déotte jean-louis---(on rancière and lyotard)

8/12/2019 Dotte Jean-Louis---(On Rancire and Lyotard)

1/15

The Differences between Rancire's "Msentente" (Political Disagreement) and Lyotard's"Diffrend"Author(s): Jean-Louis Dotte and Roxanne LapidusSource: SubStance, Vol. 33, No. 1, Issue 103: Contemporary Thinker Jacques Rancire (2004),pp. 77-90Published by: University of Wisconsin PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3685463.

Accessed: 18/03/2014 11:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Wisconsin Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

SubStance.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 148.205.199.241 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:21:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwischttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3685463?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3685463?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwisc


2/15

TheDifferencesetween ancibre'sMisententePolitical isagreement)andLyotard's ifferendJean-Louis iotte

Ranciere's a Mtsentente1995),which onflicts ith oth lassicalPlato,Aristotle)nd modernHobbes,Rousseau,Marx, tc.)political hilosophy,nthename ofpolitics s action,nthename ofthe sanspart" those tilln aprovisionalublicnvisibility-underlinesromhe tartts ppositionoLyotard'sLeDiffrend.Lyotard1924-1998)was sixteen ears lderthanRanciere; othtaughtphilosophytthe xperimentalenterstablishednfall 968 nVincennesfterthe vents f hepreviousMay.Both lsosubsequentlyaughtt 'UniversitdeParis-8. or all philosopherswho chose to teachand engage nactivism tVincennes,he ecruitmentas, ccordingoF.Chatelet,olitico-philosophical.Eachnon-Communist arxist roup ent heirepresentatives:heAlthusser-Maoists from heEcole NormaleSupdrieure,ued'Ulm,sentBadiou andRancibre;heTrotskyistsentBensaid,Weber, ndBrossat, he ibertarianssurroundingchdrerndHocquenghem. his vant-garde as tobe oined yDeleuze andLyotard. yotard, hohadbelonged othegroup Socialisme tBarbarie" ounded yLefortndCastoriadis, as welcomed omewhatater,with certainpprehension.s Rancibreecalled tLyotard'suneral,neknewthatwith im hings ouldnot eeasy.nfact,hewaypeoplebehavedwasnotnecessarilycademic nthis xperimentalniversityenter nstitutedytheGaullist overnmentnorder ocreate kindoffocal bscessfor verythingradicalnthe rench niversityystem.twas notunusualforMaoistCulturalRevolutionommandosobe ookingor fightndfor hilosophicalrgumentsto be hurled at Lyotard, speciallyoncehe "betrayed hedictates f theproletariat"ydeveloping he nalyses fL' conomieibidinale.The virility"f hesexchangesidnot ater reventn mportantpistolarydiscussion romevelopingetweenyotardndBadiou, uringhe reparationofLyotard's reat hilosophicalext,eDiffrend.t s tobehopedthatomedaythiscorrespondencewillbe published,for traises such questionsas "ismathematicshekey oontology?"? Board fRegents, niversityfWisconsinystem,004 77SubStance 03,Vol.33,no.1,2004

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/15

78 Jean-LouisD6otteRancikrendLyotardwere trugglingnthe ameground that f he

articulationetween estheticsndpolitics.ancikreeveloped genuinerchivalapproach oworking-classiterarymaginationnthenineteenthenturyLanuit es rolhtaires,981, ephilosophet espauvres,983, tc.). yotardworkedon the igural,his rue istoricalhrustf he nconscious, hich or xampletriggershe ubversiveiguresf arnival. hefigurals theurge oundoeacheraof he esthetical-politicalurface f nscription.I propose oanalyzehere heirwo pproaches oaesthetics,hich efersnot o he ciencefworksf rt ut o he uestionf isthesis,romwo ifferentmethodologicalngles via anguage ndcertainntralingusiticonflictshatgo beyond his ield,nd via the haracterizationfourera.InLamrsentente,ancikre istinguishesxplicitlyetween situation fmisunderstandingnda situationfdiffirend.e argues hatmisunderstandingcannot rise romhe yotardianroblematicf hedifrend etween enres fdiscourse or the diffrendbetween modes of phrase. A situation ofmisunderstandingupposes wo peakers hoeither se the amewords ut ndifferentenses, rwith he ameword do notdesignate he amething sreferent.utthemostradicalmisunderstandings theone thatdividestwospeakerswhen the irstannot nderstandhe econdbecause, ccordingohim,words do notbelongto articulatedanguage, o ogos, ut rather oaninarticulateoice, oph6nf.hat oice,which,ccordingoAristotleinPolitics),humanshave ncommonwith nimals, anonly xpress eelings, leasure rpain, ntheform f cry,ontentmentr hate, ndbycheers rbooing nthecase of group. f omepeoplecannot onsider thers sspeakers,t ssimplybecause hey o not eethem,ecause hey on't avethe ame harewithin hepolitical artitioningf he ensible.This swhy he ituationfpolitical iscussion etween artnersescribedbyHabermas squiteexceptional.norder or debate o takeplace,the wospeakersmust cknowledgehepossibilityf lterity,hough uite elative:fslaves, aupers ndthedisenfranchisedreunintelligible,fwhat heyxpressarisesmore rom cry han rom nargumentativepeech, hen he utcomewillnearly lwaysbe a foregoneonclusion. here anonly e debate etweenthosewhosepositionsreknown rom he tart,na socialdistributionhat asalready eterminedhosewho count nd thosewho do not.This s whatPlatodescribesnhisRepublicn deal terms:achpersonnhisplace accordingohisoccupation ndespeciallynterms fthe eisure ime scholh)e canhave toparticipatenpublic ffairs.ence hemythfmetalsndtheirlloys onstitutingthenature f achperson ccordingothis ctivity.Thusthe dealorderwould be foundednnature. olitical ction omesnaturallyothosewhoare pared rom ork rmotherhood,othose orwhomSubStance 03, ol. 3,no.1, 004



