Res 36 Aut umn 1999

i 2
Anth ropol ogy and aesthetics
Cont ent s
Factura
EDI TORI AL
, OSEPH
LEO KOERNER
Factura
BRUNO LA OUR
Fact ures/ f ract ures: f rom t he concept of net work t o t he concept of at t achment
MARI A GOUGH
Fakt ura: t he mal <i ng of t he Russi an avant -garde
GERHARD WOLF
The or i gi ns of pai nt i ng
FRI EDRI CH TEI A BACH
Al brecht Drer: f i gr-rres of t he margi nal
PHI LI P SOHM
Mani era and t he absent hand: avoi di ng t he et ymol ogy of st yl e
REBECCA ZORACH
Ever vt hi ng sr n; i ms wi t h excess: gol d and i t s f ashi oni ng i n si xt eent h- cent ur y Fr ance
BENf AMI N BTNSTOCK
Rembr andt ' s pai nt
PAULA CARABELT
Fr ami ng and f i ct i on i n t he wor k of Paol o Ver onese: a st udy i n t he st r uct ur e and meani ng of
t he i mage cl i sot t o i n su
T. A. ANSTEY
Fi ct i ve har nr oni es: nr usi c and t he Tempi o Mal at est i ano
DARI O GAMBONI
"Fabri cat i on of acci dent s": f act ura and chance i n ni net eent h-cent ury art
r 00
1 6 6
l l B
1 8 6
226 MATTHTW SIMMS
Czanne' s unf i ni sh
PAMEI-A LE
How nroney l ooks: Man Ray' s
perpet ual
Mot i i ancl t he econonr; , oi t i me
HARRY COOPER
Surface as psyche: a progress report
RES ] 6 AUTUN, l N
6
&
g
@
P
9rr1.
^/tE PAR.ciCj
aUE
:RA ELCIGAPRILU
ETOUE T E5IABA
FU^ANDO A \OS,
PEFO NO /E
luAGAS CASO
Qui no,
Le Cl ub de Maf al da, no. 10 ( l 986) , p. 22. O Edi t i ons Cl nat .
Factures/fractures
From the concept of network to the concept of attachment
BRUNO LATOUR
Whv does Maf al da' s f at her , i n t he l ast scene of a shor t
conr i c st r i p, appear so t er r i f i ed t hat he compul si vel y
shr eds wi t h sci ssor s al l t he ci gar et t es r emai ni ng i n hi s
pack? Because Maf al da, i ncor r i gi bl e r ascal , si mpl y used
t hc passi ve f or nr t o cl escr i be t he i nnocuous behavi or of
her f at her . " What ar e you doi ng?" she asks i n t he f i r st
scene. " As you can see, l ' m smoki ng, " r esponds her
f at her unwar i l y. " Oh, " Maf al da r emar l <s i n passi ng, " l
t hought t he ci gar et t e was smoki ng you. " Pani c. Wher eas
he t hought of hi msel f as an unt r oubl ed f at her
comf or t abl y seat ed i n hi s ar mchai r af t er a har d day at t he
of f i ce, hi s daught er saw hi m as an unbear abl e monst er : a
ci gar et t e gr abbi ng a man t o have i t sel f smoked i n a bi g
cl oud of t ar ar . r d ni cot i ne; t he f at her as an appendage, an
i nst r ument , an ext ensi on of t he ci gar et t e, t he f at her
becomi ng ci gar et t e t o t he ci gar et t e. . . . Not hi ng mor e i s
nceded t o unl eash a cr i si s: I f or swear smoki ng
f or cver nr or e. To bi nd me t o t hi s pr omi se, I r educe my
ent i r e pacl < t o unsnr okabl e st umps; I t ear apar t t hi s i dol
t hat has ensl aved me i nt o such nr i nut e f r agment s t l r at i t
wi l l r r ever agai r r be abl e t o t ake hol d of nr e, even i f t he
cr avi ng, as we say, " sei zes me" agai n.
Maf al da' s amusi ng st or y has onl y t he appear ance of
pr of undi t y. Movi ng f r om t he f i r st t o t he l ast scene, we
basi cal l v
pass
f r om one ext r eme t o anot her : at t he st ar t ,
t he f at her bel i eves hi msel f gi ven t o an i nnocent vi ce,
whi ch he has al most compl et el y under cont r ol ; at t he
end, he can ext r i cat e hi msel f f r om hi s shackl es onl y by
pul ver i zi ng t he ci gar et t e, whi ch so t ot al l y cont r ol s hi m
t hat hi s daught er t hought she had seen, i n t hei r hybr i d
conj unct i on, a ci gar et t e smoki ng a man. I n t he t wo
i nst ances, bot h at t he begi nni ng and at t he end, t he
r eader cont i nues t o bel i eve t hat we ar e t al ki ng about
control . From the acti ve form
("1
smoke a ci garette") to
t he passi ve f or m ( " you ar e smoked by a ci gar et t e" ) ,
not hi ng has changed ot her t han t he appor t i onment of
mast er and i nst r ument . The f at her al t er nat es t oo
dr ast i cal l v f r om one
posi t i on
t o t he ot her : t oo
comf or t abl e i n t he f i r st i mage, t oo pani cked i n t he l ast .
What i f t he quest i on r est ed i nst ead on t he absence of
mast er y, on t he i ncapaci t y- ei t her i n t he act i ve or
passi ve f or m- t o def i ne our at t achment s? How can we
speak wi t h pr eci si on of r , vl r at t he Cr eel <s cal l " t l r e mi ddl e
voi ce, " t he ver b f or nr t l r at i s nei t her act i ve t r or passi ve?l
I woul d l i l <e t o expl or e sonr c of t l r e obst acl es t hat
nr al <e i t cl i f f i cul t f or us t o concept ual l y' gr asp t he nr i ddl e
f or m, or what I have r ef er r ed t o f or sever al year s as
" f act i shes. " 2 I ar r i ved at t hi s i r r congr uous t er m by
begi nni ng l vi t l r t he t wo wor ds " f act " and " f et i sh, " t he
f i r st bei ng t he obj ect of a posi t i vi st di scour se oi
ver i f i cat i or r and t he l at t er of a cr i t i cal di scour se of
denunci at i on. Bv acl ct i ng t o ei t her si de oi t hese t er nt s t he
vvork oi fabrication, v\/e capture the root of work-iacts
are i abri cated
("l es i ai ts sont i ai ts")-as wel l as the
etyntol ogi cal root of the worcl feti sh.t "Facti sh" gi ves a
new r esonar . r ce t o t he r ei t er at i on " f ai r e- f ai r e" ( nr eani ng,
i n Fr ench, " t o nr al <e or r e cl o" and " causi ng t o be done" )
f or bot h est eemed f act s or di spar aged f et i shes, f or t he
t r ue as wel l as t he f al se, ar r d i n so doi r - r g, shi f t s our
attenti on to what ntakes L/s act and arvay fronr the
obsessi ve di st i nct i on bet w' een t he r at i onal
( f act s) and t he
i r r at i onal
( f et i shes) . l n ot l - r er u, or ds, t he " f act i sl r "
aut hor i zes us t o not t ake t oo ser i ousl v t he f or r t r s i n
1 . Enr i l e Bcnveni st e, " Thc Act r ve and Mi ddl e Voi ce i n t he Ver b" i n
Pr obl ent s i n Cener al Li ngui st t c r Cor al Cabl es, Fl a. : Unr ver si t v of
Mi anr i Pr ess, 1971) , pp. 1' +5- l 71 . The expr essi or r oi " nr i cl dl e" i s, of
cour se, a l at er r at i onal i zat i on or r cc t he act i ve and t he passi ve beconr e
evi dence of er . r n. t nr ar . l r r t hi s br i cf . r r r d cr i t i c. r l chal t t er , Ber t veni st e ci st s
t he " nr i cl cl l e" as ancest r al t o t he
l ) assi vc' f or r l ;
t hi s t l or e anci ent
opposi t i or r cl i st i ngui shes i t f r or l t l r e. r ct i ve: " Or r e can di ver sr f v at l r i l l
t he pl ay, of t l r ese opposi t i or r s, . . . t hc' , v al r vavs f i n. - r l l , v conr c dor r ' t . t t o
si t uat i ng posi t i ons of t he subj ect \ ^' i t l r r espect t o t he pr ocess, accor cl l ng
t o r ' r , het her i t r s ext c' r i or or i nt er i or t o i t , r r cl t o c1r - i al i f f i ng i t as ager r t ,
cl cpcndi ng on r nr het her i t ci i ect s, i n t he act i vc, or n, het l r er i t ef f ect s
r , r ' hi l e bei ng ; r f f ect ecl , i n t he nr i dcl l e" { 1t p. 1, 19- 1 50) .
2. Bruno LatoLr, Peti re ri l exi on sur l e cul te ntoderne des dteux
Fi t i ches, Les Er r pcheur s cl c penser er r r ond ( Par i s, 1996) , Engl i sh
t r nsl at i on t o be publ i shccl bv Dul <e Uni ver si t v Pr ess.
3. See t hc i r r pr essi ve r vor k. r ccont l t l i shecl i t v Wi l l i anr Pi et z on t hi s
quest i on; "Tl . r e Pr obl enr of t he Fet l sh, 1, " RES: Ant hr opol ogv ar t cl
Aesf hef l cs 9
( 1989) : 5- l 7; " The Pr obi enr oi t he Fet i sh, l l : The Or i gr n
( ) 1
t he Fet i sl r , " RES: Ant hr opct l og, v , t ncl Aest het l cs 1- l ( 19U71: 23- ' 15; "The
Pr obl er r of t he Fet i sh, l l l a: Bosnr : l n' s Cui nea ancl t he Er r l i Sl r t cnnl eni
Tl r cor y of Fet r shi snr , " RES: Ant hr opol ogi ' and Aesr hel i cs I 6
( 1 9 8 8 ) : ' ] 0 5
1 2 3 .
2 2 RES ] 6 AUT UNl N I 9 C, 9
r , vhi ch subj ect s ancl obj ect s ar e habi t r , r al l y con j oi ned:
t hat r vhi ch set s i nt o act i on never has t he power of
ccr Lr sat i on- \ r , het her i t be a mast er sLr bj ect or a mast er
cr bj cct . That r vhi ch i s set i r . r t o act i on r r ever f ai l s t o
t r ansf or m t he act i on, gi vi ng r i se nei t her t o t he
obj ect i i i ecl t ool nor t o t he r ei f i ecl subj ect . To t hi nk i n
t er nr s oi " f act i sh" r equi r es some eet t i ng usecl t o, but
once t he i ni t i al sur pr i se . r t sLr ch an ocr t l ancl i sh f or nr
passes, one begi ns t o r eg. r r d t hose obsol et e i i gur es of
obj ect ancl subj ect , t he macl e ancl nr aker , t he act ed upon
. r ncl t he act or , as mor e ancl mor e i mpr obabl e.
