Wilderson - , Frank Red White Black Cinema Struct

Red, White, & Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S.
Antagonisms
Red, White, & Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms by Frank B. Wilderson, III
Red, White, & Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms
For my parents, Drs. Frank & Ida-Lorraine Wilderson who taught me how to think nd !or nita Wilkins, who shared this "ourney with me
Table of Contents Part I: The Structure of Antagonisms$$$$$$$$$$$$..$$$$.$% Introdu&tion' Unspeakable thics$$$$$$$$$$$$.$.$...$$$$.$$( )hapter *ne' !he Ruse of Analog"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.$$$.$%% )hapter +wo' !he #arcissistic Sla$e$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,Part II: Antwone isher & Bush !ama$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.11. )hapter +hree' %ishing for Ant&one..$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$..11)hapter Four' Cinematic Unrest: Bush /ama & !he B'A$$$$$$$$$$$.1%( Part III: Skins$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$1-0 )hapter Fi1e' Absurd (obilit"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$1-% )hapter 2i3' !he thics of So$ereignt"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ #44 )hapter 2e1en' )cess 'ack******************...***$.#0, )hapter 5ight' !he +leasures of
+arit"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$...#%)hapter 6ine' ,Sa$age- #egrophobia*******************$#.% Part IV: !onster"s Ball$$$$$$$$$$$$.$$$$$$$$$$$..041 )hapter +en' A Crisis in the Commons******************.$.04# )hapter 5le1en' .alf/White .ealing$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.$ 0%)hapter +wel1e' (ake (e %eel 0ood*$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$...$ 0-. 5pilogue$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%11
Bibliography$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.$.%1, 5nd notes$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.$$$$$$$$$$$$$.%#7
Part I: The Structure of Antagonisms
Introduction Uns#eaka$le %thics
When I was a young student at )olumbia 8ni1ersity in 6ew 9ork there was a Bla&k woman who used to stand outside the gate and yell at Whites, Latinos, and 5astand 2outh sian students, sta!!, and !a&ulty as they entered the uni1ersity. 2he a&&used
them o! ha1ing stolen her so!a and o! selling her into sla1ery. 2he always winked at the Bla&ks, though we didn:t wink ba&k. 2ome o! us thought her outbursts too bigoted and out o! step with the burgeoning ethos o! multi&ulturalism and ;rainbow &oalitions< to endorse. But others did not wink ba&k be&ause we were too !ear!ul o! the possibility that her isolation would be&ome our isolation, and we had &ome to )olumbia !or the e3press, though largely assumed and unspoken, purpose o! !ore&losing upon that peril. Besides, people said she was &ra=y. Later, when I attended 8) Berkeley, I saw a 6ati1e meri&an man sitting on the sidewalk o! +elegraph 1enue. *n the ground in !ront o! him was an
upside down hat and a sign in!orming pedestrians that here was where they &ould settle the ;Land Lease &&ounts< that they had negle&ted to settle all o! their li1es. >e too, so
went the s&uttlebutt, was ;&ra=y.< Lea1ing aside !or the moment their state o! mind, it would seem that the stru&ture, that is to say the rebar, or better still the grammar o! their demands?and, by e3tension, the grammar o! their su!!ering?was indeed an ethi&al grammar. @erhaps their grammars are the only ethi&al grammars a1ailable to modern politi&s and modernity writ large, !or they draw our attention not to the way in whi&h spa&e and time are used and abused by en!ran&hised and 1iolently power!ul interests, but to the 1iolen&e that underwrites the
modern world:s capacit" to think, act, and e)ist spatiall" and temporall" . +he 1iolen&e that robbed her o! her body and him o! his land pro1ided the stage upon whi&h other 1iolent and &onsensual dramas &ould be ena&ted. +hus, they would ha1e to be &ra=y, &ra=y enough to &all not merely the a&tions o! the world to a&&ount but to &all the world itsel! to a&&ount, and to a&&ount !or them no lessA +he woman at )olumbia was not demanding to be a parti&ipant in an unethi&al network o! distribution' she was not demanding a pla&e within &apital, a pie&e o! the pie Bthe demand !or her so!a notwithstandingC. Dather, she was arti&ulating a triangulation between, on the one hand, the loss o! her body, the 1ery dereli&tion o! her &orporeal integrity, what >ortense 2pillers &harts as the transition !rom being a being to be&oming a ; being !or the &aptor< B#4,C, the drama o! 1alue Bthe stage upon whi&h surplus 1alue is e3tra&ted !rom labor power through &ommodity produ&tion and saleCE and on the other, the &orporeal integrity that, on&e ripped !rom her body, !orti!ied and e3tended the &orporeal integrity o! e$er"one else on the street. 2he ga1e birth to the &ommodity and to the >uman, yet she had neither sub"e&ti1ity nor a so!a to show !or it. In her eyes, the world?and not its myriad dis&riminatory pra&ti&es, but the world itsel!?was unethi&al. nd yet, the world
passes by her without the slightest in&lination to stop and disabuse her o! her &laim. Instead, it &alls her ;&ra=y.< nd to what does the world attribute the 6ati1e meri&an
man:s insanityF ;>e:s &ra=y i! he thinks he:s getting any money out o! us<F 2urely, that doesn:t make him &ra=y. Dather it is simply an indi&ation that he does not ha1e a big enough gun. What are we to make o! a world that responds to the most lu&id enun&iation o! ethi&s with 1iolen&eF What are the !oundational Guestions o! the ethi&o-politi&alF Why
are these Guestions so s&andalous that they are rarely posed politi&ally, intelle&tually, and &inemati&ally?unless they are posed obliGuely and un&ons&iously, as i! by a&&identF Deturn +urtle Island to the ;2a1age.< Depair the demolished sub"e&ti1ity o! the 2la1e. +wo simple senten&es, thirteen simple words, and the stru&ture o! 8.2. Band perhaps globalC antagonisms would be dismantled. n ;ethi&al modernity< would no longer sound like an o3ymoron. From there we &ould busy oursel1es with important &on!li&ts that ha1e been promoted to the le1el o! antagonisms' &lass struggle, gender &on!li&t, immigrants rights. When pared down to thirteen words and two senten&es, one &annot but wonder why Guestions that go to the heart o! the ethi&o-politi&al, Guestions o! politi&al ontology, are so unspeakable in intelle&tual meditations, politi&al broadsides, and e1en so&ially and politi&ally engaged !eature !ilms. )learly they can be spoken, e1en a &hild &ould speak those lines, so they would pose no problem !or a s&holar, an a&ti1ist, or a !ilmmaker. nd yet, what is also &lear?i! the !ilmographies o! so&ially and politi&ally engaged dire&tors, the ar&hi1e o! progressi1e s&holars, and the plethora o! Le!t-wing broadsides are anything to go by?is that what &an so easily be spoken is now B!i1e hundred years and two hundred !i!ty million 2ettlersH/asters onC so ubiGuitously unspoken that these two simple senten&es, these thirteen words not only render their speaker ;&ra=y< but be&ome themsel1es impossible to imagine. 2oon it will be !orty years sin&e radi&al politi&s, Le!t-leaning s&holarship, and so&ially engaged !eature !ilms began to speak the unspeakable. ii In the 17,4s and early 17.4s the Guestions asked by radi&al politi&s and s&holarship were not ;2hould the 8.2. be o1erthrownF< or e1en ;Would it be o1erthrownF< but rather when and how?and, !or
some, what?would &ome in its wake. +hose stead!ast in their &on1i&tion that there remained a dis&ernable Guantum o! ethi&s in the 8.2. writ large Band here I am speaking o! e1eryone !rom /artin Luther Iing, Jr., prior to his 17,- shi!t, to the +om >ayden wing o! 2D2, to the Julian Bond and /arion Barry !a&tion o! 26)), to Bobbie Iennedy Demo&ratsC were a&&ountable, in their rhetori&al ma&hinations, to the paradigmati& 1eitgeist o! the Bla&k @anthers, the meri&an Indian /o1ement, and the Weather
8nderground. Dadi&als and progressi1es &ould deride, re"e&t, or &hastise armed struggle mer&ilessly and &a1alierly with respe&t to ta&ti&s and the possibility o! ;su&&ess,< but they &ould not dismiss re1olution-as-ethi& be&ause they &ould not make a &on1in&ing &ase?by way o! a paradigmati& analysis?that the 8.2. was an ethi&al !ormation and still hope to maintain &redibility as radi&als and progressi1es. 51en Bobby Iennedy Ba 8.2. attorney general and presidential &andidateC mused that the law and its en!or&ers had no ethi&al standing in the presen&e o! Bla&ks.iii *ne &ould Band many didC a&knowledge meri&a:s
strength and power. +his seldom, howe1er, rose to the le1el o! an ethi&al assessment, but rather remained an assessment o! the so-&alled ;balan&e o! !or&es.< +he politi&al dis&ourse o! Bla&ks, and to a lesser e3tent Indians, &ir&ulated too widely to &redibly wed the 8.2. and ethi&s. +he raw !or&e o! )*I6+5L@D* put an end to this tra"e&tory toward a possible hegemony o! ethi&al a&&ountability. )onseGuently, the power o! Bla&kness and Dedness to pose the Guestion?and the po&er to pose the 2uestion is the greatest po&er of all?retreated as did White radi&als and progressi1es who ;retired< !rom struggle. +he Guestion:s e&ho lies buried in the gra1es o! young Bla&k @anthers, Bla&k Liberation I/ Warriors, and
rmy soldiers, or in prison &ells where so many o! them ha1e been
rotting Bsome in solitary &on!inementC !or ten, twenty, thirty years, and at the gates o! the
14
a&ademy where the ;&ra=ies< shout at passers-by. Kone are not only the young and 1ibrant 1oi&es that a!!e&ted a seismi& shi!t on the politi&al lands&ape, but also the intelle&tual proto&ols o! inGuiry, and with them a spate o! !eature !ilms that be&ame authori=ed, i! not by an unabashed re1olutionary polemi&, then &ertainly by a re1olutionary 1eitgeist. Is it still possible !or a dream o! un!ettered ethi&s, a dream o! the 2ettlement and the 2la1e estate:si1 destru&tion, to mani!est itsel! at the ethi&al &ore o! &inemati& dis&ourse, when this dream is no longer a &onstituent element o! politi&al dis&ourse in the streets nor o! intelle&tual dis&ourse in the a&ademyF +he answer is ;no< in the sense that, as history has shown, what &annot be arti&ulated as politi&al dis&ourse in the streets is doubly !ore&losed upon in s&reenplays and in s&holarly proseE but ;yes< in the sense that in e1en the most ta&iturn histori&al moments su&h as ours, the grammar o! Bla&k and Ded su!!ering breaks in on this !ore&losure, albeit like the somati& &omplian&e o! hysteri&al symptoms?it registers in both &inema and s&holarship as symptoms o! awareness o! the stru&tural antagonisms. Between 17,. and 17-4, we &ould think &inemati&ally and intelle&tually o! Bla&kness and Dedness as ha1ing the &oheren&e o! !ull-blown dis&ourses. But !rom 17-4 to the present, Bla&kness and Dedness mani!ests only in the rebar o! &inemati& and intelle&tual Bpoliti&alC dis&ourse, that is, as unspoken grammars. +his grammar &an be dis&erned in the &inemati& strategies Blighting, &amera angles, image &omposition, and a&ousti& strategiesHdesignC, e1en when the s&ript labors !or the spe&tator to imagine so&ial turmoil through the rubri& o! &on!li&t Bthat is, a rubri& o! problems that &an be posed and &on&eptually sol1edC as opposed to the rubri& o! antagonism Ban irre&on&ilable struggle between entities, or positionalities, the resolution
11
o! whi&h is not diale&ti&al but entails the obliteration o! one o! the positionsC. In other words, e1en when !ilms narrate a story in whi&h Bla&ks or Indians are beleaguered with problems that the s&ript insists are &on&eptually &oherent Busually ha1ing to do with po1erty or the absen&e o! ;!amily 1alues<C, the non-narrati1e, or &inemati&, strategies o! the !ilm o!ten disrupt this &oheren&e by posing the irre&on&ilable Guestions o! Ded and Bla&k politi&al ontology?or non-ontology. +he grammar o! antagonism breaks in on the menda&ity o! &on!li&t. 2emioti&s and linguisti&s tea&h us that when we speak, our grammar goes unspoken. *ur grammar is assumed. It is the stru&ture through whi&h the labor o! spee&h is possible.1 Likewise, the grammar o! politi&al ethi&s?the grammar o! assumptions regarding the ontology o! su!!ering?whi&h underwrite Film +heory and politi&al dis&ourse Bin this book, dis&ourse elaborated in dire&t relation to radi&al a&tionC, and whi&h underwrite &inemati& spee&h Bin this book, Ded, White, and Bla&k !ilms !rom the mid-17,4s to the presentC is also unspoken. +his notwithstanding, !ilm theory, politi&al dis&ourse, and &inema assume an ontologi&al grammar, a stru&ture o! su!!ering. nd the
stru&ture o! su!!ering whi&h !ilm theory, politi&al dis&ourse, and &inema assume &rowds out other stru&tures o! su!!ering, regardless o! the sentiment o! the !ilm or the spirit o! unity mobili=ed by the politi&al dis&ourse in Guestion. +o put a !iner point on it, stru&tures o! ontologi&al su!!ering stand in antagonisti&, rather then &on!li&tual, relation to one another Bdespite the !a&t that antagonists themsel1es may not be aware o! the ontologi&al positionality !rom whi&h they speakC. +hough this is perhaps the most &ontro1ersial and out-o!-step &laim o! this book, it is, nonetheless, the !oundation o! the &lose reading o! !eature !ilms and politi&al theory that !ollows.
1#
+he di!!i&ulty o! a writing a book whi&h seeks to un&o1er Ded, Ba&k, and White so&ially engaged !eature !ilms as aestheti& a&&ompaniments to grammars o! su!!ering, predi&ated on the sub"e&t positions o! the ;2a1age< and the 2la1e is that today:s intelle&tual proto&ols are not in!ormed by Fanon:s insisten&e that ;ontology?on&e it is !inally admitted as lea1ing e3isten&e by the wayside?does not permit us to understand the being o! the bla&k man Lsi&M< BBlack Skin, White (asks 114C. In sharp &ontrast to the late ,4s and early .4s, we now li1e in a politi&al, a&ademi&, and &inemati& milieu whi&h stresses ;di1ersity,< ;unity,< ;&i1i& parti&ipation,< ;hybridity,< ;a&&ess,< and
;&ontribution.< +he radi&al !ringe o! politi&al dis&ourse amounts to little more than a passionate dream o! &i1i& re!orm and so&ial stability. +he distan&e between the protester and the poli&e has narrowed &onsiderably. +he e!!e&t o! this upon the a&ademy is that intelle&tual proto&ols tend to pri1ilege two o! the three domains o! sub"e&ti1ity, namely preconscious interests Bas e1iden&ed in the work o! so&ial s&ien&e around ;politi&al unity,< ;so&ial attitudes,< ;&i1i& parti&ipation,< and ;di1ersity,<C and unconscious identification Bas e1iden&ed in the humanities: postmodern regimes o! ;di1ersity,< ;hybridity,< and ;relati1e Lrather than ;master<M narrati1es<C. 2in&e the 17-4s, intelle&tual proto&ols aligned with structural positionalit" Be3&ept in the work o! die-hard /ar3istsC ha1e been ki&ked to the &urb. +hat is to say, it is hardly !ashionable anymore to think the 1agaries o! power through the generi& positions within a stru&ture o! power relations? su&h as manHwoman, workerHboss. Instead, the a&ademy:s ensembles o! Guestions are !i3ated on spe&i!i& and ;uniGue< e3perien&e o! the myriad identities that make up those stru&tural positions. +his would !ine i! the work led us ba&k to a &ritiGue o! the paradigmE but most o! it does not. gain, the upshot o! this is that the intelle&tual proto&ols now in
10
play, and the &omposite e!!e&t o! &inemati& and politi&al dis&ourse sin&e the 17-4s, tend to hide rather than make e3pli&it the grammar o! su!!ering whi&h underwrites the 82 and its !oundational antagonisms. +his state o! a!!airs e3a&erbates?or, more pre&isely, mysti!ies and 1eils?the ontologi&al death o! the 2la1e and the ;2a1age< be&ause Bas in the 17(4sC &inemati&, politi&al, and intelle&tual dis&ourse o! the &urrent milieu resists being san&tioned and authori=ed by the irre&on&ilable demands o! Indigenism and Bla&kness?a&ademi& enGuiry is thus no more e!!e&ti1e in pursuing a re1olutionary &ritiGue than the legislati1e anti&s o! the loyal opposition. +his is how Le!t-leaning s&holars help &i1il so&iety re&uperate and maintain stability. But this stability is a state o! emergen&y !or Indians and Bla&ks. +he aim o! this book is to embark on a paradigmati& analysis o! how dispossession is imagined at the interse&tion o! BaC the most un!lin&hing meditations Bmeta&ommentariesC on politi&al e&onomy and libidinal e&onomy, Be.g., mar3ism, ala ntonio 6egri:s work, and psy&hoanalysis, su&h as the work o! Ia"a 2il1erman, respe&ti1elyC, BbC the dis&ourse o! politi&al &ommon sense, and B&C the narrati1e and !ormal strategies o! so&iallyHpoliti&ally engaged !ilms. In other words, a paradigmati& analysis asks, What are the &onstituent elements o!, and the assumpti1e logi& regarding, dispossession whi&h underwrite theoreti&al &laims about politi&al and libidinal e&onomyE and how are those elements and assumptions mani!est in both politi&al &ommon sense and in politi&al &inemaF )harles 2. /aier argues that a meta&ommentary on politi&al e&onomy &an be thought o! as an ;interrogation o! e&onomi& do&trines to dis&lose their so&iologi&al and
1%
politi&al premises$in sum, LitM regards e&onomi& ideas and beha1ior not as !rameworks !or analysis, but as belie!s and a&tions that must themsel1es be e3plained.<1i Jared 2e3ton des&ribes libidinal e&onomy as ;the e&onomy, or distribution and arrangement, o! desire and identi!i&ation Btheir &ondensation and displa&ementC, and the &omple3 relationship between se3uality and the un&ons&ious.< 6eedless to say, libidinal e&onomy !un&tions 1ariously a&ross s&ales and is as ;ob"e&ti1e< as politi&al e&onomy. Importantly, it is linked not only to !orms o! attra&tion, a!!e&tion and allian&e, but also to aggression, destru&tion, and the 1iolen&e o! lethal &onsumption. >e emphasi=es that it is ;the whole stru&ture o! psy&hi& and emotional li!e,< something more than, but in&lusi1e o! or tra1ersed by, what Krams&i and other mar3ists &all a ;stru&ture o! !eeling<E it is ;a dispensation o! energies, &on&erns, points o! attention, an3ieties, pleasures, appetites, re1ulsions, and phobias &apable o! both great mobility and tena&ious !i3ation.<1ii Red, White, & Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms interrogates the assumpti1e logi& o! meta&ommentaries on politi&al and libidinal e&onomy, and their arti&ulations in !ilm, through a sub"e&t whose stru&ture o! dispossession Bthe &onstituent elements o! hisHher loss and su!!eringC they &annot theori=e' the Bla&kE a sub"e&t who is always already positioned as 2la1e. +he impli&ations o! my interrogation rea&h !ar beyond Film 2tudies, !or these meta&ommentaries not only ha1e the status o! paradigmati& analyses, but their reasoning and assumptions permeate the pri1ate and Guotidian o! politi&al &ommon sense and buttress organi=ing and a&ti1ism on the Le!t. In Le!tist meta&ommentaries on ontology Band in the politi&al &ommon sense and the radi&al &inema in !ee, howe1er unintentionally, to su&h meta&ommentariesC the sub"e&t:s paradigmati& lo&ation, the stru&ture o! hisHher relationality, is organi=ed around
1(
hisHher &apa&ities' powers the sub"e&t has or la&ks, the &onstituent elements o! hisHher stru&tural position with whi&h sHhe is imbued or la&ks prior to hisHher per!orman&e. Just as prior to the &ommen&ement o! a game o! &hess, the board and the pie&es on it li1e in a &aldron o! antagonisms. +he spatial and temporal &apa&ities o! the Gueen Bwhere she is lo&ated and where she &an mo1e, as well as how she &an mo1eC arti&ulate an irre&on&ilable asymmetry o! power between her and a rook or a pawn !or e3ample. Nest the rook with the powers o! the Gueen Bbe!ore the game begins, o! &ourseC and it is not the out&ome o! the game that is "eopardy so mu&h as the integrity o! the paradigm itsel!?it is no longer &hess but something else. nd it goes without saying that no pie&e may lea1e
the board i! it is to stand in any relation whatsoe1er Basymmetry asideC to its &ontemporariesE this would be tantamount to lea1ing the world, to death. @ower relations are e3tant in the sinews o! &apa&ity. For mar3ists, the re1olutionary ob"e&ti1e is not to play the game but to destroy it, to end e3ploitation and alienation. +hey see the &apa&ity to a&&umulate surplus 1alue embodied in one pie&e, the &apitalist, and the embodiment o! dispossession as being mani!est in the worker. But the worker:s essential in&apa&ity Bpowers whi&h &annot a&&rue to the worker, su!!ering as e3ploitation and alienationC is the essen&e o! &apa&ity, life itself, when looked at through the eyes o! the 2la1e. 2o&iallyHpoliti&ally engaged !ilms pride themsel1es on their pro&li1ity to embra&e what the Le!t 1iews as the essen&e o! dispossession' the plight o! the e3ploited and alienated worker. +hroughout this book, I argue that as radi&al and i&ono&lasti& as so many so&iallyHpoliti&ally engaged !ilms are Band they are indeed a breath o! !resh air to standard >ollywood !areC, in their putati1e embra&e o! working &lass in&apa&ity there is also, !rom the standpoint o! the 2la1e, a de1astating embra&e o! >uman &apa&ity?that
1,
whi&h the 2la1e la&ks. In other words, the narrati1e strategies o! !ilms that arti&ulate the su!!ering o! the worker are shot through with obstinate re!usals to surrender their &inemati& embra&e to the stru&ture o! the 2la1e:s stru&ture o! domination, something in!initely more se1ere than e3ploitation and alienation. I ha1e little interest in assailing politi&al &onser1ati1es. 6or is my argument wedded to the dis&iplinary needs o! politi&al s&ien&e, or e1en so&iology, where in"ury must be established, !irst, as White 2uprema&ist e1ent, !rom whi&h one then embarks upon a demonstration o! intent, or ra&ismE and, i! one is lu&ky, or !oolish, enough, a solution is proposed. I! the position o! the Bla&k is, as I argue, a paradigmati& impossibility in the Western >emisphere, indeed, in the world, in other words, i! a Bla&k is the 1ery antithesis o! a >uman sub"e&t, as imagined by mar3ism andHor psy&hoanalysis, then hisHher paradigmati& e3ile is not simply a !un&tion o! repressi1e pra&ti&es on the part o! institutions Bas politi&al s&ien&e and so&iology would ha1e itC. +his banishment !rom the >uman !old is to be !ound most pro!oundly in the eman&ipatory meditations o! Bla&k people:s staun&hest ;allies,< and in some o! the most ;radi&al< !ilms. >ere?not in restri&ti1e poli&y, un"ust legislation, poli&e brutality, or &onser1ati1e s&holarship?is where the 2ettlerH/aster:s sinews are most resilient. +he polemi& animating this resear&h stems !rom B1C my reading o! 6ati1e- and Bla&k meri&an meta&ommentaries on Indian and Bla&k sub"e&t positions written o1er
the past twenty-three years and B#C a sense o! how mu&h that work appears out o! "oint with intelle&tual proto&ols and politi&al ethi&s whi&h underwrite politi&al pra3is and so&ially engaged popular &inema in this epo&h o! multi&ulturalism and globali=ation. +he sense o! abandonment I e3perien&e when I read the meta-&ommentaries on Ded
1. l!red, Nine
positionality by theorists su&h as Leslie 2ilko, Ward )hur&hill, +aiaiake
Deloria, and >aunani Iay-+raskE and the meta-&ommentaries on Bla&k positionality by theorists su&h as Da1id /arriott, 2aidiya >artman, Donald Judy, >ortense 2pillers, *rlando @atterson, and &hille /bembe, against the deluge o! multi&ultural positi1ity, is
o1erwhelming. *ne suddenly reali=es that, though the semanti& !ield on whi&h sub"e&ti1ity is imagined has e3panded phenomenally through the proto&ols o! multi&ulturalism and globali=ation theory, Bla&kness and an un!lin&hing arti&ulation o! Dedness are more unimaginable and illegible within this e)panded semanti& !ield than they were during the height o! )*I6+5L@D* repression. *n the semanti& !ield upon whi&h the new proto&ols are possible, Indigenism &an indeed be&ome partiall" legible through a programmati&s o!?as !its our globali=ed era?stru&tural ad"ustment. In other words, !or the Indian sub"e&t position to be legible, herHhis positi$e registers o! lost or threatened &ultural identity must be !oregrounded, when in point o! !a&t the antagonisti& register o! dispossession that Indians ;possess< is a position in relation to a so&ius stru&tured by geno&ide. s )hur&hill points out, e1eryone !rom rmenians to Jews ha1e
been sub"e&ted to geno&ide, but the Indigenous position is one !or whi&h geno&ide is a &onstituti1e element, not merely an histori&al e1ent, without whi&h the Indian would not, parado3i&ally, ;e3ist.<1iii Degarding the Bla&k position, some might ask why, a!ter &laims su&&ess!ully made on the state by the )i1il Dights /o1ement, do I insist on positing an operational analyti& !or &inema, !ilm studies, and politi&al theory that appears to be a di&hotomous and essentialist pairing o! /asters and 2la1esF In other words, why should we think o! today:s Bla&ks in the 82 as 2la1es and e1eryone else Bwith the e3&eption o! IndiansC as
1-
/astersF *ne &ould answer these Guestions by demonstrating how nothing remotely approa&hing &laims su&&ess!ully made on the 2tate has &ome to pass. In other words, the ele&tion o! a Bla&k @resident aside, poli&e brutality, mass in&ar&eration, segregated and substandard s&hools and housing, astronomi&al rates o! >IN in!e&tion, and the threat o! being turned away en masse at the polls still &onstitute the li1ed e3perien&e o! Bla&k li!e. But su&h empiri&ally based re"oinders would lead us in the wrong dire&tionE we would !ind oursel1es on ;solid< ground, whi&h would only mysti!y, rather than &lari!y, the Guestion. We would be !or&ed to appeal to ;!a&ts,< the ;histori&al re&ord,< and empiri&al markers o! stasis and &hange, all o! whi&h &ould be turned on their head with more o! the same. 8nderlying su&h a downward spiral into so&iology, politi&al s&ien&e, history, andHor publi& poli&y debates would be the 1ery rubri& that I am &alling into Guestion' the grammar o! su!!ering known as e3ploitation and alienation, the assumpti1e logi& whereby sub"e&ti1e dispossession is arri1ed at in the &al&ulations between those who sell labor power and those who a&Guire it. +he Bla&k 2ua the worker. *rlando @atterson has already dispelled this !aulty ontologi&al grammar in Sla$er" and Social 3eath, where he demonstrates how and why work, or !or&ed labor, is not a &onstituent element o! sla1ery. *n&e the ;solid< plank o! ;work< is remo1ed !rom sla1ery, then the &on&eptually &oherent notion o! ;&laims against the state<?the proposition that the state and &i1il so&iety are elasti& enough to e1en &ontemplate the possibility o! an eman&ipatory pro"e&t !or the Bla&k position?disintegrates into thin air. +he imaginary o! the state and &i1il so&iety is parasiti& on the /iddle @assage. @ut another way' no sla1e, no world. addition, as @atterson argues, no sla1e is in the world. nd, in
17
I!, as an ontologi&al position, that is, as a grammar o! su!!ering, the 2la1e is not a laborer but an anti->uman, a positionality against whi&h >umanity establishes, maintains, and renews it &oheren&e, its &orporeal integrityE i! the 2la1e is, to borrow !rom @atterson, generall" dishonored, perpetuall" open to gratuitous $iolence, and $oid of kinship structure, that is, ha$ing no relations that need be recogni1ed, a being outside of relationalit", then our analysis &annot be approa&hed through the rubri& o! gains or re1ersals in struggles with the state and &i1il so&iety, not unless and until the interlo&utor !irst e3plains how the 2la1e is o! the world. +he onus is not on one who posits the /asterH2la1e di&hotomy, but on the one who argues there is a distin&tion between 2la1eness and Bla&kness. >ow, when, and where did su&h a split o&&urF +he woman at the gates o! )olumbia 8ni1ersity awaits an answer.