4/15

Ranci&re'sisententendLyotard'siffde'rend 79lifefinds tsmeaning n whatHannah Arendt alled the Vita ctiva inTheConditionfModernMan),tothosewhooccupypositions hat llow them oexpress hemselves ublicly.t sultimatelyo thesepeople,to theirmodernequivalents,hatHabermas's ommunicationalthic saddressed, or tfostersimprovementntheperformativityf debate,nasmuch sthe ocio-politicalmechanismasclearlyeterminedndnamed he artiesthewords) hat ount.ButHabermasdoesnot xplainhow thosewho donot ount regoing ogainaccess to thepublicforumwhere hedebatetakesplace,how conflictstherthan heprobable itigationanappear,how the mprobable an occur theimprobable eing hereforewayof ppearing ble toproduce nevent. orRancikre,f here re ome nvisible,ameless nd disenfranchisedeople, t sbecause theydo notparticipatenthepublic political) ifeof thecity themechanismsordividing p legitimatehares, hepolice, tc.); t sbecausealthough heyhave an acknowledged laceinsociety,hat s tosaya placeviewed as useful, nd are identifieds suchby sociologytoday, hey reneverthelessxcluded romegitimatelypeaking ut.ContraryoAristotle'saffirmation,he useful" society)snot hebasisofwhat srightpolitics).nchoosing xamples f levationnto hepublic imelightnAncient ome thesecession f heplebeians nd their etreatnto heAventine illdescribedyBallanche nthenineteenthentury),r thenineteenth-centuryfeminist"activitiesfJeanne eroin, rBlanqui's elf-proclamations "a proletarian"nresponse o aprosecutoreekingoreduce im o social lassora profession,Rancikreffectivelyircumscribesgenre fdiscourse-the olitical- hat asnospecific lace nLyotard's eDiffrrend.ancibre's ook s oneofthegreatworks npolitics,hichmakes s betternderstand,orxample,hemovementinFrance fundocumentedlienworkers.Nevertheless,forRanciErethe specificity f politics springsfromcommunicationaltakes.Forthosewhospeakout"politically" o notexistpoliticallyefore his ct f peakingut.As nLyotard,t s the hrase-arisingherefrom hegenre fpolitical iscourse-that iterallynstitutesuniversewhich, ithoutt,wouldnever ave xisted. universe f he hrase omprisesanaudience, destination,meaning, referent,llemergingrom hefact fthis hrase.Thepolitical rder,nstitutedysuchphrases ndsentences,s a purelyartificialevice,nd thereforeontingent,productmadebythe pparatusndthe ndustryf he ymbolic; hepolitical rders thereforeotbasedonanyarkhi,t s notfounded n naturePlato,Aristotle)r onanyutilitarianeason(Hobbes). It is thepoliticalact-this phrase that takes theformof thedemonstrationf a tort,blaberon),f an argumentationased on universalprinciplesike heDeclaration f heRightsfMan-that makes he sans art"SubStance 03,Vol.33,no.1,2004