I shal l not at t empt t o t r anscencl t hem once agai n,
t l r r ough t he cl i zzvi ng ef f ect s of cl i . r l ect i cs, but i nst ead I
r v i l l s i mpl i ' i gnor e t henr , s i gnal i ng i n pas s i ng t hei r
ccl nr pl et e i r r el evance. Ou r vi gnet t e i l l r - r st r at es i t r vel l :
cont r ar v t o r vl . r at Maf ai cl a expr esses i n t he mi cl cl l e f r anr e,
t i i e ci gar et t e ci oes not " snr oke" her f at het but w, i t hout
cl crr-rbt, i t i s maki ng the father srroke. fhi s "fai re-i ai re,"
or " made t o do, " i s so cl i f f i cul t t o gr asp t hat Mai al da' s
i at her t hi nks he escapes i t by t l r e t wo t r acl i t i onal r out es:
. r t t he begi nni ng, b. v t hi nki ng t hat he i s capabl e of
cont r ol l i ng hi s act i on ( he act s- t he ci gar et t e cl oes
not hr ng) ; at t he encl , by t hi nl <i ng t hat he i s compl et el y
cont r ol l ed bv t he obj ect
( t he
ci gar et t e act s- he does
r r ol hi nq) . These t r , vo i cl i or r r s. t hat of l l ber t y and t hat of
. r l i enat i on, bl i ncl r - r s t o t l r e st r ange posi t i oni ng of
" i act i shes" c. apabl e of nr al <i ng one cl o t hi ngs t hat no
one, nei t her you nor t hev, can cont r ol . How t o become
ci et oxi f i ecl of t hi s dr ug, mast er y? What a sr , r r pr i si ng and
. r l nr ost cont r aci i ct or l ' c1t - r est i on: hor ' r , t o enr anci pat e
onesel f f r onr t he har cl cl r Lr g of enr anci pat i on?
I
Let r - r s f i r st r enr ove an obst acl e of pr i nci pl e; or r at her
l et us cl i spel t he uneasi ness f el t by t hose of l ef t i st
sl , mpat hi es w, hen t hey hear cr i t i qLr es of t he not i on of
enr ancl pat i on as sei f - evi cl ent . As soon as t he i ssue i s
r ai sed, t hev bel i eve t hev can sor t out at t i t ucl es bet ween
t hose t hat ar e " r eact i on; r r y, , " t hat i s, advocat i ng sl aver y,
. r l i cnat i on, boncl age, and at t achment , and t hose t hat ar e
" pr ogr essi ve. "
t hai i s, champi oni ng l i ber t y, aLr t onom) , ,
nr obi I i t r ' , . r ncl em anc i p. r t i on. Whct her about c i ga r et t es,
cl r Lr gs, abor t i on, t he pr ess, consci er t ce, commer ce,
f i nance, r el i ei on, or t ast e, one t hi nl <s one says
somet hi nB pr of ound uhen one s( ' l s up an opposi t i on
between the forces of freedom and the t,orces of
r eact i on or , i nver sel y, r vhen one r emi nds t hose
champi ons of l i ber t y of t he exi st ence of dr - r t i es,
obl i gat i ons, t r adi t i ons, const r ai nt s, bounda' r r i es, or l aws.
Now i t seems t o me t hat al l not i on of " f act i sh" i s f or ei gn
t o t hi s gi gant omachi a of l i ber t y agai nst al i enat i on or of
l aw agai nst l i cense. The quest i on t o be addr essed i s not
whet her we shoul d be f r ee or bound but w, het her we
ar e wel l or poor l y bound. The t r adi t i onal quest i on
const r ued t he subj ect ' s f r eedom and aut onomy as t he
hi ghest good- and i t i s t hus t hat Maf al da' s f . r t l r er
under st ands i t when he sever s al l t i es wi t h t he ci sar et t es
upon seei ng, t hanks t o t he har dl y i nnocent not i ce of hi s
daught er , t hat he has compl et el y l ost hi s i ndependence.
The new quest i on does not r ef er back t o t he sLr bj ect , t o
hi s aut onomy, t o hi s i deal of f r eedom, nor cJoes i t l i nk
back t o t he obj ect i f i cat i on or r ei f i cat i on bv whi ch r ve
woul d l ose our aut onomy. I nst ead, i t obl i ges us t o
consi der t he pr eci se nat ur e of t hat whi ch m. l kes us be. l 1
i t i s no l onger a quest i on of opposi ng at t achr nent and
det achment , but i nst ead of good and poor . r t t achment s,
t hen t her e i s onl y one way of deci di ng t he qual i t y of
t hese t i es: t o i nqui r e of what t hey consi st , what t hey do,
how one i s af f ect ed by t hem. The ol d quest i on di r ect ed
at t ent i on t owar d ei t her t he scr bj ect or t owar d out si dc
f or ces t hat caused t he subj ect ' s al i enat i on. The new
quest i on t akes on t hi ngs t hemsel ves, and i t i s among
t hese t hi r r gs t hat i t cl ai ms t o di st i ngui sh good f r om evi l . ' r
The quest i on of " f act i sh" i s cent r i pet al r t ' i t h r espect t o
bot h t he subj ect and t he obj ect .
We need not be i nt i mi dat ed by t he gr eat bat t l e
bet ween r eact i onar i es and pr ogr essi ves. The f or mer ar e
cat egor i cal l y mi st aken, because t hey bel i et , e, or r t hc
pr et ext t hat det achnr ent i s not possi bl e, t hat one nr ust
f or ever r emai n wi t hi n t he sar ne at t achment s- a t oo-
conveni ent compl acency t hat wel l j ust i f i es t he
i ndi gnat r on f el t agai nst t hose who want t o l eave t he
ensl aved chai ned t o mast er s of t he
past ,
a suf f i ci ent
i nci t ement t o do bat t l e agai nst t he i nj ust i ce of f at e and
domi nat i on. Nonet hel ess, when t he r eact i onar i es mock
t he pr ogr essi ves by asser t i ng t hat t he l i ber at i on of t he
ensl aved amount s t o " changi ng t he chai ns or t he
mast er s, " t he emanci pat or s' i ndi gnat i on at t hese
def eat i st pr oposi t i ons i s t o be f aul t ed: t echni cal l y, t he
r eact i onar i es ar e r i ght , t he pr ogr essi ves ar e wr ong.
. 1.
One must under st and "t hi ng". r s t h; r t r vhi cl r has nor v be' en
I i ber at ed f r om a pol i t i cs t hat hacl ki dnal : ped nonhut r r at r s, r ct r cl er i ng
publ i c l i f e i r . npossi bl e. For t he ext r act i on of hunr an/ t t ot r hut r r an
r el at i ons f r om t he r el . r t i on of subj ect r obj ect , see t he l abor i ous et i or t s
r eal i zed i r r B. Lat our , Pandor a' s Hope. Essays on t he Re, t l i t y, ol - Sct t - nce
St udl es
( Cambr i dge: Har var d Uni ver si t l , Pr ess, 1999) .
Lat our: Fact urcs/ f r' . rct ures 2 3
When eul ogi zi ng l i ber t y, t he pr ogr essi ves f or get t o
speci f y, f or t hose newl y f r eed of t hei r " bad" t i es, t he
nat ur e of t he nevv t i es wi t h whi ch t hey woul o
henceforth be made to exi st, the better bei ngs from
whom t hey woul d now al i enat e t hemsel ves. l n speaki ng
of l i ber t y as an asymmet r i c t er m desi gnat i ng onl y t he
chai ns of t he past wi t hout r ef er r i ng t o t he bonds oi t he
f ut ur e, t he pr ogr essi ves commi t an er r or as f l agr ant as
t hat of t l . r ei r ost ensi ve opponent s.
Who i s t he sur e assassi n? The one who r ef uses t o f r ee
t he al i enat ed f r or n hi s mor t i f yi ng t i es gi ven t hat absol ut e
l i ber t y i s a mvt h? Or t he one who cl ai ms t o de- al i enat e
f or good t he subj ect , f i nal l y f ul l y aut onomous and
mast er of hi msei f , but wi t hout gi vi ng hi m t he means t o
r eest abl i sh t i es t o t hose who ar e i n a oosi t i on t o act
upon hr m?
Just
a f ew year s ago, t he ar r swer woul d have
been easy: t he f i r st , wi t hout cont est . f oday, I admi t
wr t hout shame t hat I hesi t at e, because my i ndi gnat i on
r equi r es t hat I now f i gl r t on t wo f r ont s agai nst t he
r eact i onar i es and t he pr ogr essi ves, t he ant i - moder ns and
t he moder r r s. s I am onl y i nt er est ed and r eassur ed by
t hose who speak i n t er ms of subst i t ut i ng one set of t i es
wi t h anot l r er and who, when t hey cl ai m t o unmake
r l or bi d t i es, show me t he new sal ut ar y t i es, and t hi s
r vi t hout ever l ooki ng t o t he subj ect mast er - of - hi msel f ,
nor v wi t ht t ul an ob1ect . 6 Thc t er ms l i ber at i on,
5. The new i nt l uence of Pi er r e Legendr e ( see, f or exampl e, l econs
l . La 901nte concl usi on. Etude sur l e thtre de l a Rai son l Pari s
Fav. r r d, I 998J) can be expi ai ned, f r om my per spect i ve, by t hi s r ever sal :
sLr cl cl enl r , , bef or e our eyes, somet i mes i n our own chi l cl r en, r vc have
t hese emanci pat ed bei ngs, a st at e onl y aspi r ed t o- or i ear ed- by
pr eccdi ng gener at i or r s, who w' oul d never ver i t . r bl y beconr e det achecl ,
so f i r ml y di c. i t he chai ns of t he past l r ol d t henr . The exper i nr ent i s nor v
cor npl et ed: as Legendr e af f i r ms wi t h pr ophet i c vi ol ence, "You t he
f at her s, you have pl i ven bi r t h t o t he l i vi ng- dead. " Hi s sol ut i on, der i ved
r nor e f r onr Lacan t h. r n f r onr Roman l aw, unf or t unat el v ant ount s t o
f or goi ng at t , r chment s i n or der t o i mpose upon subj ect s a sover ei gn
power def i necl by voi cl al one, nr aki ng t he r nul t i pl e sour ces of "l . r i r e-
l ar r e" di sappear even mor e r adi cal l y, .
