between illusion and reality – that this book argues.
The remaining six chapters of the book try to posit various ways
of going beyond political modernism and its logic of illusion versus
reality in the cinema. Each chapter focuses on the work of a specific
film theorist, so that there are chapters on André Bazin, Christian
Metz, Stanley Cavell, Gilles Deleuze, Slavoj Žižek and JacquesRancière. What pans out, I think, is less a singular, pointed and
specific theory of what filmic reality is and more of a sense that
what I mean by filmic reality is an attitude one takes
systems and the
general decline of the ideological apparatus of Marxism, far from seeing the
promised universal reign of a liberal utopia we instead saw the uncanny return
of ethnic violence, virulent nationalism and religious conservatism. As JacquesRancière says: ‘The territory of “posthistorical” and peaceful humanity proved
to be the territory of new figures of the Inhuman.’17 These forces have been
intensified and invigorated by September 11. What we are seeing today is a
global proliferation of religious fundamentalism – of both the Islamic and
C u lt u r e i n M a n c h e s t e r
useful.15 However, this allows little scope for working-class resistance, which
in MaD’s case took the form of seeking to create an alternative and oppositional cultural space. As we shall see later in this essay, MaD’s actions support
JacquesRancière’s conclusion that working-class actors can exercise a degree
of autonomy and resistance within the cultural sphere, albeit within strict
I came to understand that any class analysis must interrogate those who hold
power as well as those who lack it. Unfortunately, time
of participatory art
(2012, p. 18). I share Bishop’s concern to find a suitable vocabulary
and frame of analysis that will do justice to the complexity of participatory practices, rather than assessing them with unfitting standards.
She proposes a ‘transversal aesthetic’ in the spirit of Félix Guattari,
an agonistic approach inspired by Chantal Mouffe, and ‘an aesthetic
regime that is constitutively contradictory’ in the spirit of JacquesRancière (Bishop, 2012, p. 278; Rancière, 2002). It is no doubt possible to find convincing examples of artworks where tension
described) the historian’s crab-like thinking backwards, he
also suggested that her nostalgia for origins and original referents cannot
be satisfied, because there is actually nothing there: she is not looking for
anything: only silence, the space shaped by what once was; and now is no
more.41 What has survived – the ghost – is not the thing itself, but what
has already been said and written about it. ‘There is history’, says JacquesRancière, ‘because there is the past and a specific passion for the past.
And there is history because there is an absence … The status of
be, in the face of attempts to interpellate her as
a coherent ‘subject’. She refuses to misrecognise herself as ‘like’ the
other woman, but she shows up at the party anyway.
Interpellation is the process of ‘hailing’ whereby ‘concrete individuals’ are transformed into subjects. Louis Althusser’s famous example
is the ‘Hey, you there!’ uttered by a policeman.30 When we recognise
ourselves in the officer’s call and turn round, we are interpellated into
a particular subject position: we become subjects of the police order,
in JacquesRancière’s terms.31 Interpellation
’s report for Les Inrockuptibles, 27 January 2009.
Fabienne Pascaud, Télérama n° 3079.
Bernard Stiegler, De la Misère symbolique, La catastrophe du sensible (Paris: Galilée,
2005), pp. 281–2.
Fabienne Pascaud, Télérama.
H. Barker, Ces tristes lieux, pourquoi faut-il que tu y entres?, Actes Sud, 2009, p. 18.
JacquesRancière, Le Spectateur émancipé (Paris: La Fabrique éditions, 2008), p. 20.
My translation of « […] les processus de production aussi bien que de consommation […] qui vise à capter et à canaliser la libido des individus, et à réduire toutes
members themselves. I ask that we, as readers–
spectators of the argument, become more attentive to the dancing bodies
that have interrupted and transfigured our symbolic frameworks across
Dance and politics
space and time. I have constructed my conceptual framework from a
choreographic, critical reading of JacquesRancière’s concept of dissensus. Rancière sees the essence of politics ‘as the manifestation of dissensus as the presence of two worlds in one’ (Rancière 2010: 37). Dissensus is
the collision of two worlds, one intervening in the other and
Cambridge University Press, 1973), p. 60.
38 Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space, trans. by Donald Nicholson-Smith (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1991), p. 165.
39 JacquesRancière, ‘Comment and Responses’, Theory and Event, 6.4 (2003), para. 4.
40 Quoted in Chris Harman, ‘Thinking it Through: Out of Apathy’, Socialist Review, 219
(May 1998), http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr219/harman.htm [accessed
24 July 2017].
41 Wark, #Celerity, 3.2.
42 Colin Graham, ‘“Every Passer-by a Culprit?” Archive Fever, Photography and the
Peace in Belfast’, Third Text, 19
turning on collective mentalities and anonymous forces in the unfolding
of the past. Yet such readings ignore Michelet’s actual
procedures of research and writing, which arguably recast both
“hermeneutic” and “scientific” methods in
order to create a genuinely “modernist” historical
scholarship. Michelet’s history writing, JacquesRancière
has argued, brought to the fore the salient but repressed