5/15

80 Jean-Louis botte

appear struly oliticalctors.Whichis o ay hat reviouslyhey id not xistas constitutedubjects,nd that heirctof subjectification"oesnot onsist fa sudden wareness f elf hatecomesforelf.t'snot matterf elf-reflectionbyanentityhat lready xists ortself,ot raising f onsciousness uch sLenin's deology laimed. he"subjectification"fformerlynvisible eople,politicallypeaking, erives romhe nscriptionf nargumentationn thefield f heogos rticulatedythe oice-i.e.ph6nd-whichrises romeeling.Thus,ncontrastoLyotard, ancikressumes hatvery oice spotentiallyarticulable,ndthus hat hewronghat xists ecause f hedifferenceetweenvoice ndspeech anbetransformedntoitigation,t east deally,n world freason,ccordingoKant.nthis, ancibresverymodem, ven hough or imthis erm o longerhas anysubstanceseeLepartageusensible,000).He ismodem nthe ensethat or imbothDescartes ndKantparticipate,ach nhisownway,na newdeterminationf he elations etween he ensible ndthe ntelligible:he ormerymakinghe ubjecthenewmode for nypersonwhosoever o"appear,"the atter ecause heopens upbefore is action hehorizon f xigencynduniversality.ubjectificationnduniversal xigencydid not xplicitlyigurentheanguage f heAncients,ordid these nformhedivision f he ensible hat haracterizedntiquity.dmittedly,qualitys attheheart fplatonic easoning,f nly sequalitynreading eometricigures.(RecallLeMinon,where heyoung lavecanreadthepropertiesf square swell shismaster.)ut his qualitys not ecognizedsinherentowriting;hisequality oes not nclude nyone ndeveryone'sightoappearon thepublicscene nd toregisterisownreading f he aw.At theveryeast his qualitycanbe inferredromnyrelationshipfdomination,s anequality romhepoint fviewof anguage, or hedominatedmustunderstand is master norder oobey. here s nfact commonharingf anguagethe eading f helaw)for heAncients,ut nequalcapacityowrite ouldnotbededucedfromthis ommunityfreading-hence heAristotelianistinctionetweenph6nd(voice, ry) ndspeech articulatedogos). ollowingRanciire'sead, wouldlike o nlargeponhisdistinction,nd nvestigatehe ifferenceetweeneadingandwriting, hich s thebasisofthedifferenceetween otalitythe deallyconstitutedociety,asedon afairlyroportioned,eometricivision f ts arts,as inPlato- the olis,rpolice) ndmultiplicity,hemprobabilityinked otheprocess f ppearing-notust nAntiquity,ut nanypolitical rder.RanciEre'sptimismwhichsnothingutthe emporalitypecifico thegenre f oliticaliscourse)eadshim odescribeolitical ovementsssuccessesthatccumulate,ndthat reate heaw,nstitutionsndsociety,endingowarda reductionn he ntologicalifferenceetweenotalityndmultiplicity.ithout

SubStance 03,Vol. 3,no.1,2004



6/15

Rancibre'sMisententendLyotard's ifferend 81thisgapeverbeingfilled. hus therewillalwaysbewrongs ndimprobableevents obeexposed, ecause theresalways miscount ttheheart fpublicinterests,utnothingsboundtoremainn the owest epths f ocietyike nimmemorialebt.Ifsociety s alwaysdivided,always laggingbehind tself,here s noirreducible,narticulatenseen lement.orRancikre,istoryasnovanquished,inthe ensethat enjamin onsiders anquished hosewho have eft o traceandno archives,ike thevanquishedof thenineteenth-centuryroletarianrevolutions,orxamplearisingrompoliticalndhistoriographicnconsciousandthusfrom sort fpsychoanalysisfhistory), hereasRancibre's sanspart,"hosewhodonothave a share npolitics, ill nevitablyndby takingpart.This characteristicfoptimisms thebasis of his refusal fLyotard'spessimisticheme f the ublime, he ublime s "presentationhat heressomethingnpresentable."neluctably,oliticalmovementshat aveemergedoutside fhierarchy,utside f egitimateocial epresentation,onfirmhe rderof heCity,f hepolis,he roper istributionfparts. nevitably,heprogramofthe ociuswill be realizedby ntegratinghe mprobable; nexorably,ewwriters ill xpand he ext f he aw.But rethere imitsothepolitical? anthegenreofpoliticaldiscourse ubsume all wrongs? s the movement fmodernityimited othe mancipationfworkers, omen, nd the adicals f'68?Wouldn't omepeoplebe eft n thewayside f hepolitical oad? Thoseforwhom hemanifestationf wrongwould till otmake hem nto niversalsubjects,ven t theverymoment hen heyufferedhiswrong? hosewhowould not rticulateccordingo the ame norms ither he ensible nd theintelligible,rthe eading f he aw andwriting?But etus remainwithin hepoliticalrame hat imits he oundaryhaveinmind,nd towhich willretumrn.f ocietyssimply device- thats, visiblepartitioningfparts-it placesan nterpretiverid ver nyevent, ssigningidentifyingimits,uch sfor xample hemodem ocio-professionalategoriesof exual oles r thnicdentities.ut t he ame imehis evice snot otalitarian;the ifferenceetweenmultiplendtotalitythe ifferenceetweenwritingndreading)s stillnplay, ndfrom here oliticshiftsothemode of ppearingthroughts bilityomake vents appen.ThusRancikrenalyzes he rtificef hepolitical pparatus hatmakesaction ossible n the asisof dentificationechanisms"thepolice").For hepoliticalpparatus hat ives ise othemprobables inked o themechanismthategitimatelyistributesisible artsndplaces.Actionlways resupposesanapparatus ied o mechanism.norder or wrong oemerge n thepublicscene,norder orhere obeconflict,norder orhereo ppear imultaneouslySubStance 03,Vol. 3, no. 1, 004