6. Her ei n l i es my i nt er est i n t he wor k of et hnopsychi at r i st s and, i r . r
par t i cul ar , t he wor k of Tobi e Nat han, L' i nf l uence qui gur i t ( Par i s:
Edi t i ons Odi l e l acob. 1q94) . The f undament al i st s l n t l r e Fr ench
Republ i c r egar d hi s wor k as a r et ur n t o ar chai c pr act i ces, as t houBh he
r ver e t ear i ng, . l , vay pat i ent s f r om l i ber t y i n or der t o shackl e t hem agai n
wi t h t he chai ns oi cul t ur e. I n f act , he i s engaged i n a nr ucl r nr or e
subt l e r econst r uct i on of per sons: he endows pat i ent s among t he
mi gr . r nt popul at i on, now ber ef t of t i es, wi t h ner v appur t enances t hat
or ve. r s / i l l l e t o t he pat i ent ' s cul t ur e ot or i gi n as t o t he new cul t ur e t hat
has f ai l ed t o i nt egr at e t hem. The di scour se of emanci pat i on compl et el y
mi sses t hi s r . nechani sm and r ender s al l communal bel ong; i ng- as new
and ar t i f i ci al as i t nr i ght be- a r egr essi on. Nat han i ndi cat es one of t he
emanci pati otl ,
"l ai ssez
fai re l ai ssez passer" rrust no
l onger command aut onr at i c . l dher ence bv r he " nt en oi
pr ogr ess. " Pr ecedi r r g t he f l ag of Li ber t y' , f or ever r ai secl t o
gui de t he peopl e, r ve woer l cl be l vel l advi secl t o car ef Lr l l v
di scri nri nate, among the engagi ng thi ng,s thentsel ves,
t hose t hat wi l l pr ocur e good and dur abl e t i es. Fr om nor v
on, t he adher ent s of " f act i shes" - t hose adher ed t o by
" f act i shes, " t hose aut hor i zed b, v " f act i sl r es" - r vi I I r ef use
t o equat e, l vi t h Pav' l ovi . r r r ef Jex, er nanci pat i on r , r ' r t h t he
l r i ghest good: l i ber t y, i s not an i cl eal , but a her i t age t o be
sor t ed out .
il
Havi r r g cl ear ed t hi s consci ent i ous obj ect i on, t hi s
pr i r r ci pl ed r esi st ance t o ent er t . r i r r i ng pr oposi t i ons I ong
espoused by t l r e abor r r i nabl e f eact i or ' r ar i es, we no
l onger need t o di st i ngui sl r bet i veen t he r est r ai ned ancl
t he l i ber at ed, l l ut i nst e. i cl bet r veen t he i vel l ar r d t he
poor l y at t ached. We shi f t our at t ent i on, t her ef or e, t o t l r e
t i es t hemsel ves. Unf or Tunat el y' , however , i n doi ng so, we
conf r ont an enonr ous di f f i cul t y: t her e exi st sci er l ces,
pur por t edl y soci al sci ences, t hat al r eady cl ai nr t o speal <
aut hor i t at i vel y abor , r t t l r e i nr r ur r er abl e t i es t hat l i nl <
subj ect s. I n t hi s sect i on, r n, e r ' vi l l r eal i ze t hat t hey do not
per f or nr al l t he wor k \ , ve r r i ght r i ght f ul l y expect of t her r .
We must , i n par t i cul ar , r evi si t t l r e st r ange di st i nct i or r
bet ween t he i ndi vi dr - r al act or and t he st r uct r - r r es of
soci et y. Thanks t o " f . r ct i shes, " r ve l vi l l per l t aps be abl e t cr
avoi d col nmi t t i ng our sel ves t o a bat t l e t hat sl r oul d not
concenr Lrs, the battl e betr,veen the adr,,ocates of
at t achr r er l t ar . r d t l r ose of det achr r . r ent .
Ther e i s no l ack i n soci ol ogv of at t enr pt s t o r econci l e
t l r e act or and t he syst enr , t he i ndi vi dual and t he soci al .
Even i f t hey do not al l l l r oacl - r t he magni t ude of t he
gi gant omachi a bet w, een t l r e pr ogr essi ves and
r eact i onar i es, we can har dl y, appr oach t he soci al
sci ences r vi t l . r out bei ng sunr nr onecl t o t ake par t i n one
si cl e or i n t he ot her si de of t i . r ese gar gant uan war s.
However , i f t her e ar e as nr an\ / sol ut i ons as t her e ar e
soci ol ogi st s t o t l r e pr obl er . n of r vhet her conl r ol l i es n, i t h
t l t e act or or t he syst enr , har dl y anvol r e l . r as i nt er r ogat ed
t he nat ur e oi cont r ol i t sel f . For al l t he pr ot agoni st s, i t
seems sel f - evi der r t t l r at t he nr or e soci et y t l ' r er e i s, t he
possi bl e pat hs: cl o f of t he nr i cr . r . r t s r r l r at t hc Republ i c h. r s a r r ar s
done, ur r t i l nol , i or t he. i dhcr c. nt s oi l r ber t v- gi ' ", e t henr a cul t ur e,
i nl er nr edi l r v and or ' c. r l appi nr conr r . r . r . r nl t i es, i n shor t , cease r l i l h t he
hvpocr i t i c. r l sl og. r n
" No
t o l h! i sL. r r c sc. r r f l \ es t o l he I i cr nr s sc. r r t
2 4 RES 3 6 AUT UMN I 9 9 9
gr eat er t he l vei ght of cl et e' r r r r i ni sms; i nver sel v, t l r e gr eat er
al l ow. r nce made f or t he i ncl i vi dual , t he gr eat er t he
mar gi n of l i ber t y. What Maf al da' s ar - r t hor has t he her oi ne
ut t er as ; r
j oke, numer ous soci ol ogi st s pr onounce
ser i ousl y about t he act or : i f he i s not " smoked by" t he
ci gar et t e, he i s nonet hel ess " act ed upon" by t he soci al
st r uct ur e. I n my yout hf ul days on t he boul evar d Sai nt -
Mi chel , t he cl ai m w, as nr ade t hat t he " speaker i s spoken
bv t he st r uct ur e of l anguage. " No one f ound t hi s
amusi ng. . . . Those r vho r egar d t hi s passi ve const r uct i on
excessi ve. r esor t t o euphemi sms wi t hout changi ng
voi ce: t hev l vi l l say t hat t he act or i s " condi t i oned, "
" det er mi r r ed, " " l i mi t ecl " by t he soci et y t hat encompasses
hi nr . However mor e mocl er at e t hese t er ms, we r emai n
wi t hi n t he basi c opposi t i on bet ween t he act i ve and t he
passi ve voi ce, mer el y movi ng t owar d t he r i ght t he
mar ker t hat di mi ni shes one' s r oom t o maneuver as i t
i ncr eases t he pr edomi nance of st r uct ur es; or , t owar d t he
l ef t , al l on, i ng gr eat er f r eecl or n t o t he act or as one
cl i r r i ni shes t he det er nr i ni r r g r ol e ot soci et v.
Hence soci ol og, v acl opt ed f r om moder ni st et hi cs t he
i deal ot a subj ect wi t hout t i es. l t i s of mi nor
conseqLr ence t hat t hi s i deal qual i f i es as posi t i ve and
i nevi t abl e t hat whi ch t he nr or al i st s qual i f y as negat i ve or
unaccept abl e, f or i t r emai ns t he case t hat soci al t i es ar e
i ncapabl e of i ost er i ng t he i ndi vi dual subj ect wi t hout , by
t hi s same act i on, l i mi t i ng hi s f r eedom. Thi s si t uat i on
r emai ns unal t er ecl , despi t e appear ances, when i t i s
cl ai med t hat subj ect s ar e cr eat ed wi t h t he i mposi t i on of
l al v by soci et y, f or one mLr st al l t he same, as r n
Maf al da' s st or y, 6| r 6st . one' s nr ast er . The t r adi t i onal
choi ce bet r veen f r eedonr and necessi t \ / never pr of f er s,
despi t e appear ances, a r eal f r eedom of choi ce, t hat i s t o
sav, a choi ce t hat r voul d gi ve t he opt i on, on t he one
hand, of a soci ol ogy r equi r i ng t he desi gnat i on of a
mast er , or on t he ot hel a soci ol ogy capabl e of doi ng
wi thottt a n-taster al together. To i magi ne such an
al t er nat i ve soci ol ogy, one must per f or nt t wo smal l
t r ansf or mat i ons: t he f i r st on t he nat ur e of t i es, t he
seconcl on t he nat ur e oi cont r ol .
To f or ce t he i ssue, ancl i n or der t o cl ear l y del i neat e
t he cont r ast bet ween t he t r r yo ki nds of soci al sci ence, I
pr oposL' t he f ol l owi ng al t er nat i ve: ei t her \ , ve ar e
i nt er est ed i n i ndi vi dLr al s and soci et i es or we ar e
i nt er est ed i n t he mul t i t udi nous ent i t i es t hat
Bi ve
r i se t o
act i on. I n t he f i r st case, we wi l l t r aver se t he space t hat
ext ends f r om subj ect s t o soci al st r uct ur es; i n t he
seconci , w, e r vi l l cr oss spaces t hat never encount er
ei t her t he i ndi vi cl ual or soci et y;
qi ven
t hat al l set t i ng-
i n- mot i on depends on t he nat Lr r e of at t achmer r t s and
t hei r r ecogni zed capaci t y t o r ender exi st ent or
nonexi st ent t hose subi ect s t o whi ch t hev ar e at t ached.
Agai nst soci ol ogi st s who pl ay i n t he key of f r eedoms
and det er mi nat i ons, we cour - r t er wi t h a soci ol ogy of
" f act i shes, " of means, of medi at i ons, i n ot her r vor ds,
once agai n, of good or poor at t achmer r t s. T The gr eat est
di fference between the two research proSranrs i s that the
f i r st bel i eves i t must t ake a posi t i on wi t h r egar cl t o t he
quest i on of t he i ndi vi dual and soci et y; t he second
ent i r el y shor t - ci r cui t s t hese over l y gener al f i gur es and
focuses onl y upon the speci fi c features of those enti ti es
t hat al one become t he sour ces of act i on, t hat i s t o s. r y,
t he " f ai r e- i ai r e. " To adopt Ant oi ne Henni on' s f or mui at i on,
i f l want t o under s t and why l s ay " l l i k e Bac h, " l mus t
at t end t o t he par t i cul ar i t i es of t hi s i nt er pr et at i on, of f hl s
r ecor di ng, of t hi s scor e, of t hi s set t i ng. B Not hi ng gr i ps me
ot her t han t hese mi nut e di f f er ences i n r ender i np t o whi ch
I l ear n t o become i ncr easi ngl y sensi t i ve- and vvhen I
beconr e mor e sensi t i ve t o t hem, I am obvi ousl y no
l onger concer ned wi t h t he quest i on of knowi ng who
cont r ol s " t he. " / my" act i on.