In ;+he Bla&k Boy Looks at the White Boy,< James Baldwin wrote about ;the terrible gap between L6orman /ailer:sM li!e and my own< B1.%C. It is a pain!ul essay in whi&h he e3plains how he e3perien&ed, through beginning and ending his ;!riendship< with /ailer, those moments when Bla&kness inspires White eman&ipatory dreams and how it !eels to suddenly reali=e the impossibility o! the in1erse' ;L+Mhe really ghastly thing about trying to &on1ey to a white man the reality o! the 6egro e3perien&e has nothing whate1er to do with the !a&t o! &olor, but has to do with this man:s relationship to his own li!e. >e will !a&e in your li!e only what he is willing to !a&e in his< B1.(C. >is long @aris nights with /ailer bore !ruit only to the e3tent that /ailer was able to say, ;/e too.< Beyond that was the 1oid whi&h Baldwin &arried with him into and, subseGuently, outside o! the ;!riendship.< Baldwin:s &ondemnation o! dis&ourses that
#4
utili=e e3ploitation and alienation:s grammar o! su!!ering is un!lin&hing' ;I am a!raid that most o! the white people I ha1e e1er known impressed me as being in the grip o! a weird nostalgia, dreaming o! a 1anished state o! se&urity and order, against whi&h dream, un!ailingly and un&ons&iously, they tested and 1ery o!ten lost their li1es< B1.#C. >e is writing about the en&ounters between Bla&ks and Whites in @aris and 6ew 9ork in the 17(4s, but he may as well be writing about the 1- th &entury en&ounters between 2la1es and the rhetori& o! new republi&s like re1olutionary Fran&e and 0(7C. 5arly in the essay, Baldwin puts his !inger on the nature o! the impasse whi&h allows the Bla&k to &ataly=e White-to-White thought, without risking a White-to-Bla&k en&ounter' ;+here is a di!!eren&e,< he writes, ;between 6orman and mysel! in that I think he still imagines that he has something to sa1e, whereas I ha1e ne1er had anything to lose< B1.#C. It is not a la&k o! goodwill or the pra&ti&e o! rhetori&al dis&rimination, nor is it essentiall" the imperati1es o! the pro!it moti1e that pre1ent the hyperboli& &ir&ulation o! Bla&kness !rom &ra&king and destabili=ing &i1il so&iety:s ontologi&al stru&ture o! empathy?e1en as it &ra&ks and destabili=es ;pre1iously a&&epted &ategories o! thought about politi&s< BDorsey 0((C. +he key to this stru&tural prohibition barring Bla&kness !rom the &on&eptual !ramework o! human empathy &an be lo&ated in the symboli& 1alue o! that ;something to sa1e< whi&h Baldwin saw in /ailer. It was not until 17,.H,-, with su&h books as !ell (e .o& 'ong the !rain4s Been 0one?a!ter he had e3hausted himsel! with !he %ire #e)t !ime?that Baldwin permitted himsel! to gi1e up hope and !a&e sGuarely that the /asterH2la1e relation itsel! was the essen&e o! that ;something to sa1e.< meri&a BDorsey 0(%-
#1
+oward the end o! Capital, Nol. 1?a!ter in!orming us Othat &onGuest, ensla1ement, robbery, murder, in short, !or&e, play the greatest part in the methods o! primiti1e a&&umulationO B-.%C Be.g., methods whi&h produ&e the 2la1eC?/ar3 makes a humorous but re1ealing obser1ation about the psy&hi& disposition o! the proletariat. In drawing a distin&tion between the worker and the 2la1e, /ar3 points out that the 2la1e has no wage, no symboli& stand-in !or an e3&hange o! labor power. +he worker, on the other hand, has &ash though not mu&h o! it. >ere, /ar3 does not &omment so mu&h on the not/much/of/it/ness o! the worker:s &hump &hange, but on the enormous ensemble o! &athe&ted in1estments that su&h a little bit o! &hump &hange pro1ides' LItM remains in his mind as something more than a parti&ular use-1alue$ LForM it is the worker himsel! who &on1erts the money into whate1er use1alues he desiresE it is he who buys &ommodities as he wishes and, as the o&ner of mone", as the buyer o! goods, he stands in precisel" the same relationship to the sellers of goods as an" other bu"er $B1400, emphasis mineC /ar3 goes on to tell us that whether the worker sa1es, hoards, or sGuanders hisHher money on drink, sHhe ;a&ts as a !ree agent< and so ;he learns to &ontrol himsel!, in &ontrast to the sla1e, who needs a master< B1400C. It is sad, in a !unny sort o! way, to think o! a worker standing in the same relationship to the sellers o! goods as any other buyer, simply be&ause his use-1alues &an buy a loa! o! bread "ust like the &apitalist:s &apital &an buy a loa! o! bread. But it is !rightening to take this ;same relationship< in a dire&tion that /ar3 does not take it' i! the worker &an buy a loa! o! bread, sHhe &an also buy a sla1e. It seems to me that the psy&hi& dimension o! a proletariat who ;stands in
##
pre&isely the same relationship< to other members o! &i1il so&iety due to their intramural e3&hange in mutual, possessi1e possibilities, the ability to own either a pie&e o! Bla&k !lesh or a loa! o! white bread or both, is where we must begin to understand the !ounding antagonism between the something /ailer has to sa1e and the nothing Baldwin has to lose. Da1id 5ltis is emphati& in his assertion that 5uropean &i1il so&iety:s de&ision not to hunt !or sla1es along the banks o! the +hames or other ri1ers in the lands o! White people or in prisons or poor houses was a bad business de&ision that slowed the pa&e o! e&onomi& de1elopment in both 5urope and the ;6ew World.< 5ltis writes' 6o Western 5uropean power a!ter the /iddle ges &rosses the basi& nd while
di1ide separating 5uropean workers !rom !ull &hattel sla1ery.
ser!dom !ell and rose in di!!erent parts o! early modern 5urope and shared &hara&teristi&s with sla1ery, ser!s were not outsiders either be!ore or a!ter enser!ment. +he phrase ;long distan&e ser! trade< is an o3ymoron. B1%4%C >e goes on to show how population growth patterns in 5urope during the 1044s, 1%44s, and 1(44s !ar outpa&ed population growth patterns in !ri&a. >e makes this point !ri&an
not only to demonstrate how de1astating the e!!e&t o! &hattel sla1ery was on
population growth patterns?in other words, to highlight its geno&idal impa&t?but also to make an eGually pro!ound but &ommonly o1erlooked point. 5urope was so hea1ily populated that had the 5uropeans been more in1ested in the e&onomi& 1alue o! &hattel sla1ery than they were in the s"mbolic 1alue o! Bla&k sla1ery and hen&e had instituted ;a properly e3ploited system drawing on &on1i&ts, prisoners and 1agrants$LtheyM &ould easily ha1e pro1ided (4,444 LWhite sla1esM a year Lto the 6ew WorldM without serious
#0
disruption to either international pea&e or the e3isting so&ial institutions that generated and super1ised these potential 5uropean 1i&tims< B1%4.C. I raise 5ltis:s &ounterposing o! the symboli& 1alue o! sla1ery to the e&onomi& 1alue o! sla1ery in order to debunk two gross misunderstandings' *ne is that work?or alienation and e3ploitation?is a &onstituent element o! sla1ery. 2la1ery, writes *rlando @atterson, ;is the permanent, $iolent domination of natall" alienated and generall" dishonored persons.<i3 @atterson goes to great lengths to delink his three ;&onstituent elements o! sla1ery< !rom the labor that one is typi&ally !or&ed to per!orm when one is ensla1ed. +he !or&ed labor is not &onstituti1e o! ensla1ement be&ause whereas it e3plains a &ommon pra&ti&e, it does not de!ine the stru&ture o! the power relation between those who are sla1es and those who are not. In pursuit o! his ;&onstituent elements< o! sla1ery, a line o! inGuiry that helps us separate e3perien&e Be1entsC !rom ontology Bthe &apa&ities o! power?or la&k thereo!?lodged within distin&t and irre&on&ilable sub"e&t positions, e.g., >umans and 2la1esC, @atterson helps us denaturali=e the link between !or&e and labor, and theori=e the !ormer as a phenomena that positions a body, ontologi&ally Bparadigmati&allyC, and the latter as a possible but not ine1itable e3perien&e o! someone who is so&ially dead.3 +he other misunderstanding I am attempting to &orre&t is the notion that the pro!it moti1e is the &onsideration within the sla1eo&ra&y that trumps all others. Da1id /arriott, 2aidiya >artman, Donald Judy, >ortense 2pillers, *rlando @atterson, and &hille
/bembe ha1e gone to &onsiderable lengths to show that, in point o! !a&t, sla1ery is and &onnotes an ontologi&al status !or Bla&knessE and that the &onstituent elements o! sla1ery are not e3ploitation and alienation but a&&umulation and !ungibility B>artmanC' the
#%
&ondition o! being owned and traded. s these Bla&k writers ha1e debunked &on1entional wisdom pertaining to the grammar o! sla1e su!!ering, so too has Da1id 5ltis pro1ided a ma"or &orre&ti1e on the &ommonsense wisdom that pro!it was the primary moti1e dri1ing the !ri&an sla1e trade. 5ltis meti&ulously e3plains how the &osts o! ensla1ement would ha1e been dri1en e3ponentially down had White sla1es been taken en masse !rom 5uropean &ountries. 2hipping &osts !rom 5urope to meri&a were &onsiderably lower than shipping &osts
!rom 5urope to !ri&a and then on to meri&a. >e notes that ;shipping &osts$&omprised by !ar the greater part o! the pri&e o! any !orm o! imported bonded labor in the meri&as. I! we take into a&&ount the time spent &olle&ting a sla1e &argo on the !ri&an &oast as
well, then the &ase !or sailing dire&tly !rom 5urope with a &argo o! LWhitesM appears stronger again< B1%4(C. 5ltis sums up his data by &on&luding that i! 5uropean mer&hants, planters, and statesmen imposed &hattel sla1ery on some members o! their own so&iety? say, only (4,444 White sla1es per year?then not only would 5uropean &i1il so&iety ha1e been able to absorb the so&ial &onseGuen&es o! these losses, in other words &lass war!are would ha1e been unlikely e1en at this rate o! ensla1ement, but &i1il so&iety ;would LalsoM ha1e en"oyed lower labor &osts, a !aster de1elopment o! the meri&as, and higher e3ports and in&ome le1els on both sides o! the tlanti&< B1%##C. But what Whites would ha1e gained in e&onomi& 1alue, they would ha1e lost in symboli& 1alueE and it is the latter whi&h stru&tures the libidinal e&onomy o! &i1il so&iety. White &hattel sla1ery would ha1e meant that the aura o! the so&ial &ontra&t had been completel" stripped !rom the body o! the &on1i&t, 1agrant, beggar, indentured ser1ant, or &hild. +his is a subtle point but one 1ital to our understanding o! the relationship between
#(
the world o! Bla&ks and the world o! >umans. 51en under the most e3treme !orms o! &oer&ion in the late /iddle ges and in the early modern period?!or e3ample, the
pro1isional and sele&ti1e ensla1ement o! 5nglish 1agrants !rom the early to mid-1(44s to the mid-1.44s?;the power o! the state o1er L&on1i&ts in the *ld WorldM and the power o! the master o1er L&on1i&ts in the 6ew WorldM was more &ir&ums&ribed than that o! the sla1e owner o1er the sla1e< B5ltis 1%14C. /ar3 himsel! takes note o! the pre&ons&ious politi&al?and, by impli&ation, un&ons&ious libidinal?&osts to &i1il so&iety, had 5uropean elites been willing to ensla1e Whites BCapital Nol. 1, -7,-74(C. In !a&t, though widespread anti-1agabond laws o! Iing 5dward NI B1(%.C, Pueen 5li=abeth B1(.#C, Iing James I, and Fran&e:s Louis QNI B1...C all passed ordinan&es similar to 5dward NI:s whi&h pro&laimed that' LIM! anyone re!uses to work, he shall be &ondemned as a sla1e to the person who has denoun&ed him as an idler. +he master shall !eed his sla1e on bread and water, weak broth and su&h re!use meat as he thinks !it. >e has the right to !or&e him to do any work, no matter how disgusting, with whip and &hains. I! the sla1e is absent !or a !ortnight, he is &ondemned to sla1ery !or li!e and is to be branded on the !orehead or ba&k with the letter 2$+he master &an sell him, beGueath him, let him out on hire as a sla1e, 5ust as he can an" other personal chattel or cattle* ll persons ha1e the right to take away the &hildren o! the 1agabonds and keep them as apprenti&es, the young men until they are #%, the girls until they are #4. B-7.C
#,
+hese laws were so &ontro1ersial, e1en among elites, that they &ould ne1er take hold as widespread so&ial and e&onomi& phenomena. But I am more interested in the symboli& 1alue o! Whiteness Band the absen&e o! Bla&kness:s 1alueC, gleaned !rom a &lose reading o! the laws themsel1es, than I am in a histori&al a&&ount o! the li1ed e3perien&e o! the White poor:s resistan&e to, or the White elite:s ambi1alen&e toward, su&h ordinan&es. +he a&tual ordinan&eBsC mani!ests the symptoms o! its own internal resistan&e long be!ore either parliament or the poor themsel1es mount e3ternal &hallenges to it. 2ymptomati& o! &i1il so&iety:s libidinal sa!ety net is the abo1e ordinan&e:s repeated use o! the word ;i!.< 6f an"one refuses to &ork*if the sla$e is absent for a fortnight* +he 1iolen&e o! sla1ery is repeatedly &he&ked, subdued into be&oming a &ontingent 1iolen&e !or that entity whi&h is beginning to &all itsel! ;WhiteE< at the 1ery same moment that it is being rat&heted up to a gratuitous 1iolen&e !or that entity whi&h is being &alled Bby WhitesC ;Bla&k.< ll the ordinan&es o! the 1, th, 1.th, and 1-th &enturies
whi&h /ar3 either Guotes at length or dis&usses are ordinan&es whi&h seem, on their !a&e, to debunk my &laim that sla1ery !or Whites wasHis e3periential and that !or Bla&ks it wasHis ontologi&al. nd yet all o! these ordinan&es are riddled with &ontingen&ies, o!
whi&h !reGuent and un!ettered deployment o! the &on"un&tion ;i!< is emblemati&. Both 2pillers and 5ltis remind us that the ar&hi1e o! !ri&an sla1ery shows no
internal re&ognition o! the libidinal &osts o! turning human bodies into sentient !lesh. From /ar3:s reports on proposed 1agabond-into-sla1e legislation, it be&omes &lear that the libidinal e&onomy o! su&h 5uropean legislation is !ar too unconsciousl" in1ested in ;sa1ing< the symboli& 1alue o! the 1ery 1agabonds su&h laws consciousl" seek to
#.
ensla1e. In other words, the law would rather shoot itsel! Bthat is, sa&ri!i&e the e&onomi& de1elopment o! the 6ew WorldC in the !oot than step into a sub"e&ti1e 1oid where idlers and 1agabonds might !ind themsel1es without &ontemporaries, with no relational status to sa1e. In this way, White-on-White 1iolen&e is put in &he&k BaC be!ore it be&omes gratuitous, or stru&tural, be!ore it &an shred the !abri& o! &i1il so&iety beyond mendingE and BbC be!ore &ons&ious, predi&table, and sometimes &ostly &hallenges are mounted against the legislation despite its dissembling la&k o! resol1e. +his is a&&omplished by the imposition o! the numerous ;on &ondition that*< and ;supposing that*< &lauses bound up in the word ;i!< and also by &laims bound up in the language around the ensla1ement o! 5uropean &hildren' a White &hild may be ensla1ed on condition that sHhe is the &hild o! a 1agabond, and then, only until the age o! #4 or #%. >ortense 2pillers sear&hed the ar&hi1es !or a similar kind o! stop-gap language with respe&t to the !ri&an?some indi&ation o! the !ri&an:s human 1alue in the
libidinal e&onomy o! Little Baby )i1il 2o&iety. 2he &ame up as empty handed' 53pe&ting to !ind dire&t and ampli!ied re!eren&e to !ri&an women during
the opening years o! the +rade, the obser1er is disappointed time and again that this &ultural sub"e&t is &on&ealed beneath the o1erwhelming debris o! the itemi=ed a&&ount, between the lines o! the massi1e logs o! &ommer&ial enterprise Le.g., a ship:s &argo re&ordM that o1errun the sense o! &larity we belie1ed we had gained &on&erning this &olle&ti1e humiliation. B2pillers #14C
#-
It would be reassuring to say that 5uropeans rigorously debated the ethi&al impli&ations o! !or&ing the so&ial death o! sla1ery upon !ri&ans before they went ahead
with itE but, as /ar3, 5ltis, and 2pillers make abundantly &lear, it would be more a&&urate simply to say that !ri&an sla1ery did not present an ethi&al dilemma !or global &i1il
so&iety. +he ethi&al dilemmas were unthought. During the emergen&e o! new ontologi&al relations in the modern world, !rom the late /iddle ges through the 1(44s, many di!!erent kinds o! people e3perien&ed sla1ery.