7/15

82 Jean-LouisUottethiswrong,he ubjectsonstitutedy xposingt, he ublic rena or iscussion,andpublicpinionalled pon o ssento omethingever reviouslyroclaimed(in hort,ll thatwillmake he vent ccur),hewrong anonly ecomevisiblein contrasto thatwhichwas alreadythere, ynature,nplace from imeimmemorialnduncontested-isibleo ll.Thus t s a newvision f he ensibleincarnatingnew dea necessarilyniversalizable),newdivision f he ensiblethatmust merge rom partitioningf he ensible, hich eemed obetherebynature. or t's boutmaking he nvisible ppear, boutarticulatingheunarticulated,bout ircumscribingomethingreviouslyormless. e're alkinghere bout production,fnotanindustrytoreturno he atin oots f ndustry:indu, in" and struere,to construct")--thats,creating rderfrom haos.Industriussactive, ealous,applied, killed, onstructingndstructuring.nthe MiddleAges, the term ndustryn Italian,Occitan and Frenchmeantingenuity,nventiveness,ometimes lyness;nSpanish picaresquenovels,industry adher knights"whoexercised heir alents tthe xpenseofthemorenaive.Hencethe inkmadebetween oliticsnd theatert the ime f heEnlightenment:eaumarchais'sly haracterserve differentartitionf hesensible romhatnwhich person hould emain ermanentlynhisplace.Thuspoliticaliscoursesnot nly genre fdiscourse;t ubvertshe ocialorder oundednAristotle's imesis, hichwasalso thekey o n academic rtwhere he uthor new owhomhe was speakinginwhich ocialcategory),howheshould ddress imself,hichtoriese hould ell, ithwhich haractersinwhich ituations,norder oproducewhich ffects.hisparticularivisionfthe ensibleodified aystoappear s well swaysto ct,waystomake ct, rwaystomakeknow.Thus twasnecessaryn the ighteenthenturyorwhatRancibreallsthe representativeegime f he rts" o cracknorder or hegenre fpolitical iscourseoreachts ull mplitude. learly,ince t's matterof differentayof inkinghe ensible nd the ntelligible,he rtswillbemobilized-or, ather,he pparatuseshat etermine hich egimef he rts.Forthemuses realways he ame dance, pic, ragedy,tc.); or he ensible,what hanges nd constitutesn eraarethe pparatuses hat ctivatehe rts,such sperspectiveid so significantlynthefifteenthenturynFlorence orarchitecture,ainting,culpturendtheaterAlberti).From hemomenthat ristotelianimesis as on thewane, llsituations,allsubjects,llgenres,materials,reffectsrepossible nd egitimate,or heyareno onger ubject ohierarchy.encethe candal fManet's Dbjeunerurl'herbe"withts onjunctionfblack,masculineveningttirendodalisque-likenudity.his s the amemovementhat nables nyone oarguepoliticallyabout wrong hat houldhaveremained rivatendhidden,ndthat nables

SubStance 03,Vol. 3,no.1,2004



8/15

Rancibre'sMisententendLyotard's ifferend 83themuseums f heRevolution owelcome nythinghat or hePopeandforrulers as viewed sa sacred con.nshort,hematerialf rt,ike hat fpolitics,willbe theprosaic, he ragmentary,hensignificant-ebris.Ifthe rts re dressedup byanapparatus, o arewrongs,which annotappear s s,naked howto xhibithe ifferenceetween eadingndwriting?)This swhy hepoliticalonflicts constructedndproduced,whywrongs reelaborated,hy he tages set-becausenone f hatxisted efore,verythinghastobe nvented,ndeed onquered,nthe ace f worldwhose trengthiesinbeing already tangible, vailable,regulated.Thus one must show anddemonstrate,roceed oeticallyndarguenorder o onvince.t'shardhere odistinguishbetweenhe ensiblend hentelligible.hepoliticaldeamust ecomesensible,must old he isthesisn newway.t s here hat ancireshouldhavereferredomany therpparatusesesides iterature'sew"aesthetic"egimeorthe sualpolitical omp parades,masks, rritualsallofwhich pringromthe arnivalmatrix). therwise, e cannot nderstand hy omanypeopleinvolved ntheaterndcinema nd nthe tudy f hose rts ndapparatuses,haveplacedso muchpolitical mportanceespeciallynthe1920s nd 30s)onwhatpreviouslyprangmerelyrom istractionrpopular ntertainmente.g.Panofskyn the inema).t'snotbymere hance hat enjaminnhis 1935-36analyses f inema laimed newrightor hemasses: o create ppearancesfromhemselves,hanks o cinema.' t sdifficultor s today ounderstandthat his ights for im minentlyolitical. uthere gainwe musthark acktothenon-capitalisteaningf ndustry,2or inemawas the irstpparatus tthetime f ndustrialization,ustas we mustharkback to thenotion f themassesbefore he eactionmposed yAdorno nd theFrankfurtchool. ForMarx ndBenjamin,hemasseswererevolutionaries;or dorno hey ecamealienated ndthe onsumersf he culturalndustry.")IfLyotardnthe1970s xplored hepolitical owerof rt,tisbecauseforhimthis remainedessentially orporeal, rtisanal,non-industrial,ot insubmissiono ulture.inally,or im,n way hatsclassical,henomenologicaland nfluencedyAdorno, pparatuseswillbe linked o the lienation f heartisticesture,speciallyhe ictorial.ne hasonly orereadhe loquent agesdevoted othe pparatus fperspectivenDiscours,igure,obeconvinced fthis.Following n thefootsteps fPanofsky's a perspectiveommeormesymboliquetranslatednto renchn1972), yotardwasthefirstoshowhowthis evicemarked whole ra, utwe must nderstandere nascendancyfpaintingandof olor) ver ny ther evicesuch sthe othic).t sneverthelessastonishing o arrive t such conclusions bout an apparatuscapable ofgeneratingnastronomicalumber fworks ver t eastfive enturies,romSubStance 03,Vol.33,no.1,2004