Soci ol ogi cal t hought seems t o have been l ecl ast r ay
when i t broke apart the "fai re-fai re," or "made to do."
Repl ayi ng t he t heol ogi cal debat e on gr ace: i t l ocat ed on
t he out si de al l det er mi nat i on and on t he i nsi cl e al l
f r eedom, out si de al l het er onomy and i nsi de al l
aut onomy, out si de al l necessi t y and i nsi de a
wi l l f ul ness. Hence i t was l ef t wi t h t wo l i st s of opposi ng
t er ms, t he f i r st cor r espondi ng t o soci et y and l l r e second
t o t he i ndi vi dual . What di sappear ed i n t hi s opcr at i on?
The ver y sour ces of at t achnr ent - t he f or mi dabl e
pr ol i f er at i on of obj ect s, pr oper t i es, bei ngs, f ear s,
t echni ques t hat make us do t hi ngs unt o ot her s. The
gr and choi ce bet ween at t achment and det achment
obl i t er at es t he mul t i t ude of l i t t l e choi ces cont ai ned
wi t hi n t i es t l r at di f f er ent i at e
( f or
t hose who accept t o
7. Hence t he i mpor t ance of t he soci ol ogy of ar t as i t i s cl evcl oped
by Ant oi ne Henni on, La Passi on Musi cal e. Une soci ol ogi e de l , t
mdi at i on ( Par i s: A. - M. Mt ai l i , 1993) , and i t s r el at i on t o st Lr di es of
sci ence. For t he r el at i on bet ween sci ence and ar t , see al so C, r r r i eJones
and Pet er Cal i son, eds. Pi ct ur t ng Sci ence, Pr oduci ne r t
( London:
Rout l edge, 1 998) .
B. See t he wor k of Chr i st i an Bessy and Fr anci s Chat e. r ur aynauci ,
Experts et faussai res. Pour une soci ol ogi e de l a percepti on (Pari s: A.-M.
Mt ai l i , 1995) , whi ch demonst r al es t he capaci t y of an al t er nat i ve
soci ol ogy t o dr ar v out nor mat i vi t y i n cl r ai ns of act i on, c- vcn on subj ect s
as subt l e as t he di st i nct i on bet ween t he. r r , r t hent i c and t he f or sed i n ar l .
Lat our . F. r ct Lr r es/ i r . r ct ur es 25
cl el ve i nt o t henr ) t he good t i es f r om t he bad i n t he
j u>t i t e i mmar t c nl i n t hi ng: .
Thus i t seer ns t hat we cannot speak of at t achment s
r vi r i l e pr eser vi ng t he pai r ed f i gcr r es of t he i r r di vi dual ancl
st r uct ur e, of f r eecl or n ar r d necessi t y. I n di scussi ng
soci ol ogy, t he exampl e of t he puppet al ways conr es Lr l l
bccause t he ener . r . r i es of soci al st r uct ur e r egul ar l y accLr se
sr . r ci ol ogi st s ol " t r eat i ng soci al act or s as
l ) uppet s" -
l vhi ch i s t echni cal l y cor r ect , but not i n t he sense
i nt ended by t he advocat es of a f r ee subj ect . Ther e i s not
a si ngl e puppet eer , hor vever conf i dent of her ski l l t o
nr ani pul at e f i gur i nes, who does not cl ai r n t hat her
puppet char act er s " mal <e her do" t he mot i or r s i n t hei r
st or y, " di ct at e" t o her t hei r l i nes, i nst i gat e new ways of
nr ovi ng, " wl r i ch sur pr i se ever r her " and
" r vhi ch
she
r voul d not have t hought of her sel f . " Let us not hur r y t o
r et or t t hat t hese ar e " manner s of speaki ng" l vi t hout ar . r y
r eal sense: t he vocabul ar y of at t achnr ent i s r i ch, pr ot ean,
ul r i qui t ous, nu: i nced- t hat oi aut onomy and
det er mi nat i on scant and dr y. For t hose who cl ai m t o be
at t ent i ve t o at t achment s, t hi s i s a val uabl e i ndex. To
speak of f r eedor r . r and causal i t y, one wi l l i nevi t abl y do
vi ol ence t o t he concl i t l ons of at t achr nent ,
r , vhet her i n t he
sci ences, i n qur est i ons oi t ast e, i r r medi ci ne, i n
di scussi ons of dr ugs, t he l ar , v, or emot i ons. ' r I n cont r ast ,
as soon as we t r y t o under st and what per mi t s a puppet
to be made to act by i ts puppeteer, we refer to the
s; : eci f i c f eat ur es of t he par t i cr - r l ar puppet : i t s col or ,
sl r ape, l i ght i ne, t he f eel of i t s t af f et a, t he
r , vhi t eness
of i t s
por cel ai n ar r ns.
l f , i n or der t r - r expl ai n t he subj ect ' s act i ons, t he
soci ol ogi st must have r ecoLr r se t o t he f or ce of soci et y, i t
i s because he no l onger has at hi s di sposal t l ' r e i mmer r se
r eper t oi r e oi act i ons i mpr i nt ed i n t he par t i cul ar i t i es of
act ant s ( whi ch he di smi sses, al most out of dut y, as
r ei f i ed obj ect s) . r 0 The i dea of soci et y was i nvent ed by
t hose who, havi ne cut al l t he puppet ' s st r i ngs, st i l l hope
t o br eat he l i f e i nt o t hi s col l ayr sed f i gur i ne. By r et yi ng t he
st r i ngs of act i on, t he not i on of at t achment per mi t s one
t o di spense wi t h t he concept of soci et y and t he
concomi t ant not i on of t he act or .
9. l r r t hi s r egar cl , see Emi l i e Conr . r r t , " Sur pr i sed bv Met hacl onc"
i Thse cl e doct or . r t , col e des Mi nes, Par i s, 1999) .
10. I t r ar : er i t hc geneal og, v comnr on t o t he i nvent i on of soci et y. r s
t hen. r e and t he i r npr r . r ssi bl e r ol e gi ver r t o obj ect s i n "On
I nt er obj ect i vi t v r l i t h cl i scussi on b1, Mar c Ber e, Mi ch. r el Lt , nch ancl
Yr j o Engel st r ol r , " Nl r ncl Cul t ur t , , t nc! r \ ct i vi t y 3, no. I
( 19961: 228
215
I t i s not er - r ough, hor ' vever , t o cl i st r i but e t he sour ces oi
act i on anr or r g al l t he r l ecl i at or s, al l t l r e agi t at or s, al l t he
par t i cul ar i t i es t hat conr l ) et e t o set ar t i or r i n nr ot i on. We
nr r : st ; r l so r econc!' l ) t Ll . r l i zc t he nat Lr f e oi t hi s act i on, i f
we af e r r ot t o sl i cl e bacl < i nt o t he
" l . i el cl s
of f or ce, " havi ng
succeecl ed onl y i n cl i ssol vi r r g t he f i gur es of subj ect i vi t y
ancl st r uct ur e r , r , i t hout bei ng abl e t o cl et er nr i ne r vl r et her
t hey havt bc. en r encl er ed al l ecl ual l v. r ct i ve or al l eqLr al l y
passi v' e. Tcr cl ur abl r ' t r i r - r sf or r , ' r soci ol ogyt i t i s not enougi r
t o cl i sser l i r r . r t e t he sour ces of act i or r , as can be seen l r y
t l r e conr l t et i r . r g i r r t e' r pr e, t at i or r s ei ver i t o Ni et zche' s wi l l t o
power or t o Foucar , r l l ' s l eci r r r es of cl i sci pl i r r e. The
concel ) t of r r et r vor l i , ever r r vi t l r t l r e acj dencl unr act or .
r r et l vor . l <, r
r
i s si nr i l . r r l i l i nr i t ed. Cer t ai nl y a net n' or k
cl i st r i but es. r ct i or r anr ong. r I I t he. r ct . r 11t s, br - r t i t does not
per mi t us t o f ocus on t l - r e cl ei i ni t i on ot ' acf i on l t sel i :
. l ct ant s, cl espi t e t l r ei r novel t r , ' , i r r her i t ecl t he t l pc ot
, t ct i or t at t r i but ecl t o t hc. i r
l l r edecessor s.
The soci al
sci ences, nr ol er over . , i r . r ve not si nr pl l , i gr . r or ecl t he act i vi t v
of nrecl i ators, thev h.rve brol <er.r i n tl r' o rhe "i ai re-l ' ai re,"
t he " nr acl e t o cl o, " t he soi r r ce of al l act i on i n t he
" r r i cl cl l e" voi ce, r , r , hi r , l ' r per nr i t s r - r s t o cl i spense r vi t h bot h
c, ont r ol ancl det er nr i r - r at i on. Desqr i t c t hei r nanr e,
" t heor i r : s ol ' act i on" . r r e ai l t l . r er t r i es
" c. , f
i r r act i on, "
l r ecar - i st - t hey h. r r i e sc' ver ecl t he
" i act i sh"
i r - r t wo: on one
si de, t he1, pl ace act i on t hat cont r ol s and on t he ot her ,
act l on t l r at i s cor . r t r ol l ecl . Thi s cat ast r ophi c nr ove r ender s
i t l mpossi bl e t o act i r , . t t e ei t her t he i r r cl i vi cl ual or soci et y,
ber . r r r se f l r e' v . r r e r l er r l i vecl of . r ss i st ar r t s, i nt er r l edi ar i es, - " - / ' "
r r edi at or s, or nr eans <l 1' ar r v ki ncl . What can be
crrger.rcl ered r,r,i th the "fai re-fai re" i s not attai nabl e as
l or r g as t l r e r l al <i ng, i s r r n or . r c si cl e and t l r e r nacl e on t he
ot l - r er . Wi t h f act ur e cl nce f r act er r ecl , . i ct i on beconr es
l ot et t , r unsl ) ec i 1 i . r l r l e.