In other words, there ha1e been times when natal alienation, general dishonor, and gratuitous 1iolen&e ha1e turned indi1iduals o! myriad ethni&ities and ra&es into beings who are so&ially dead. But the !ri&an, or more pre&isely Bla&kness, is the moniker !or
an indi1idual who is by de!inition always already 1oid o! relationality. +hus, modernity marks the emergen&e o! a new ontology be&ause it is an era in whi&h an entire ra&e o! people who, a priori, that is prior to the &ontingen&y o! the ;transgressi1e a&t< Bsu&h as losing at war or being &on1i&ted o! a &rimeC, stand as so&ially dead in relation to the rest o! the world. +his, I will argue, is as true !or those who were herded onto the sla1e ships as it is !or those who had no knowledge whatsoe1er o! the &o!!les. In this period, &hattel sla1ery, as a &ondition o! ontology and not "ust as an e1ent o! e3perien&e, stu&k to the !ri&an like Nel&ro. +o the e3tent that we &an think the essen&e o! Whiteness and the essen&e o! Bla&kness, we must think their essen&es through the stru&ture o! the /asterH2la1e relation. It should be &lear by now that I am not only drawing a distin&tion between what is &ommonly thought o! as the /asterH2la1e relation and the &onstituent elements o! the /asterH2la1e relation B@atterson ,C, but I am also drawing a distin&tion between the e3perien&e o! sla1ery Bwhi&h anyone &an be sub"e&ted toC and the ontology
#7
o! sla1ery, whi&h in /odernity Bthe years 1044 to the presentC be&omes the singular pur1iew o! the Bla&k. In this period, sla1ery is &athedrali=ed. It ;ad1an&es< !rom a word whi&h des&ribes a &ondition that anyone &an be sub"e&ted to, to a word whi&h re&on!igures the the !ri&an body into Bla&k !lesh. Far !rom being merely the e)perience o! !ri&an:s a&&ess to Bor, more &orre&tly, banishment !romC
!ri&an, sla1ery is now the
ontology. In their own ways, >ortense 2pillers, a Bla&k woman and &ultural historian, and Da1id 5ltis, a White historian o! the transatlanti& sla1e trade, make the !ollowing points' 1. +he pre-)olumbian period, or late /iddle whi&h 5urope, the rab world, and ges B1044 to 1(44C, is a moment in
sia !ind themsel1es at an ontologi&al
&rossroads in so&iety:s ability to meditate on its own e3isten&e. #. 2hould the poor, &on1i&ts, 1agrants and beggars o! any gi1en so&iety BFren&h, Kerman, Dut&h, rab, 5ast sianC be &ondemned to a li!e o! natal alienationF BaC
2hould they ha1e so&ial death !or&ed upon them in lieu o! real death Bi.e., e3e&utionsCF BbC 2hould this !orm o! &hattel sla1ery be imposed upon the internal poor, en masse?that is, should the s&ale o! White sla1ery Bto the e3tent that any one nation &arried it out at allC be&ome industrialF nd, most importantly, B&C
should the progeny o! the White sla1e be ensla1ed as wellF It took some time !or this argument to un!old. 5ltis suggests the argument ensued? depending upon the &ountry?!rom 1#44 to the mid-1%44s B1%10-1%#0C, and that, whereas it was easily and !orthrightly settled in pla&es like 5ngland and the 6etherlands Bthat is with a resounding ;no< on &ounts a, b, and &C, there were other &ountries like
04
@ortugal, parts o! 2outhern Fran&e, and parts o! the rab world where the Guestion wa3ed and waned. gain, what is important !or us to glean !rom these historians is that the pre)olumbian period, the Late /iddle ges, re1eals no ar&hi1e o! debate on these three
Guestions as they might be related to that massi1e group o! Bla&k-skinned people south o! the 2ahara. 5ltis suggests that there was indeed massi1e debate whi&h ultimately led to Britain taking the lead in the abolition o! sla1ery, but he reminds us that that debate did not ha1e its roots in the late /iddle ges, the post-)olumbian period o! the 1(44s or the
Nirginia )olony period o! the 1,44s. It was, he asserts, an outgrowth o! the mid- to late1-th &entury eman&ipatory thrust?intra->uman disputes su&h as the Fren&h and meri&an De1olutions?that swept through 5urope. But 5ltis does not take his analysis !urther than this. +here!ore, it is important that we not be swayed by his optimism about the 5nlightenment and its subseGuent abolitionist dis&ourses. It is highly &on&ei1able that the dis&ourse that elaborates the "usti!i&ation !or !reeing the sla1e is not the produ&t o! the >uman being ha1ing suddenly and mira&ulously recogni1ed the sla1e. Dather, as 2aidiya >artman argues, eman&ipatory dis&ourses present themsel1es to us as !urther e1iden&e o! the 2la1e:s !ungibility' ;L+Mhe !igurati1e &apa&ities o! bla&kness enable white !lights o! !an&y while in&reasing the likelihood o! the &apti1e:s disappearan&e$< BScenes*##C. First, the Guestions o! >umanism were elaborated in &ontradistin&tion to the human 1oid, to the !ri&an-2ua-&hattel Bthe 1#44s to the end o! the 1.th &enturyC. +hen, as the presen&e o! Bla&k &hattel in the midst o! e3ploited and un-e3ploited >umans Bworkers and bosses, respe&ti1elyC be&ame a !a&t o! the world, e3ploited >umans Bin the throes o! &lass &on!li&t with un-e3ploited >umansC sei=ed the image o! the sla1e as an enabling 1ehi&le that
01
animated the e1ol1ing dis&ourses o! their eman&ipation, "ust as un-e3ploited >umans had sei=ed the !lesh o! the 2la1e to in&rease their pro!its. Without this gratuitous 1iolen&e, a 1iolen&e that marks e1eryone e)perientiall" until the late /iddle ges when it starts to mark the Bla&k ontologicall", the so-&alled
great eman&ipatory dis&ourses o! modernity?mar3ism, !eminism, post&olonialism, se3ual liberation, and the e&ology mo1ement?politi&al dis&ourses predi&ated on grammars o! su!!ering and whose &onstituent elements are e3ploitation and alienation, might not ha1e de1eloped.3i )hattel sla1ery did not simply reterritoriali=e the ontology o! the !ri&an. It also &reated the >uman out o! &ulturally disparate entities !rom 5urope to
the 5ast. I am not suggesting that a&ross the globe >umanism de1eloped in the same way regardless o! region or &ultureE what I am saying is that the late /iddle ges ga1e rise to an ontologi&al &ategory?an ensemble o! &ommon e3istential &on&erns?whi&h made and &ontinues to make possible both war and pea&e, &on!li&t and resolution, between the disparate members o! the human ra&e, east and west . 2enator +homas >art Benton intuited this notion o! the e3istential &ommons when he wrote that though the ;9ellow ra&e< and its &ulture had been ;torpid and stationary !or thousands o! years$ LWhites and siansM must talk together, and trade together, and marry together. )ommer&e is a
great &i1ili=er?so&ial inter&ourse as great?and marriage greater< B!he Congressional 0lobe. /ay #-, 1-%,C. Da1id 5ltis points out that as late as the 1. th &entury, ;LpMrisoners taken in the &ourse o! 5uropean military a&tion$&ould e3pe&t death i! they were leaders, or banishment i! they were deemed !ollowers, but ne$er ensla$ement$Detention !ollowed by prisoner e3&hanges or ransoming was &ommon< B1%10C. ;By the se1enteenth
0#
&entury, ensla1ement o! !ellow 5uropeans was beyond the limits< B1%#0C o! >umanism:s e3istential &ommons, e1en in times o! war. 2la1e status ;was reser1ed !or non-)hristians. $en the latter group ho&e$er*had some prospect of release in e)change for Christians held b" rulers of Algiers, !unis, and other (editerranean (uslim po&ers < Bemphasis mine 1%10C. But though the pra&ti&e o! ensla1ing the 1anGuished was beyond the limit o! intra-West wars and only pra&ti&ed pro1isionally in 5ast-West &on!li&ts, the baseness o! the option was not debated when it &ame to the sian, 2outh sian, and !ri&an. +he ra&e o! >umanism BWhite,
rabC &ould not ha1e produ&ed itsel! without the simultaneous
produ&tion o! that walking destru&tion whi&h be&ame known as the Bla&k. @ut another way, through &hattel sla1ery the world ga1e birth and &oheren&e to both its "oys o! domesti&ity and to its struggles o! politi&al dis&ontentE and with these "oys and struggles, the >uman was born, but not be!ore it murdered the Bla&k, !orging a symbiosis between the politi&al ontology o! >umanity and the so&ial death o! Bla&ks. In his essay ;+o R)orroborate *ur )laims:' @ubli& @ositioning and the 2la1ery /etaphor in De1olutionary meri&a,< @eter Dorsey Bin his &on&urren&e with &ultural
historians F. 6wabue=e *koye and @atri&ia BradleyC suggests that, in mid- to late-1- th &entury meri&a, Bla&kness was su&h a !ungible &ommodity that it was traded as !reely
between the e3ploited Bworkers who did not ;own< sla1esC as it was between the une3ploited Bplanters who didC. +his was due to the e!!e&ti1e uses to whi&h Whites &ould put the 2la1e as both !lesh and metaphor. For the De1olutionaries, ;sla1ery represented a Rnightmare: that white meri&ans were trying to a1oid< B0(7C. Dorsey:s &laim is
pro1o&ati1e, but not unsupported' he maintains that had Bla&ks-as-2la1es not been in the
00
White !ield o! 1ision on a daily basis that it would ha1e been 1irtually impossible !or Whites to trans!orm themsel1es !rom &olonial sub"e&ts into De1olutionaries' 5spe&ially prominent in the rhetori& and reality o! the LDe1olutionaryM era, the &on&epts o! !reedom and sla1ery were applied to a wide 1ariety o! e1ents and 1alues and were &onstantly being de!ined and rede!ined$L5Marly understandings o! meri&an !reedom were in many
ways dependent on the e3isten&e o! &hattel sla1ery$LWe shouldM see sla1ery in re1olutionary dis&ourse, not merely as a hyperboli& rhetori&al de1i&e but as a &ru&ial and !luid L!ungibleM &on&ept that had a ma"or impa&t on the way early meri&ans thought about their politi&al !uture$
+he sla1ery metaphor destabili=ed pre1iously a&&epted &ategories o! thought about politi&s, ra&e, and the early republi&. B0((C +hough the idea o! ;ta3ation without representation< may ha1e spoken &on&retely to the idiom o! power that marked the BritishH meri&an relation as being stru&turally unethi&al, it did not pro1ide metaphors power!ul and !ungible enough !or Whites to meditate and mo1e on when resisting the stru&ture o! their own subordination at the hands o! ;un&he&ked politi&al power< B0(%C. +he most salient !eature o! Dorsey:s !indings is not his understanding o! the way Bla&kness, as a &ru&ial and !ungible &on&eptual possession o! &i1il so&iety, impa&ts and destabili=es pre1iously a&&epted &ategories o! intra-White thought, but rather his &ontribution to the e1iden&e that, e1en when Bla&kness is deployed to stret&h the elasti&ity o! &i1il so&iety to the point o! &i1il war, that e3pansion is ne1er elasti& enough to embra&e the 1ery Bla&k who &ataly=ed the e3pansion. In !a&t, Dorsey, building on
0%
@atri&ia Bradley:s histori&al resear&h, asserts that "ust the opposite is true. +he more the politi&al imagination o! &i1il so&iety is enabled by the !ungibility o! the sla1e metaphor, the less legible the &ondition o! the sla1e be&omes' ;Fo&using primarily on &olonial newspapers$Bradley !inds that the sla1ery metaphor Rser1ed to distan&e the patriot agenda !rom the antisla1ery mo1ement.: I! anything, Bradley states, widespread use o! the metaphor Rga1e !irst e1iden&e that the issue o! real sla1ery was not to ha1e a part in the re1olutionary messages:< B0(7C. nd Da1id 5ltis belie1es that this philosophi&al
in&ongruity between the image o! the 2la1e and !reedom !or the 2la1e begins in 5urope and pre-dates the meri&an De1olution by at least one hundred years' +he L5uropeanM &ountries least likely to ensla1e their own had the harshest and most sophisti&ated system o! e3ploiting ensla1ed non-5uropeans. *1erall, the 5nglish and Dut&h &on&eption o! the role o! the indi1idual in metropolitan so&iety ensured the a&&elerated de1elopment o! &hattel sla1ery in the !ri&an
meri&as$be&ause their own sub"e&ts &ould not
be&ome &hattel sla1es or e1en &on1i&ts !or li!e$B1%#0C Furthermore, the &ir&ulation o! Bla&kness as metaphor and image at the most politi&ally 1olatile and progressi1e moments in history Be.g. the Fren&h, 5nglish, and meri&an De1olutionsC, produ&es dreams o! liberation whi&h are more inessential to and more parasiti& on the Bla&k, and more emphati& in their guarantee o! Bla&k su!!ering, than any dream o! human liberation in any era hereto!ore. Bla&k sla1ery is !oundational to modern >umanism:s onti&s be&ause ;!reedom< is the hub o! >umanism:s in!inite &on&eptual tra"e&tories. But these tra"e&tories only appear to be in!inite. +hey are !inite in the sense that they are predi&ated on the idea o! freedom
0(
from* some &ontingen&y that &an be named, or at least &on&eptuali=ed. +he contingent rider &ould be !reedom !rom patriar&hy, !reedom !rom e&onomi& e3ploitation, !reedom !rom politi&al tyranny B!or e3ample, ta3ation without representationC, !reedom !rom heteronormati1ity, and so on. What I am suggesting is that first, politi&al dis&ourse re&ogni=es !reedom as a stru&turing ontologi& and then it works to disa1ow this re&ognition by imagining !reedom not through political ontolog"?where it right!ully began?but through political e)perience 7and practice8E whereupon it immediately loses its ontologi&al !oundations. Why would anyone do thisF Why would anyone start o!! with, Guite literally, an earth-shattering ontologi& and, in the pro&ess o! meditating on it and a&ting through it, redu&e it to an earth re!orming e3perien&eF Why do >umans take su&h pride in sel!-ad"ustment, in diminishing, rather than intensi!ying, the pro"e&t o! liberation Bhow did we get !rom :,- to the presentCF Be&ause, I &ontend, in allowing the notion o! !reedom to attain the ethi&al purity o! its ontologi&al status, one would ha1e to lose one:s >uman &oordinates and be&ome Bla&k. Whi&h is to say one would ha1e to die. For the Bla&k, !reedom is an ontologi&al, rather than e3periential, Guestion. +here is no philosophi&ally &redible way to atta&h an e3periential, a &ontingent, rider onto the notion o! !reedom when one &onsiders the Bla&k?su&h as !reedom !rom gender or e&onomi& oppression, the kind o! &ontingent riders right!ully pla&ed on the non-Bla&k when thinking !reedom. Dather, the riders that one &ould pla&e on Bla&k !reedom would be hyperboli&?though no less true?and ultimately untenable' i.e., !reedom !rom the world, !reedom !rom humanity, !reedom !rom e1eryone Bin&luding one:s Bla&k sel!C. Ki1en the reigning episteme, what are the &han&es o! elaborating a &omprehensi1e, mu&h less translatable and &ommuni&able, politi&al pro"e&t out o! the ne&essity o! !reedom as an
0,
absoluteF Kratuitous !reedom has ne1er been a tra"e&tory o! >umanist thought, whi&h is why the in!inite tra"e&tories o! !reedom that emanate !rom >umanism:s hub are anything but in!inite?!or they ha1e no line o! !light leading to the 2la1e.
A #ote on (ethod +hroughout the book I use White, >uman, /aster, 2ettler, and sometimes nonBla&k inter&hangeably as a way o! &onnoting a paradigmati& entity that e3ists ontologi&ally as a position o! li!e in relation to the Bla&k or 2la1e position, one o! death. +he Ded, Indigenous, or ;2a1age< position e3ists liminally as hal!-death and hal!-li!e between the sla1e BBla&kC and the >uman BWhite, or non-Bla&kC. Deaders wedded to &ultural di1ersity and histori&al spe&i!i&ity may !ind su&h shorthand wanting. But those who may be put o!! by my pressing histori&al and &ultural parti&ularities?&ulled !rom history, so&iology, and &ultural studies, yet neither histori&al, so&iologi&al, nor, oddly enough, &ultural?should bear in mind that there are pre&edents !or su&h methods, two o! whi&h make &ultural studies and mu&h o! so&ial s&ien&e possible' the methods o! /ar3 and La&an. /ar3 pressed the mi&ro&osm o! the 5nglish manu!a&turer into ser1i&e o! a pro"e&t that sought to e3plain e&onomi& relationality on a global s&ale. La&an:s e3emplary &artography was e1en smaller' a tiny room with not mu&h more than a so!a and a &hair, the room o! the psy&hoanalyti& en&ounter. s Jonathan Lee reminds us, at stake in
La&an:s a&&ount o! the psy&hoanalyti& en&ounter is the reali=ation o! sub"e&ti1ity itsel!, ;the 1ery being o! the sub"e&t< B00C. I argue that ;2a1age,< >uman, and 2la1e should be theori=ed in the way we theori=e worker and &apitalist as positions !irst and as identities se&ondE or as we theori=e &apitalism as a paradigm rather than as an e3perien&e?that is,
0.
before the" take on national origin or gendered specificit". +hroughout the &ourse o! the book I argue that ;2a1age,< >uman, and 2la1e are more essential to our understanding o! the truth o! institutionality than the positions !rom politi&al or libidinal e&onomy. For in this trio we !ind the key to our world:s &reation as well as to its undoing. +his argument, as it relates to politi&al e&onomy, &ontinues in )hapter #, ;+he Duse o! nalogy.<
)hapter 0, ;+he 6ar&issisti& 2la1e' )inema, @sy&hoanalysis, and the Bla&k @osition,< mo1es its !o&us !rom politi&al e&onomy to libidinal e&onomy be!ore engaging with more &on&rete analyses o! !ilms in @arts II, III, and IN. 6o one makes !ilms and de&lares their own !ilms ;>uman< while simultaneously asserting that other !ilms BDed and Bla&kC are not part and par&el o! >uman &inema. )i1il so&iety represents itsel! to itsel! as being in!initely in&lusi1e, and its te&hnologies o! hegemony Bi.e., &inemaC are mobili=ed to manu!a&ture this assertion, not to dissent !rom it. In my Guest to interrogate the bad !aith o! the &i1i& ;in1itation,uman &inema. Films &an be thought o! as one o! an ensemble o! dis&ursi1e pra&ti&es mobili=ed by &i1il so&iety to ;in1ite,< or interpellate, Bla&ks to the same 1ariety o! so&ial identities that other ra&es are able to embody without &ontradi&tionE identities su&h as worker, soldier, immigrant, brother, sister, !ather, mother, and &iti=en. +he bad !aith o! this in1itation, this !au3 interpellation, &an be dis&erned by de&onstru&ting the way &inema:s narrati1e strategies displa&e our &onsideration and understanding o! the ontologi&al status o! Bla&ks Bso&ial deathC onto a series o! !an&i!ul stories that are organi=ed around &on!li&ts whi&h are the pur1iew only o! those who are not natally alienated, generally dishonored, or open to gratuitous 1iolen&eE in other words, people who are White or who are &olored but not Bla&k, immigrants. BI
0meri&an position?os&illating
lea1e aside, !or the moment, the liminality o! the 6ati1e as it does between the li1ing and the dead.C
Immigrant &inema o! those who are not White would ha1e su!!i&ed as wellE but, due to its e3&eptional &apa&ity to es&ape ra&ial markers, Whiteness is the most impe&&able embodiment o! what it means to be >uman. s Di&hard Dyer writes,
;L>Ma1ing no &ontent, we LWhite peopleM &an:t see that we ha1e anything that a&&ounts !or our position o! pri1ilege and power$L+Mhe eGuation o! being white with being human se&ures a position o! power< B7C. >e goes on to e3plain how' L+Mhe pri1ilege o! being white$is not to be sub"e&ted to stereotyping in relation to one:s whiteness. White people are stereotyped in terms o! gender, nation, &lass, se3uality, ability and so on, but the o1ert point o! su&h typi!i&ation is gender, nation, et&. Whiteness generally &olonises the stereotypi&al de!inition o! all so&ial &ategories other than those o! ra&e. B11-1#C. 8nlike Dyer, I do not meditate on the representational power o! Whiteness, ;that it be made strange,< di1ested o! its imperial &apa&ity, and thus make way !or representational pra&ti&es in &inema and beyond that would ser1e as aestheti& a&&ompaniments !or a more egalitarian &i1il so&iety in whi&h Whites and non-Whites &ould li1e in harmony. Laudable as that dream is, I do not share Dyer:s assumption that we are all >uman. 2ome o! us are only part >uman B;2a1age<C and some o! us are Bla&k B2la1eC. I !ind his argument that Whiteness possesses the easiest &laim to >umanness to be produ&ti1e. But whereas Dyer o!!ers this argument as a lament !or a so&ial ill that needs to be &orre&ted, I borrow it merely !or its e3planatory power?as a way into a
07
paradigmati& analysis that &lari!ies stru&tural relations o! global antagonisms and not as a step toward healing the wounds o! so&ial relations in &i1il so&iety. >en&e this book:s inter&hangeable deployment o! White, 2ettler, and /aster with?and to signi!y?>uman. gain, like La&an, who mobili=es the psy&hoanalyti& en&ounter to make &laims about the stru&ture o! relations writ large, and like /ar3 who mobili=es the 5nglish manu!a&turer to make &laims about the stru&ture o! e&onomi& relations writ large, I am mobili=ing three ra&es, !our !ilms, and one sub-&ontinent to make eGually generali=able &laims and argue that the Bla&kH>uman antagonism super&edes the workerH&apitalist ;antagonism< in politi&al e&onomy, as well as the gendered ;antagonism< in libidinal e&onomy. +o this end, the book takes sto&k o! how so&ially engaged popular &inema parti&ipates in the systemi& 1iolen&e that &onstru&ts meri&a as a ;settler so&iety< B)hur&hillC and ;sla1e
estate< B2pillersC. Dather than pri1ilege a politi&s o! &ultureBsC?i.e. rather than e3amine and a&&ept the &ultural gestures and de&larations whi&h the three groups under e3amination make about themsel1es?I pri1ilege a &ulture o! politi&s' in other words, what I am &on&erned with is how White !ilm, Bla&k !ilm and Ded !ilm arti&ulate andHor disa1ow the matri3 o! 1iolen&e whi&h &onstru&ts the three essential positions whi&h in turn stru&ture meri&a:s antagonisms. ;@art II' Ant&one %isher and Bush (ama< &onsiders pit!alls o! emplotting the 2la1e in &inemati& narrati1es. +hrough an analysis o! Den=el Washington:s Ant&one %isher and >aile Kerima:s Bush (ama, I illustrate what happens when sentient ob"e&ts per!orm as sentient sub"e&ts. +his is the problem o! the 2la1e !ilm?that is, a !ilm where the dire&tor is Bla&k. In addition, to Guali!y as a 2la1e !ilm the narrati1e strategies o! the !ilm must intend !or the !ilm:s ethi&al dilemmaBsC to be shouldered by a &entral !igure Bor
%4
!igures i! the !ilm is an ensemble pie&eC who is Bla&k. +he aim o! this se&tion is to e3plore how !ilms labeled 2la1e by the positionality o! both their dire&tor and their diegeti& !igures labor imaginati1ely in ways whi&h a&&ompany the dis&ursi1e labor o! 2la1e ethi&s, ethi&s mani!est in the ontology o! &apti1ity and death or a&&umulation and !ungibility. Furthermore, it seeks to e3plore those &inemati& moments Bin the syn&hroni&ity o! the story on &elluloid and in the dia&hroni&ity o! the !ilm:s histori&al &onte3tC when the 2la1e !ilm is unable to embra&e ethi&al dilemmas predi&ated on the destru&tion o! &i1il so&iety and instead makes a stru&tural ad"ustment, as it were, that embra&es the ethi&al s&a!!olding o! the 2ettlerH/aster:s ensemble o! Guestions &on&erning institutional integrity. +he narrati1e progression o! most !ilms mo1es !rom eGuilibrium to diseGuilibrium to eGuilibrium Brestored, renewed, or reorgani=edC. +his is also the narrati1e spine o! most politi&al theory Be.g., 6egri and >ardt:s writings on the !ate o! the &ommons under &apitalismC. +his is true whether or not the !ilm is edited &hronologi&ally or asso&iationally. Ant&one %isher BDen=el Washington #44#C is a per!e&t e3ample o! how this three-point progression o! &lassi&al narrati1e works and why it &annot emplot the 2la1e. +he !ilm begins with ntwone:s dream o! a large !amily gathering at whi&h he is ntwone soon awakes to the diseGuilibrium o!
