)ures that hesitate at the borers of silence maintaine by the police” $%&'# Rancière’s political sub"ect thus appears to be precariously situate atthe uneasy borer bet!een the empty an the specific#
To make this a little more concrete, I propose to ha(e a closer look at ane-ample of a political sub"ect taken from Rancière’s !ork that mobilises thistension bet!een the empty an the specific particularly !ell# In a shortessay title “.ho is the /ub"ect of the Ri)hts of 0an1” initially publishe ina special issue of South Atlantic Quarterly on human ri)hts, Rancière
consiers +annah rent’s propositions about the “2eclaration of the Ri)htsof 0an an the 3iti4en” $56*%'# s Rancière notes, rent
makes them +the elaration of the )ights of Man an# theiti/en01 a (uan#ary whih an be put as follows2 either therights of the iti/en are the rights of man 3 but the rights of manare the rights of the unpolitiise# person4 they are the rights ofthose who have no rights, whih amounts to nothing 3 or therights of man are the rights of the iti/en, the rights attahe# to
the fat of being a iti/en of suh or suh onstitutional state.5his means they are the rights of those who have rights, whihamounts to a tautology. !6ho is the Sub7et0 8&%'
7or Rancière, rent (ie!s the eclaration of ri)hts as either “nothin)” or “atautolo)y#” +o!e(er, he then )oes on to ar)ue that these t!o positions neeto be supplemente !ith a thir, !hich he states as follo!s8 “the Ri)hts of 0an are the ri)hts of those !ho ha(e not the ri)hts that they ha(e anha(e the ri)hts that they ha(e not” $9&:'# .hat oes this mean1
The short ans!er is that for Rancière, the ri)hts of man are the ri)hts of !hat he calls a political sub"ect8 they are ri)hts that “open up a isputeabout !hat they e-actly entail an !hom they concern in !hich cases”
$“.ho is the /ub"ect” 9&9'# The e-ample that he e(elops to clarify thisthir position is also taken from the 7rench Re(olution8 he refers to the caseof ;lympe e Gou)es# 2e Gou)es’ famous point, as Rancière e-plains, !asthat “if !omen !ere entitle to )o to the scaffol, they !ere entitle to )oto the assembly” $9&9'# lthou)h !omen !ere supposely “equal<born,”
they !ere ne(ertheless not “equal citi4ens” an “They coul neither (otenor be electe” $9&9'# Rancière continues8
5he reason for the presription was, as usual, that they oul#not fit the purity of politial life. 5hey allege#ly belonge# to theprivate, #omesti life. 9n# the ommon goo# of the ommunityha# to be kept apart from the ativities, feelings, an# interestsof private life. !8&8'
2e Gou)es’ position re(eale that these lines separatin) pri(ate life frompolitical life coul not be so clearly ra!n# /he thus challen)e theistribution of the sensible in !hich !omen !ere cau)ht up#
lthou)h the “!ron)” that e Gou)es as a political sub"ect unco(ere coulnot be “heard ” by the la!makers $the subaltern, as Gayatri 3hakra(orty/pi(ak alreay kne!, can certainly speak = but the real question is !hetherit can beheard ', it coul ne(ertheless be enacte “in the construction of aissensus” $9&>', as Rancière )oes on to e-plain8
9 #ivision put in the ommon sense0 #ispute about what is
given, about the frame within whih we see something as given.6omen oul# make a twofol# #emonstration. 5hey oul##emonstrate that they were #eprive# of the rights that theyha#, thanks to the elaration of )ights. 9n# they oul##emonstrate, through their publi ation, that they ha# therights that the onstitution #enie# to them, that they oul#enat those rights. So they oul# at as sub7ets of the )ights ofMan in the preise sense that I have mentione#. 5hey ate# assub7ets that #i# not have the rights that they ha# an# ha# the
rights that they ha# not. . . . 5his is what I all a #issensus . . .putting two worl#s in one an# the same worl#. 9 politialsub7et, as I un#erstan# it, is a apaity for staging suh senesof #issensus0 !8&:'.