Let us cor . r si der one of t he c, asu. . t l t i cs of t l r i s
sever ance. l f , i n appl f i ng \ 4af al da' s cor l i cal vi gnet t e t ci
I L Sce, t he conl r . r cl i cl or r . ( 1. ) nt r l ) ut r ons . t sser r bl ecl br ' l ol r n Lar v
. r ncl John H, r ssar cl , ccl s. , . 1r &r r , \ e, l r r or ' / < . t ncl r t er i Oxf or cl : Bl . r ckl vcl l ,
l ! ) 9U) . \ \ e coul cl appl l t l r c' s. r nr e cr i i i cl uc. t o t he r . r ot i on of i r r ecl uct i <. r ns,
. r s I cl cvel ol r cci i t i n I hc P\ r eLt r i z, t t i on oi f r ance. Par t ) , l r r ecl uct i ons
t C. r nr br i r l l qc: l l ar vr r cl Ll ni vt ' r si l v Pr e: s, 1988t . Fr cnr t hl s poi nl ol vi cr v,
t onj Oi ni ng 1hr . not i on, - ) 1 ar ( ' l or \ \ l l l r t h. ' ' L ol r ' r r ' l r r or k cl l cl nr or e h. r r nr
t har t qot t cl . l r c' r . t uSc r t \ \ r 5 l hor r el ' r t l i r . t t of e l or i L<l r e. r cl | r t o l l r !
t onj ur t ct on a nc\ ' \ / cl r . r l eet r c bct r , r ' ccn l hc. r ct or ancl t he syst t nr r r hen,
n l . r cl , i t u, . r s i f t encl ccl t o
( of r l ) l L' t e
r br ' pass t he obl i gat or Y r out e.
12. Tht ' or r gr n ot t l r l s obsessi or r r vi t h t l r e i r act ur i ne oi t he " f act i sh"
ckr es not conccnr nr r . he- r r ' ; i n oi . cl c' r t cl unci cr sl ar r r l i t s nr ot i vat i na 1or ce,
or . r c. nec, cl s t r l cl cr . ' cl o1t i r - r . r r i l r r opo og\ ol t l . r L. i conocl ast i c gest ur L' . Sec
P,t ncl t>t a s Hr4re tsce l r(l tc
-l i .l r(i Le cr/fe /l l (-)a/er/re (see r' rote : r.
2 6 RES J b AUTUMN I q 9 9
a ser i ous subj ect , l say t hat l anguage " speaks me, " l f i nd
mysel f i mmedi at el y f aced wi t h an i mpossi bi l i t y, because
cl ear l v i t i s I who speaks at t he moment and not t he
t ot al i t y of l anguage. I t hen i mmedi at el y i nvent t he
di st i nct i on bet ween l anguage and speech, r eser vi ng t he
Term l anguage for the system and the term speech for i ts
appr opr i at i on by an i ndi vi dual subj ect . But i n doi ng so, I
wi l l soon become enr br oi l ed i n a ser i es of concegr t ual
ent angl ement s as obscur e as t hose af f l i ct i ng soci ol ogy,
because I wi l l now have t o expl ai n how a speaki ng
subj ect manages t o appr opr i at e f or hi msel f t hat whi ch i n
t he end det er mi nes hi m. I n desper at i on, I wi l l appeal t o
a di al ect i cal movement t hat , as we shal l see, does not
i l l umi nat e but obf uscat es t he i ssue. What happens i f I
asser t , i n accept i ng t he r ei t er at i on of " f act i sh" - t hi s
st ut t er ed ver si on of causal i t y- not t hat l anguage speaks
me, but t hat i t i s l angLr age t hat nl akes me speak. Ci ear l y,
i t i s l and I al one who speaks; yes, but i t i s l anguage t hat
makes me speak. Wi l l we say t hat t hi s i s but a pl ay of
l vor ds? Yes, but by t hi s new f or mul at i on, I no l onger
seek t o sunder what makes and what i s made, t he act i ve
and t he passi ve, because I am posi t i oned t o pur sue a
chai n of medi at or s, each not bei ng t he exact cause of
t he next , bLr t i nst ead, each enabl i ng t he next t o become,
i n t ur n, t he or i gi nat or of act i on: l i t er al l yl each r ender s
causal i t s successor . r l Cont r ar y t o t he not i on of I anguage
as det er mi nant st r uct ur e, l anguage does not cont r ol
those whom i t permi ts to speak, i T makes them those
who can speak, whi ch i s somet hi ng al t oget her di f f er ent .
Ci ven t hat t her e i s no syst em of l anguage r vi t h t he
Dower t o " soeak me, " t her e i s no r eason t o i nvent a
subj ect l acki ng aut onomy who, despi t e al l t he
det er mi nat i ons, woul d appr opr i at e f or hi msel f t he
syst em of l anguage. r a Nei t her l anguage nor speech i s a
necessar y di st i nct i on; t hey ar e bcr t t he ar t i f act s of a
br eak ant er i or t o t he act i on of " f act i shes. " l t i s oecause
we have broken the "fai re-fai re," the "made to do," that
r ve t hen f i nd our sel ves obl i gat ed t o separ at e bei ngs i nt o
13. Thi s i s what al l ows us, i n our j ar gon, t o di st i ngui sh t he
"i nt er medi ar y" f r om "medi at i on"; t he f or mer f ai t hf ul l y t r anspor t s f or ce
and hence can be def i ned by i t s i nput s and oLj t put s, t hat i s l o sy, put
r nt o a bl ack box and i gnor ed f or good. Medi at i on, by cont r ast , r s
def i ned as t hat whi ch ensur es not a t r ansf er , but a t r ansl at i on, and
hence cannot be bl ack- boxed, but i nst ead r emai ns vi si bl e, exceedi ng
i t s i nput s and out put s and havi ng t he char act er of an event .
14. I n t he l i st , compi l ed by Benveni st e ( see not e
' l
) , of ver bs t hat
ar e al ways i n t he mi ddl e voi ce, one f i nds t he ver b "t o speak" { pht o,
l oquo, a st r ange f act i f we i magi ne t hat r vhat we f i nd her e i s an
ent i r el y di f f er ent def i ni t i on of enunci at i on t han one descr i bi ng a
t hose t hat det er mi ne ot her s t hat , i f t hey had not been
det er mi ned, woul d br e f r ee. The di st i nct i on bet ween
obj ect s and subj ect s i s not pr i mor di al , i t does not
desi gnat e di f f er ent domai ns i n t he wor l d: i t i s r oot ed i n
t he f r act ur e of act i on.
The same i s t r ue f or bot h what i s upst r eam and
downst r eam of t he act or : she i s no mor e i n cont r ol of
what she makes t han she i s subi ect t o cont r ol . l f
l anguage does not cont r ol her , si mi l ar l y, she does not
cont r ol what she says. Do not bel i eve, however , t hat she
i s now super seded by wor ds, whi ch speak her wi t hout
her bei ng awar e of i t : r r o, what she was made t o do,
she, i n t ur n, makes ot her s do, r evi si ng i n passi ng t he
gol den r ul e: " Make ot her s do as you woul d have ot her s
make you do. " The oppor t uni t y she i s gi ven t o speak,
she gi ves, i n t ur n, t o r . r , or ds. She i s not det er nr i ned; she
does not det er mi ne. She coui d not soeak r vi t nout
l anguage; wor ds cannot speak wi t hout her . The puppet
est abl i shes a r el at i onshi o wi t h t hose whom she
mani pul at es t hat i s exact l y as compl ex as t he
r el at i onshi p est abl i shed by t he puppet eer who
mani pul at es her puppet , whi ch pr oves t hat t he wor d
mani pul at e- mast er concept of a cr i t i cal soci ol ogy
( wi t h mast er y embedded even wi t hi n t hi s phr ase! ) -
si gni f i es mor e t han det er mi nat i on. The r ei t er at i on of
act i on ext r act s, i n t hi s " t r ansf er of ef f i cacy, " t he poi son
of cont r ol , of det er mi nat i on, of causal i t y, wi t hout
t her eby bei ng obl i gat ed t o i nsi nuat e t o a pr eci se poi nt
t he honey of f r eedom. Causal i t y and l i ber t y of
yest er year abound ever ywher e, al l al ong t he chai n of
medi at or s, t he si mpl e and mi sunder st ood mar ks of an
agile "faire-faire."
Nei t her det er mi nat i on, nor f r eedom, nor st r uct ur al
act i on, nor i ndi vi dual act i on i s an i ngr edi ent of t he
wor l d: t hese ar t i f act s ( i n t he sense of super f l uous
ar t i f i ce) wer e i nt r oduced l i t t l e by l i nl e i n t he same
measur e t hat we depr i ved our sel ves of t hese ot ner
ar t i f act s, t he " f act i shes. " Wi t hout at t achment s capabl e
of "fai re-fai re," i t seemed reasonabl e to seek i n the
deeo i nt er i or or ext er i or of t he nat ur al or soci al wor l ds
r el at i on bet ween l anguage and speech- I nt er est i ngl v r ve al so f i nd her e,
i n addi t i on t o t he f amous "t o be bor n" and "t o di e, " t he ver b "t o
f ol l ow, t o wed or t ake up a movement " ( sequor ) , whi ch i s t he sour ce
of t he ent i r e f ami l y of wor ds used t o devel op a l anguage about t he
"soci al . " We al so f i nd "t o exper i ence a ment al agi t at i on" and "t o t ake
some measur es" ( see not e 1, p. 172) . i n shor t , t he basi c pr i nci pl es of
ant hr opol ogy seem t o r equi r e t he mi ddl e voi ce and t o i gnor e bot h t he
act i ve and t he passi ve voi ce, t hi s l at ecomer .
Lat oLr r : l - . t ct ur es i r act t r r es 2-
f or t he mot or s of act i on. Ci ve us back at t achment s, and
vou can keep vour Nat ur e, Soci et y, and I ndi vi dual . We
l vi l l see l vho r , vi l l manage mor e easi l y t o set t he wor l d
i n mot i on.
i l l
We di d not hesi t at e i n t he f i r st sect i on, even r i ski ng
t he char ge of " r eact i onar y, " t o r epl ace t he asymmet r i cal
not i on of emanci pat i on wi t h t he symmet r i cal one of
subst i t ut i on of a r nor bi d t i e w' i t h a r edempt i ve one. Thi s
r i sky di spl acement makes ever yt hi ng depend upon t he
par t i cul ar char . r ct er i st i cs of t he at t achment s f r om wl r i ch
r ve l vi l l der i ve nor mat i vi t y- capt ur ed, i mnl anent ,
cr yst al l i zed, i n t he ver y det ai l s of t he t i es t hemsel ves.