the &enter o! attention BeGuilibriumC. But
his li!e as a na1y seaman with anger management issues, "u3taposed with the diseGuilibrium o! his memories as a !oster &hild, abused and terrori=ed by Bla&k women. +he !ilm ends with the opening dream blossoming in his waking li!e, as he is reunited with his long-lost blood relations. +he assertion o! the !ilm is that ntwone:s period o!
diseGuilibrium is not to be !ound in the stru&ture o! his ontologi&al &ondition, but rather in
%1
the per!orman&e o! his a&tions Bhis anger problemC and the a&tions o! those around him Bthe abuse he su!!ered in the !oster homeC. +hus the !ilm is able to emplot a Bla&k person Bin1ite himHher into the !old o! &i1i& relationsC by telling the story o! his li!e episodi&ally and not paradigmati&ally. It narrates e1ents while mysti!ying relations between &apa&ity and the absen&e o! &apa&ity. +his allows &inema to disa1ow the Guintessential problem o! the phrase ;sla1e narrati1e.< 2la1e narrati1e is an o3ymoron. +he three-point progression o! a drama !or the li1ing &annot be applied to a being that is so&ially dead Bnatally alienated, open to gratuitous 1iolen&e, and generally dishonoredC. +o ;!i3< the o3ymoron &inema must either disa1ow it B&ast Bla&ks as other than Bla&kC or tell the story in su&h a way that eGuilibrium is imagined as a period be!ore ensla1ement, diseGuilibrium then be&omes the period o! ensla1ement, and the restoration or reorgani=ation o! eGuilibrium is the end o! sla1ery andHor a li!e beyond it. +he se&ond approa&h is rare be&ause it is best suited !or a straight!orward histori&al drama, su&h as RootsE and be&ause deep within &i1il so&iety:s &olle&ti1e un&ons&ious is the knowledge that the Bla&k position, is indeed a position, not an identityE and that its &onstituent elements are &oterminous with and ine3tri&ably bound to the &onstituent elements o! so&ial death?whi&h is to say, that !or Bla&kness, there is no narrati1e moment prior to sla1ery. Furthermore, a hypotheti&al moment a!ter sla1ery would entail the emergen&e o! new ontologi&al relations Bthe end o! both Bla&kness and >umannessC and a new episteme. It is impossible !or narrati1e to enun&iate !rom beyond the episteme in whi&h it stands, not knowingly, at least. t the heart o! my deliberations
on 2la1e &inema is the Guestion, ho& does a film tell the stor" of a being that has no stor"F
%#
By Ded or ;2a1age< !ilm, I mean, o! &ourse, a !ilm where the dire&tor is Indian and where the !ilm:s narrati1e strategies intend !or its ethi&al dilemmaBsC to be shouldered by a &entral !igure Bor ensemble &astC who is Indian. 8nlike 2ettlerH/aster or 2la1e !ilm, howe1er, there is no risk in rei!ying a de!inition o! ;2a1age< &inema through dubious and unne&essary &anon !ormation be&ause the !ilmography is in its nas&ent stages. +he !irst &omponent o! my argument, whi&h e3ists throughout @art III' Skins is that so1ereignty or so1ereign loss, as a modality o! the ;2a1age< grammar o! su!!ering, arti&ulates itsel! Guite well within the two modalities o! the 2ettlerH/aster:s grammar o! su!!ering, e3ploitation and alienation. +he se&ond &omponent o! my argument is this' whereas the geno&idal modality o! the ;2a1age< grammar o! su!!ering arti&ulates itsel! Guite well within the two modalities o! the 2la1e:s grammar o! su!!ering, a&&umulation and !ungibility, 6ati1e meri&an !ilm, politi&al te3ts, and ontologi&al meditations !ail to
re&ogni=e, mu&h less pursue, this arti&ulation. +he small &orpus o! so&ially engaged !ilms dire&ted by 6ati1e meri&ans pri1ilege the ensemble o! Guestions animated by the
imaginary o! so1ereign loss. >owe1er, the libidinal e&onomy o! &inema is so power!ul that the ensemble o! Guestions &ataly=ed by the geno&ide grammar o! su!!ering o!ten !or&e their way into the narrati1e o! these !ilms, with a 1engean&e that e3&eeds their modest treatment in the s&reenplay. )hris 5yre:s Skins is e3emplary o! these pit!alls and possibilities. @art IN' (onster4s Ball, e3plores the relationship between BaC 2ettlerH/aster B>umanC &inema that sel!-&ons&iously engages politi&al ethi&s, BbC radi&al politi&al dis&ourse Bwhat does it mean to be !reeFC in the era o! the !ilm:s release, and B&C the 2ettlerH/aster:s most un!lin&hing meta-&ommentary on the ontology o! su!!ering. By
%0
2ettlerH/aster !ilm,< I mean a !ilm whose dire&tor is White. 3ii In addition, to Guali!y as a 2ettlerH/aster !ilm the narrati1e strategies o! the !ilm must intend !or the !ilm:s ethi&al dilemmaBsC to be shouldered by a &entral !igure Bor ensemble &astC who is White. gain,
a !ilm !ounded upon the ethi&al dilemmas o! any o! the "unior partners o! &i1il so&iety B&olored immigrantsC would work "ust as well. +he goal is not to establish the &anoni&al boundaries o! 2ettlerH/aster &inema but to e3plore how a !ilm labeled White by the positionality o! its dire&tor and diegeti& !igures labors imaginati1ely in ways whi&h a&&ompany the dis&ursi1e labor o! ethi&s !or the 2ettlerH/aster relationship and !or &i1il so&ietyE and !urther, to e3plore those &inemati& moments?in the syn&hroni&ity o! the story on &elluloid and in the dia&hroni&ity o! the !ilm:s histori&al &onte3t?when the 2ettlerH/aster !ilm tries Bis perhaps &ompelledC to embra&e ethi&al dilemmas predi&ated on the destru&tion o! &i1il so&iety?the ethi&al dilemmas o! the ;2a1age< and the 2la1e. I do not &laim to ha1e &ornered the market on a de!inition o! so&ially engaged !eature !ilm. 8ltimately, the power o! a !ilm like (ar" +oppins to help reposition a sub"e&t politi&ally or e3plain paradigmati& power relations &annot be ad"udi&ated, de!initi1ely, against a !ilm like !he Battle of Algiers. While my own interests and pleasures lead me more toward the end o! the spe&trum where !he Battle of Algiers, as opposed to (ar" +oppins, resides, I ha1e sele&ted !ilms whi&h ha1e &ons&iously attempted some sort o! dialogue with the pressing issues and so&ial !or&es that mobili=e meri&a:s most a&ti1e politi&al !ormations. Bush (ama B>aile Kerima 17.-C, Ant&one %isher BDen=el Washington #44#C, (onster9s Ball B/ar& Forster #441C, and Skins B)hris 5yre #44#C are e3amples o! 2la1e, 2ettlerH/aster, and ;2a1age< !ilms whi&h, at the le1el o! intentionality, attempt &inemati& dialogues with issues su&h as homelessness, the
%%
;&risis< o! Bla&k and Ded !amilies, and the so&ial !or&e o! in&ar&eration. +hough I ha1e spent years s&reening, analy=ing, and writing about a large number o! !ilms that !all into these &ategories, !or the purpose o! demonstrating the importan&e o! su&h !ilms in our un&ons&ious and unspoken knowledge o! grammars o! su!!ering, I ha1e !ound it more pro!itable to per!orm a &lose reading o! !our su&h !ilms rather than write a book that sur1eys the !ield. +he Guestion this book addresses is' gi1en the gesture o! sin&erity with whi&h su&h !ilms announ&e themsel1es to be so&ially engaged, how su&&ess!ul are they in arti&ulating an un!lin&hing paradigmati& analysis o! the stru&ture o! 82 antagonismsF +he three stru&turing positionalities o! the 8.2. BWhites, Indians, Bla&ksC are elaborated by a rubri& o! three demands' the BWhiteC demand !or e3pansion, the BIndianC demand !or return o! the land, the BBla&kC demand !or ;!lesh< reparation B2pillersC. +he relation between these positionalities demar&ate antagonisms and not &on!li&ts be&ause, as I ha1e argued, they are the embodiments o! opposing and irre&on&ilable prin&iplesH!or&es that hold out no hope !or diale&ti&al synthesisE and be&ause they are relations that !orm the !oundation upon whi&h all subseGuent conflicts in the Western hemisphere are possible. In other words, the originary, or ontologi&al, 1iolen&e that elaborates the 2ettlerH/aster, the ;2a1age,< and the 2la1e positions is !oundational to the 1iolen&e o! &lass war!are, ethni& &on!li&ts, immigrant battles, and the women:s liberation struggles o! 2ettlerH/asters. It is these antagonisms?whether a&knowledged through the &ons&ious and empiri&al ma&hinations o! politi&al e&onomy, or painstakingly disa1owed through the ;imaginati1e labor< B2e3ton, ;+he )onseGuen&es o! Da&e /i3ture$<C o! libidinal e&onomy?whi&h render all other disputes as &on!li&ts, or what >aunani Iay+rask &alls ;intra-settler dis&ussions.<
%(
s stated abo1e, in the 17,4s and .4s, as White radi&alism:s dis&ourse and politi&al &ommon sense !ound authori=ation in the ethi&al dilemmas o! embodied in&apa&ity Bthe ontologi&al status o! Bla&ks as a&&umulated and !ungible ob"e&tsC, White &inema:s pro&li1ity to embra&e dispossession through the 1e&tors o! &apa&ity Bthe ontologi&al status o! the >uman as an e3ploited and alienated sub"e&tC be&ame pro!oundly disturbed. In some !ilms this pro&li1ity was so deeply disturbed that while many so&ially and politi&ally engaged !ilm s&ript and &inemati& strategies did not surrender &ompletely to in&apa&ity Bthat is, to the authority o! the 2la1e:s grammar o! su!!eringC, they also !ailed to assert the legitima&y o! White ethi&al dilemmas Bthe suprema&y o! e3ploitation and alienation as a grammar o! su!!eringC with whi&h &inema had been histori&ally preo&&upied.3iii +he period o! )*I6+5L@D*:2 &rushing o! the Bla&k @anthers and then the Bla&k Liberation rmy also witnessed the !lowering o! Bla&kness:s politi&al power
?not so mu&h as institutional &apa&ity but as a 1eitgeist, a demand that authori=ed White radi&alism. But by 17-4, White radi&alism had &om!ortably re-embra&ed &apa&ity without the threat o! disturban&e?it returned to the dis&ontents o! &i1il so&iety with the same !ormal tena&ity as it had !rom 1(0#xiv to 17,., only now that !ormal tena&ity was emboldened by a wider range o! alibis than simply Free 2pee&h or the anti-War /o1ementE it had, !or e3ample, the women:s, gay, anti-nuke, en1ironmental, and immigrants: rights mo1ements as lines o! !light !rom the absolute ethi&s o! Dedness and Bla&kness. It was able to re!orm Breorgani=eC an unethi&al world and still sleep at night. +oday, su&h intra-settler dis&ussions are now the !oundation o! the ;radi&al< agenda. t the end o! the twentieth &entury and beginning o! the twenty-!irst, the irre&on&ilable demands embodied in the ;2a1age< and the 2la1e are being smashed by
%,
the two stone-&rushers o! sheer !or&e and liberal humanist dis&ourses su&h as ;a&&ess to institutionality,< ;merito&ra&y,< ;multi&ulturalism,< and ;di1ersity<?dis&ourses that proli!erate e3ponentially a&ross the politi&al, a&ademi&, and &inemati& lands&apes. Ki1en the 1iolen&e o! 17,4sH.4s state repression against Ded, White, and Bla&k politi&al mo1ements, and the subseGuent !or&es o! 17-4sH74s multi&ulturalism and neo-liberalism, my pro"e&t asks whether it is or e1er was possible !or the !eature !ilm, as institution and as te3t, to arti&ulate a politi&al ethi&s that a&knowledges the stru&ture o! 8.2. antagonismsF 8nlike radi&ally unsettled settler so&ieties, i.e. Israel and pre-177% 2outh !ri&a, the stru&ture o! antagonisms is too submerged in the 82 to be&ome a !ull-!ledged dis&ourse readily bandied about in &i1il so&iety?the way a grammar is submerged in spee&h. Film studies and so&ially engaged popular !ilms &onstitute important terrains whi&h, like other institutions in the 8.2., work to disa1ow the stru&ture o! antagonismsE but they also pro1ide interesting sites !or what is known in psy&hoanalysis as repetition &ompulsion and the return o! the repressed. /y analysis o! so&ially engaged !eature !ilms insists upon an intelle&tual proto&ol through whi&h the s&holarship o! pre&ons&ious interests and un&ons&ious identi!i&ations are held a&&ountable to grammars o! su!!eringE a&&ountable, that is, to proto&ols o! stru&tural positionality. In this way, the ontologi&al di!!eren&es between Ded, White, and Bla&k grammars o! su!!ering are best e3amined in relation to one another. +o this end, the book e3plains the rhetori&al stru&ture o! 2ettlerH/aster Bi.e., Krams&i, La&an, 6egri, FortunatiC, ;2a1age< BIay-+rask, l!red, )hur&hill, DeloriaC, and 2la1e BFanon, 2pillers,
/bembe, >artman, Judy, /arriott, @attersonC grammars o! ontologi&al su!!eringE and shows how these three grammars are predi&ated upon a !undamental, though
%.
!undamentally different, relationship to 1iolen&e. @ost-stru&turalism makes the &ase that language BLa&anC and more broadly dis&ourse BFou&aultC are the modalities whi&h, in the !irst ontologi&al instan&e, position the sub"e&t stru&turally. I ha1e no Gualms with poststru&turalism:s toolbo3 per se. What I am arguing !or, howe1er, is a radi&al return to Fanon' to an apprehension o! how gratuitous 1iolen&e positions the ;2a1age< and the 2la1eE and how the !reedom !rom 1iolen&e:s gratuitousness, not 1iolen&e itsel!, positions the 2ettlerH/aster. nother aim o! the book is to show how these di!!erent relationships to 1iolen&e are stru&turally irre&on&ilable between the /aster and the 2la1e and only partially re&on&ilable between the 2ettler and the ;2a1age.< rhetori&al analysis o! 2ettler,
;2a1age,< and 2la1e meta-&ommentaries on su!!ering that runs alongside my analysis o! !ilm will show these meditations to spring !rom the irre&on&ilability between, on the one hand, a ;2a1age< ob"e&t o! geno&ide or a 2la1e ob"e&t o! &apti1ity and !ungibility, and on the other hand, a 2ettler sub"e&t o! e3ploitation and alienation. +his leads us ba&k again to the perple3ing Guestion o! the ;2a1age<H2la1e relation. Whether 1iolen&e between the ;2a1age< and the 2la1e is essentially stru&tural or per!ormati1e, is not a Guestion that has been addressed at the le1el o! the paradigm by those who meditate on positional ontology BDonald Judy notwithstandingC. It is a Guestion we turn to now, in )hapter 1, ;+he Duse o! nalogy.<
%-
Chapter
ne
The Ruse of Analog&
+hirty to !orty years be!ore the &urrent milieu o! multi&ulturalism, immigrants rights a&ti1ism, White women:s liberation, and sweat shop struggles, Frant= Fanon !ound himsel! writing in a post-WWII era !i3ated on the Jewish holo&aust as the a!!e&ti1e destination that made legible the ensemble o! Guestions that animated the politi&al &ommon sense o! oppression. +he holo&aust pro1ided a ;natural< metaphor through whi&h ontologists in Fanon:s time, su&h as 2artre, worked out a grammar through whi&h the Guestion, &hat does it mean to suffer , &an be asked. +he Jewish >olo&aust as ;natural< metaphor &ontinues to an&hor many o! today:s meta-&ommentaries. Kiorgio gamben:s meditations on the (uselmann, !or e3ample, allow him to &laim as' L2Momething so unpre&edented that one tries to make it &omprehensible by bringing it ba&k to &ategories that are both e3treme and absolutely !amiliar' li!e and death, dignity and indignity. rue &ipher o! mong these &ategories, the us&hwit=
us&hwit=-the (uselmann, the R&ore o! the &amp,: he whom
Rno one wants to see,: and who is ins&ribed in e1ery testimony as la&una? wa1ers without !inding a de!inite position. BRemnants of Ausch&it1 -1C gamben is not wrong, so mu&h as he is late. us&hwit= is not ;so unpre&edented< to one whose !rame o! re!eren&e is the /iddle @assage, !ollowed by 6ati1e In this way, meri&an geno&ide.
us&hwit= would rank third or !ourth in a normati1e, as opposed to
%7
;unpre&edented,< pattern.
gamben goes on to sket&h out the ensemble o! Guestions that
)hur&hill and 2pillers ha1e asked, but he does so by deploying the Jewish (uselmann as the template o! su&h Guestions, instead o! the Ded ;2a1age,< or the Bla&k 2la1e' In one &ase, Lthe (uselmannM appears as the non-li1ing, as the being whose li!e is not truly li!eE in the other, as he whose death &annot be &alled death, but only the produ&tion o! a &orpse?as the ins&ription o! li!e in a dead area and, in death, o! a li1ing area. In both &ases, what is &alled into Guestion is the 1ery humanity o! man, sin&e man obser1es the !ragmentation o! his pri1ileged tie to what &onstitutes him as human, that is, the sa&redness o! death and li!e. +he (uselmann is the non-human who obstinately appears as humanE he is the human that &annot be told apart !rom the inhuman. B-#C In the historiography o! intelle&tual thought, gamben:s widely &ited template o! the
(uselmann is an elaboration o! 2artre:s work. s philosophers, they work both to !orti!y and e3tend the interlo&utory li!e o! widely a&&epted politi&al &ommon sense whi&h positions the KermanHJewish relation as the sin/2ua/non o! a stru&tural antagonism, thus allowing politi&al philosophy to attribute ontologi&al?and not "ust so&ial?signi!i&an&e to the Jewish >olo&aust. Fanon has no tru&k with all o! this. >e dismisses the presumed antagonism between Kermans and Jews by &alling the >olo&aust ;little !amily Guarrels< B11(C, re&asting with this single stroke the KermanHJew en&ounter as a &on!li&t rather than an antagonism. Fanon returns the Jew to hisHher right!ul position?a position &ithin &i1il so&iety animated by an ensemble o! >uman dis&ontents. +he (uselmann, then, &an be
(4
seen as a pro1isional moment within e3istential Whiteness, when Jews were sub"e&ted to Bla&kness and Dedness?and the e3planatory power o! the (uselmann &an !ind its way ba&k to so&iology, history, or politi&al s&ien&e where it more right!ully belongs. +his is one o! se1eral moments in Black Skin, White (asks when Fanon splits the hair between so&ial oppression and stru&tural su!!ering, making it possible to theori=e the impossibility o! a Bla&k ontology Bthus allowing us to meditate on how the Bla&k su!!ersC without being &hained to the philosophi&al and rhetori&al demands o! analogy, demands whi&h the e1identiary register o! so&ial oppression Bi.e., how many Jews died in the o1ens, how many Bla&ks were lost in the /iddle @assageC normally imposes upon su&h meditations. +he ruse o! analogy erroneously lo&ates the Bla&k in the world?a pla&e where sHhe has not been sin&e the dawning o! Bla&kness. +his attempt to position the Bla&k in the world by way o! analogy is not only a mysti!i&ation, and o!ten erasure, o! Bla&kness:s grammar o! su!!ering Ba&&umulation and !ungibility or the status o! being non->umanC but simultaneously also a pro1ision !or &i1il so&iety, promising an enabling modality !or >uman ethi&al dilemmas. It is a mysti!i&ation and an erasure be&ause, whereas /asters may share the same !antasies as 2la1es, and 2la1es &an speak as though they ha1e the same interests as /asters, their respe&ti1e grammars o! su!!ering are irre&on&ilable. In dragging his interlo&utors ki&king and s&reaming through ;Fa&t o! Bla&kness,< or what Donald Judy has translated more pointedly as ;+he Li1ed 53perien&e o! the Bla&k,< Fanon is not attempting to play ;oppression *lympi&s< and thus draw &on&lusions that Bla&ks are at the top o! e1ery empiri&al hierar&hy o! so&ial dis&rimination, though that &ase has also been made. 31 >a1ing established that, yes, the
(1
Jew is oppressed Band, yes, the Bla&k is oppressedC Fanon re!uses to let the li$ed e)perience o! oppression di&tate the terms o! his meditations on su!!ering. >e writes' L+he JewM belongs to the ra&e o! those LwhoM sin&e the beginning o! time ha1e ne1er known &annibalism. What an idea, to eat one:s !atherA 2imple enough one has onl" not to be a nigger Lemphasis mineM$LIMn my &ase e1erything takes on a new guise. I am the sla$e not o! an idea others ha1e o! me but o! my own appearan&e. BBlack Skin, White (asks 11(-1,C +wo tensions are at work here. *ne operates under the labor o! ethi&al dilemmas-;simple enough one has only not to be a nigger.< 31i +his, I submit, is the essen&e o! being !or the White and non-Bla&k position' ontology s&aled down to a global &ommon denominator. +he other tension is !ound in the impossibility o! ethi&al dilemmas !or the Bla&k' ;I am,< Fanon writes, ;a sla$e not o! an idea others ha1e o! me but o! my own appearan&e.< Being &an thus be thought o!, in the !irst ontologi&al instan&e, as nonniggernessE and sla1ery then as niggerness. +he 1isual !ield, ;my own appearan&e,< is the &ut, the me&hanism that elaborates the di1ision between the non-niggerness and sla1ery, the di!!eren&e between the li1ing and the dead. Whereas >umans e3ist on some plane o! being and thus &an be&ome e3istentially present through some struggle !orHo!Hthrough re&ognition, Bla&ks &annot attain the plane o! re&ognition BWest -#C. 2pillers, Fanon, and >artman maintain that the 1iolen&e that has positioned and repetiti1ely re-positions the Bla&k as a 1oid o! histori&al mo1ement is without analog in the su!!ering dynami&s o! the ontologi&ally ali1e. +he 1iolen&e that turns the !ri&an into a thing is without analog be&ause it does not simply oppress the
Bla&k through ta&tile and empiri&al te&hnologies o! oppression, like the ;little !amily
(#
Guarrels< whi&h !or Fanon e3empli!y the Jewish >olo&aust. Dather, the gratuitous 1iolen&e o! the Bla&k:s !irst ontologi&al instan&e, the /iddle @assage, ;wiped out LhisHherM metaphysi&s$his LherM &ustoms and sour&es on whi&h they are based< BBSW( 114C. Jews went into us&hwit= and &ame out as Jews. !ri&ans went into the ships and
&ame out as Bla&ks. +he !ormer is a >uman holo&austE the latter is a >uman and a metaphysi&al holo&aust. +hat is why it makes little sense to attempt analogy' the Jews ha1e the Dead Bthe (uselmennC among themE the Dead ha1e the Bla&ks among them. +his 1iolen&e whi&h turns a body into !lesh, ripped apart literally and imaginati1ely, destroys the possibility o! ontology be&ause it positions the Bla&k within an in!inite and indeterminately horri!ying and open 1ulnerability, an ob"e&t made a1ailable Bwhi&h is to say !ungibleC !or any sub"e&t. s su&h, ;the bla&k has no
ontologi&al resistan&e in the eyes o! the white man< B114C or, more pre&isely, in the eyes o! >umanity. >ow is it that the Bla&k appears to partner with the senior and "unior partners o! &i1il so&iety BWhites and &olored immigrants, respe&ti1elyC, when in point o! !a&t the Bla&k is not in the worldF +he answer lies in the ruse o! analogy. By a&ting as if the Bla&k is present, &oherent, and abo1e all human, Bla&k !ilm theorists are ;allowed< to meditate on &inema only a!ter ;&onsenting< to a stru&tural ad"ustment. 31ii 2u&h an ad"ustment, reGuired !or the ;pri1ilege< o! parti&ipating in the politi&al e&onomy o! a&ademe, is not unlike the stru&tural ad"ustment debtor nations must adhere to !or the pri1ilege o! se&uring a loan' signing on the dotted line means !eigning ontologi&al &apa&ity regardless o! the !a&t that Bla&kness is in&apa&ity in its most pure and unadulterated !orm. It means theori=ing Bla&kness as ;borrowed institutionality.< 31iii
(0
Donald Judy:s 73is8%orming the American Canon: African/Arabic Sla$e #arrati$es and the :ernacular and ;*n the Puestion o! 6igga uthenti&ity< &ritiGue the
Bla&k intelligentsia !or building aestheti& &anons out o! sla1e narrati1es and hard&ore rap on the belie! that Bla&ks &an ;write Lthemsel1esM into being< B 73is8%orming the American Canon' --, 7.C. Judy a&knowledges that in su&h pro"e&ts one !inds genuine and rigorous attention to the issue that &on&erns Bla&ks as a so&ial !ormation, namely, resistan&e. But he is less than sanguine about the power o! resistan&e whi&h so many Bla&k s&holars impute to the sla1e narrati1e in parti&ular and, by e3tension, to the ;&anon< o! Bla&k literature, Bla&k musi&, and Bla&k !ilm' In writing the death o! the !ri&an body, 5GuianoLRsM 1-th &entury sla1e
narrati1eM gains 1oi&e and emerges !rom the ab"e&t muteness o! ob"e&ti1ity into produ&ti1e sub"e&ti1ity. It should not be !orgotten that the ab"e&t muteness o! the body is not to not e3ist, to be without e!!e&t. +he ab"e&t body is the 1ery stu!!, the material, o! e3periential e!!e&t. Writing the death o! the !ri&an body is an en!or&ed abstra&tion. It is an interdi&tion o! the !ri&an, a &ensorship to be inarti&ulate, to not &ompel, to ha$e no
capacit" to mo$e, to be &ithout effect, &ithout agenc", &ithout thought . +he muted !ri&an body is o1erwritten by the 6egro, and the 6egro that
emerges in the ink !low o! 5Guiano:s pen is that whi&h has o1erwritten itsel! and so be&omes the representation o! the 1ery body it sits on. B5mphasis mine, -7C Judy is an !ro-@essimist, not an !ro-)entrist. For him the 6egro is a symbol
that &annot ;enable the representation o! meaning Lbe&auseM it has no re!erent< B14.C.