9/15

84 Jean-LouisD6otteMasaccio oC~zanne.Theultimateonsequencef his sthat or yotard,hereisessentiallyohistoryfpaintingince ascaux,3nd thedivorce etween heunarticulatedffectthe ensible) r ts olored race,ndthe ogoswillbesuchthat hepolitical an onlyarisefrom peaking,which alone can create narticulableevent. The breakbetween sensible and intelligiblewill beaccomplished;he ogoswillbecome "technico-scientificystem"ondemnedto ntropicxhaustion,ince he esire hat ouldhavenourishedt sdefinitivelycut off ndencapsulatednan inaccessible emporality.o forLyotardt sinevitablehat hewitnesses othe hoahbereduced o radicalmutenessLeDiff end),he iguref hewitnessngeneraloncentratingllthedifficultiesfthe mpossiblerticulationetween he ensible nd the ntelligible,h8ndndlogos,figuralnd surface f nscription,olor ndculture,tc.4Onecouldsaythat or yotard,henakedfiguralmodeof ppearing)sthe ondition f hedevice, f he ystem,nconditionfbeing bsorbed, hereas orRancikret'sthe pposite: he ystempolice, ulture)s the ondition or ppearances.Let'snow ookatthe ingular apportothe awthatmakesthepoliticalpossible, ccording oRancibre. ased on a system f ensibilitypparentlyfounded nnature thepoliceand itspartitioningfthesensible), oliticalappearancesonsistf delocalization,displacement,dis-identification,lmostanuprooting,o thatwrong anbeexposed.Thiswas the ase for eministsikeJ. eroin,who aswomenwereboth ircumscribedndrecognized s "socialpartners,"ince heyweremothersndwives, ducators fboth heirhildrenand their orker-husbands,utwhohadnopoliticalisibilityince hey idnothave thevote and couldn't e elected.Forthem, hedeclaration fequalityinscribedntheheart f heConstitutioneemed ike false niversalism.Thusagitatorsreconstitutedythe ctof peaking ut, ndthe ame strue fwhat s atstake, heir ause thewrong. hey nvent,nd nsodoingoverturnhedivision etween he cceptablend theunacceptable,hevisibleand the nvisible. hey nvent newworld,newterritories,nd thus newsensitivityaisthesis),.e.a differentivision f he ensible, differentoetics.Thus art ndpolitics reintrinsicallyinkedbywhatone could callculture(followingchiller's ettresur 'dducationsthitiquee 'humanitd).ulturesthemilieu f rt ndpoliticshat re-existshem, otwhat lienates hem n aso-calledsocietyf he pectacle."ancibresopposed ogicallyo llofAdorno'sargumentshat eek orender hework f rt utonomous,risingnly romtsown egality.The gitatorsnventhemselvesybringingo he ublic orumnunheard-of bject f itigation-forxample, hatwork elationsrenotprivate,yingproprietornd a renter yhispowerofwork, butarepublicrelationsnd

SubStance 03,Vol.33,no.1,2004



10/15

Rancibre'sMisententendLyotard's ifferend 85thereforeubjecto aw-hencethe ecognitionf he ighto trike,orxample.Feministsroughtwomen utof he amilyircle f nvisibilitynwhich heywereboth nclosed nd egitimatedy he ocial rder, hereas heyrecalledupontoparticipaten French itizenship,ike veryone lse.But t s clear hatthe"sanspart" renotappearingn a pre-existingublicforum; heymustinvent heir wnsite. t'snot matter f hemedia eizing ponanew theme-rather,t s discord hat xposes tself hile reatinghe cene f his xhibition.So thewrongmustbeproperly resented,therwisetwillremain cry,naffect.ince he bject f hewrongwas never eforenvisioned,tmust reateits wn ommunication,ustseveryewwork f rtmust o n ts wn omain,andmust rousean audience hatwill egitimatet nreturn. ere wemightdevelop parallelbetweenhe nheard-ofork f rt ndthemprobableoliticalaction-they reboth trugglinggainst stablishedpinion nd statistics.It s the ame for hose n thereceivingnd-more precisely or he woreceiversfpoliticalntervention-thosenown s"they."or they"'reon theone handthe epresentativesf he rder nstitutedythedistributionfparts,themasters fcommunication,f thepolice, nthebroadest ense of thisinstitution,heModernState,whichwants thegoodof ts itizens."They"must e identifiednorder obefought,utvictory illconsist f ntegrationinto heformer ictors' ocial political,nd inguisticphere. he "sanspart"will hereafterake ull artnthe egitimateistributionfparts.On theother and,there s another spect o "them."Thepublicforummusthavewitnesses,o the gitators illbring third lement obear:publicopinion. herole f pinions toverifyhe alidityf he rgumentationroughtto ts ttention,ust s for rt he ole f he ublic,nthe rue ense, s toelevatethework yrecognizingt s art.Noneof hat ouldhappenwithoutncreasedsensitivity.his sensitizing"hould e understoodn ts trongestense. ublicopinionmustbecome ensitized o a previouslynvisiblewrong, osingulardisadvantaged eople, oobscureworks f rt.norder or uch nopinion ocoalesce, heremust irst avebeen break nthe egimef he rts,nthewayof ppearingin the rder f ulturetself,nderstoodssomethinghat akesformhroughhemagination.estheticsad tohavebecome specific odeofthoughtn the ighteenthentury,cquiringn nternalizedegitimacy,iathemuseum, or xample.5 evolutionsre "cultural" ecausethey re inked ofiction. ow canwe trace his ighteenth-centurypheaval?naphilosopher'stext. henew egitimacys ndissociablerom ant's ormulationf estheticjudgments disinterestedudgmentndhenceuniversallyalid, nlarged ocomprehend communityhatdoesnotactually xist ccording o the aw.Whatever I" findbeautiful,veryone lsemust indbeautiful. his s theSubStance 03,Vol.33,no.1,2004