We became awar e i n t he second sect i on t hat , t o r ender
such a der i vat i on t hi nkabl e, we must of f end t he
common sense of t he soci al sci ences, whi ch cl ai m t o
t ake as t hei r supposed obyect of st ucl y t hose t i es t hat
dur abl y l i nk subj ect s. Unf or t unat el y, t he soci al sci ences
of f er scant r esour ces t o speak wi t h pr eci si on about
at t achnr ent s, because t hey sunder ed t oo qui ckl y t he
br i dge of act i on, l ef t wi t h det er mi nat i ons and f r eedoms,
rvhi ch they must now assi gn to di fferent domai ns of
r eal i t y. However , t he medi at or s t hat i nt er est us
compl et el y i gnor e t hi s f r act ur i ng of act i on bet ween t he
act i ve and t he passi ve, and di spense as wel i wi t h
obj ect s and subj ect s. I n or der t o benef i ci al l y dr aw on
t he soci al sci ences wi t hout suf f er i ng f r om t hei r " t heor i es
oi i nact i on, " r ve woul d have t o have access t o t he
concept oi a network of attachments. Thi s requi res that
r ve cl ear t he
l t at h
of sor l e r enr ai ni ng pr obl ems.
Let us r et ur n t o our l i t t l e exampl e. Despi t e hi s
i conocl ast i c gest ur e, Maf al da' s f at her di d not succeed,
by " deconst r uct i ng" hi s pack of ci gar et t es, i n obt ai ni ng
hi s aut onomy. He succeeded onl y i n passi ng f r om an
ext r eme i nnocence t o an ext r eme pani c by way of f our
st ages: he bel i eved hi msel f t o be f r ee; he becomes a
sl ave i n t he eyes of hi s daught er ; he pani cs; he l i ber at es
h
j msel i
by br eal <i ng hi s chai ns. Basi cal l y, however , he
has onl y shi f t ed f r om one bel i ef i n hi s l i ber t y- wi t h
ci gar et t e- t o anot her bel i ef i n hi s l i ber t y- wi t hout
ci gar et t e. Hol v woul d he have r esponded t o t he bar bs of
t he pest er i ng Maf al da i f he had l i ved i n t he domai n of
" f act i shes" ? I n under st andi ng t he passi ve f or m " you ar e
smoked by your ci gar et t e" as an accur at e appr oxi nt at i on
of t he mi ddl e voi ce, he woul d have r esponded i n t he
same mi ddl e voi ce: " Yes, Maf al da, nr y daught er , I am
ef f ect i vel y hel d by my ci gar et t e, whi ch makes me smoke
i t . Ther e i s not hi ng i n t hi s r esembl i ng a det er nr i ni ng
act i on, nei t her f or i t nor f or me. I do r r ot cont r ol i t any
mor e t han i t cont r ol s me. I am at t ached t o i t , and i f I
cannot hope f or ar r y ki nd of emanci pat i on f r om i t , t hen
per haps ot her at t achment s wi l l come t o subst i t ut e f or
t hi s one- on condi t i on t hat I don' t pani c and t hat you
do not , as a good cr i t i cal soci ol ogy of t he l ef t woul d,
i moose uDon me an i deal of det achment f r om whi ch I
woul d sur el v Der i sh . . " 15 We can subst i t ut e one
at t achment f or anot her , but we cannot move f r om a
st at e of at t achmer - r t t o t hat of unat t achnr ent . Thi s i s r vhat
a f . r t her shoul d t el l hi s daught er . To under st and t he
act i vi t y of subj ect s, t hei r er not i ons, t hei r passi ons, \ / e
nr ust t ur n our at t ent i on t o t l r at l vhi ch at t aches anct
act i vat es t hem- an obvi ous pr oposi t i on, but one
nor nr al l y over l ooked.
One of t he r easons f or t hi s nesl ect i s t hat t hi s i ssue
was supposed t o have been addr ssed bv t he di al ect i c
oi subj ect and obj ect . Bel i evi ng t he pr obl em obsol et e,
we har dl y needed t o bot l r er t o exami ne i t s under l vi ng
pr emi ses. Let us cor r si der a mor e di f f i cul t exampl e t han
our ci gar et t e: f or t he l ast t hi r t y- f i ve year s, I have been
wr i t i ng not ebooks t hat , I can honest l y avow, have made
me. Who wr i t es? Who i s f abr i cat ed? We wi l l say t hat t he
quest i on does not pose i t sel f ; t hat I am made by t hat
whi ch I mysel f have made, wr i t t en by what I have
r vr i t t en- t he di al ect i cal ci r cl e t i nder t akes t o cl ar i f y a
r et r oact i ve l oop, whi ch r vi l l per nr i t us t o avoi d
consi der i ng ei t her t he poi nt of depar t ur e or ar r i val . The
quest i on l ve woul d avoi d, hol vever , nonet hel ess poses
i t sel f , because t he l i nki ng of t wo t r adi t i onal posi t i ons by
t hi s l oop l eaves t hese posi t i ons essent i al l v unmodi f i ed: i t
amount s t o dr owni ng t he f i sh, t o l i t er al l v beat i ng ar ound
t he bush. What i s t hen i r r t hi s bush? Let us see. The
expr essi on " i ai r e- i ai r e" does not r esembl e t he di al ect i cal
expr essi on " t o be r nade bl , what I make. " Wher eas t he
f or mer i gnor es al l cont r ol , t he l at t er dupl i cat es cont r ol
by at t r i but i ng cont r ol t o t he cr eat or over hi s cor nmands
and, at t he same t i me, by at t r i but i ng cont r ol t o
det er r ni ni ng f or ces over t hei r conr nr ander s. When I
wr i t e i n nr y not ebook, i t i s cl ear l y l who wr i t es; when I
am wr i t t en by my not ebook, i t i s cl ear l y i t t hat r vr i t es
15. The concept of " af f or dance" i s so power l ul because i t per mi t s
t he depl ol ' nr er r t of t he r r r i ddl e voi ce i n psychol ogv. See James C.
Ci bson, The Ecol ogi cal Appr oach t oVt sual Per cept t ct n ( London:
Lawr ence Er l baum Associ at es, 1 986) . See al so t he r vor k of Laur ent
Thvc. r r ot on t he f or r - . r s oi or cl i nar ' l act i on "Le r gl me de f anr i l i ar i t .
Des choses en per sonne, " Cer r ses 17 r . 1994) : 72- \ 01 .
2 B RES 3 6 AUT UMN 1 9 9 9
me. The di al ect i c r ai ses t o t he seconcl power t he r vei ght
of domi nat i on. l t accel er at es t he movement , but i t
al ways t ur ns i n t he same ci r cl e. But do we need a
c i r c l e at al l ?
" Fact i shes" pur ge cont r ol f r om al l act i on because
t he, v f or ego bot h t he engenci er i ng act i vi t y of cl oi ng as
wel l as t he r ender ed p. r ssi vi t , v of t he done. l f l sav " t he
not ebooks t hat I make- r vr i t e make me do r , r , hat I am, "
t he sum r esul t of my, descr i pt i on changes ever yt hi ng,
because l vi t h i t , I escape t he di amet er of t he ci r cl e. The
i mmacul at e page of t he not ebook on l vhi ch I pl ace t he
shar p poi nt of a pen ancl r nr her e I di scover r vhat , t o mv
gr eat sLr r pr i se, I am i n t he pr ocess of wr i t i ng, whi ch
f or ces me t o r ef l ect Lr pon ancl mocl i f y t he st at e i n whi ch
l bel i eved mysel f t o be a momcnt pr evi ousl y. . . . None
of t hi s i or ms a st r ai ght l i ne t h. r t mi gl - r t cl esi gnat e a
cont r ol l ed coLr r se. Nor cl o t hese di spl acement s of
ef f i cacy l oop ar our ncl i nt o a ci r cl e t hat r ' vor , r l d r et Lr r n t o
r et r ace a gi ven r eper t oi r e of act i ons. Once set upon t he
path of "di ffrance," pushed bv the betrayal s of
successi ve t r ansl at i ons of r nr hi t e paper , of bl ack i nk, of
scr i bbl ed par agr aphs, " al l of r , r s" - not ebooks, passi ons,
wr i t i ngs, ar gument s- cl escencl nr or e ancl mor e qui ckl y
i n a cascade of i r r ever si bl e event s, r vhi ch chase r - r s
bef or e t hem.
\ r Ve
can mLr l t i pl y at t achnr ent s, sr - r bst i t cr t e
one at t achment f or anot her , but t he at t r i br - r t i on of a
si ngl e sour ce of act i on has become f or ever i mpossi bl e.
Any f ur t her at t empt at such at t r i but i on or desi gnat i on
amount s t o yet anot her cl i st or t ecl t r ansl at i on, whi ch,
adci ecl t o al l t he r est , makes us f l ee vet f ur t her f r onr t he
or i gi nal spot . The l vor l cl i s not a bar r el whose sl at s can
be enci r cl ed bv di al ect i cs.
l f i t i s not t oo di f f i cul t t o t r anscend t he
t r . r nscendence at t empt ed b, v cl i al ect i cs, gi ven t hat t he
l at t er ser ved onl y t o f r , r r t her cnt r ench t he opposi ng
causal i t i es of subj ect ancl obj ect , a seconcl obst acl e i s
mor e cl i t i i r ul t t o over come, especi al l y bec. r use i t
appear s so emi nent l y r easonabl e. Even when we
doubl e the "fai re-fai re," the "rnade to do," l ve are
easi l y t empt ed t o t hi nk of each " f ai r e, " or " maki ng, " as
an act of cr eat i on or an at t enLl at ed ver si on of i t :
const r Lr ct i on, f abr i cat i on, or ef f i cacy. r b Beneat h t he
16. The l vor l <s of Fr anor s JLr l l i er r ,
I he Pr oper t si t , v ct f Thi ngs. Tot var cl
, t Hi st or y, oi - Ef f i cacy i n Cl t t n. t i C. r r l br i cl ge, M. r ss. : Zone Bool <s, I 995) ,
Tr ai t de l ' et i i c, t ci t
( Pans:
Cr asset , 1997t , per nr i t us t o ensur e ar l
at t ent i ve vi gi agai nst sr : ch a t enr pt at i on { at t he cost oi a cl et our
t hr ough Chi nal .
modest l anguage of const r uct i onr T hi des t he
myt hol ogi cal demi ur ge t hat , i n t ur n, vei l s r at her poor l v
t he t heol osi cal Cr eat or . The whol e mat t er r esr s on an
i mmense i sunder st ancl i ng of t he sacr ecJ expr essi on of
cr eat i on ex ni hi l o. Despi t e t he vul gat e, t he t er m
not hi ngness does not desi gnat e t he pr i mar y mat t er
ani mat ed by t he demi ur ge, but i nst ead, t he I i t t l e
t hr eshol d, t he i nevi t abl e gap i n al l medi at ed act i on, t hat
pr eci sel y r ender s demi ur gi e i mpossi bl e, because each
event exceeds i t s condi t i ons and hence exceeds i t s
ar t i f i cer . Whet her we asser t wi t h Sai nt
John- " At
t he
begi nni ng t her e was t he made t o speak, t hat i s t o say
t he Ver b" - or wi t h Coet he- " At t he begi nni ng, t her c
was t he made t o do, t hat i s t o say Act i on" - i n t he t wo
cases, t her e i s no cr eat or i n a posi t i on t o domi nai t e hi s
cr eat i on dr awn ex ni hi l o. As power f ul as one nt i ght
i magi ne a cr eat or , he r vi l l never be capabl e of bet t er
cont r ol l i ng hi s cr eat i ons t han t he puppet eer l r er
puppet s, a wr i t er hi s not ebooks, a ci gar et t e i t s snr oker , a
speaker her l anguage. He can make t hem do sonr et hi ng,
but he cannot make t hem- t o be engaged i n a cascade
of i r r ever si bl e event s, yes; t o be mast er oi hi s t ool s, no.