(%
2u&h is the gratuitousness o! the 1iolen&e that made the 6egro. But it is pre&isely to this illusi1e symboli& resistan&e Ban aspiration to ;produ&ti1e sub"e&ti1ity<C, as opposed to the 6egro:s ;ab"e&t muteness,< and &ertainly not to the 2la1e:s gratuitous 1iolen&e, that many Bla&k s&holars in general, and Bla&k !ilm theorists in parti&ular, aspire when interpreting their &ultural ob"e&ts. /y &laim regarding Bla&k !ilm theory, modeled on Judy:s &laim &on&erning Bla&k 2tudies more broadly, is that it tries to &hart a pro"e&t o! resistan&e with an ensemble o! Guestions that !orti!y and e3tend the interlo&utory li!e o! what might be &alled a Bla&k !ilm &anon. But herein lies the rub, a rub in the !orm o! a stru&tural ad"ustment imposed on the Bla&k !ilm s&holar herHhimsel!. ;Desistan&e through &anon !ormation,< Judy writes, must be ;legitimated on the grounds o! &onser1ation, the &onser1ation o! authenti&ity:s integrity< B17C. tenet that threads through Judy:s work is
that throughout modernity and post-modernity Bor post-industrial so&iety, as Judy:s e&hoing o! ntonio 6egri pre!ersC ;Bla&k authenti&ity< is an o3ymoron, a notion as uthenti&ity$< ##(C, !or it
absurd as ;rebellious property< B;*n the Puestion o! 6igga
reGuires the kind o! ontologi&al integrity whi&h the 2la1e &annot &laim. +he stru&tural ad"ustment imposed upon Bla&k a&ademi&s is, howe1er, 1ital to the well-being o! &i1il so&iety. It pro1ides the politi&al e&onomy o! a&ademia with a stable ;&ollegial< atmosphere in whi&h the sele&tion o! topi&s, the distribution o! &on&erns, esprit de corps, emphasis, and the bounding o! debate within a&&eptable limits appear to be ;shared< by all be&ause all admit to sharing them. But Judy suggests that the mere presen&e o! the Bla&k and hisHher pro"e&t, albeit ad"usted stru&turally, threatens the !abri& o! this ;stable< e&onomy, by threatening its stru&ture o! e3&hange'
((
6ot only are the &on"un&ti1e operations o! dis&ourses o! knowledge and power that so de!ine the way in whi&h a&ademi& !ields get authenti&ated impli&ated in the a&ademi& instituting o! !ro- meri&an studies, but so is
the instabilit" entailed in the nature of academic &ork. +hat instability is dis&ernable e1en in the uni1ersity:s !un&tion as &onser1ator.
B73is8%orming the American Canon 5mphasis mine 17C +his a&ademy-wide instability, predi&ated on the mere presen&e o! the Bla&k and hisHher ob"e&t, has three &risis-prone elements whi&h Bla&kness, should it e1er be&ome unad"usted, &ould unleash. First is a reali=ation that !ri&an- meri&an studies &annot
delimit ;a uniGue ob"e&t !ield< Bi.e., a set literary te3ts, or a Bla&k !ilm &anonC whi&h threatens the nature o! a&ademi& work, !or Bla&k 2tudies itsel! is inde3i&al o! the !a&t that ;the ob"e&t !ield?i.e. the te3ts?has no ontologi&al status, but issues !rom spe&i!i& histori&al dis&ursi1e pra&ti&es and aestheti&s< B#4C. 2e&ondly, these ;spe&i!i& histori&al dis&ursi1e pra&ti&es and aestheti&s,< heterogeneous as they might be at the le1el o! &ontent, are homogeneous to the e)tent that their genealogies cannot recogni1e and incorporate the figure of the Sla$e. s a result, ;inter"e&ting the sla1e narrati1e into the
pri1ileged site o! literary e3pression a&hie1es, in e!!e&t, a BdisC!ormation o! the !ield o! meri&an literary history< B#4-#1C and, by e3tension, the !ield o! Bla&k !ilm studies. ;+he sla1e narrati1e as a pro&ess by whi&h a te3tual e&onomy is &onstituted?as a topograph" through whi&h the !ri&an meri&an a&hie1es an eman&ipatory sub1ersion o! the
propriety o! sla1ery?"eopardi=es the genealogy o! Deason< B7.C. *n&e Deason:s 1ery genealogy is "eopardi=ed then its &ontent, !or e3ample, the idea o! ;dominium,< has no ground to stand on. We will see, below, how and why ;dominion< is re&ogni=ed as a
(,
&onstituent element o! the Indian:s sub"e&ti1ity and how this re&ognition enables partial in&orporation. But a third point pro1es "ust as mu&h, i! not more, unsettling than a &risis in the genealogy o! Deason. For i! 2la1e narrati1es as an ob"e&t !ield ha1e ;no ontologi&al status< su&h that the !ield:s insertion into the !ield o! literary history &an dis!orm not "ust the !ield o! literary studies but the !ield o! knowledge itsel! Bthe paradigm o! e3&hange within the politi&al e&onomy o! a&ademiaC, and BdisC!orm the hegemony o! Deason:s genealogy, then what does this tell us about the ontologi&al status o! the narrating sla1e herHhimsel!F +his Guestion awaits both the Bla&k !ilmmaker and the Bla&k !ilm theorist. 6t is menacing and unbearable. +he intensity o! its ethi&ality is terri!ying, so terri!ying that, as a spa&e to be inhabited and terror to be embra&ed, it &an be sei=ed by a signi!i&ant number o! Bla&k artists and theorists only at those moments when a &riti&al mass o! 2la1es ha1e embra&ed this terror in the streets. 6ormally, in moments su&h as the present Bwith no su&h mass mo1ement in the streetsC, the ;e!!e&t o! delineating a pe&uliar !ri&an meri&an historiography< B17C
seems mena&ing and unbearable to the lone Bla&k s&holarE and so the Bla&k s&holar labors? unwittingly, Judy implies?to ad"ust the stru&ture o! hisHher own ;nonre&uperable negati1ity< B7,C in order to tell ;a story o! an emerging sub"e&ti1ity:s triumphant struggle to dis&o1er its identity< and thereby as&end ;!rom the ab"e&t muteness o! ob"e&ti1ity into produ&ti1e sub"e&ti1ity< B----7C. +he dread under whi&h su&h aspirations to >uman &apa&ity labor Ba labor o! disa1owalC is &ataly=ed by the knowledge, howe1er un&ons&ious, that &i1il so&iety is held together by a stru&tural prohibition against re&ogni=ing and in&orporating a being that is dead, despite the !a&t that this being is sentient and so appears to be 1ery mu&h ali1e. )i1il so&iety &annot
(.
embra&e what 2aidiya >artman &alls ;the ab"e&t status o! the will-less ob"e&t< B Scenes of Sub5ection (#C. 53pli&ating the rhetori&al and philosophi&al impossibility o! su&h an embra&e, Judy writes' +he assumption o! the 6egro:s trans&endent worth as a human presupposes the 6egro:s being &omprehensible in Western modernity:s terms. @ut somewhat more &rudely, but nonetheless to the point, the humani=ation in writing a&hie1ed in the sla1e narrati1e reGuireLsM the &on1ersion o! the in&omprehensible !ri&an into the &omprehensible
6egro. +he histori&al mode o! &on1ersion was the linguisti& representation o! sla1ery' the sla1e narrati1e Lor Bla&k !ilm and Bla&k !ilm theoryM. By pro1iding heuristi& e1iden&e o! the 6egro:s humanity the sla1e narrati1e begins to write the history o! 6egro &ulture in terms o! the history o! an e3tra- !ri&an sel!-re!le&ti1e &ons&iousness. BJudy 7#C But this e3er&ise is as liberating, as ;produ&ti1e o! sub"e&ti1ity,< as a dog &hasing its tail. For ;LpMre&isely at the point at whi&h this inter1ention appears to su&&eed in its determination o! a bla&k agent, howe1er, it is sub"e&t to appropriation by a rather homeostati& thought' the 6egro< B7.C. nd the 6egro, as Fanon illustrates throughout
Black Skin, White (asks, ;is &omparison,< nothing more and &ertainly nothing less, !or what is less than &omparisonF Fanon strikes at the heart o! this tail-&hasing &ir&ularity and the dread it &ataly=es when he writes' 6o one knows yet who Lthe 6egroM is, but he knows that !ear will !ill the world when the world !inds out. nd when the world knows the world
always e3pe&ts something o! the 6egro. >e is a!raid lest the world know,
(-
he is a!raid o! the !ear that the world would !eel i! the world knew. BBSW( emphasis mine 107C By aspiring to the 1ery ontologi&al &apa&ity whi&h modernity !ore&losed to them?in other words, by attempting to ;write themsel1es into being< B 73is8%orming the American Canon 7.C? Bla&k !ilm theorists and many Bla&k !ilms e3perien&e as unbearable a tenet shared by Judy and other !ro-@essimists that ;humanity re&ogni=es itsel! in the *ther
that it is not< B7%C. +his makes the labor o! disa1owal in Bla&k s&holarly and aestheti& produ&tion doubly burdensome, !or it is triggered by a dread o! both being ;dis&o1ered,< and o! dis&o1ering onesel!, as ontologi&al in&apa&ity. +hus, through borrowed institutionality?the !eigned &apa&ity to be essentially e3ploited and alienated Brather than a&&umulated and !ungibleC in the !irst ontologi&al instan&e Bin other words, a !antasy to be "ust like e1eryone else, whi&h is a !antasy to beC the work o! Bla&k !ilm theory operates through a myriad o! &ompensatory gestures in whi&h the Bla&k theorist assumes sub"e&ti1e &apa&ity to be uni1ersal and thus ;!inds< it e1erywhere. We all got it bad, don4t &e (assa. We &an say that White !ilm theory is hobbled in mu&h the same st"le as Bla&k Film theory, but it is burdened by a &ompletely di!!erent set o! stakes, or more pre&isely with nothing at all at stake ontologi&ally. In )hapter # I will show how dependent the e3planatory power o! White !ilm theory is on the La&anian insisten&e that the 2ub"e&t BLa&an:s analysandC is a uni1ersal entity who e3ists, a priori, within a &ommunity o! what La&an &alls ;&ontemporaries< Bwhat I dub &i1il so&ietyC and does not reside on what >ortense 2pillers &alls ;the sla1e estate.<3i3 Bound up in the notion o! prior e3isting &ontemporaries is the assumption that relationalit" itself is not in Guestion Bwhi&h is
(7
always the Guestion !or the 2la1eC. What is in Guestion instead is the status o! those prior e3isting relations?whether, in La&an:s 1erna&ular, the relation is sutured by ;empty spee&h,< the monumentali=ation o! the ego, or ;!ull spee&h,< an en&ounter between beings who li1e either under the neuroti& yoke o! the moi BegoC or in a liberated or de&onstru&ti1e relation to the ego. *ther tou&hstones o! &ohesion that bound and elaborate these theoreti&al analyses o! !ilm in&lude a sense o! the uni1ersality o! a domesti& s&ene Bagain, I would note, sla1es ha1e Guarters but not homesC, and o! sub"e&ti1e positioning by way o! the 2ymboli& *rder, an understanding o! positioning in whi&h 1iolen&e plays a &ontingent as opposed to originary or gratuitous role, in the ontologi&al s&hema o! the sub"e&t. Due to the presen&e o! prior e3isting relations within a world o! &ontemporaries, no ;!ear o! the !ear o! the world< is at stake when White theorists meditate ontologi&ally Bwhether through a &ultural ob"e&t su&h as !ilm or on a set o! intelle&tual proto&olsC and !ind?as do their Bla&k &olleagues?&apa&ity e1erywhere. It would be more a&&urate to say not that they !ind &apa&ity e1erywhere, sin&e they do not look e1erywhere, but that they !ind it where they are, among their ;&ontemporaries,< and assume its ubiGuity. 8nlike the 6egro there is nothing homeostati& about the White Bor other >umansC. I! the Bla&k is death personi!ied, the White is the personi!i&ation o! di1ersity?li!e itsel!. Di&hard Dyer reminds us' +he in1isibility o! whiteness as a ra&ial position in white$dis&ourse is o! a pie&e with its ubiGuity. When I said abo1e that this book wasn:t merely seeking to !ill a gap in the analysis o! ra&ial imagery, I reprodu&ed the idea that there is no dis&ussion o! white people. In !a&t !or most o! the time s
,4
white people speak about nothing but white people, it:s "ust that we &ou&h it in terms o! ;people< in general$9et pre&isely be&ause o! this and their pla&ing as norm LWhitesM seem not to be represented to themsel1es as whites but as people who are 1ariously gendered, &lassed, se3ualised and abled. BDyer, White 0C +hus the threat o! dis&o1ering onesel! in one:s own s&holarly or artisti& endea1ors as ;&omparison< is not a !ate that awaits White a&ademi&s. White a&ademi&s: disa1owal o! Bla&k death as modernity:s &ondition o! possibility Btheir inability to imagine their produ&ti1e sub"e&ti1ity as an e!!e&t o! the 6egro BJudy 7#, 70-7%, 7.CC stems not !rom the unbearable terror o! that BnonCsel!-dis&o1ery always-already awaiting the Bla&k, but !rom the !a&t that, sa1e brie! and in!reGuent &on"un&tures o! large-s&ale Bla&k 1iolen&e B1- th and 17th &entury sla1e re1olts and #4th &entury ;urban unrest<C, the so&ius pro1ides no &atalyst for White a1owal' in short, thought?essential, ontologi&al thought?is all but impossible in White &ultural and politi&al theory?but it is not Bas we will see with (onster4s Ball in @art INC impossible in the un&ons&ious o! the White !ilm itsel!. +his state o! a!!airs, the unbearable hydrauli&s o! Bla&k disa1owal and the sweetness and light o! White disa1owal, is best en&apsulated in the shorthand e3pression ;so&ial stability,< !or it guarantees the &i1ility o! &i1il so&iety. @ut ane&dotally, but nonetheless to the point, when pulled indi1idually by the button, both inmate and guard might be in !a1or o! ;&riminal rehabilitation,< both might e1en belie1e that the warden is a ;swell guy,< 33 and in their enthusiasm they both may e1en take !or granted that by ;&riminal< they are speaking o! the inmates and not the guards, or !or that matter the warden. >owe1er, while the shared e3perien&es in the politi&al e&onomy o! the prison?a &ommon poli&y agenda,
,1
i.e. rehabilitation?or the shared identi!i&ations in the libidinal e&onomy o! prison?the un&ons&ious &aptation o! both inmate and guard by the image o! the warden?may &ertainly be important to any meditation on either prison e&onomy, they are &ertainly not essential to su&h re!le&tion. +his means that they &annot break in on the mutually e3&lusi1e &onstituent elements that make the stru&ture the positionality o! inmate and guard irre&on&ilableE at least, not with su&h a !or&e as to rupture that positional e3&lusi1ity and bring about the end o! the BprisonC world. +his holds true regardless o! the !a&t that the mobility o! symboli& material, i.e. the idea o! ;&riminal rehabilitation< and the agreement on who &onstitutes a &riminal, and the mobility o! imaginary &aptation, i.e. the image o! the warden, are both without limit in their &apa&ity !or transgression. +he libidinal e&onomy o! modernity and its attendant &artography Bthe Western >emisphere, the 8.2., or &i1il so&iety as a &onstru&tC a&hie1es its stru&ture o! un&ons&ious e3&hange by way o! a ;thanatolog"< BJudy -7C in whi&h Bla&kness o1erdetermines the embodiment o! impossibility, in&oheren&e, in&apa&ity. Furthermore, politi&al e&onomy a&hie1es its symboli& Bpoliti&alHe&onomi&C &apa&ity and stru&ture o! pre&ons&ious e3&hange by way o! a similar ;thanatology.< Judy goes so !ar as to say that at the &ru3 o! modernity:s &risis is the dilemma ;how to represent the 6egro as being demonstrably human within the terms o! the law< B-%C. >ere, o! &ourse, he does not mean ;law< in a "uridi&al sense but rather ;law< as a portal o! intelligibility through whi&h one &an be said to ha1e the &apa&ity to a&&ess ;Deason< and thus be re&ogni=ed and in&orporated as a bona !ide sub"e&t. +hrough Judy:s analysis o! the 6egro Bthe sla1eC as modernity:s ne&essity Bthe *ther that humanity is not' ;simple enough one has only not to be a nigger<C, that whi&h
,#
ki&k-starts and sustains the produ&tion o! the Western >emisphere, we &an begin to make the transition !rom the parasiti& ne&essity o! Whiteness in libidinal e&onomy to its parasiti& ne&essity in politi&al e&onomy. Whiteness is parasiti& be&ause it
monumentali=es its sub"e&ti1e &apa&ity, its lush &artography, in dire&t proportion to the wasteland o! Bla&k in&apa&ity. By ;&apa&ity< I ha1e meant something more &omprehensi1e than ;the e1ent< and its &ausal elements and something more indeterminate than ;agen&y.< We should think o! it as a kind o! !a&ility or matri3 through whi&h possibility itsel!?whether tragi& or triumphant?&an be elaborated' the ebb and !low between, on the one hand, ;empty spee&h,< ra&ist a&tions, repressi1e laws, and institutional &oheren&e and, on the other hand, ;!ull spee&h,< armed insurre&tion, and the institutional ennui. +his is what I mean by &apa&ity. It is a !ar &ry !rom 2pillers: state o! ;being !or the &aptor< B#440' #4,C and Judy:s ;muted !ri&an bodyumanC capacit", in ad1an&e o! the e1ent o! dis&rimination or oppression, is parasiti& on Bla&k in&apa&ity BJudy -7C' without the 6egro, &apa&ity itsel! is in&oherent, un&ertain at best. Where in all o! this is the IndianF +he ;2a1age< has been glaringly absent in our pre&eding meditations on the /aster and the 2la1e, !or the same reason Latinos are omitted !rom the study altogether. Latinos and relation to the 2ettlerH/aster, that is, to the hemisphere and sians and
sians stand in conflictual meri&a writ large?they
in1oke a politi&s o! &ulture, not a &ulture o! politi&s. +hey do not register as antagonists. But this is only partially true o! ;2a1age< position.