11/15

86 Jean-Louisbottefundamentalcknowledgmentf qualityn tsmodemexpression. husthebreakthroughfpoliticaliscourseupposesnaestheticevolution,newmodeof ppearing, culture, virtual ommunityeyond ocialdivisions, eyondthe olice. hevirtualommunitysmadeupof nyonendeveryone,elocalizedsubjects,rreducibleo social r ulturaldentitythe xact ppositefBourdieu'smechanismfreproduction).olitically,t's ingularitieshat ringbout newcircumscriptionfwrong,herebyransformingt nto universalingularity,addressingtto a communityhathas noempiricalxistence. he modelforRancibre'sgitators Kant'saestheticubject,who did not existbeforehisencounter ith omethingarticulara subject hofeels leasure, completelysubjective eelinghat sneverthelessniversalizable,ince t risesfromhecertitudef omeuniversal ommunication.hepoliticalubject oesnot xistbefore he ction,ust s the estheticubject oes not xist efore hework fart, inceheemerges rom n awareness f he ommunicabilityfhisfeeling.Historically, he creationof a virtualcommunity as preceded itsconceptualizationnKant's esthetichilosophy,swell s ts ormulationntheDeclarationf heRightsfMan 1789-1793),ence ts ctualizationnthe renchRevolution.What s at stakehere, nd allowsus to fine-tunehe notionofvirtuality,s the ubjectiono same aw- that f ppearing, hichsa conditionofmodernity. ithout his orm,ettlinghenvisibilityf hedisenfranchisedcouldnot ake heform fpoliticalction.Despitehis"diffrend"ith yotard, ancibre ouldmakecontributionsto enrich hetheory fdiffifrendsetweengenres fdiscourse ndbetween"universesfphrase." hegenre fpolitical iscoursewouldpotentiallyindlegitimate lace nLediffirend,mong ther enres fdiscourse ubject othesame modernnorm-the deliberative.ike the moderngenresofethical,aesthetic,edagogical rcognitive iscourse,t rticulatesn tsownwaytheaddresserndthe ddressee,he eferentndthemeaning.here s nodifferencebetweenRanciere's ersion fthe rticulationf a wrong,with ll it entailsconcerningheproduction fa worldnotpreviously isible, ndLyotard'sdefinitionf the niverse f he hrase."Nevertheless,his rocess f ntegrationandenrichment)onfrontsswithaproblem,ince ancibreever eases o ffirmhat e s noppositionoLyotard.What s the lind pot fLamisentente?hat an tnot ake nder onsideration,since ike very ther enre, olitical iscourse as ts ules? t'sperhaps hatnnotwantingoconsider hese ules, anciire as missed ediffrend.thasbeensaidthat n the nehand, edelineatesnewgenre fdiscourse-public pinion,politics-but at the same time, ince his pointofdeparture s uniquelyphilosophicalGreek,Cartesian, antian, tc.)and thus, o a certain xtentEurocentric,e remainsnsensitiveocasesof nterculturaliffrrend,orwhichSubStance 03,Vol.33,no.1,2004