I n bel i evi ng t hat we wer e of f er i ng a r espect f u'
vener at i on t o t he cr eat or - Cod, humani t y, subj ect , or
soci et y- we chose, by a cr uel devi at i on f r or n t heol og; , ,
t o i dol i ze mast er y and i t s i deal of det achment f r or n
ever yt hi ng t hat br i ngs i t i nt o bei r r g. The expr essi on ex
ni hi / o doesn' t si gni f y t hat t he ar t i san cr eat es somet hi ng
out of not hi ng, but t hat t he ensembl e of pr i or condi t i ons
i s never act ual l y suf f i ci ent To det er mi ne act i or r . That
r vhi ch t he t er m ex ni hi l o anni hi l at es i s t he mast er ' s
del usi onal pr et ensi on t o mast er y- and r vhat i s t r Lr e f or
Cod i s even t r uer f or Man. Ther e i s onl y one per i ume
whose f r agr ance i s agr eeabl e t o t he cr eat or , t hat of
sur pr i se i n behol di ng event s t hat he does not cont r ol l t r - r 1
t hat he makes happen. The passage f r om not hi ngness t o
bei ng or f r om bei ng t o not hi ngness has no par t i n t he
st or y- no mor e si gni f i cant a par t t han Maf al da' s f at her ' s
sudden swi ng f r om a car el ess f r eedom t o a pani cl <ecl
17. One can cer t ai nl y say t hat I cl i d not have good f or t r - r nc r vi t h t he
subt i t l e of r l y f i r st book, "The Soci al Const r uct i on of Sci cnt i f i c F. r ct s"l
Af t er havi ng cr i t i qued t he adl ect i ve soci af I had t o t hen abandor r t he
\\ord constructi on, and, as for the word fact, i t took me twcntv Ve.l rs
t o under st and at l vhat cost f abr i cat i on and t r ut h cor r l d become
svnonyms wi t hout t r i vi al i zi ng ei t her t er nr . \ Ar e may under st and w, hv t hc
wor d const r uct l on no l onger ser ves any usef ul pur pose by scei ng t hat
i t i s even bei ng used by John
Sear l e, The Const r uct r on of Sor t al Rt : . t l i t r , '
( New Yor k: The Fr ee Pr ess, I 995) .
Lat our: F. , rct uresi ' l ract urcs )9
f ear of al l f or ms of at t achr r r ent . We woul d ser i ousl y
r ni sunder st and t he r edoubl i ng i nher ent i n " f ai r e- i ai r e" i f
u/ e cont ent ed our sel ves wi t h st acki ng a second myt h
about cr eat i on on a f i r st nr yt h about cr eat i on. To use t he
l ocut i on " i ai r e- f ai r e" si gni f i es, on t he cont r ar y, t hat we
r vi sh t o compl et el v abandon t he i deal of maki ng and of
i t s " r r i scl eecl s. " I 3
Thi s abanci onment per mi t s our r e- posi ng t he quest i on
of f r eedor n by r ecl ai mi ng f r om pr ogr essi vi st s a t heme
t hat t hey di d not use wel l and whi ch shoul d not be l ef t
f or t hem al one t o i ndul ge i n. The si ngl e sl ogan " t o l i ve
r vi t l r out a nl ast er " act ual l y si gni f i es t wo er r t i r el y di f f er ent
pr oj ect s cl ependi ng on r vhet her one l i ves under t he
unr br age of " f act i shes" or r emai ns t or n bet ween obj ect s
and subj ect s. Does l i ber t y consi st of l i vi ng wi t hout a
master or wi thout ntastery?. The two proj ects are no
rnore si nri l ar Than "fai re" and "fai re-fai re" or "to do" and
" r r . r ade t o do. " The f i r st pr ol ect , as was ar gued r n t he f i r st
sect i on, amount s t o conf usi ng t he passage f r onr one
nr ast er t o anot her r , vi t h t he passage f r om at t achment t o
ci et achment . Behi ncl t he desi r e f or emanci pat r on-
" nei r l r er
Cod r r or mast er ! " - l i es t he desi r e t o subst i t ut e a
good mast er f or a bad one; most of t en, i t ent ai l s t he
repl acenrent of tl re i nsti tLrti on wi th The "moi -roi ," he
" l l ki ng, " t o adopt t he expr essi on of Pi er r e Legendr e. r e
Even i f we accept t hat t hi s mer el y r epr esent s a
subst i t ut i on and not a def i r r i t i ve sever i ng of t i es, f r eedom
cont i nues t o consi st of r epl aci ng one f or m of mast er y
rvi th another. But when vtti l l we be abl e to unti e
oursel ves front the i deal of mastery i tsel l l When rvi l l rve
i r egi n t o f i nal l y t ast e t he f r ui t s of l i ber t y, t hat i s, " t o l r ve
r vi t hout . r mast er , " i n par t i cul ar , wi t hout an l / ki ng? Thi s i s
t he second pr oj ect t hat gi ves an ent i r el y di f f er ent
meani ng t o t he same sl ogan. We had cor r f used f r eedom
. r s t he exer ci se of command i n t he p/ ace of anot her
commander2O l vi th freecl onr as l i fe l i ved w,i thout
comnr and al t oget her . Wi t h " f act i shes, " t he expr essi on of
f r eecl om r egai ns t he pat h t hat t he i deal of emanci pat i on
l B. Theor i zi ng about t he t echni cal obvi ousl y i nf l uences al l t hese
v. r gue not i ons aboul const r uct i on ancl Lr br i cat i on. t or a r ef or nr ul at i on
ot t he r el at i ons bet ween t he t ool ancl i t s r naker , see, i n par t i cul at m) ,
"On Techni cal Medr at i on, " Cont nt on Knot +, l edge 3, no. 2 ( i 994) : 29- 6; 1
1 9. See not e 5.
20. The St oi c or Spi nozi st f or mul at i on of l i ber t y. r s t he accept ar . r ce
or l <nowl ecl ge of det er mi ni sms amount s as l vel l t o a subst i t ut i on of
nr l st er s and t he t r eat nr ent of causal det er mi nat i on as t he sol e f or m ol
. l t t . r chment . Fr onr t he per spect i ve of t he "f act i sh, " t hi s r epr esent s no
appr eci abl e change.
anci det achnr ent had t r ar r sf or r l ed i nt o an i mp. r sse:
f r eedor n beconr es t l r e r i ght r r ot t o be depr i ved of t i es
t hat r ender exi st ence possi bl e, t i es enr pt i ed of al l i deal s
of det er r . ni nat i on, of a f al se t heol ogy of cr eat i on ex
ni hi l o. l f i t i s cor r ect t hat l ve r nust r epl ace t hc. r nci er r t
opposi t i on bet ween t he at t ached and det ached r vi t h t he
subst i t ut i on oi goocl and bad at t achnr ent s, t hi s
r epl acenr ent w, oul d l eave us or r l y f eel i ng st i f l ed i f i t
wer e not suppl enr er r t ed ancl cor . npl et ed by a second
i cl ea, t hat i s, t he cl el i ver ance f r oni i ' nast er r r al t oget her : at
al l poi nt s of t he net wor k of at t acl r nr er r t s, t he node i s t hat
of a "nral <e-r.nal <e"-r.rot of sonretl ri ng tl rat nrakes nor of
sonr et hi ng t l r at i s r r ade. Tl r at , at l east , i s t he new pr oj ect
oi enr anci pat i on, w, hi ch i s as vi gor ous as t he f or nr er but
nr uch mor e cr ecl i bl e, because i t obl i ges us not t o
conf use l i r , , i r r g l vi t hout cor r t r ol wi t h l i vi ng r vi t hout
at t acl r mer r t s.
Let us exanr i ne one l ast obst acl e t o t he abi l i t v t o
t hi nk t he " f act i sl r , " an obst acl e t hat i s not l ogi cal , as
wi t h t he di al ect i c, nor t heol ogi cal , as r r , , i t h cr eat i on, but
mor e cl i r ect l y pol i t i cal . I n t he eves of t hose w, ho have
brokerr l he "fai re-t,ti r.e," l vi ro have sundered tl re
" f act r sh, " cul t ur es of t he past or at a cl i st ance seen' r
pr of oundl y i nconr pr ehensi bl e. Wi t h t he opposed not i ons
ot det er nr i nat i on and f r eedonr , of het er ononr y ancJ
aLrtonomy, how coul d r,r,e urrderstand tl -rose for nrs of
exi st ence t hat cl ai r r r , ' er v si r l pl v t l r at t hey cor - r l d not
exi st wi t l r out bei ng cont i nual l v i nt er t l vi ned w, i t h cer t ai n
di vi r r i t i es or cer t ai n " good5" z' r The not i on of f et i sh or
f et i shi sm en' r er ges pr eci sel y f r onr t he shock er r count er
bet ween t l r ose who ut i l r ze t he t er nr s of necessi t y ar r d
freedonr and tl -rose who know thenrsel ves to be fastenecl
by r r umer or - r s bei ngs t l r at nr ake t henr exi st . 22 Faced w, i t l . r
t he accusat i on cast by hi s daugl - r t er t hat he i s t ot al l y
domi nat ed by hi s f et i sh, Maf al da' s f at her has no ot her
choi ce t han t o f anat i cal l v cJest r oy hi s i dol t o gLt ar ant ee
21 . The qucst i or . r concer ni nq t hc at l achnr ent of pr oPc, r t i es i s ncr l
any easi er t o r esol ve t han t h. r t ot di vi ni t i es, ancl t he ke, v concel l t r ) t
ext er nal i t y does not sui f i ce t o enr j t l r e ci i scLr ssi on, cl espi t e i t s
pr et ensi ons ot acl r i evi n!l cl osur e. See Mi cl r el Cal l on, ecl . , The L. t t t s ot
t he Mar ket
( Lonci on:
Rout l ecl ge, I
( t 9Bt .
