Pertseva_summary (1137619), страница 7
Текст из файла (страница 7)
We consider this transformation as a vividexample of theorizing the articulation between visibility and subjectivization in thestrong sense of the word. The chapter also takes Rancière’s later aesthetic texts toanalyze the restrictive guidelines of his approach.Section 3.1 is devoted to the clarification of the theoretical andmethodological innovations of Rancière enabling him to advance in his politicaltexts of the 1980ies-1990ies the imperative of subjectivization in the terms of“becoming visible - becoming subject”. These innovations are analyzed by usagainst the background of Foucault’s approach which, as we show, Rancièreborrows in many respects, introducing however some essential alterations whichmake him stand out as an author from the context of post-structuralism.
Inparagraph 3.1.1, it is shown that the interest to the link between thesubjectivization in the strong sense of the word and the idea of panopticism may betraced to the sharp criticism by the young Rancière of Althusser’s idea of“subjectless processes”, in relation to which Foucault’s studies, and, in particular,his “Discipline and punish”, play an ambiguous role. They both reproduceAlthusser’s general approach to subjectivization and open the opportunities to28criticize his idea of “subjectless processes” thanks to the reformulation of therelations between theory and practice.
The latter is pushed by Rancière to its limits,and eventually turned against Foucault. Thus, we find out a link between hiscriticism of “inconsistent materialism” of the subjectless processes of Althusserand his later assumption of common and equal visibility, and, hence, thetransformation of visibility from the operator of submission (as it is, for example,in Foucault's famous thesis that “Visibility is a trap”) into an instrument of theverification of equality for political subjects. In paragraph 3.1.2, the concept of“police” shared by Rancière and Foucault is used as an example to clearlydemonstrate the most global differences of the “theoretical dispositives” of the twoauthors.
It is shown how Rancière, theorizing “policy” as the positive reverse ofthe “politics”, makes an attempt to go beyond what he classifies as the“determinism” of Foucault’s historical a priori, in fact suggesting the possibility toaffect these historical a priori distributions of the sensible (including thevisible/invisible distributions), to call them into question due to their dehistorization by those who are traditionally called the “subject of history”.
Inparagraph 3.1.3., we analyze a more particular transformation of Foucault’s ideaof “exception” underlying one of the key concepts advanced by Rancière – theconcept of the “distribution of the sensible”, associated, as we show, withhistorization of invisibility, a more radical than that of Foucault. We demonstratethat it is under the category of structurally “invisible” in the given distribution ofsensual that those whom Rancière calls “part of those who have no part” fall. Inparagraph 3.1.4, it is shown how these two innovations allow Rancière toadvance the imperative of subjectivization in the terms of “becoming visible –becoming subject”. Those whom Rancière calls “part of those who have no part”,categorized as structurally invisible in the public space, turn out able to call intoquestion their invisibility and its injustice in Rancière’s texts on politics thanks tohis advantageous theoretical assumption of questioning the current distribution ofthe sensible.
For Rancière’s “part of those who have no part” can become visible inthe public space if and only if they call into question the current distribution of the29sensible which makes them invisible. Such putting into the question is madepossible thanks to the universality of equality characterizing politics as the positivereverse of police. The link between the universality, equality, subject and suchunderstanding of “becoming visible” is elaborately analyzed.In paragraph 3.1.5, building of “Disagreement”, we analyze Rancière’sdistinctive theory of the heterogeneous “visible” in politics thanks to which hisdiscourse on the subjectifying “becoming visible” turn out to be possible. Inparticularly, we consider his idea of “appearance” questioning the currentdistribution of the public visible/invisible in relation to the identities policycorresponding to the latter. Rancière’s theory of visibility-appearance is analyzedas that avoiding two extremities – the extremity of the critical theory and theextremity of the theory of total simulation – due to balancing the rights of realityand visibility while preserving a gap between them.
Visibility-appearanceistreated as introducing in the field of experience of a certain visible which changesits regime. In paragraph 3.1.6, we delve into considering the “fiction”’scontribution into the visibility-appearance by taking into account the notion of“stage” particularly important in the political texts of Rancière. We investigate thetroubled relationship with the established tradition of the public stage analysis inthe terms of visible (mainly represented by Hannah Arendt), in which Rancière’sconcept of a “political stage” enter.
Furthermore, we also show the contrastbetween Rancière’s idea of “political stage” and his idea of “theatrical stage” fromthe later collected works entitled “The Emancipated spectator”. This contrast isformulated in the terms of becoming visible, necessary in politics and absent inaesthetics, and is associated with the question of the difference between politicaland aesthetic subjectivization. The study of this difference becomes a task of thefollowing section.Section 3.2 is devoted to the exploration of the link between visibility andsubjectivization in Rancière’s texts on aesthetics.
The philosopher made the latterthe object of his assiduous study at the second stage of his creative work, in late1990ies- early 2000s. This link, as we try to show, appears in these late texts on30different lines, revealing the limitations of his approach.To study this difference we, first of all, in paragraph 3.2.1, show thedifference in the approache between Rancière’s aesthetics of politics and hispolitics of aesthetics – a difference that is not evident for the majority of hisanalysts.
We bring focus on the fact the this difference follows, inter alia, the lineof the subject: if in Rancière’s politics, the subjectivization plays a key role, in hisaesthetic texts, it is actually absent. Here the hypotheses of the two Englishspeaking analysts, Bruno Bosteels and Gabriel Rockhill, explaining the absence ofsubjects in Rancière’s aesthetics by his turn to more radical historicism and hisabandonment of sharp the opposition between the politics and the police, are put indoubt. To propose an interpretation of the subjects’ evanescence from Rancière’saesthetics “closer” to his texts, in paragraph 3.2.2, we consider the elucidation ofthe difference between the two politics (the politics of “Disagreement” and thepolitics of aesthetics) given by Rancière himself.
We focus on Rancière’s commentto Schiller’s text of “The Letters on aesthetic education of man” which give theFrench philosopher the material for the most detailed explanation of the deficiencyof the politics in the strong sense of the term, associated with subjectivization inhis texts of late 1980ies-early 1990ies, in the aesthetics. We thus explore thedifference between the two concepts of “aesthetics” found in the works byRancière in the contexts of an “aesthetics of politics” and a “politics of aesthetics”,tracing them back to German idealism and romanticism.
As a result, we manage tounderstand the particular way in which in Rancière’s “politics of aesthetics”, theheterogeneity of visible (analyzed by us in the previous section on the material of“Disagreement”) is transformed from the principle of resistance and condition ofthe possibility of subjectivization into the principle of withdrawal of politics(“metapolitics”). We find that in the context of these explanations the absence ofsubjects in the aesthetics of the late Rancière can in fact appear quite explainableby his own political texts. Nevertheless, the difference between the two concepts of“aesthetics” – one rather anhistorical, and the other outlined by rather narrowhistorical frameworks (German romanticism - nowadays), as shown by us, may31well raise questions.To answer them, in paragraph 3.2.3, we turn to one of the interviews givenby Rancière as part of conversations for the collected works “The Method ofEquality”. A concern formulated by Rancière in it, provides us an opportunity toportray Rancière’s reading of the Schiller’s “The Letters on Aesthetic Education”and his resort to German romanticism in general, as a forced response to aninconclusive attempt to fix an universality of “literariness” similar to the principleof equality in his politics.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