12/15

Rancibre'sMisententendLyotard's iff'rend 87there ouldnever e a commoncene f nterlocution.ereweneed Lyotardianrecourse oethnologyn order ounderstand hat n thepost-colonial ra,interculturalmitissage"s no more han slogan orworldmusic. heMalianmother esponsible or he xcision fherdaughter,odayfoundguilty yaFrench ribunalf hild buse fnot exualmutilationwhich hen ecomescrime ccording oFrenchaw) is condemnedn the egalprocess o a sort fbeast-liketate- tonoise ndcries,othe h6nd,ecause hewillnever e ableto ustifyerselfccordingotheuniversal orms hat re those f hevirtualcommunity.hosenorms hat equireveryone,speciallyn a legal etting,oexplainnd ustifyneselfationally.he egal ystemequiresheMalianmothertoaccept norm fdiscourse ndthus division fthe ensible hat renotthose f he ommunityhat ormed er ndgaveherher dentity.hecouldonlydoit--andwillprobablyo so sooner r ater-if he grees ogiveupthenorm hategitimateser pecificenre fdiscourse: raditionndstory-telling(myth, hosetemporalitys that f n llo empore).hemodelphraseofthiskind fdiscourse,henarrative,s a veritableeitmotivhat epels heury: I diditbecausemy ncestorsave lways onet."Formodernists,hiss thickbscurantism.othe uilty arty ill ereducedto ilence,ompletelyelegitimizednthe yes fher wnpeople, ndwill ufferpunitiveegalmeasures.This s not a situationhat hecan transformntosingularniversal rong. heMalian oninki ommunityasnopretensionfimposingtscustom-which s a wayto nscribe he aw-on theuniversalcommunity.hey cknowledgehatt sparticular,inked oa territoryndtotheir wnstories. heconflictsabsolutelyotpoliticalnthemodemsenseofthe erm. ndyet, he act hat his savage" ociety,his ocietyhatwrites helaw ontobodies seeMauss, Clastres,tc.)refuses henatural ndbiologicaldifferenceetween he exes s nhumane nd mposes nothermark f exualdifference,his ime ultural,yre-markingthroughircumcision,xcision),therebyodifyingndcosmetizinghis ifferencendsubmittingt o he aw-this s neitherbsurdnorunintelligible.dmittedly,hat omesdowntogivingeachpersonccordingo ex, ge, ndkinship,nextremelyrecisenddefinitiveplace nthe raditionalommunitarianocial rder. his xample emonstrateshow insurmountables thediffrrendetweenthose whose lifeon earth spredestined y toriesnd"us,"who, elongingoavirtualommunity,nowthatwemust eliberatever verything.They" nd "we" do nothavethe amerelationshipsothe aw.Herethe onflictastodo with ifferentelationshipsothe aw narrationrdeliberation).Now,politics upposesthat etween woconflictingpeakers, heres asamerelationshipothe aw.Finally,omanplebeians,henineteenth-centuryproletariat,ndwomengainvisibility ithinhe amescopeof he aw, inceSubStance 03,Vol.33,no.1,2004



13/15

88 Jean-Louis botte

they resupposehis aw norder odemonstratehat heyufferwrong. hiswouldnever ethe asefor heMalianmother,howouldonly ecome westernpersonike he thersy bandoninger wnrelationshipo he aw themarkingofbodies, henarrative f egitimation).amisententeonstantlyeminds sthathe ctorsnapoliticalonflictavethe amerelationshipothe aw tothenorm) ecauseof negalitarian elationshipo anguage.The"sanspart"willfinishycreating site f nterlocutionthepoliticalscene) s well spublic pinion ttestingothe xistencef he onflict,nobjectof itigation,nd a collectivedentitythe roletarianwe"),and n nventingnew sectorofrationalitythesocial question,parity, tc.) through heirargumentation,heywillalso create newdivision fthe ensible. oliticaldisagreementresupposeshat he ultural-legaliffrendas beendealtwith.Therecan onlybe politicaldisagreement etweenthose who are close toagreement,etween hosewho share he ame enseofhistory.t's onsideredemancipationhenonepassesfromdiffend is-h-vishe aw toamrsententevis-i-vis efininghe ircle f quals.

But his mancipationides he mpossibleranslationf diffrrendntomisentente:his swhat'sgoing n nthe mancipatoryeclarationsbout heJews ytheAbbott rigoire uringhe rench evolution,r ater yMarx nThe ewishuestion.mancipation'sdealwouldbethatvery yotardianrongwouldbecome Rancicrian rong. ut incepolitical iscourse ssubsumedunder higheregitimizingorm- that f he eliberative-and ince etweenthis orm nd thenorm fnarrationitwould be the amewith nother orm,that frevelation)heres a veritableiffrendjust stheres a diffi~rendetweenthetemporalityf n llo emporend that fprogress ia politization),henemancipation illnecessarily ring bout defeat f heformerorm,whichwillneverthelessurviveomewhere,erhaps pectrally.oliticalmodernity-that f hemnusentente-mustuspend ommunitarianinks,ld dentities,ormermarkings.ndthusmust roduce neverlastingemainder.sthere generalsepulcher or ormerorms?Whichmakesus thinkhat here redegrees finvisibility:henineteenth-centuryuropeanproletarian as certainlyessinvisible han s thetwentieth-centuryblacksmith" ffemale xcision, histechnicianpecializednbody-writing.ttheverymost,nenlightenedudgewill ttemptorenderntelligiblehewords f hemotherccused f xcision;ewill nvoke er thnographicaggage, utonlynorder oreproach er or erarchaicubmissiono henorms f traditionalroup.nshort,e will ondemnherfor eteronomy,or kind fvoluntaryndresponsiblelienation,kin oinsanity,utnot risingromsychiatricroblems-even hough sychiatristsareroutinelyalledtotestifyor hedefense.t's imilar othe ituation f heSubStance#03,Vol.33,no. 1,2004