?o! that !e ha(e Rancière’s efinition of a political sub"ect, let usreconsier it throu)h the lens of Rockhill’s efinition, specifically throu)h thelens of the tensions bet!een the “empty operator” an “the establisheframe!ork of ientification an classification,” an bet!een the “emptyoperator” an the “specific acts of implementation,” that structure it# s theiscussion of e Gou)es makes clear, one can only !ith ifficulty callRancière’s political sub"ect entirely “empty#” lthou)h e Gou)es challen)es,
in line !ith Rockhill’s efinition, the o(erall istribution of the sensible thatRancière calls the police, she oes so not as an “empty operator” but as a “!oman” @ in other !ors, throu)h !hat Rockhill in his efinition refers toas “a specific act of implementation#” Inee, it is !orth keepin) in minthat e Gou)es is the author of a te-t entitle “2eclaration of the Ri)hts of
.omen an of the 7emale 3iti4en” $56%5' @ an not of a eclaration of theri)hts of some “empty operator#”
It is thus harly the case in Rancière’s !ork that the “empty operator” completely !ins out o(er “ientity#” Rather, “ientity” operates at t!oifferent le(els in his theory of the political sub"ect8 it is both associate!ith the police orer that the political sub"ect challen)es, and !ith theposition that marks this challen)e# It is associate !ith both the istributionof the sensible and !ith its reistribution# In a time in !hich uni(ersalismappears to ha(e mae some!hat of a comeback, this forces one to thinkabout uni(ersalism more carefully $as /pi(ak ur)es her listeners to o in thequote at the be)innin) of this section'# Rockhill reco)nises this in thesecon part of his efinition# In the ne-t section of this essay, I take my cuefrom Rancière’s iscussion of e Gou)es to consier ho! such anunerstanin) of the political sub"ect may open up ne! possibilities forfeminist politics toay#
Feminism After Rancière
Rancière’s !ork has foun some resonances @ not al!ays e-plicitlyackno!le)e @ in contemporary instances of feminist iscourse# 3onsier,
for e-ample, the !ork of Juith Butler# .hen Butler in a recent con(ersation!ith /pi(ak iscusses rent’s !ork on ri)hts, she mentions the streetemonstrations by ille)al resients in (arious 3alifornian cities urin) the/prin) of :&&A# Butler points out that “the / national anthem !as sun)Curin) these emonstrationsD in /panish as !as the 0e-ican anthem” $Butler an /pi(ak E*'# “The emer)ence of Fnuestro hymno,’” she obser(es, “introuce the interestin) problem of the plurality of the nation, of the F!e’ an the Four’8 to !hom oes the anthem belon)1” $E*' 7or Butler,
it;s not 7ust that many people sang together 3 whih is true 3 but
also that singing is a plural at, an artiulation of plurality. If, as"ush laime# at the time, the national anthem an only be sungin English, then the nation is learly restrite# to a linguistima7ority, an# language beomes one way of asserting riterialontrol over who belongs an# who #oes not. !<*'
7or Butler, it is the performati(e act of the sin)in), an act that she efines,echoin) rent’s efinition of action in The Human Condition, as “a pluralact, an articulation of plurality,” that comes to mark a politics# C5D
Those sin)in) the / national anthem in /panish thus become an e-ampleof !hat Rancière calls a political sub"ect, challen)in) the o(erall istribution
essentialism of the empty operator# Rancière’s aesthetic politics thus forcesone to think beyon the anti<essentialism of performativepolitics# It enablesa feminist politics that !oul “think, uner the name of F!oman,’ an essencethat is empty but resistant, an that efiniti(ely makes its o!nisappearance impossible” $0alabou'# C9D These are the !ors !ith !hich
3atherine 0alabou has characterise her o!n feminist politics in the stilluntranslate book Chan"er de diff%rence &e f%minin et la 'uestion philosophi'ue#
0alabou, !ho has en)a)e in public ebates !ith Butler C>D, calls on herreaers “to interro)ate !hat remains of !oman after the sacrifice of itsbein)” $0alabou, “rière”'# /uch an interro)ation “coul mark # # # a ne!era of feminist stru))le, an reorient the fi)ht” “beyon both essentialism and anti<essentialism Cemphases mineD” $0alabou, “rière”'# This means, in 0alabou’s terms, that one !oul think!oman as plastic 8 !oman can both )i(e and recei(e form, and e-ploeit# CED 7rom a Rancièrian perspecti(e, it oes not come as a surprise that0alabou !oul e(elop such a position throu)h her !ork on aesthetics#Inee, as her earlier book The (uture of He"el re(eals, she takes thecate)ory of plasticity from +e)el’s !ork on the fine arts# It is thus from theaesthetic that a feminist politics beyon, or ne-t to, the performati(e isborn# CAD
lthou)h 0alabou’s an Rancière’s positions are of course also ifferent,0alabou’s characterisation of her feminist politics ne(ertheless enables oneto )rasp somethin) about an aesthetic feminist politics after Rancière that
!oul be ifferent from Butler’s performati(e feminist politics# /uch a shiftfrom the performati(e to the aesthetic cannot but effect one’s reain) of thefeminist politics of actual !orks of art#
uc!’s Politics
Both Butler an Rancière ha(e positione themsel(es critically vis)*)vis thelate t!entieth<century “ethical turn” in the humanities an the socialsciences# C6DButler !orries, in a te-t title “thical mbi(alence,” C*D thatsuch a turn to ethics mi)ht constitute an escape from politics# +o!e(er, inher o!n !ork she seems to ha(e shifte back to!ars ethics after the