The ar gunr ent s on t he f r eedonr
of choi ce or t l r e or g. r ni zat i or . r of t hc nr ar ket r chc. ar se exact l ; , t he sar ne
t hcor i es of i nact i on . r s t hose of t hc. soci al sci ences.
22. I n acl dr t i on t o t l . l e sLr r . l . n. r t r on bv Pi t l z l see not e J) , see t l r c
t l i zzyi r r g anal vsi s of Si nr on Sch. r i t er , " For ger s and Aut hor s i n t hc
Bar ocl r , r e Econor l y" ( l l al ) er pr esent r . . l at t hL. nr cet i ng "\ \ l hal
j s
an
Aut hor ?" f l ar u' ar ci Ur r i ver si t v, N1. r r r . h 19! 111, or r t he r el at i or r bet r r een
hi st or v and sci ent i f i c i sscssr ' r . r ent of gol d . r ncl t hc ac( usat r on of i et i shi sr l
3 O RES 3 6 AUT UMN ] 9 9 9
t hat he does not succumb agai n t o a f at al at t achment .
Hi s f r enet i c r eact i on pr oves t hat he i s moder n but
por t ends not hi ng posi t i ve about hi s abi l i t y t o under st and
t hose t i es t hat wi l l make hi m and hi s daught er exi st . We
const ant l y del i ber at e t o di scer n t he meani ng of t hose
vague terms the West and Moderni ty. We can defi ne
t hem si mpl y enough: he who has br oken hi s " f act i shes"
sees "Others" as bi zarrel y attached creatures, monsters
as much i n t he gr i ps of t hei r bel i ef s and t hei r passi vi t y
as t he f at her vi ewed by hi s daught er Maf al da. 23 But , i t i s
t he daught er who doesn' t under st and her f at het t he
West er ner who doesn' t under st and t he Ot her , r ender ed
exot i c by cont r ast wi t h an i deal of det achment t hat
woul d sur el y ki l l hi m- i f he wer e so mad as t o act ual l y
appl y i t . The i ncapaci t y t o r ecogni ze i n onesel f t hose
at t achment s t hat enabl e one t o act i s t aken as r eason t o
bel i eve onesel f West er n, and t o i magi ne t hat t he Ot her s
ar e not , and ar e consequent l y ent i r el y " Ot her , " when i n
f act t hey di f f er onl y by r vhat pr eci sel y at t aches t hem.
I nst ead of a gr eat di vi de bet ween Us and Them,
bet ween t he det ached and t he at t ached, we woul d be
bet t er of f i nt r oduci ng a number of smal l di vi des
between those who are attached by one such set of
par t i cul ar ent i t i es and t hose at t ached by anot her such
set of par t i cul ar ent i t i es. The speci f i c nat ur e of t he
act i vat i ng t r ansf er s makes al l t he di f f er ence and not t he
ast oundi ng pr et ensi on of escapi ng al l domi nat i on
whet her by f act s or by f et i shes, by r at i onal i t y or by
i r r at i onal i t y. One gai ns al t er i t y f r om at t achment s and not
f r om t he r adi cal dr f f er ence bet ween t he l i ber at ed and
t he al i enat ed, t he upr oot ed and t he r oot ed, t he mobi l e
and t he f i xed. 2a
l f we def i ne pol i t i cs as t he pr ogr essi ve const i t ut i on of
a common r ' vor l d, we can easi l y see how di f f i cul t i t i s t o
23. As much coul d be sai d about an " i nt er nal " exot i ci sm
( i nvent ed
by cr i t i cal t heor y, i n par t i cul ar t he Fr ankf ur t School ) , r vhi ch has
t r ansf or med al l Eur opean and Amer i can cul t ur es i nt o a mani pul at ed
mass, al so bi zar r el y at t ached. Cr i t i cal t heor . v pl avs f or t he cent er t he
same r ol e of exot i ci zi ng al t er i t y as t hat per f or med by t he
concept ual i zat i on of t he f et i sh f or t he per i pher y. Sai d has descr i bed
Or i ent al i sm ver y wel l - r vho has descr i bccl t he Occi dent al r sm of
west er ner s seen by cr i t i cal t heor i st - . ?
24. On t hi s r ssue of a gr eat ci r vl cl e, see We Have Never Been
Moder n
( Cambr i dge: Har var d Uni ver si t y Pr ess, 1993) . See al so t he
i mpor t ant wor k accompl i shed by ant hr opol ogi st s on r evi si nB t he
cat egor i es of cul t ur e once one r er noves t he obst acl e posed by an
opposi ng cat egor y of nat ur e, i n Phi l i ppe Descol a and Ci sl i Pal sson,
eds. Nature and Soctety: Anthropol ogi cal Perspecti ves
(London:
Rout l edge, l 996) .
i magi ne a col l ect i ve exi st ence i f al l t hose who r ' vi shed t o
par t i ci pat e wer e f i r st asked t o l eave behi nd, i n t he
out si de vest i bul e, al l t he appur t enances and at t achment s
t hat enabl ed t hem t o exi st . West er ner s, as t he mast er s of
cer emony, manage not t o appl y t o t hemsel ves t l r e r ul e ot
abst ent i on and det achment t hat t hey appl y t o t he
Ot her s. The West er ner ' s at t achment s ar e f ound basi cal l v
summed up by t he t wo gr eat col l ect or s and
accumul at or s of t hei r di st i nct i ve t r adi t i on: Nat ur e and
Soci et y, t he r ei gn of necessi t y and t hat of f r eedom. Use
of the term gl obal i zati on permi ts one to bel i eve that the
common wor l d wi l l necessar i l y be an ext ensi on, i n one
f or m or anot her , of one of t hese t wo r ei gns. For t he
compet i ng par t i es, t he gl obal f r amewor k of t he
di scussi on i s not up f or debat e. Not hi ng pr oves,
however , t hat t he common wor l d as t he obj ect of
pol i t i cs, or what l sabel l e St enger s cal l s
" cosmopol i t i cs, " 25 r esembl es gl obal i zat i on. Ever yt hi ng
pr oves, on t he cont r ar y, t hat t he t wo accumul at or s- t he
causal det er mi nat i on of Nat ur e and t he ar bi t r ar y
ar bi t r at i on of t he Sover ei gn- no l onger suf f i ce t o f i nd
cl osur e t o cont r over si es concer ni ng t he pr ogr essi ve
const i t ut i on of t he common wor l d. I n a wor l d t hat no
l onger moves f r om al i enat i on t o emanci pat i on, but f r onr
ent angl ement t o even gr eat er ent angl ement , no l onger
f r om t he pr emoder n t o t he moder n, but i nst ead f r onr t he
moder n t o t he nonmoder n, t he t r adr t i onal di vi si on
bet ween det er mi nat i ons and l i ber at i ons ser ves no usef ul
pur pose i n def i ni ng a " gl obal i zat i on" whose compl exi t y,
f or t he moment , def i es pol i t i cal under st andi ng. r G
Despi t e t he aut omat i c r eact i on of Maf al da' s f at her , i t i s
no l onger a mat t er of abr upt l y passi ng f r om sl aver y t o
f r eedom by shat t er i ng i dol s, but of di st i ngui shi ng t hose
at t achment s t hat save f r om t hose t hat ki l l .
I n t hi s paper , I want ed t o expl or e some pr obl ems r vi t h
t he concept of at t achment wi t h t he end of usi ng i t t o
enr i ch t he soci ol ogy of net wor ks, whi ch unt i l now has
been so usef ul but i s begi nni ng t o ser i ousl y exhaust i t s
25. l sabel l e St enger s, Cosmopol i t t ques. Tome
' l
, La guer r e des
sci ences ( Par i s: La Dcouver t e- Les Empcheur s de penser en r ond,
1 996) and Cosmopol i ti ques. Tonre 7, Pour en i i ni r avec l a tol rance
( Par i s: La Dcouver t e- Les Empcheur s de penser en r ond, 1997) .
26. Thi s i s t he obj ect i ve of t he ef f or t I under t ook i n Pol i t i ques cl e l . t
nature, comment fai re entrer l es sci ences en dmocrati e
(Pari s:
La
Dcouver t e, 1 999) : t he def i ni t i on of a col l ect i ve capabl e of assenr bl i ng
a common wor l d wi t hout havi ng r ecour se t o t he t wo t r adi t i onal
compendi ums of Nat ur e and Soci et y, bi canr er al i sm i l l adr pt ed t o t he
cont empor ar y si t uat i on.
l -at our: Fact ures/ i ract ures 3' l
r esour ces. Net wor ks- or r hi zomes- per mi t us not onl y
t o di st r i but e act i on, but al so t o br i ng about det achment s
and di sl ocat i ons cl ose at hand as wel l as r eat t achment s
ai a di st ance. l f net wor l <s ar e ext r emel y ef f i caci ous i n
r edi st r i but i ng f or ce, t hey ar e not at al l i n r enewi ng a
t heor v of act i on speci f i c t o each of t he nodes. The
adcl i t i on of t he t er m act or l o f or m t he hybr i d acr or -
network di d not have the anti ci pated effect, because i t
anr ount ed t o a mel di ng of t wo t heor i es of act i on: one
r oot ed i n det er mi nat i on and st r uct ur e, t he ot her t n
f r eedom and subj ect i vi t y. The move t owar ds a net wor k
of at t achment s shoul d per mi t us t o keep t he di st r i but i ve
ef f ect s of t he net wor k, whi l e at t he same t i me enabl e us
t o ent i r el y r econcept ual i ze t he nat ur e and sour ce of
act i on. At t achment s desi gnat e t hat whi ch i ssues, t hat
r vhi ch set s i n mot i on and, at t he same t i me, t he
i mpossi bi l i t y of def i ni ng t hi s " f ai r e- f ai r e' - t hi s " made t o
do" - by t he anci ent coupl i ng of det er mi nat i on and
f r eedonr . Shi f t i ng f r om net wor ks t o at t achment s woul d
al l ow us t o keep t he di st r i but i ve qual i t i es of net wor ks,
u' hi l e r eest abl i shi ng a l ess pr obl emat i c nat ur e and
sour ce of act i on. Fi nal l y, i t coul d gi ve mor e meani ng t o
t he not i on of const r uct i on, whi ch seems t o have
exhaust ed much of i t s cr i t i cal edge.
Translated bv Monique Cirard Stark