,0
Kranted, the ;2a1age< relation to the 2ettler by way o! libidinal e&onomy:s stru&ture o! e3&hange is !ar !rom isomorphi&, at the le$el of content, with what Fanon &alls ;e3isten&e.<33i For e3ample, there is indeed important and resounding dissonan&e between the Indian:s spiritualHdi1ine imagining o! the sub"e&t in libidinal e&onomy and the 2ettlerH/aster:s se&ular, or psy&hoanalyti&, or e1en religious imaginings Bsee Deloria, 17.0' #1. and 17.7' i3-3iii, 1%-1-, -,-141, and 11--1#4C. But these di!!eren&es do not &an&el ea&h other out. +hat is, they are not di!!eren&es with an antagonisti& stru&ture, but di!!eren&es with a &on!li&tual stru&tureE be&ause arti&ulation, rather than a 1oid, makes the di!!eren&es legible. In other words, ;2a1age< capacit" is not obliterated by these di!!eren&es. In !a&t, its interlo&utory li!e is o!ten !orti!ied and e3tended by su&h di!!eren&es. +he modern or post-modern sub"e&t alienated within language, on one hand, and the Kreat 2pirit de1otee, or &hild o! /other 5arth, on the other hand, may in !a&t be elaborated by di!!erent &osmologies BDeloria, 17.0' .(--7C, predi&ated on what Deloria has noted as &on!li&tual 1isions, but La&an:s analysand Bmeaning a sub"e&ti1e &apa&ity !or !ull or empty spee&hC does not re2uire the Indian as its parasiti& host, despite the fact that the 6ndian &as forcibl" remo$ed to clear a space for the anal"st4s office. +his is be&ause alienation is essential to both the ;2a1age< and the 2ettler:s way o! imagining stru&tural positionalityE to the way 6ati1e meri&an meta-&ommentaries think ontology. +hus, the
analysand:s essential &apa&ity !or alienation from being Balienation that takes pla&e in languageC is not parasiti& on the ;2a1age:s< &apa&ity to be alienated from the spirit &orld or the land Bwhi&h !or Indians are &osmologi&ally inseparableC. Whereas histori&ally, the se&ular imperialism whi&h made psy&hoanalyti& imaginings possible wreaked ha1o& on the ;2a1age< at the le1el o! Fanonian e3isten&e, that &onta&t did not wipe out hisHher
,%
libidinal &apa&ity?or 6ati1e metaphysi&s. +his is true not in some empiri&al sense, !or as a Bla&k I ha1e no a&&ess to the Indian:s spirit world. I am also barred !rom sub"e&ti1ity in e1en the most re1olutionary s&hemata o! White se&ularism BLa&anian psy&hoanalysis and 6egri:s /ar3ismC. Dather, it is true be&ause the most pro!ound and un!lin&hing meta&ommentators on the ;2a1age< and libidinal e&onomy Balthough Indians would probably substitute ;spirit world< !or ;libidinal e&onomy< and repla&e the ;sub"e&t< with ;the soul<C and the most un!lin&hing meta-&ommentators on the 2ettler and libidinal e&onomy sa" it is true. >a1ing &ommuned around their shared &apa&ity !or sub"e&ti1e alienation sin&e the dawn o! modernity Bwhat Indians &all ;&onta&t<C, they !ormed a &ommunity o! interpretation. 51en as the 2ettler began to wipe the Indian out, sHhe was building an interpreti1e &ommunity with the ;2a1age< the likes o! whi&h the /aster was not building with the 2la1e. In the 1(04s, the +homist e&&lesiasti&s o! the 2&hool o! 2alaman&a agreed that Indians possessed sub"e&ti1e dominion in a way that sla1es did not. Judy maintains that this &laim was made possible on the basis o! ethnographi& e1iden&e whi&h )ortes and others had returned !rom the ;6ew< World to 2pain with. For the +homists and the 2panish e3plorers' Indians are humans and not animals$they possessed a &ertain rational order in their a!!airs$)ortes:s ethnographi& data$des&ribed a &ulture with e3tensi1e e1iden&e o! rationality and &i1ility' a material &ulture &apable o! &onstru&ting &ities o! stone, urbani=ation Bso&iety based on the polisC, sophisti&ated and hierar&hi&al so&ial organi=ation, &ommer&e, "uridi&al institutions, and abo1e all highly rituali=ed religious pra&ti&e$
,(
For!eiture o! the natural right o! dominium, then, would reGuire that the Indian was truly irrational and so in 1iolation o! the law o! nature. In the !a&e o! o1erwhelming e1iden&e o! the Indians: rationality and &i1ility, e1en the two most !reGuently &ited a&ts o! abomination held against Indians, &annibalism$and sa&ri!i&e$were 1iewed$as no more than singular temporary aberrations o! reason and so not e1iden&e o! true irrationality, whi&h made them insu!!i&ient grounds !or denying the Indians possession o! dominium. BJudy -4--1C It should be noted that when &annibalism is ;bla&kened it is &onsidered to be a geneti& predisposition rather than a ;temporary aberration o! reason< BJudyC. >owe1er &ompelling the ;o1erwhelming< ethnographi& e1iden&e was !or the +homists, the e1iden&e itsel! is bea&hed on the shore o! ;e3isten&e.< It has no ontologi&al buoyan&y. It is not the me&hanism through whi&h the 2ettler?at least in libidinal e&onomy?is !reed !rom per!orming his ne&rophilia on the ;2a1age.< In short, it does not e3plain the ho& o! this relation. gain, they &ould ha1e ;!ound< su&h ;o1erwhelming< ethnographi&
e1iden&e in !ri&a, but one did not. Judy reminds us that e1en ;>egel L044 years a!ter the 2&hool o! 2alaman&aM e3pli&itly e3&ludeLdM !ri&a !rom the diale&ti&, on the grounds o!
the primiti1eness o! the 6egro< B047C. Judy:s statement in itsel! is a nonseGuitur be&ause the 6egro is >egel:s, meaning modernity:s, &reation' there is no way to !ri&a through
the Bla&k. What pre&isely and spe&i!i&ally prompted the &ommunal imaginings in libidinal e&onomy between 2ettler and ;2a1age<?but not between /aster and 2la1e, gi1en that modernity:s 2ettler and /aster are one and the same Bthe >umanC?is a Guestion o! origins that does not &on&ern me !or it might &lari!y the histori&al re&ord at
,,
the e3pense o! mysti!ying paradigmati& relations o! power. +o know the pre&ise origin o! power does not ensure an understanding o! its arrangements. What &on&erns me is a &ertain &ill to analog" whi&h the 2ettler insists upon, when thinking the =te&, but whi&h is la&king in the absolute Bby not e1en being raised to be re"e&tedC when his mind strays to !ri&a. Puestions as to the why o! )arib &annibalism and =te& sa&ri!i&e present
epistemologi&al dilemmas, Guestions whi&h the e&&lesiasti&s, the intelle&tuals o! early modern &i1il so&iety, had to answer in order !or &onGuest o! the Indians to &ontinue' Nitoria La leading 2alaman&an +homistM based his answer to this Guestion on analog"' the Indians are like &hildren Lemphasis mineM. s dominium is
a natural right independent o! ob"e&ti1e property, &hildren &an be said to ha1e dominium, although they may not e3er&ise it properly Lemphasis in originalM. In this state o! improper use, &hildren are not irrational, but they are unrational, their reason is potential. 6nstead of being natural sla$es, the 6ndians are a class of natural children, much like the peasantr". B5mphasis mine -1C nalogy, then, is more than a rhetori&al de1i&e. +o be sure, its &ommunal power &annot stop war, sta1e o!! &onGuest and imperialismE in !a&t, it o!ten e1in&es generati1e agen&y where su&h transgressions are &on&erned. But it brokers a &ommunity o! interpretation between 2ettlerH/aster and ;2a1age< as well as?and this is key?&radles that relation in the swaddling o! conflictual harmon" and shields the relation !rom the &old in&oheren&e o! antagonism. nalogy deli1ers the Indian !rom the wound o! irrationality Bin !a1or o! uropean
unrationalityCE hisHher sub"e&ti1ity is Guestioned, and it is this calling into 2uestion?the semioti& play, the &on!li&tual harmony?more than the content o! that ensemble o!
,.
Guestions whi&h enables ;produ&ti1e sub"e&ti1ity< B-7C. For though the Indian e3ists liminally in relation to the 2ettler, as do the 2ettler:s &hildren and ;his< *ld World peasants, sHhe remains ontologi&ally possible. +hat is to say, the ;2a1age,< unlike the 2la1e, is hal!-ali1e. +he ar&hi1e o! 6ati1e meri&an literature whi&h su&&eeds arti&ulating between
6ati1e meri&ans tou&hstones o! spiritual &ohesion, and the tenets o! psy&hoanalysisE and between Ded and White tenets o! kinship and domesti&ity Bi.e. lineage 1s. marriageC, are symptomati& o! what I am &alling conflictual harmon", emerging as they do through an absen&e o! stru&tural antagonism between the 2ettler and the ;2a1age,< at least in the libidinal e&onomy. >owe1er, this &on!li&tual harmony is disturbed, possibly ruptured, when the ;2a1age< is produ&ed in the realm o! politi&al e&onomy. >ere sHhe attains the status o! an antagonism' in other words, i! the analysand does not reGuire the Indian as the embodiment o! +hanatos Bdeath personi!iedC !or herHhis &oheren&e, then perhaps the proletariat does. +his reGuires apprehension o! Keno&ide, as opposed to 2o1ereignty, as the se&ond o! the ;2a1age:s< two positioning modalities. gain, i! &&umulation and Fungibility are the modalities through whi&h
embodied Bla&kness is positioned as in&apa&ity, then Keno&ide is that modality through whi&h embodied Dedness is positioned as in&apa&ity. *ntologi&al in&apa&ity, I ha1e in!erred and here state !orthright, is the &onstituent element o! ethi&s. @ut another way, one &annot embody &apa&ity and be, simultaneously, ethi&al. Where there are 2la1es it is unethi&al to be !ree. +he 2ettlerH/aster:s &apa&ity, I ha1e argued, is a !un&tion o! e3ploitation and alienationE and the 2la1e:s in&apa&ity is elaborated by a&&umulation and !ungibility. But the ;2a1age< is positioned, stru&turally, by sub"e&ti1e &apa&ity and
,-
ob"e&ti1e in&apa&ity, by so1ereignty and geno&ide, respe&ti1ely. It is the Indian:s liminal status in politi&al e&onomy, the manner in whi&h herHhis positionality shuttles between the in&apa&ity o! a geno&ided ob"e&t and the &apa&ity o! a so1ereign sub"e&t, &oupled with the !a&t that Dedness does not o1erdetermine the ;thanatology< BJudy -7, 7%C o! libidinal e&onomy?this liminal &apa&ity within politi&al e&onomy and &omplete !reedom !rom in&apa&ity within libidinal e&onomy?whi&h raises serious doubts about the status o! ;2a1age< ethi&ality 1is-S-1is the triangulated stru&ture BDed, White, and Bla&kC o! antagonisms. )learly, the &oheren&e o! Whiteness as a stru&tural position in modernity depends on the &apa&ity to be !ree !rom geno&ide, not, perhaps, as an histori&al e3perien&e, but at least as a positioning modality. +his embodied &apa&ity Bgeno&idal immunityC o! Whiteness "ettisons the WhiteHDed relation !rom that o! a &on!li&t and marks it as an antagonism' it stains it with irre&on&ilability. >ere, the Indian &omes into being, and is positioned, by an a priori 1iolen&e o! geno&ide. Whiteness &an also e3perien&e this kind o! 1iolen&e but only a !ortiori' geno&ide may be one o! a thousand &ontingent e3perien&es o! Whiteness but it is not a &onstituent element, it does not make Whites White Bor >umans >umanC. Whiteness &an grasp its own &apa&ity, be present to itsel!, &oherent, by its una$ailabilit" to the a priori 1iolen&e o! Ded geno&ide, as well as by its una$ailabilit" to the a priori 1iolen&e o! Bla&k a&&umulation and !ungibility. I! it e3perien&es a&&umulation and !ungibility, or geno&ide, those e3perien&es must be named, Guali!ied, i.e. ;White sla1ery,< or the rmenian massa&re, the Jewish >olo&aust, Bosnian interment, so that su&h &ontingent e)perience is not &on!used with ontological necessit". In su&h a position one &an always say, ;I:m not a R2a1age:< or ;I:m being treated like a nigger.< *ne &an reassert one:s >umanity by re!using the ruse o! analogy. Degardless o!
,7
Whites: histori&al, and brie!, en&ounters with the modalities o! the ;2a1age< and o! the 2la1e, these modalities do not break in on the position o! Whiteness with su&h a !or&e as to repla&e e3ploitation and alienation as the 2ettlerH/aster:s &onstituent elements. We might think o! e3ploitation and alienation as modalities o! su!!ering whi&h ino&ulate Whiteness !rom death. I! this is indeed the &ase, then perhaps Whiteness has no &onstituent elements other than the immanent status o! immunity. 2till, this immunity is no small matter, !or it is the sin Gua non o! >uman &apa&ity. +he Indian perpetually shuttles between death and &i1il so&iety' at one moment sHhe is isolated !rom >uman &ommunity B&i1il so&iety or ;&ontemporaries<C in hisHher geno&idal e!!e&t Bmu&h like the 2la1eCE at another moment, the moment o! the so1ereign e!!e&t, sHhe is wedged ba&k into the >uman !old. For the 2la1e, this shuttling between death and &i1il so&iety is simply not allowed. 2till, what is not allowed &an be disa1owed ?whi&h a&&ounts !or the an3ious need to imagine Bla&k sla1ery as an histori&al rather than ontologi&al phenomenon. +he Indian is not the pure embodiment o! thanatology in either libidinal or politi&al e&onomy. Furthermore, the relation o! negation between White and Bla&k is absolute in that sentient beings positioned by e3ploitation and alienation are immune to a&&umulation and !ungibility. For e3ample, it is true that labor power is e3ploited and that the worker is alienated in it. But the worker labors on the &ommodity, sHhe is not the &ommodity itsel!, hisHher labor power is. +ragi& as alienation in labor power is, it does not resemble ;the pe&uliar &hara&ter o! 1iolen&e and the natal alienation o! the sla1e< B@atterson 14C.
.4
L+Mhe sla1e had no so&ially re&ogni=ed e3isten&e outside o! his master, he be&ame a so&ial nonperson$ L+Mhe de!inition o! the sla1e, howe1er, re&ruited, LisM a so&ially dead person. lienated !rom all ;rights< or &laims
o! birth, he &eased to belong in his own right to any legitimate so&ial order. ll sla1es e3perien&ed, at the 1ery least, a se&ular
e3&ommuni&ation$ L+he sla1e isM truly a genealogi&al isolate. %ormall" isolated in his social relations &ith those &ho li$e, he also &as culturall" isolated from the social heritage of his ancestors. .e had a past, to be sure. But a past is not a heritage. B5mphasis mine (C +he ;2a1age< on the other hand, though sHhe is a geno&ided ob"e&t, is not a ;genealogi&al isolate.< +he modality o! geno&ide whi&h positions the ;2a1age< &o-e3ists with the modality o! 2o1ereignty whi&h also positions himHher. +he geno&ided ob"e&t &annot sustain a heritageE like the a&&umulated and !ungible ob"e&t it had a past but a past is not a heritage. 2o1ereignty, on the other hand, res&ues the ;2a1age< !rom the genealogi&al isolation o! the 2la1e. 2o1ereignty has the &apa&ity to embra&e the ethi&al dilemmas o! both ;so&ial heritage o!$an&estors< and ;so&ial relations with those who li1e.< 2o1ereignty, howe1er battered or marginali=ed, is not a !orm o! ;borrowed institutionality,< it reGuires no stru&tural ad"ustment. +here!ore, the relation o! negation between Ded and White cannot be sustained as an absolute' While White e3ploitation and alienation &an no more se&ure stru&tural arti&ulation between their modalities and those o! Ded geno&ide than they &an with a&&umulation and !ungibility, they &an Band histori&ally doC se&ure su&h arti&ulation with Ded 2o1ereignty. +his pushHpull o! positional tension between 2ettler and ;2a1age< is as mu&h a marker o! modernity as is
.1
the sla1e &o!!le. From Father Ni&ente Nal1erde:s late 1,th &entury in1o&ation o! papal bulls be!ore tahualpa, ;attempting to &on1in&e the Kreat In&a$that @ope le3ander had the authority to grant dominion o1er @eru to the 2panish monar&hy< and tahualpa:s
re"oinder that ;he &ould not &on&ei1e how a !oreign priest should pretend to dispose o! territories whi&h did not belong to him< BJudy .#-.0CE to the 2&hool o! 2alaman&a:s meditations on ;2a1age< dominiumE to the late 1- th &entury tra&ing o! the 82 &onstitution along the &ontours o! IroGuois go1ernan&e BDeloria 1777E and Deloria and WilkinsCE to the emergen&e o! new !ormations o! engendered White mas&ulinity by way o! early 17 th &entury marriages to )ho&taw and )herokee ;prin&esses< BIidwell 1#4-1#0, 1#(, 1#.CE all the way up to Nine Deloria:s meditations on the myriad arti&ulations between Indigenous &osmology and the tenets o! Jung B17.7' i3-3iii, 1%-1-, -,-141, and 11--1#4C, modernity is la&ed with this network o! &onne&tions, trans!ers, and displa&ements between the ontologi&al &apa&ity o! the ;2a1age< and the ontologi&al &apa&ity o! the 2ettler. >erein, !or most meta-&ommentators on ;2a1age< ontology there lies the possibility o! as&endan&y !rom geno&ide:s ontologi&al isolation.33ii But the 2la1e &an hold out no su&h as&endant hope to the ;2a1age.< +o put a !iner point on it' What pre1ents the Indian !rom slipping into Bla&knessF Dedness regains the &oheren&e that the a priori 1iolen&e o! modernity ripped !rom herHhim by way o! its capacit" to be free from, or at least partially immune to, a&&umulation and !ungibility. 2imply enough, one has only not to be$ histori&al e3perien&e?thousands o! gain, the Indian:s immunity is not !rom were ensla1ed?but rather !rom
Indians
a&&umulation and !ungibility as positioning modalities. Indians and Whites &an be &aught
.#
in the grip o! sla1ery without trans!orming and re-ra&iali=ing the institution itsel!. But Bla&kness &annot disentangle itsel! !rom sla1eness. ;+he moment in Western history when the re&ognition o! alternati1e worlds be&omes possible?in the 2panish en&ounter with the =te&s?is also the moment when
humanism a&hie1es hegemony< BJudy -#--0C. Let us bear in mind a lesson !rom Krams&i' >egemony is not the imposition o! de&rees. >egemony is in!luen&e, leadership, and &onsentE it is the in!luen&e o! a ruling so&ial groupE the leadership o! ideas, o! an ensemble o! Guestions su&h as ;merito&ra&y< and ;indi1idualismE< and the subalterns: spontaneous &onsent to be lead by the ruling group:s ensemble o! Guestions B2assoon 101%E Krams&i (-1%, 1.--174C. ntonio Krams&i is simply wrong when he asserts, like
/ar3 and Lenin be!ore him and like 6egri and >ardt a!ter him, that relationality between subalterns and rulers who !orm a histori& blo& by way o! subaltern &onsent to the leadership o! ruling &lass Guestions is an antagonisti& relationality. +he ;2a1age<H2ettler histori& blo& !ormed by >umanism:s hegemony o1er the ;2a1age:s< ;alternati1e world< BJudy -#--0C &ould !orm the basis o! an antagonism i! not !or the !a&t that the blo&:s &apa&ity is both barred to and 1ou&hsa!ed by the 2la1e. +he blo& does not re&ogni=e the 2la1e:s world as an alternati1e or &ompeting world be&ause the 1iolen&e that produ&es the 2la1e makes it impossible to think ;2la1e< and ;world< together. s su&h, the 2la1e:s &onsent is immaterial to modernity:s ;2a1age<H>uman blo& be&ause 2la1e &onsent &annot be re&ogni=ed and in&orporated. +here!ore, the moment in Western history in whi&h humanism be&omes hegemoni& Band detrimental to the Indian:s way o! li!eC is not a moment in whi&h the 2la1e a&hie1es relationality Be1en as a subalternC e3&ept in that
.0
hisHher negati1ity stands now in relation not only to the 2ettlerH/aster, but to the ;2a1age< as well, and so be&omes all the more nonre&uperable and all the more isolated. +his state o! a!!airs is more than a little disturbing, !or it suggests that the relati1ity o! the Indian:s relati$e isolation and relati$e humanity, the pushHpull o! hisHher positional tension, is imbri&ated with?i! not dependent upon?the absolute isolation o! the 2la1e. )entral to the triangulation o! antagonisms is a stru&tural antagonism between the ;2a1age< and the 2ettler, as well as stru&tural solidarity, &apa&ity !or arti&ulation B&on!li&tual harmonyC, between the ;2a1age< and the /aster. +his solidarityHantagonism totters on that !ul&rum &alled the 2la1e.