/eptember 55 terror attacks, perhaps because ten years after “thicalmbi(alence,” politics risks becomin) too ominant, an thusambi(alent# C%D Rancière too has stru))le !ith the ethical turn in an essaytitle “The thical Turn of esthetics an olitics#” C5&D The risin) interest inRancière’s aesthetic politics coul ar)uably be unerstoo in li)ht of thepost<%K55 “political turn” in the humanities an the social sciences @ but of this phrase too, Rancière is, like Butler, critical# C55Dlthou)h much is atstake in these ebates, I lea(e them asie in fa(or of an e-ploration of thepolitics of J#0# 3oet4ee’s no(el Dis"race, an Jeff .all’s photo)raphs Picturefor +omen an imic # I approach these !orks throu)h the lens of
Rancière’s unerstanin) of politics in orer to in(esti)ate further the
relations bet!een feminist an aesthetic politics that I ha(e be)un tounco(er#
0uch has alreay been !ritten about J#0# 3oet4ee’s no(el Dis"race,especially !ithin the branch of literary criticism calle “ethical
criticism#” C5:D /ome of this !ork has re(ol(e aroun the ethicalphilosophy of mmanuel He(inas an the challen)es to He(inas’ ethicsthat Dis"race poses# 7or the purposes of this essay, I !oul like to e-plorethe connection bet!een feminist an aesthetic politics in Dis"race# /uch ane-ploration mi)ht strike one as o, especially )i(en the problematicposition of !omen in the no(el, an ar)uably !ithin 3oet4ee’s !ork as a!hole# 0y hope is that by consierin) one of 3oet4ee’s !omen characters @Hucy in Dis"race @ throu)h the lens of my iscussion of Rancière’s politicalsub"ect, I mi)ht be able to cast another li)ht on the aesthetic politicsof Dis"race#
Hucy is a !hite lesbian !ho li(es in the preominantly black astern 3apepro(ince in /outh frica# /he makes a li(in) by sellin) flo!ers at themarket, an by takin) care of pets $o)s, mostly' for people !ho ha(e )oneon a holiay# bout half!ay throu)h the no(el, Hucy’s father, 2a(i Hurie,comes to stay !ith her after he has resi)ne from his teachin) "ob in 3apeTo!n because of a se-ual harassment scanal# .hen Hucy an her fathertake one of the o)s out for a !alk one mornin), they encounter t!o blackmen an a boy# The trio turns out to be !aitin) for them !hen they )etback to the farm# The men claim to ha(e come from rasmuskraal, !herethere is no !ater or electricity, because they nee to make a phone<call8 the
sister of one of the men is ha(in) a baby# Hucy allo!s the man into thehouse, but !hen the other follo!s by his o!n initiati(e a fe! moments later,her father kno!s that somethin) is !ron)# 7inin) the front oor locke, he!orks his !ay into the house (ia the kitchen, !here he recei(es a blo! “onthe cro!n of the hea” $3oet4ee, %9'# .hile he is locke into the la(atory,his au)hter is rape, the house is robbe, an all but one of Hucy’s o)sare kille# Before takin) off in Hurie’s car, the attackers ouse him inmethylate spirits an set him on fire# +e e-tin)uishes the flames !ith!ater from the toilet bo!l#
I am intereste in the isa)reement that e(elops bet!een Hucy an Hurie
in the aftermath of this horrifyin) attack# C59D Hurie !ants to call the policean press char)es for !hat happene# Hucy a)rees, but on the conitionthat her father stick to the story of !hat happene to him= she !ill tell !hathappene to her # .hen the police sho! up to take Hurie’s an Hucy’stestimony, Hucy oes not talk about the rape# This an)ers her father# Raisin)the question !ith her as )ently as he can, he asks8 “Hucy, my earest, !hyon’t you !ant to tell1 It !as a crime# # # # Lou i not choose to be theob"ect# Lou are an innocent party” $3oet4ee, 555'# “3an I )uess1” hecontinues# “re you tryin) to remin me of somethin)1 # # # ;f !hat !omenuner)o at the hans of men1” $555' This implicit reference to Hurie’s o!n
trial in 3ape To!n pro(okes a sharp reply from his au)hter8
5he rea#er is provoke# for he or she #oes not want to share inAurie-the-hief-foaliser;s inability to rea#0 Auy as patient an#agent. No rea#er is ontent with ating out the failure ofrea#ing. . . . 5his provoation into ounterfoalisation is the
politial0 in politial fition, the transformation of a ten#enyinto a risis. !Spivak, %%'
It is, precisely, Hucy’s internally e-clue position of “the part of those !hoha(e no part” that becomes the no(el’s aesthetic8 Dis"race focalisesrelentlessly throu)h Hurie, thus pro(okin) the reaer intocounterfocalisation, into takin) up the cause of the internally e-clue Hucy#.hile Hucy is thus anempty operator, to recall Rockhill’s efinition of Rancière’s political sub"ect, her emptiness “resists” an “makes its o!nisappearance impossible” $as 0alabou puts it in her efinition of a ne!
feminist politics'# In this sense, Hucy is also specific $“in this place, at thistime8” “It is my business, mine alone=” “.hat happene to me is mybusiness, mine alone”'#
Hucy is thus inscribe in the no(el’s aesthetic in a !ay that conforms !ithher politics# In other !ors8 the aesthetic of Dis"race becomes a “sensiblemoe of bein)” $Rancière, The Politics of Aesthetics ::' that is particularlyattune to Hucy# It becomes Hucy’s form<of<life# It is in this !aythat Dis"race’s aesthetic is political# It is !ithin this insi)ht that one islocate at the crossroas of aesthetics an politics in the book, an that theno(el challen)es its o!n potential complicity !ith the police#
Politics of P"oto#ra$"!