14/15

Rancibre's isententendLyotard'sifferend 89Jehovah'sWitnesses,who refuse ransfusionsnd vaccinations, nd,moregenerally,o llforwhom heaw takes he orm f heological-politicalevelation.Inthe aseof he sans art,"nvisibilitysrelative,ince t s related o utonomy(the ubjectsnecessarily antian);nthe aseof he voluntarilylienated,"invisibilitys absolute, inceheteronomyannotgive thereasonsfor tsheteronomy.ecall"postmodem"he ensitivityoth o hisnvisibilityroducedbyheteronomynd tothediffrend etween utonomyndheteronomy.Toexemplifyhlis,e willnot hooseLyotard'sheme f hedeclinentheGrandsR~cits, hichsproblematicecausefactual. differentivision f hesensiblesfeltoday: sensitivityothe act hathereredivisions f he ensiblethat re imultaneouslyontemporaryndyetncapablef verlapping.proposofgeneticndbioethicaluestions, abermas imselfoday ecommendshat"we"should nternto ialoguewith religious" eopleTheopposite f his ensitivitys mperialominationnd an nfiniteusticethat s mmutable, ithoutimits.f hedeliberative ormwhichnothinganestablish s a norm) egitimateshegenre fpolitical iscourse ndthus heexistencef public lacethat s never efinitivelystablished,hat anwecallthe ite f he iffdrendetween enresfdiscourseegitimatedyheterogeneousnormsnarration,evelation)?his cenehasa criticalite oday: ducationalinstitutionshere he elationshipnotmerelyechnical)etween eadingndwritingmust erenewed,nordernot omeup against he ssue of tudents'wearing lements f raditionalttire,ike he slamic eil.Rancikreeminds sin Lemaitregnoranthat he ob of the "teacher" s notso much toconveydefinitivenowledge,ut o ngage he pupil"nhis wnresearchbyxplainingit.This nti-education ust ontain he eedsof newsite, aradoxicallymoresensitive o cultural if/frendsnasmuch s itdisplacestheplaceofconflicts,appearing ot orecognizehem. n"education" hatwouldnot nclose achpersonnhisnormunjustifiable,ydefinition),utwhichwouldsuspend llofthem.ForRancibres ndeed bliged odistinguishomethingikenorms. oesn'thedistinguishmong he regimesf he ensible"Plato's ethical" egime fimages,Aristotle's'representative"egime fmimesis,laubert'saesthetic"regime f ndifference)?ren't hese ystems, hich rticulateifferentlyhesensible nd the ntelligible,omanynorms-"practical" r"axiological" r"cognitive"r"formative"r"cosmetic,"tc.? inally,heyre omany ossiblerelationshipso the aw (admittedly,lwaysfortheWest,which, iketheMediterranean nd itshistory, as roots n literature-theOdyssey,hecircumscribingable: esmotse 'histoire).utdowepassfromnerelationshipto the aw to another? rom neregime fthe ensible oanother?s thereSubStance 03,Vol.33,no.1,2004



15/15

90 Jean-Louisbotteconflictetween hem,tthe evel f noeuvre, f nart rof napparatus? fa discourse?When ne establisheshe oundariesf system,ike he estheticregime,anone make t rise romheprecedingne?Can Flaubert'srincipleof ndifferentubjectsit's s mportantorelate he dulterousdventuresf hedaughterf countryarmersthose f Carthaginianrincess),fparataxicalandpre-cinematographicontagef ittle isual ensations,f he elf-sufficientnovelwith tsownstyle ndnorms, tc.- canallof hat ededucedfromheprinciplesf lassical ragedy?Will he ools fHegeliandialectic hat avebeenapplied othehistoryfFrenchiteratureince he ate eventeenthenturyrase he ifferenceetweenregimesf he ensible?ince hese ifferencesre speciallyntelligiblencriticaltreatisesr n uthors'ettersbout heirechnique,sthe xiomatichatweareseeking eing xpressednthese oeticalwritings,nasmuch s they stablishveritable rocedures ftruthnd of mplementation?ut do we atthe ametime ass (howandbywhat ubstance rsubject?) rom ne of hese orms othenext? t's s though nesought opassfrom he egitimacyfonegenre fdiscourse o nother.If a same apparatus such as cinema see Rancibre'sLafablecinima-tographique)rises othfrom he epresentativeegime f he rts, ccordingothemodel f he able, ndalsofromts uspensionr nterruptiony omethingelse like elevision),his swhy t lsobelongs othe estheticegime f he rts.Thus sn't inema, hichmobilizeseterogeneousensitivitiesinked odifferenteras,thepostmodern pparatuspar excellence?Forcinema s indeedtheapparatusharacterizedy certain odeofwriting- hemontageEisenstein,Vertov,tc.), ut specially y he act hatt edits" eterogeneousemporalitiesof pparatuses hat recompletelyistinctfable,con, erspective, useum,analyticalnamnesis,hotography).hecinematographicpparatusssemblesasmany egimes f isthesissthere reapparatuses,ither recedinginemaor, ike ideo, ollowingt. UniversitleParis-VIII.TranslatedyRoxanne apidus

Notes1.Seemy Benjamin:'imancipationintmatographique"nMasse t indma,003.2.Seeforxampleheworks fP.D.Huyghe,uch s Art t ndustrie1999) ndDuCommun(2002).3. SeeAnamniseuvisiblenMislree aphilosophie.4. SeeR.Harvey,imoins'artifice.Forthcoming).5. SeeNotre,eMusde,'originee 'esthitique,993.SubStance 03, ol. 3, o.1, 004

déotte jean-louis---(on rancière and lyotard)

Documents