.%
Chapter T!o The 'arcissistic Sla(e
A Culture of Politics In the Introdu&tion and the pre&eding &hapter, we ha1e seen how the aporia between Bla&k being and politi&al ontology has e3isted sin&e ensla1ement o! rab and 5uropean
!ri&ans, and how the need to &ra!t an ensemble o! Guestions through
whi&h to arri1e at an un!lin&hing paradigmati& analysis o! politi&al ontology is repeatedly thwarted in its attempts to !ind a language that &an e3press the 1iolen&e o! sla$e/making, a 1iolen&e that is both stru&tural and per!ormati1e. >umanist dis&ourse, the dis&ourse whose epistemologi&al ma&hinations pro1ide our &on&eptual !rameworks !or thinking politi&al ontology, is di1erse and &ontrary. But !or all its di1ersity and &ontrariness it is sutured by an impli&it rhetori&al &onsensus that 1iolen&e a&&rues to the >uman body as a result o! transgressions, whether real or imagined, within the 2ymboli& *rder. +hat is to say, >umanist dis&ourse &an only think a sub"e&t:s relation to 1iolen&e as a &ontingen&y and not as a matri3 that positions the sub"e&t. @ut another way, >umanism has no theory o! the sla1e be&ause it imagines a sub"e&t who has been either alienated in language BLa&anC andHor alienated !rom hisHher &artographi& and temporal &apa&ities B/ar3C. It &annot imagine an ob"e&t who has been positioned by gratuitous 1iolen&e and who has no &artographi& and temporal &apa&ities to lose?a sentient being !or whom re&ognition and in&orporation is impossible. In short, politi&al ontology, as imagined through >umanism, &an only produ&e dis&ourse that has as its !oundation alienation and e3ploitation as a grammar o! su!!ering, when what is needed B!or the Bla&k, who is always already a sla1eC
.(
is an ensemble o! ontologi&al Guestions that has as its !oundation a&&umulation and !ungibility as a grammar o! su!!ering B>artmanC. +he 1iolen&e o! the /iddle @assage and the sla1e estate B2pillersC, te&hnologies o! a&&umulation and !ungibility, re&ompose and reena&t their horrors upon ea&h su&&eeding generation o! Bla&ks. +his 1iolen&e is both gratuitous, that is, it is not &ontingent upon transgressions against the hegemony o! &i1il so&ietyE and stru&tural, in that it positions Bla&ks ontologi&ally outside o! humanity and &i1il so&iety. 2imultaneously, it renders the ontologi&al status o! humanity Bli!e itsel!C wholly dependent on &i1il so&iety:s repetition &ompulsion' the !ren=ied and !ragmented ma&hinations through whi&h &i1il so&iety reena&ts gratuitous 1iolen&e upon the Bla&k?that &i1il so&iety might know itsel! as the domain o! humans?generation a!ter generation. gain, we need a new language o! abstra&tion to e3plain this horror. +he e3planatory power o! >umanist dis&ourse is bankrupt in the !a&e o! the Bla&k. It is inadeGuate and inessential to, as well as parasiti& on, the ensemble o! Guestions whi&h the dead but sentient thing, the Bla&k, struggles to arti&ulate in a world o! li1ing sub"e&ts. /y work on !ilm, &ultural theory, and politi&al ontology marks my attempt to &ontribute to this o!ten !ragmented and &onstantly assaulted Guest to !orge a language o! abstra&tion with e3planatory powers emphati& enough to embra&e the Bla&k, an a&&umulated and !ungible ob"e&t, in a human world o! e3ploited and alienated sub"e&ts. +he imposition o! >umanism:s assumpti1e logi& has en&umbered Bla&k !ilm studies to the e3tent that it is underwritten by the assumpti1e logi& o! White or non-Bla&k !ilm studies. +his is a problem o! )ultural 2tudies writ large. In this &hapter, I want to o!!er a brie! illustration o! how we might attempt to break the theoreti&al impasse
.,
between, on the one hand, the assumpti1e logi& o! )ultural 2tudies and, on the other hand, the theoreti&al aphasia to whi&h )ultural 2tudies is redu&ed when it en&ounters the BnonContologi&al status o! the Bla&k. I will do so not by laun&hing a !rontal atta&k against White !ilm theory, in parti&ular, or e1en )ultural 2tudies broadly speaking, but by interrogating Ja&Gues La&an?be&ause La&anian psy&hoanalysis is one o! the twin pillars that shoulders !ilm theory and )ultural 2tudies.33iii /y problem with )ultural 2tudies is that when it theori=es the inter!a&e between Bla&ks and >umans it is hobbled in its attempts to BaC e3pose power relationships and BbC e3amine how relations o! power in!luen&e and shape &ultural pra&ti&e. )ultural 2tudies insists upon a grammar of suffering whi&h assumes that we are all positioned essentially by way o! the 2ymboli& *rder, what La&an &alls the wall o! language?and as su&h our potential !or stasis or &hange Bour &apa&ity !or being oppressed or !reeC is o1erdetermined by our ;uni1ersal< ability or inability to sei=e and wield dis&ursi1e weapons. +his idea &orrupts the e3planatory power o! most so&ially engaged !ilms and e1en the most radi&al line o! politi&al a&tion be&ause it produ&es a &inema and a politi&s that &annot a&&ount !or the grammar o! su!!ering o! the Bla&k?the 2la1e. +o put it bluntly, the imaginati$e labor BJared 2e3ton #440C o! &inema, politi&al a&tion, and )ultural 2tudies are all a!!li&ted with the same theoreti&al aphasia. +hey are spee&hless in the !a&e o! gratuitous 1iolen&e. +his theoreti&al aphasia is symptomati& o! a debilitated ensemble o! Guestions regarding politi&al ontology. t its heart are two registers o! imaginati1e labor. +he !irst
register is that o! des&ription, the rhetori&al labor aimed at e3plaining the way relations o! power are named, &ategori=ed, and e3plored. +he se&ond register &an be &hara&teri=ed as
..
pres&ription, the rhetori&al labor predi&ated on the notion that e1eryone &an be eman&ipated through some !orm o! dis&ursi1e, or symboli&, inter1ention. But eman&ipation through some !orm o! dis&ursi1e or symboli& inter1ention is wanting in the !a&e o! a sub"e&t position that is not a sub"e&t position?what /ar3 &alls ;a speaking implement< or what Donald Judy &alls ;an interdi&tion against sub"e&ti1ity.< In other words, the Bla&k has sentient &apa&ity but no relational &apa&ity. s an
a&&umulated and !ungible ob"e&t, rather than an e3ploited and alienated sub"e&t, the Bla&k is openly 1ulnerable to the whims o! the worldE and so is hisHher &ultural ;produ&tion.< What does it mean?what are the stakes?when the world &an whimsi&ally transpose one:s &ultural gestures, the stu!! o! symboli& inter1ention, onto another worldly good, a &ommodity o! styleF Fanon e&hoes this Guestion when he writes, ;I &ame into the world imbued with the will to !ind a meaning in things, my spirit !illed with the desire to attain to the sour&e o! the world, and then I !ound that I was an ob"e&t in the midst o! other ob"e&ts< BBSW( 147C. Fanon &lari!ies this assertion and alerts us to the stakes whi&h the optimisti& assumptions o! Film 2tudies and )ultural 2tudies, the &ounter-hegemoni& promise o! alternati1e &inema, and the eman&ipatory pro"e&t o! &oalition politi&s &annot a&&ount !or, when he writes' ;*ntology?on&e it is !inally admitted as lea1ing e3isten&e by the wayside?does not permit us to understand the being o! the bla&k$< B114C. +his presents a &hallenge to !ilm produ&tion and to !ilm studies gi1en their &ulti1ation and elaboration by the imaginati1e labor o! )ultural 2tudies, underwritten by the assumpti1e logi& o! >umanismE be&ause i! e1eryone does not possess the D6 o!
&ulture, that is, BaC time and spa&e trans!ormati1e &apa&ity, BbC a relational status with other >umans through whi&h one:s time and spa&e trans!ormati1e &apa&ity is re&ogni=ed
.-
and in&orporated, and B&C a relation to 1iolen&e that is &ontingent and not gratuitous, then how do we theori=e a sentient being who is positioned not by the D6 &ulture but by the stru&ture o! gratuitous 1iolen&eF >ow do we think outside o! the &on&eptual !ramework o! subalternity?that is, outside o! the e3planatory power o! )ultural 2tudies?and think beyond the pale o! eman&ipatory agen&y by way o! symboli& inter1entionF I am &alling !or a di!!erent &on&eptual !ramework, predi&ated not on the sub"e&te!!e&t o! &ultural per!orman&e but on the stru&ture o! politi&al ontologyE one that allows us to substitute a politics of culture for a culture of politics. +he 1alue in this rests not simply in the way it would help us re-think &inema and per!orman&e, but in the way it &an help us theori=e what is at present only intuiti1e and ane&dotal' the unbridgeable gap between Bla&k being and >uman li!e. +o put a !iner point on it, su&h a !ramework might enhan&e the e3planatory power o! theory, art, and politi&s by destroying and perhaps restru&turing, the ethi&al range o! our &urrent ensemble o! Guestions. +his has pro!ound impli&ations !or non-Bla&k !ilm studies, Bla&k !ilm studies, and !ri&an meri&an
2tudies writ large be&ause they are &urrently entangled in a multi&ultural paradigm that takes an interest in an insu!!i&iently &riti&al &omparati1e analysis?that is, a &omparati1e analysis whi&h is in pursuit o! a &oalition politi&s Bi! not in pra&ti&e then at least as an theori=ing metaphorC whi&h, by its 1ery nature, &rowds out and !ore&loses the 2la1e:s grammar o! su!!ering.
The "ilemmas of #lac$ %ilm Studies In the wake o! the post-)i1il Dights, post-Bla&k @ower ba&klash a small but growing &oterie o! Bla&k theorists ha1e returned to Fanon:s astonishing &laim that
.7
;ontology?on&e it is !inally admitted as lea1ing e3isten&e by the wayside?does not permit us to understand the being o! the bla&k man Lsi&M. For not only must the bla&k man be bla&kE but he must be bla&k in relation to the white man Lsi&M< BB2W/ 114C. +hough they do not !orm anything as ostentatious as a s&hool o! thought, and though their attitude toward and a&knowledgment o! Fanon does not make !or an easy &onsensus, the moniker !ro-@essimists neither in!ringes upon their indi1idual di!!eren&es nor e3aggerates their !idelity to a shared set o! assumptions. It should be noted that o! the >ortense 2pillers, Donald Judy, Da1id /arriott, 2aidiya >artman, !ro-@essimists? &hille /bembe,
Frant= Fanon, Iara Ieeling, Jared 2e3ton, Joy James, Lewis Kordon, Keorge 9an&ey, and *rlando @atterson?only James and @atterson are so&ial s&ientists. +he rest &ome out o! the >umanities. Fanon, o! &ourse, was a do&tor o! psy&hiatry. Deading them, and &onne&ting the dots at the le1el o! shared assumptions, rather than the &ontent o! their work or their pres&ripti1e gestures Bi! anyC it be&omes &lear that though their work holds the intelle&tual proto&ols o! un&ons&ious identi!i&ation a&&ountable to stru&tural positionality, it does so in a way that enri&hes, rather than impo1erishes, how we are able to theori=e un&ons&ious identi!i&ation. +hat is to say that though meditations on un&ons&ious identi!i&ations and pre&ons&ious interests may be their starting point Bi.e., how to &ure ;hallu&inatory whitening< LFanonM, and how to think about the Bla&kHnonBla&k di1ide that is rapidly repla&ing the Bla&kHWhite di1ide L9an&eyMC they are, in the !irst instan&e, theorists o! stru&tural positionality. 33i1 +he !ro-@essimists are theorists o! Bla&k positionality who share Fanon:s
insisten&e that, though Bla&ks are indeed sentient beings, the stru&ture o! the entire world:s semanti& !ield?regardless o! &ultural and national dis&repan&ies?;lea1ing< as
-4
Fanon would say, ;e3isten&e by the wayside<?is sutured by anti-Bla&k solidarity. 8nlike the solution-oriented, interest-based, or hybridity-dependent s&holarship so !ashionable today, !ro-@essimism e3plores the meaning o! Bla&kness not?in the !irst instan&e?as
a 1ariously and un&ons&iously interpellated identity or as a &ons&ious so&ial a&tor, but as a stru&tural position o! non-&ommuni&ability in the !a&e o! all other positionsE this meaning is non-&ommuni&able be&ause, again, as a position, Bla&kness is predi&ated on modalities o! a&&umulation and !ungibility, not e3ploitation and alienation.
8n!ortunately, neither Bla&k nor White Film +heory seems to ha1e made this shi!t !rom e3ploitation and alienation as that whi&h positions Film +heory:s ;uni1ersal< &inemati& sub"e&t to geno&ide, a&&umulation, and !ungibility as modalities o! gratuitous 1iolen&e whi&h positions the 2la1e. 6n this respect, %ilm !heor" m"stifies structural antagonisms and acts as an accomplice to social and political stabilit" . 51en the bulk o! Bla&k Film +heory is predi&ated on an assumpti1e logi& o! e3ploitation and alienation, rather than a&&umulation and !ungibility, when regarding the ontologi&al status o! the Bla&k. Film +heory, as &on&erns Bla&k meri&an &inema between 17,. and the present,
is marked by se1eral &hara&teristi&s. 6early all o! the books and arti&les are underwritten by a sense o! urgen&y regarding the tragi& history and bleak !uture o! a group o! people marked by sla1ery in the Western >emisphereE this, they would all agree, is the &onstituti1e element o! the word Black. +o this end, most are &on&erned with how &inemati& representation hastens that bleak !uture or inter1enes against it. )inema then, has pedagogi& 1alue, or, perhaps more pre&isely, pedagogi& potential. Broadly speaking, Bla&k !ilm theory hinges on these Guestions' What does &inema tea&h Bla&ks about
-1 re those lessons
Bla&ksF What does &inema tea&h Whites Band othersC about Bla&ksF
dialogi& with Bla&k liberation or with our !urther, and rapidly repetiti1e, demiseF Ki1en the period under &onsideration, the writing o! Bla&k !ilm theorists tends to share a &ommon an3iety as regards the status o! the !ilmi& te3t and the nature o! its &oheren&e. But let:s keep in mind a point that I:ll e3pand upon below' the ground o! that an3iety has to do with the !ilm:s hegemoni& 1alue?as though there are representations that will make Bla&k people sa!e, representations whi&h will put us in danger, representations whi&h will make us ideologi&ally aware and those whi&h will gi1e us !alse &ons&iousness. For many, a good deal o! emphasis is put on the interpellati1e power o! the !ilm itsel!. In Representing Blackness: 6ssues in %ilm and :ideo , Nalerie 2mith notes two dominant trends' the !irst impulse reads ;authenti&< as synonymous with ;positi1e< and seeks to supplant representations o! Bla&k las&i1iousness and ;irresponsibility< with ;respe&table< ones. +o this end, she notes Kordon @arks: !he 'earning !ree B17,-C and /i&hael 2&hul=:s Coole" .igh B17.(C. But she adds that one &an also !ind this impulse mani!est in the !ilms o! &ertain White dire&tors' 2tanley Iramer:s > ome of the Bra$e B17%7C and 0uess Who4s Coming to 3inner B17,.C, 6orman Jewison:s 6n the .eat of the #ight B17,.C, and John 2ayles: +assion %ish B177#C. +he se&ond impulse is un&on&erned with demonstrating the e3tent to whi&h Bla&k &hara&ters &an &on!orm to re&ei1ed, &lass&oded notions o! respe&tability. Dather, it eGuates authenti&ity either with the !reedom to sei=e and reanimate types pre1iously &oded as ;negati1e< Bi.e. the &riminal or the bu!!oonC or with the presen&e o! &ultural pra&ti&es rooted in Bla&k 1erna&ular e3perien&e B"a==, gospel, rootworking, religion, et&.C. Duke 5llington:s Black and !an B17#7C is an
-#
early e3ampleE then?a!ter the two Kreat /igrations?the urban-as-authenti& Bla3ploitation !ilms o! the late ,4s and the 17.4s and !inally the ;new "a&k< pi&tures o! the 1774s' #e& ;ack Cit" B1771C and (enace 66 Societ" B1770C. 2he &laims that not only has Bla&k !ilmmaking been preo&&upied with a response to negati1e 1isual representation but that this preo&&upation has o1erdetermined &riti&ism o! Bla&k !ilm, as well' i.e., identi!ying and &ritiGuing the re&urren&e o! stereotyped representations in >ollywood !ilms, Bogle:s !oms, Coons, (ulattoes* and )ripps: work ;in1entoried the reprodu&tion o! &ertain types o! Bla&k &hara&ters in 1isual media.< 2mith &alls these te3ts ;groundbreaking< but says, ;they also legitimated a binarism in the dis&ourse around strategies o! Bla&k representation that has outli1ed its use!ulness.< Furthermore, she elaborates' Kranted, despite their &onstru&tedness, media representations o! members o! histori&ally disen!ran&hised &ommunities re!le&t and, in turn, a!!e&t the li1ed &ir&umstan&es o! real people. But the relationship between media representations and ;real li!e< is nothing i! not &omple3 and dis&ontinuousE to posit a one-to-one &orresponden&e between the ines&apability o! &ertain images and the une1en distribution o! re&ourse within &ulture is to deny the elaborate ways in whi&h power is maintained and deployed B0C. +he problem with the positi1eHnegati1e debate, as 2mith and a 2e&ond Wa1e Bmy shorthandC o! Bla&k !ilm theorists like bell hooks, James 2nead, and /anthia Diawara see it, is !irst that the debate !o&uses &riti&al s&rutiny on the ways in whi&h Bla&ks ha1e been represented in >ollywood !ilms at the e3pense o! analyti&al, theoreti&al, andHor histori&al
-0
work on the history o! Bla&k-dire&ted &inema. 2e&ond, it presupposes &onsensus about what a positi1e or negati1e Bor authenti&C image a&tually is. >ardworking, middle-&lass, heterose3ual Bla&ks may be positi1e to some Bla&k 1iewers but reprehensible Bi! only !or the !a&t that they are totali=ingC to the Bla&k gay and lesbian &ommunity. +hird, ;it !o&uses 1iewer attention on the e3isten&e o! &ertain types and not on the more signi!i&ant Guestions around what kind o! narrati1e or ideologi&al work that type is meant to per!orm< B0C. Donald Bogle:s !oms, Coons, (ulattoes, (ammies, & Bucks: An 6nterpreti$e .istor" of Blacks in American %ilms re1eals the way in whi&h the image o! Bla&ks in meri&an mo1ies has &hanged and also the Bhe would say ;sho&king<C way in whi&h it has remained the same. In 17.0, Bogle:s study was the !irst history o! Bla&k per!ormers in meri&an !ilm. Bogle notes that only one other ;!ormal pie&e o! work< had been
written be!ore his, the 5nglishman @eter 6oble:s !he #egro in %ilms, written in the 17%4s. Bogle doesn:t say whether this is an arti&le or a book Bthe impression one gets is that it is an arti&leC and goes on to dismiss it as ;so mu&h the typi&al, unintentionally patroni=ing, white liberal Rtaste!ul: approa&h< B#.C. By his own admission !oms, Coons* is as mu&h a history o! the &ontributions o! Bla&k per!ormers in as it is a statement o! his own e1ol1ing aestheti& and perspe&ti1e. Bogle:s book is a&knowledged by many as a &lassi& and de!initi1e study o! Bla&k images in >ollywood. I would pre!er &lassi& and e3hausti1e?lea1ing the ad"e&ti1e ;de!initi1e< !or James 2nead:s three-times-shorter White Screens, Black 6mages. Bogle:s tome is more o! a histori&al in1entory Band we:re all grate!ul to him !or itC than a history or a historiography. I! there was a Bla&k person who had a speaking role in a >ollywood meri&an !ilm
-%
!ilm, sHhe is more than likely in1entoried in Bogle:s book. @rior to this in1entory, not only was there not a published &inemati& re&ord o! so many o! the Bla&k stars in the !irst se1enty years o! the #4th &entury, but !or many o! them, as Bogle points out in the !irst hal! o! his book, there was no publi& re&ord o! them as people' ;L+Mhe li1es o! early Bla&k per!ormers$usually ended up so tragi&ally, or so desperately un!ul!illed, with >ollywood o!ten &ontributing to their tragedies$.*ne important Bla&k a&tor ended his days as a red&ap. o! all sorts. nother be&ame a notorious >arlem pool-shark. 2ome be&ame hustlers
t least two 1i1a&ious leading ladies ended up as domesti& workers. *ther
Bla&k luminaries dri!ted into al&oholism, drugs, sui&ide, or bitter sel!-re&rimination< B%#C. Bogle:s !oms, Coons, (ulattoes, (ammies, & Bucks, +homas )ripps:s well known Black %ilm as 0enre, and Kladstone L. 9earwood:s Black %ilm as a Signif"ing +ractice: Cinema, #arration and the African/American Aesthetic !radition are three early e3amples o! what I &all First Wa1e Bla&k !ilm theory Bwith the notable e3&eption o! 9earwood who began writing almost thirty years a!ter Bogle and )rippsC and de&idedly emphati& 1oi&es that theori=e the eman&ipatoryHpedagogi& 1alue o! Bla&k &inema from the te3t to the spe&tator. +hey ;stress the need !or more positi1e roles, types, and portrayals, while pointing out the intra&table presen&e o! Rnegati1e stereotypes: in the !ilm industry:s depi&tion< o! Bla&ks B2neadC. >ere, howe1er Bagain with the notable e3&eption o! 9earwoodC semioti&, post-stru&turalist, !eminist, and psy&hoanalyti& tools o! the @oliti&al /odernists were negle&ted in their hunt !or the ;negati1e< or ;positi1e< image. 9earwood:s work is an e3&eption in that he in !a&t utili=es the anti-essentialist tools o! semioti&s and post-stru&turalism in an e!!ort to &all !or an essentialist aestheti&. !ro-)entri&,
-(
9earwood argues that Bla&k !ilm &riti&ism is best understood as a #4th-&entury de1elopment in the history o! Bla&k aestheti& thought. >e maintains that Bla&k !ilmmakers use e3pressi1e !orms and systems o! signi!i&ation that re!le&t the &ultural and histori&al priorities o! the Bla&k e3perien&e. In this way, the book resonates with mu&h o! what is ad1an&ed in Diawara:s 1olume o! edited essays Black American Cinema. >owe1er, the !ro-&entrism o! 9earwood:s book, at times, seems to try to isolate the
Bla&k !ilm:s narrational pro&esses !rom Bla&k !ilmmakers: positionality under the despotism o! White suprema&y. @art *ne o! 9earwood:s book presents an o1er1iew o! Bla&k !ilm and an introdu&tion to Bla&k !ilm &ulture. It sur1eys the emergen&e o! the Bla&k independent !ilm mo1ement !rom the perspe&ti1e o! the Bla&k &ultural tradition. +his marks a shi!t away !rom mu&h o! what takes pla&e in Diawara:s Black American Cinema, whi&h lo&ates the emergen&e o! Bla&k independent !ilm in relation to &ertain politi&al te3ts Blike Frant= Fanon:s !he Wretched of the arthC and domesti& and international struggles !or liberation and sel!-determination. 9earwood:s book gi1es a &lose reading o! !ilms at the le1el o! the diegesis, but it also betrays a kind o! &on&eptual an3iety with respe&t to the histori&al ob"e&t o! study?in other words, it &lings, an3iously, to the !ilm-as-te3t-aslegitimate ob"e&t o! Bla&k &inema. 9earwood writes' +he term Bla&k &inema des&ribes a spe&i!i& body o! !ilms produ&ed in the !ri&an Diaspora whi&h shares a &ommon problemati&$ primary
assumption is that Bla&k &ulture is syn&reti& in nature and re!le&ts hybridi=ed !orms that are uniGue to the &reoli=ation, whi&h is e1ident in !ri&an meri&as. +his pro&ess o!
meri&an &lassi&al musi& BJa==C,
-,
represents the !orging o! a new ontology and epistemology. It is the produ&t o! &ultural pra&ti&es that ha1e de1eloped !rom the e3perien&e o! sla1ery, the struggle !or !reedom !rom oppression and the re&ognition that interdependen&e is the key to our sur1i1al. B(C Later he notes' s an e3pression that emanates !rom the heart o! the !ri&an meri&an
&ommunity, good Bla&k !ilm &an represent that whi&h is most uniGue and best in Bla&k &ulture. good Bla&k !ilm &an pro1ide an intelle&tual
&hallenge and engage our &ogniti1e !a&ulties. It &an o!ten present in&isi1e &ommentary on so&ial realities. B.4C +hese two Guotes are emblemati& o! "ust how 1ague the aestheti& !oundation o! 9earwood:s attempt to &onstru&t a &anon &an be. What:s great about the book is its synthesis o! so mu&h o! the literature on Bla&k !ilm whi&h pre&edes it Bin&luding Diawara:s workC. But in trying to show how Bla&k !ilmmakers di!!er !rom White !ilmmakers and how the Bla&k !ilm as te3t is a standalone ob"e&t, 9earwood re1erts to &on&lusions general enough to apply to almost any !ilmography and, !urthermore, his &laims are underwritten by the philosophi&al, and semioti&, treatises o! 5uropean Bnot !ri&anC theoreti&ians. James 2nead, Ja&Gueline Bobo, bell hooks, Nalerie 2mith, and /anthia Diawara belong to what I &all the 2e&ond Wa1e o! Bla&k !ilm theorists who &ompli&ated the !ield through the use o! methodologies whi&h BaC e3amine the !ilm as a te3t, a dis&ourse, and BbC bring into this e3amination an e3ploration o! &inema:s sub"e&t-e!!e&ts on implied spe&tators. +he emphasis here should be on implied, !or, in most &ases, these books and
-.