lthou)h in the case of Dis"race, one is of course ealin) !ith a te-t, thelan)ua)e of focalisation an counterfocalisation re(eals that the te-t’saesthetic politics is perhaps not so much of the orer of the sayable but of the (isible# +o! mi)ht a more e-plicitly (isual aesthetic practice @ such asphoto)raphy, for e-ample @ enable one to further the connection bet!eenfeminist an aesthetic politics in Rancière1 +o! mi)ht the question of theima)e, to !hich Rancière has recently eicate an entirebook, C5*Dcontribute to this connection1 7or this, I turn to t!o !orks by the3anaian photo)rapher Jeff .all @ Picture for +omen an imic # 0yiscussion of these photo)raphs !ill refer to 3oet4ee’s Dis"race-
s anyone !ho has seen Picture for +omen !ill ha(e notice, thephoto)raph !as taken in a mirror# t first si)ht, the photo)raph isecepti(ely simple# It appears to ha(e been taken in the photo)rapher’sstuio# It sho!s, on the left han sie, a !oman= on the ri)ht han sie,there is the photo)rapher, Jeff .all# The mile of the ima)e is taken up by.all’s camera# pon closer consieration, one realises that the camera,because of the ima)e it captures, can only ha(e seen the mirror 8 its scope
e-clues both the actual !oman an .all# Instea, the camera sees onlytheir mirror ima)es# In this sense, .all’sPicture for +omen is a “pure”
picture, a “pure” ima)e that oes not inclue any actual people# It merelycaptures the reflections of the !oman, the camera, an .all# In a ia)rampublishe !ith his essay on .all’s oeu(re, Thierry e 2u(e lays out theparticular istribution of the sensible that .all practices in this ima)e $ seefi)ure 5'# In its )eometrical layout, the ia)ram re(eals a fiel cut up by the
camera’s scope, so that both the !oman an .all are stanin) on theoutsie#
.all’s istribution of the sensible recalls my iscussion of 3oet4ee’sistribution of the sensible in Dis"race# Both Dis"race an Picture for +omenpractice an aesthetic that represents !oman !ithout representin)her, by lea(in) the actual !oman partly out of consieration $or empty'#3oet4ee oes this by keepin) the focalisation of his narration entirelyconfine to Hurie= .all by ha(in) his camera capture only the ima)e of a!oman# Both 3oet4ee an .all thus pro(oke those !ho are en)a)in) !iththeir !orks into !hat /pi(ak calls “counterfocalisation”# $::' It is in thissense that .all’s photo)raph is crucially not a “picture of a !oman” but a “picture for !omen,” a picture that challen)es the istribution of thesensible in !hich !omen are cau)ht up# Thus, the specific is reintrouceinto the emptiness of 3oet4ee’s an .all’s !omen# Hike Rancière’s politicalsub"ect, these !omen are empty and specific= like 0alabou’s feminism, theyare beyon both essentialism and anti<essentialism#
Importantly, neither 3oet4ee’s no(el nor .all’s photo)raph remain stuck inthe cate)ory of “!oman#” .all himself enters into the frame of thephoto)raph uner almost e-actly the same conitions as the !oman he is
photo)raphin)# ;f course, there remains one important ifference bet!een.all an the !oman8 unlike the !oman, .all is holin) the shutter releasemechanism of the camera# +e is still the author of the istribution of thesensible that the camera brin)s into bein)# lon) these lines, 3oet4ee hasbeen criticise by feminist reaers for authorin) !omen @ for speakin) inthe (oice of !omen @ in some of his no(els# C5%D ;ne can think here, fore-ample, of the !oman /usan Barton !ho is cast a!ay on Robinson3rusoe’s islan in 3oet4ee’s no(el(oe# In this no(el, 3oet4ee speaks inBarton’s (oice, an some critics took him to task for it# It may be, ho!e(er,that in the case of (oe, this particular feminist critique of 3oet4ee !asmissin) the point8 importantly, Barton is not only a !oman but also the
heroine of 2efoe’s no(el !o.ana# By speakin) in the (oice of Barton,3oet4ee is thus not simply speakin) in the (oice of a !oman, but also in thevoice of a character @ an one !ho suffers from its e-posure to authorialpo!er# Inee, the no(el’s metafictional play !ith authorship re(eals that3oet4ee’s concerns mi)ht not so much be !ith the po!er<relation bet!eenman an !oman, but bet!een author an character# C:&D In both (oean.all’s Picture for +omen, there thus appears to be more at stake thanmerely “!oman#”
Inee, like 3oet4ee’ s (oe, Picture for +omen appears to o(ercome the
ientity of !oman into broaer aesthetic an political concerns# lthou)hthe politics of .all’s photo)raph mi)ht start !ith ientity, they e(elop into
somethin) other than that, more similar to the notion of the “emptyoperator” in Rockhill’s efinition of Rancière’s political sub"ect# s thephoto)raph’s title emphasises, ho!e(er, this “emptiness” cannot be the last!or on the politics of .all’s photo)raph either8 “!oman” clearly continuesto play an important, precarious an uneasy role in Picture for +omen#
.all’s photo)raph thus practices a peculiar feminist politics beyon bothanti<essentialism an essentialism that recalls my earlier iscussion of bothRancière an 0alabou#
I insist on the importance of the feminist question for .all’s !ork because itis entirely left out of consieration in a recent essay by .alter Benn0ichaels on the politics of .all’s photo)raphy# In an article entitle “Theolitics of a Goo icture8 Race, 3lass, an 7orm in Jeff .all’s imic ,” .alterBenn 0ichaels iscusses the politics of Jeff .all’s 5%*:photo)raph imic # C:5D s Benn 0ichaels notes, imic $like Picture for +omen' reflects the photo)rapher’s interest in social issues in this earlyperio of his career# imic is a photo)raph about racism8 its “prota)onist” $56%' is a !hite male makin) a racist )esture at an sian male !ho he ispassin) in the street# .hat pu44les Benn 0ichaels, ho!e(er, is that toay.all is no lon)er intereste in these issues# Toay, .all is simply )la thatthe picture itself is )oo, an that it oes not nee any emphasis on socialissues in orer to be successful# Benn 0ichaels’ question thus becomes “!hether the picture’s success has nothin) to o !ith any politics” $566', as.all appears to think, or !hether there mi)ht not be “a politics of the )oopicture” $566' as such1 .all mi)ht think that it is not the social issues @politics @ that make imic a )oo photo)raph= but surely, Benn 0ichaels
seems to be askin), that oes not mean that )oo pictures are entirelye(oi of politics1 The politics of photo)raphy surely oes not consist of photo)raphy’s representation of social issues alone1
lthou)h Rancière is not mentione in Benn 0ichaels’ te-t, the questionsthat Benn 0ichaels raises about the politics of photo)raphy recall theopenin) para)raphs of an essay by Rancière title “The olitics of Hiterature”# In it, Rancière !rites8
5he politis of literature is not the politis of its writers. It #oes
not #eal with their personal ommitment to the soial an#politial issues an# struggles of their times. Nor #oes it #eal withthe mo#es of representation of politial events or the soialstruture an# the soial struggles in their books. 5he syntagmapolitis of literature0 means that literature #oes0 politis asliterature 3 that there is a speifi link between politis as a#efinite way of #oing an# literature as a #efinite pratie ofwriting. !5he =olitis of Aiterature0 $&'
The passa)e insi)htfully captures the problem !ith !hich Benn 0ichaels’ article opens# .hat makes imic a )oo picture, .all states, is not the factthat it en)a)es !ith social issues= imic oes not nee politics to be
successful# But, Benn 0ichaels asks, the question of the politics of photo)raphy is surely not ans!ere by photo)raphy’s en)a)ement !ithpolitics1 0i)ht there not be a politics of photo)raphy that !oul mean thatphoto)raphy “oes” politics as photo"raphy 1 0i)ht there not be a politics of the )oo picture that !oul resie in the )oo picture as such, rather than
in its maker’s commitment to political issues, or its representation of socialstru))le1 0i)ht there not be, in other !ors, a politics of aesthetics1
.hen Rancière )oes on to e-plain !hat he means e-actly by literatureoin) politics as literature, the lan)ua)e he uses e-plicitly recallsphoto)raphy8
6hat really #eserves the name of politis is the luster ofpereptions an# praties that shape this ommon worl#.=olitis is first of all a way of framing, among sensory #ata, a
speifi sphere of experiene. It is a partition of the sensible, of the visible an# the sayable, whih allows !or #oes not allow'some speifi #ata to appear4 whih allows or #oes not allowsome speifi sub7ets to #esignate them an# speak about them.It is a speifi intertwining of ways of being, ways of #oing, an#ways of speaking. . . . 5he politis of literature thus means thatliterature as literature is involve# in this partition of the visiblean# the sayable, in this intertwining of being, #oing, an# sayingthat frames a polemial ommon worl#. !5he =olitis of
Aiterature0 $&'
If Rancière is inee capturin) the politics of literature here, an not thepolitics of the aesthetic in "eneral $!hich !oul inclue paintin),photo)raphy, cinema, (ieoKinstallation, theatre, an so forth', it is !orthnotin) that his efinition of this politics of literature o!es much @ almost asmuch as .alter Ben"amin’s “Theses on the hilosophy of +istory,” asuaro 3aa(a in +ords of &i"ht has sho!n @ to the lan)ua)e of photo)raphy, or, more broaly, to the lan)ua)e of the (isible rather thanthat of the sayable $note his use of the !ors “perception,” “framin),” “the
(isible,” an “appear”'# C::D
In the book (ersion of Rancière’s essay, !hich !as publishe in thelaterPoliti'ue de la litt%rature, Rancière e-pans the para)raphs from !hichI ha(e "ust quote !ith references to both lato an ristotle $see Politi'uede la litt%rature 55<5:'# The ar)ument e(elope in these e-tensions !illnot come as a surprise to those familiar !ith his other !orks8 once more, itis the strict i(ision of labor in lato’s !epublic that Rancière challen)es=once more, it is ristotle’s i(ision bet!een the human an the animal onthe basis of the i(ision bet!een (oice $the e-pression of pleasure anpain' an speech $the e-pression of !hat is beneficial or harmful', "ust or
un"ust that Rancière ra!s into question# Hiterature challen)es these types
of i(isions, this type of “istribution of the sensible#” It is in this sense, hear)ues, that literature is political#
In his iscussion of .all’s photo)raph, Benn 0ichaels oes t!o thin)s# 7irst,he e-plores the !ays in !hich the photo)raph is inee “about racism”
$Benn 0ichaels, 566', notin) that its sub"ect matter is more particularly “anti<sian racism” $566'# /ituatin) this particular racism in the social anpolitical history of .all’s nati(e 3anaa, Benn 0ichaels insi)htfully connectsit to the rise of capitalism in its neoliberal form in an increasin)ly )lobalise3anaa of the 5%A&s throu)h to the 5%%&s# +e reas imic as an earlyartifact of this )lobalisation# To situate imic in this conte-t means to ar)uethat not one but t!o a-es of social istinction are at !ork in .all’sphoto)raph8 “racial ifference an class ifference” $56%'# It is these “t!oa-es of social istinction” $5*9' that in .all’s (ie!, o not turn imic into a)oo picture#
lthou)h Benn 0ichaels spens a si)nificant amount of his time unco(erin)these issues, the point of his iscussion !ill ine(itably be that they o notconstitute the politics of a )oo picture as such# That politics consists,rather, in .all’s aesthetic choice not to choose bet!een racism or anti<racism# Instea @ an this is !hat Benn 0ichaels consiers to be imic ’sparticular brilliance @ .all’s commitment to the )oo picture, rather than toa so(erei)n choice “for” or “a)ainst,” isplaces these positions an e-posesthe !ays in !hich any choice that .all coul ha(e mae !oul ha(e eciesomethin) that the politics of the )oo picture lea(es open# By not makin)the choice bet!een racism or anti<racism, an by bein) committe to the
)oo picture instea, .all lea(es open, rather, the fact that the photo)raphmi)ht "ust as much be about class an the question of po(erty incontemporary society, as it is about race# s Benn 0ichaels points out, itmi)ht be that the photo)raph is most political in this su))estion8 for neo<liberalism has decided that race is protecte by anti<iscrimination la!,!hereas po(erty is not# In Rancière’s terms, !hat imic thus challen)es isthe “istribution of the sensible#” The photo)raph oes so by in(itin) one toi(ie an istribute other!ise#
.ithin this optic, ho!e(er, it is surely !orth pausin) for a moment toconsier the particular !ay in !hich Benn 0ichaels himself re<i(ies an
reistributes the sensible in .all’s photo)raph# 7or althou)h the point of hisreain) is that the politics of the )oo picture lies in the fact that it “isplaceCsD” $Benn 0ichaels, 5*9' clear<cut positions, the !ay in !hich thisisplacement occurs in Benn 0ichaels’ reain) is throu)h a sin"le i(ision8that bet!een the fi)ure that he refers to as “the prota)onist” $the !hitemale !ho makes the racist )esture', an bet!een the sian male to !homthe racism is irecte# It is bet!een these t/o fi)ures that the narrati(e of .all’s photo)raph, in Benn 0ichaels’ (ie!, e(elops# The social an politicala-es that he consiers to ominate the frame in !hich these t!o fi)ures arecau)ht up are equally t/o8 race an class# If .all’s photo)raph ha not
been reprouce !ith the article, one !oul almost not ha(e )uesse that
there is in fact a third fi)ure in(ol(e in the narrati(e8 a !hite !oman,!alkin) han<in<han !ith the !hite male#C:9D
7illin) the ri)ht han<sie of the frame, the !oman is la))in) behin a little$inee, it seems as if the !hite male is makin) a sli)htly force effort to
catch up !ith the sian male, so as to make sure that the latter can see theracist )esture irecte at him', an she appears to be entirely obli(ious tothe racist (iolence that her partner is committin)# +o!e(er, the photo)raphhas her starin) into the sun, an squintin)# Thus, she becomes an essentialpart of .all’s photo)raph, an most efinitely of its politics8 all three of thefi)ures in the ima)e appear to ha(e slante eyes @ but each of them for aifferent reason $one because of )enetics, the other because he isperformin) a racist )esture, an the thir because she is lookin) into thesun'# The presence of the !oman in the photo)raph in(ites one to a oneother a-is to the t!o a-es $race an class' that Benn 0ichaelsistin)uishes8 )ener#
imic offers the (ie!er not t!o but three main characters= it is notominate by t!o but three social an political a-es# 2ifference thusaccumulates in the ima)e8 class ifference, racial ifference, and )enerifference# The ima)e’s istribution of the sensible is i(ie bet!een thespecifics of these three cate)ories# +o!e(er, this ifference is alsoo(ercome by the fact that all three characters are squintin)8 it is throu)hthe squintin), !hich is performati(e in the case of the !hite male anfemale $but performati(e in an entirely ifferent !ay in each case' an)enetic in the case of the sian male, that these three characters unite, an
that an o $precarious an uneasy' alliance is create bet!een them# If ifference risks to make the characters appear too specific here, thesquintin) risks to make them appear too empty# 0y point is, ho!e(er, thatthe politics of .all’s photo)raph lies some!here bet!een these t!otenencies8 one can only appreciate it if one is able to appreciate both# nit is, in my opinion, the thir character in the photo)raph @ the !oman !hois lookin) in the sun, into the li)ht= a “Hucy” of a kin, !ho ra!s out thisparticular politics#
I o not kno! !hat the role is of !omen in the neo<liberal history of immi)ration that Benn 0ichaels offers in his essay @ but the thir character
in the photo)raph appears to in(ite one to fin out# 0y iscussion of thephoto)raph has intene to challen)e, from the perspecti(e of the feministaesthetic politics that I ha(e theorise here, the istribution of the sensiblethat Benn 0ichaels in his iscussion of .all’s photo)raph $!hich itself attempts to challen)e a certain istribution of the sensible' sets up# Reain)Benn 0ichaels’ iscussion throu)h the lens of Rancière’s !ork, an focusin)on the importance of the cate)ory of “!oman” for this !ork in particular,one realises that Benn 0ichaels’ reistribution nees to be reistribute inits turn# .hat is the future of such reistribution1 .ill the equality that iten(isions e(er be realise1 ;r is politics oome to inefinitely reistribute1
erhaps these are simply the !ron) questions# The point may be, rather, toact from the assumption of equality8 to take seriously the equality that, at
(arious points in history, has been eclare, an to act relentlessly from!ithin the sensible moe of bein) that challen)es the istribution of thesensible#
Arne %e &oe'er i his octoral stuies at 3olumbia ni(ersity in ?e!Lork an teaches merican /tuies in the /chool of 3ritical /tuies an the0 ro)ram in esthetics an olitics at the 3alifornia Institute of the rts#+e has publishe articles on literature, film, an critical theory an is one of the eitors of Parrhesia A 0ournal of Critical Philosophy # +is currentresearch focuses on biopolitics an the no(el#
(ndnotes
5# /ee +annah rent’s The Human Condition, in particular 56E<:>6#
CreturnD
:# /ee Juith Butler’s $ender Trouble (eminism and the Subversion of #dentity #
CreturnD
9# The translation is mine, as in all of the follo!in)#
CreturnD
># In spite of their ifferences, Butler an 0alabou ha(e also publishe a
book to)ether8 Sois mon corps 1ne lecture contemporaine de ladomination et la servitude che2 He"el #
CreturnD
E# 7or 0alabou’s efinition of plasticity, see also8 0alabou’s +hat Should +e Do +ith 3ur Brain4 0alabou’s most sustaine in(esti)ation of thee-plosi(e imension of plasticity can be foun in her book &es
nouveau. bless%s De (reud * la neurolo"ie, penser les traumatismescontemporains#
%# 3onsier, for e-ample, the book that Bonnie +oni) refers to asButler’s “other” nti)one book8 Precarious &ife The Po/ers of ournin" and 5iolence $+oni) iscusse Butler’s book alon) these
lines in a talk she )a(e for the 0 in esthetics an olitics pro)ramat the 3alifornia Institute of the rts on Thursay, 2ecember : n,:&5&'# Inee, the title of Butler’s book is attribute to thephilosopher of ethics mmanuel He(inas !hose !ork takes up acentral place in Butler’s book#
CreturnD
5&# /ee Rancière’s Aesthetics and its Discontents, 5&%<59:# The
te-t can also be foun in his Dissensus 3n Politics and Aesthetics,5*><:&:#
5:# /ee, for e-ample8 2erek ttri)e’s 0-- Coet2ee and the 6thicsof !eadin" &iterature in the 6vent- 7or a )eneral !ork on ethicalcriticism, see8 Robert a)lestone’s 6thical Criticism !eadin" After &evinas-
CreturnD
59# lthou)h I !ill not )o into this here, I choose this !or in li)htof Rancière’s theorisation of this notion $in his bookentitle Disa"reement ' as a name for the iscor that e(elops o(era istribution of the sensible# 2isa)reement is $one of' Rancière’sname$s' for politics# s my analysis sho!s, the isa)reementbet!een Hucy an her father is precisely a iscor o(er theistribution of the sensible8 her father !ants her to take the case of her rape to court= she, ho!e(er, insists that it is her pri(ate business#It is the lines separatin) the pri(ate from the public, male fromfemale, !hite from black, father from au)hter, an so on that arereistribute here#
CreturnD
5># /ee, for e-ample ieter Mermeulen’s “2o))e /ilences8 J#0#
3oet4ee’sDis"race an the thics of ?on<3onfession#” I !oul like tothank ieter for our fruitful con(ersations about Dis"race o(er theyears#
CreturnD
5E# /ee Mermeulen, “2o))e /ilences#”
CreturnD
5A# I use this term here !ith reference to Rancière’s iscussion of emocracy (ersus ethnocracy in his book Disa"reement # .hereasethnocracy marks a form of community that is etermine by “ientity,” by an establishe frame!ork of ientification anclassification, emocracy ruptures that frame!ork an makespossible other forms of li(in) to)ether# It is oppositions like this one,bet!een ethnocracy an emocracy, that make possible Rockhill’s
characterisation of Rancière’s political sub"ect as an “empty operator#” s I ha(e iscusse, the role of “ientity” or “ethnicity” in Rancière’s
!ork is actually more complicate than a simple opposition of “emptyoperator” to “ientity” can account for# In this sense, Rancière in(itesone to “think more carefully” $as Gayatri 3hakra(orty /pi(ak puts itin the quote that I ha(e chosen as the motto for the first section of this essay' about the relation of uni(ersalism to politics toay#
CreturnD
56# The term “aesthetic” oes appear to be takin) up a moreprominent position in some of her recent !ork# /ee, for e-ample83athy 3aruth’s “Inter(ie! !ith Gayatri 3hakra(orty /pi(ak8 estheticucation an Globali4ation#”
CreturnD
5*# /ee Rancière’s The (uture of the #ma"e#
CreturnD
5%# 7iona robyn nicely summarises the ebates in her article “J#0#
3oet4ee8 .ritin) !ithKout uthority#”
CreturnD
:&# In his recent !ork, 3oet4ee e-plicitly e-plores this connection#/ee, for e-ample, his no(els 6li2abeth Costello an Slo/ an# Theconnection is also e-plore in !hat is ar)uably the manifesto of 3oet4ee as a fiction !riter8 his ?obel lecture “+e an his 0an#”
CreturnD
:5# t the time !hen I !rote this article, .alter Benn 0ichaelNsarticle “?eoliberal esthetics8 7rie, Rancière an the 7orm of thehoto)raph” $a(ailable at8 http8KKnonsite#or)Kissue<5Kneoliberal<aesthetics<frie<ranciere<an<the<form<of<the<photo)raph'ha notbeen publishe yet#
2a(is, To 7# an enneth .omack, es# appin" the 6thical Turn A !eader in 6thics, Culture, and &iterary Theory # 3harlottes(ille8 ni(ersity ress of Mir)inia, :&&5#
2erria, Jacques# The $ift of Death# Trans# 2a(i .ills# 3hica)o8 ni(ersity of 3hica)o ress, 5%%E#
2u(e, Thierry e# “The 0ainstream an the 3rooke ath#” 0eff +all # 2u(e,Thierry e, rielle elenc, Boris Groys, Jean<7ranSois 3he(rier# Honon8haion, :&&9#
<<<# “.ho is the /ub"ect of the Ri)hts of 0an1” And 0ustice for All4 The Claims
of Human !i"hts# # Ian Balfour an uaro 3aa(a# South Atlantic Quarterly 5&9#:K9 $:&&>'8 :%6<95&#
<<<# The Politics of Aesthetics# Trans# Gabriel Rockhill# Honon8 3ontinuum,:&&>#
<<<# “The olitics of Hiterature#” SubStance 99#5 $:&&>'8 5&<:>#
<<<# Politi'ue de la litt%rature# aris8 Galile, :&&6#
<<<# The (uture of the #ma"e# Trans# Gre)ory lliott# ?e! Lork8 Merso, :&&6#
<<<# “3ontemporary rt an the olitics of esthetics#” Communities of Sense!ethinkin" Aesthetics and Politics# # Beth +inerliter, .illiam ai4en,Mere 0aimon et al# 2urham8 2uke ni(ersity ress, :&&%# 95<E&#
<<<# Aesthetics and #ts Discontents# Trans# /te(en 3orcoran# 3ambri)e8 olity,:&&%#
<<<# Dissensus 3n Politics and Aesthetics# # an Trans# /te(en 3orcoran#Honon8 3ontinuum, :&5&# 5*><:&:#
Rockhill, Gabriel# “Glossary of Technical Terms#” The Politics of Aesthetics# #Rancière, Jacques# Trans# Gabriel Rockhill# Honon8 3ontinuum, :&&># *&<%9#
/pi(ak, Gayatri 3hakra(orty# “thics an olitics in Ta)ore, 3oet4ee, an
3ertain /cenes of Teachin)#” Diacritics 9:#9<> $:&&:'8 56<95#
Mermeulen, ieter# “2o))e /ilences8 J#0# 3oet4ee’s Dis"race an the thics of ?on<3onfession#” Bell : $:&&>'8 5*E<5%6#