arti&les are not grounded in o1ert theories and methodologies o! spe&tatorship. +he ad1an&e, i! you will, o! this body o! work o1er that o! )ripps and Bogle is two!old. First, these works &hallenged the binarism o! goodHbad, positi1eHnegati1e images o! &inema. +hus, they opened the spa&e !or the i&onography o! third positions like un-wed Bla&k women, gangsters, gays, and lesbians to enter into the Bla&k &inemati& ;!amily.< 2e&ondly, by way o! sophisti&ated te3tual analyses, they were able to show ho& Bla&k images &an be degraded and White images &an be monumentali=ed and made mythi&, rather than simply making pro&lamations BgoodHbadC based on uninterrogated 1alues Bi.e. nu&lear !amily 1alues, upward mobility 1alues, heterose3ual 1aluesC already in the room. +o put it plainly, they repla&ed so&ial 1alues as the basis o! &inemati& interpretation with semioti& &odes, and in so doing made &entral the Guestion o! ideology?mu&h as White @oliti&al /odernists were doing on the heels o! La&an. In ; 6o-+heory +heory o! )ontemporary Bla&k )inema,< +ommy Lott re!le&ts
on the parado3es inherent in the 1ery &ategory o! ;Bla&k !ilm.< >is &laim' the essentialist &riteria by whi&h a ;Bla&k< !ilm is understood to be one dire&ted by a person o! !ri&an
meri&an des&ent too !reGuently allows biologi&al &ategories to stand in !or ideologi&al ones. )on1ersely, aestheti&ally grounded de!initions o! Bla&k !ilm risk pri1ileging independent produ&tions un&riti&ally. With this dire&t politi&al &hallenge to both 9earwood and Bogle, he suggests that the notion o! +hird )inema &ould be appropriated !or Bla&ks. B2u&h appropriation resembles how White !ilm theorists de1eloped the &on&ept o! &ounter-&inema through their translations o! La&an:s writings on the psy&hoanalyti& &ure o! ;!ull spee&h<.C >ere is Lott:s appropriation o! +hird )inema !or Bla&k meri&ans?his response to the identity politi&s o! Bogle and 9earwood'
--
What makes +hird )inema third Bi.e., a 1iable alternati1e to Western &inemaC is not e3&lusi1ely the ra&ial makeup o! a !ilmmaker, a !ilm:s aestheti& &hara&ter, or a !ilm:s intended audien&e, but rather a !ilm:s politi&al orientation within the hegemoni& stru&tures o! post&olonialism. When a !ilm &ontributes ideologi&ally to the ad1an&ement o! Bla&k people, within a &onte3t o! systemati& denial, the a&hie1ement o! this politi&al ob"e&ti1e ought to &ount as a &riterion o! e1aluation on a par with any essentialist &riterion. B7#C 2e&ond Wa1e Bla&k !ilm theorists su&h as 2nead, Lott, 2mith, Diawara, and hooks were able to bring a dimension to Bla&k !ilm theory that stemmed !rom their willingness to interrogate not "ust the narrati1e in relation to time-worn tropes o! Bla&k upward mobility, but also !rom their desire to interrogate &inemati& !ormalism as well Bi.e., mise-en-s&ene, a&ousti&s, editing strategies, lightingCE in other words, &inema as an apparatusHinstitution in relation to the dereli&t institutional status o! Bla&k people. But their drawba&k was in per&ei1ing Bla&kness as ha1ing either some institutional status or ha1ing the potential !or institutional status. +hey were not in&lined to meditate on the ar&hai& persisten&e o! two key ontologi&al Gualities o! the lega&y o! sla1ery, namely, the &ondition o! absolute &apti1ity and the state o! 1irtual non-&ommuni&ation within o!!i&ial &ulture. 2imilarly, I take the re&ent &elebration o! superstars >alle Berry and Den=el Washington in both the Bla&k press and the White &riti&al establishment as symptomati& o! a re!usal or inability to &ountenan&e the long shadow o! sla1ery inso!ar as it writes a history o! the present. +hat is, the heralding o! Bla&k stardom, now disa1owing its relation to long-standing &inemati& stereotypes, is !ounded upon a belie! in not only the
-7
possibility o! redress under White suprema&y, but also its relati1e ease. )entral to this belie! is an histori&al redu&tion o! sla1ery to the relation o! &hattel and a !ormulation o! Bla&k eman&ipation and en!ran&hisement limited to the most nominal dimensions o! &i1il rights and liberties. 5mbra&ing Bla&k peopleTs agen&y as sub"e&ts o! the law Bi.e., sub"e&ts o! rights and libertiesC, and e1en their potential to a&t as or partner with en!or&ers o! the law Bi.e., Den=el Washington in !raining 3a"C, presents itsel! as an a&ting out o! the histori& parado3 o! Bla&k non-e3isten&e Bi.e., the mutable &ontinuity o! so&ial deathC. >ere, Bla&k Oa&hie1ementO in popular &ulture and the &ommer&ial arts reGuires the bra&keting out o! that non-e3isten&e in hopes o! telling a tale o! loss that is intelligible within the national imagination B>artman, ;@osition<1-.C. +he insisten&e on Bla&k personhood Brather than a radi&al Guestioning o! the terror embedded in that 1ery notionC operates most poignantly in the e3amples dis&ussed through the problemati& &oding o! gender and domesti&ity. In per&ei1ing Bla&k !olk as being ali1e, or at least ha1ing the potential to li1e in the world, the same potential that any subaltern might ha1e, the politi&s o! Bla&k !ilm theorists: aestheti& methodology and desire disa1owed the !a&t that' LBla&k !olkM are always already dead where1er you !ind them. +he nurturing ha1en o! bla&k &ulture whi&h assured memory and pro1ided a home beyond the ra1ishing growth o! &apitalism is no longer. +here &annot be any &ultural authenti&ity in resistan&e to &apitalism. +he illusion o! immaterial purity is no longer possible. It is no longer possible to be bla&k against the system. Bla&k !olk are dead, killed by their own !aith in
74
will!ully being beyond, and in spite o!, power. BDonald Judy, ;*n the Puestion o! 6igga uthenti&ity< #1#C In short, a besetting hobble o! the theori=ation itsel! is one whi&h the theory shares with many o! the Bla&k !ilms it s&rutini=es' both the !ilms and the theory tend to posit a possibility o!, and a desire !or, Bla&k e3isten&e, instead o! taking &ogni=an&e o! the ontologi&al &laim o! the so-&alled !ro-@essimists that Bla&kness is both that outside sians and LatinosC positions to
whi&h makes it possible !or White and non-White Bi.e., e3ist and, simultaneously, &ontest e3isten&e.
s su&h, not only is Bla&kness Bsla1enessC
outside the terrain o! the White Bthe masterC but it is outside the terrain o! the subaltern. 8n!ortunately, almost to a person, the !ilm theorists in Guestion see Bi.e., their assumpti1e logi& takes as gi1enC themsel1es as sub5ects?dominated, oppressed, downtrodden, redu&ed to subaltern status, but sub"e&ts nonetheless?in a world o! other sub"e&ts.331 +he assumptions that Bla&k a&ademi&s are subalterns within the a&ademy Brather than the sla1es o! their ;&olleagues<C, sla1ery was a histori&al e1ent long ended rather than the ongoing paradigm o! Bla&k BnonCe3isten&e, and that Bla&k !ilm theory &an harness the rhetori&al strategy o! simile are most prominent in the work o! 2e&ond Wa1e Bla&k !ilm theorists, who simply &an:t bear to li1e in the impasse o! being an ob"e&t and so turn to hyper-&oherent arti&ulations o! +hird )inema in order to propose a politi&s !or &inemati& interpretation. Lott, !or e3ample, short-&ir&uits what &ould otherwise be a pro!oundly i&ono&lasti& inter1ention, i.e., the proposal that the +hird World &an !ight against domination and for the return o! their land as people with a narrati1e o! repair, whereas sla1es &an only !ight against sla1ery?the for-something-else &an only be theori=ed, i! at all, in the pro&ess and at the end o! the reGuisite 1iolen&e against the
71
2ettlerH/aster, not be!ore BFanon, Wretched 0(-%(C. Despite ha1ing 1entured into the !irst un!ortunate mo1e?a need to &ommuni&ate with other groups o! people through the positing o!, and an3iety o1er, Bla&k &oheren&e?Lott:s work does make brilliant inter1entions. I:m saying, howe1er, that not only does the dri1e toward a presentation o! a Bla&k !ilm &anon show a desire to parti&ipate in the institutionality o! &inema, but the work itsel! shows a desire to parti&ipate in the institutionality o! a&ademia. nd
;parti&ipation< is a register una1ailable to sla1es. Bla&k !ilm theory, as an inter1ention, would ha1e a more destru&ti1e impa&t i! it !oregrounded the impossibility o! a Bla&k !ilm, the impossibility o! a Bla&k !ilm theory, the impossibility o! a Bla&k !ilm theorist, and the impossibility o! a Bla&k person e3&ept, and this is key, under ;&leansing< BFanonC &onditions o! 1iolen&e. *n&e real 1iolen&e is &oupled with representational ;monstrosity< B2pillers: notion o! a Bla&k embra&e o! absolute 1ulnerability, #440' ##7C, then and only then is there a possibility !or Bla&ks to mo1e !rom the status o! things to the status o!$o! what, we:ll "ust ha1e to wait and see. In thinking the Bla&k spe&tator as e3ploited rather than a&&umulated, the 2e&ond Wa1e o! Bla&k !ilm theorists !ailed to reali=e that sla1es are not subalterns, be&ause subalterns are dominated, in the ontologi&al !irst instan&e, by the ma&hinations o! hegemony Bo! whi&h &inema is a 1ital ma&hineC and then, a!ter some symboli& transgression, in other words in the se&ond instan&e, by 1iolen&e. Bla&kness is constituted by 1iolen&e in the ontologi&al !irst instan&e. +his, >ortense 2pillers reminds us, is the essen&e o! Bla&k being' ;being !or the &aptor< B2pillers C?the 1ery antithesis o! &ultural e3pression or per!ormati1e agen&y.
7#
&acan's Corrective What is the essential arrangement o! the sub"e&t:s &ondition o! un-!reedomF 51ery !ilm theorist seems to ha1e an answer Bstated or impliedC to this Guestion. +hough they per&ei1e the !ield o! these ;answers< to be o! a wide 1ariety Bwhi&h they are at the le1el o! &ontentC we &ould say that the stru&ture o! the sub"e&t:s &ondition o! un-!reedom is imagined along one or two shared 1e&tors' the dispossession and stagnation within politi&al e&onomy B/ar3C and the dispossession and stagnation within libidinal e&onomy BLa&anC?sometimes a &ombination thereo!, but rarely are both weighted eGually. +his is the rebar o! the &on&eptual !ramework o! !ilm studiesE and I would not be surprised i! it was the same !or other theori=ations that seek to BaC theori=e dispossession and BbC theori=e spe&i!i& &ultural pra&ti&es Bi.e., &ounter-&inema or per!orman&e artC as modes o! a&&ompaniment !or the redress o! said dispossession. +he remainder o! this &hapter interrogates the e!!i&a&y o! aestheti& gestures in their role as a&&ompaniments to notions o! eman&ipation within the libidinal e&onomy Bas opposed to Krams&ian emphasis on politi&al e&onomyC. +his is a high-stakes interrogation be&ause so mu&h !ilm theory BWhite, or, non-Bla&k?>uman?!ilm theoryC is in !ee to La&an and his underlying thesis on sub"e&ti1ity and psy&hi& liberation. It does not seek to dispro1e La&an:s underlying theory o! how the sub"e&t &omes into sub"e&ti1ity 1ia alienation within the Imaginary and the 2ymboli&E nor does it seek to dispro1e his understanding o! psy&hi& stagnation Bdes&ribed as egoi& monumentali=ationC as that &ondition !rom whi&h the sub"e&t Band by e3tension, the so&iusC must be liberated. Dather than attempt to dispro$e La&an:s Band, by e3tension non-Bla&k !ilm theory:sC e1iden&e and assumpti1e logi& I seek to show how, in aspiring to a paradigmati& e3planation o!
70
relations, his assumpti1e logi& mysti!ies rather than &lari!ies a paradigmati& e3planation o! relations, !or it has a 1i1id a&&ount o! the conflicts between genders, or, more broadly, between nar&issisti& &ontemporaries and &ontemporaries who ha1e learned to li1e in a de&onstru&ti1e relation to the ego?that is to say, it o!!ers a reliable toolbo3 !or rigorously e3amining intra->uman &on!li&ts Band !or proposing the aestheti& gestures, i.e., types o! !ilmi& pra&ti&es, whi&h either e3a&erbate L>ollywood !ilmsM or redress L&ounter-&inemaM these &on!li&tsC but it has no &apa&ity to gi1e a paradigmati& e3planation o! the stru&ture o! antagonisms between Bla&ks and >umans. I argue that the &laims and &on&lusions whi&h La&anian psy&hoanalysis Band by e3tension non-Bla&k !ilm theoryC makes regarding dispossession and su!!ering are BaC insu!!i&ient to the task o! delineating Bla&k dispossession and su!!ering, and BbC parasitic on that 1ery Bla&k dispossession and su!!ering !or whi&h it has no words.
In ;+he Fun&tion and Field o! 2pee&h and Language in @sy&hoanalysis< B critsC, La&an illustrates what remains to this day one o! the most brilliant and &omprehensi1e s&enarios !or attaining what some belie1e to be the only bit o! !reedom we will e1er know B2il1erman, World SpectatorsC. La&an:s 1alue to psy&hoanalysis in parti&ular and &riti&al theory in general was that he remo1ed !ear and loathing !rom the word ;alienation.< lienation, !or La&an, is what literall" makes sub"e&ti1ity possible. 8nlike Bre&ht, who saw alienation Bsome pre!er ;distan&ing<C as the ideologi&al e!!e&t o! !alse &ons&iousness, La&an saw alienation as the ne&essary &onte3t, the grid whi&h makes human relations possible and di1ides the world between those with so&iability Bsub"e&tsC and those without it Binfans<&hildren, say, prior to eighteen months o! ageC. But on the grid o!
7%
so&iability, howe1er, it is possible to imagine that one e3ists in relation to signi!i&ation as though words were windows on the world?or, worse yet, the 1ery things they signi!y. +hese, o! &ourse are the spee&h a&ts through whi&h the sub"e&t monumentali=es hisHher presen&e in disa1owal o! the 1ery loss o! presen&e Bla&kC whi&h alienation has imposed upon himHher in e3&hange !or a world with others. +his is the meaning o! ;empty spee&h,< $whi&h La&an &onsistently de!ines in opposition to !ull spee&h. L5mpty spee&hM is predi&ated upon the belie! that we &an be spatially and temporally present to oursel1es, and that language is a tool !or e!!e&ting this sel!-possession. But instead o! leading to sel!-possession, empty spee&h is the agen&y o! an ;e1er-growing dispossession.< When we speak empty spee&h, we li!t oursel1es out o! time, and !ree=e oursel1es into an ob"e&t or ;statue< BIbid. %0C. We thereby undo oursel1es as sub"e&ts. B2il1erman, World Spectators ,(-,,C 2il1erman goes on to e3plain empty spee&h:s ;re!usal o! symboli=ation in a se&ond sense LasM what the analysand literally or metaphori&ally utters when he responds to the !igural !orms through whi&h the past returns as i! their 1alue and meaning were immanent within them< B,,C. In short, the analysand &ollapses the signi!ier with that whi&h is signi!ied and in so doing seeks to ;Renti!y: or R!ill up: the signi!ier?to make it identi&al with itsel!< B,,C. +his enti!i&ation Bor monumentali=ationC is the sub"e&t:s re!usal to surrender to temporality, ;the !a&t that e1ery psy&hi&ally important e1ent depends !or its 1alue and meaning upon re!eren&e to an earlier or a later one. +he analysand also !ails to see that
7(
with his ob"e&t-&hoi&es and other libidinal a&ts he is speaking a language o! desire. 5mpty spee&h is what the analysand &lassi&ally utters during the early stages o! analysis< B,,C. But "ust as language, on the grid o! alienation, &an be assumed as the method through whi&h signi!iers are enti!ied and egos are monumentali=ed, so that the sub"e&t is ;shielded< !rom the !a&t o! alienation, so language &an also be that agen&y through whi&h the sub"e&t learns to li1e in a de&onstru&ti1e relation to this alienation?learns to li1e with la&k. Dather than monumentali=ing the image o! a present and uni!ied sel!, the sub"e&t &an learn instead to comprehend the s"mbolic relation that has positioned him=her. +he later stages o! the analysis ideally bring the sub"e&t to !ull spee&h. +he analysand engages in !ull spee&h when he understands that his literal and metaphori& words are in !a&t signi!iers?neither eGui1alent to things, nor &apable o! saying ;what< they are, but rather a retroa&tion to an anti&ipation o! other signi!iers. Full spee&h is also spee&h in whi&h the analysand re&ogni=es within what he has pre1iously taken to be the ;here and now< the operations o! a 1ery personal system o! signi!i&ation?the operations, that is, o! what La&an &alls his ;primar" language.< B,,C s a description of suffering and a prescription for emancipation !rom su!!ering, the La&anian notion o! !ull spee&h was a brake on what, in the 17(4s, was be&oming psy&hoanalysis:s slippery slope toward idealism and essentialism. La&an &ited three basi& problems with the psy&hoanalysis o! the 17(4s' ob"e&t relations, 331i the role o! &ounter trans!eren&e, and the pla&e o! !antasy BJonathan Lee 0#-00C. In all o! them, he noted ;the temptation !or the analyst to abandon the !oundation o! spee&h, and this pre&isely in areas
7,
where, be&ause they border on the ine!!able, its use would seem to reGuire a more than usually &lose e3amination< B crits 0,C. +he ;wall o! language< is a wall that, !or La&an, &annot be penetrated by the analysand e3&ept in hisHher a-sub"e&ti1e state, that is, either as an infans Bthat state o! being prior to alienation in the 2ymboli&C or as a &orpse Bthat state o! being after alienation?DeathC. Within the analyti& &onte3t, there is nothing meaning!ul on the other side o! language. ;Beyond this wall, there is nothing !or us but outer darkness. Does this mean that we are entirely masters o! the situationF )ertainly not, and on this point Freud has beGueathed us his testament on the negati1e therapeuti& rea&tion< B crits 141C. +he analysand "ettisons hisHher pro"e&ted and imaginary relation to the analyst and &omes to understand where sHhe is !inally in relation to the analyst Bwhi&h is outside o! herHhimsel!C and !rom the pla&e o! the analyst Ba stand-in !or the 2ymboli& *rderCE sHhe &omes to hear hisHher own language and be&omes an auditor in relation to hisHher own spee&h. ;+he analysis &onsists o! getting him to be&ome &ons&ious o! his relations, not with the ego o! the analyst, but with all these *thers who are his true interlo&utors, whom he hasn:t re&ogni=ed.< ll these *thers are none other than the La&anian &ontemporaries or, in the
1erna&ular most salient to the sla1e, Whites and their "unior partners in &i1il so&iety? >umans positioned by the 2ymboli& *rder. ;It is a matter o! the sub"e&t progressi1ely dis&o1ering whi&h *ther he is truly addressing, without knowing it, and o! him progressi1ely assuming the relations o! trans!eren&e at the pla&e where he is, and where at !irst he didn:t know he was< BLa&an, Seminar 66 #%,C.< gain, there is no lo&ating o!
sub"e&ti1ity within onesel!. La&an is &lear' one &annot ha1e a relationship with onesel!. Instead, one &omes to understand one:s e3isten&e, one:s pla&e outside o! onesel!, and it is
7.
in &oming to understand one:s pla&e outside o! onesel! that one &an hear onesel! and assume one:s spee&h?in other words, assume one:s desire. Finally, La&an was alarmed at how psy&hoanalysis was be&oming more and more &on&erned with e3ploring the analysand:s !antasies?a pra&ti&e whi&h, again, subordinated e3ploration o! the 2ymboli& to e3ploration o! the Imaginary BLee 00-0%C. +he Imaginary relation puts the analysand in an identi!i&atory relation to the other, whether that other be hisHher own image, an e3ternal representation, or an outside other. +his relation is one in whi&h the analysand allows the other to ha1e only a !ra&tion o! ;otherness<' the analysand &an barely apprehend the otherness o! the other, be&ause the psy&he says, ;that:s me.< But this is the worse kind o! ruse and indu&es !eelings o! disarray and insu!!i&ien&y, putting the analysand in an aggressi1e relation o! ri1alry to the other, !or this BimaginaryC other o&&upies the pla&e the analysand wants to o&&upy. +hrough su&h pro&esses, analysis intensi!ies rather than diminishes the analysand:s nar&issism. Ki1en that so many psy&hoanalysts in 5ngland and meri&a e3tolled the 1irtues
o! an analysandHanalyst en&ounter whi&h &ulminated in an emboldened ego that !orti!ied the monument o! a strengthened psy&he able, as these &laims would ha1e it, to bra&e itsel! against the 1ery onslaughts whi&h had produ&ed its &rippling !rustrationE and gi1en the rhetori&al s&a!!olding o! &ommon sense and, so it seemed, empiri&al ;e1iden&e< o! &ured analysands, what made La&an so stead!ast in his &on1i&tion to the &ontraryF +his ego, whose strength our theorists now de!ine by its strength to bear !rustration, is !rustration in its essen&e. 6ot !rustration o! a desire o! the sub"e&t, but !rustration by an ob"e&t in whi&h his desire is alienated and
7-
whi&h the more it is elaborated, the more pro!ound the alienation !rom his 5ouissance be&omes !or the sub"e&t B crits %#C$L+Mo identi!y the ego with the dis&ipline o! the sub"e&t is to &on!use imaginary isolation with the mastery o! the instin&ts. +his lays open to error o! "udgment in the &ondu&t o! the treatment' su&h as trying to rein!or&e the ego in many neuroses &aused by its o1er !or&e!ul stru&ture?and that is a dead end. B crits 14,C +he pro&ess o! !ull spee&h, then, is a pro&ess that &ataly=es disorder and de&onstru&tion, rather than order and unity, ;the monumental &onstru&t o! Lthe analysand:sM nar&issism< B crits %4C. +o 5go @sy&hology:s pra&ti&e o! !orti!ying the ego in an e!!ort to end the !rustration o! neurosis, La&an proposed a re1olutionary analyti& en&ounter in whi&h the analysand be&omes' engaged in an e1er growing dispossession o! that being o! his, &on&erning whi&h?by dint o! sin&ere portraits whi&h lea1e its idea no less in&oherent, o! re&ti!i&ations that do not su&&eed in !reeing its essen&e, o! stays and de!enses that do not pre1ent his statue !rom tottering, o! nar&issisti& embra&es that be&ome like a pu!! o! air in animating it?he ends up by re&ogni=ing that this being has ne1er been anything more than his &onstru&t in the imaginary and that this &onstru&t disappoints all &ertainties$ For in this labor whi&h he undertakes to re&onstru&t for another, he redis&o1ers the fundamental alienation Lmy emphasisM whi&h made him &onstru&t it like another, and whi&h has always destined it Lthe egoM to be taken !rom him by another. B%#C
77
+his notion o! ;labor< whi&h the analysand ;undertakes to re&onstru&t for another< and thereby redis&o1ers ;the !undamental alienation whi&h made him &onstru&t it like another, and whi&h has always destined it Lthe egoM to be taken !rom him by another< returns us to the thorny issue o! ;&ontemporaries.< 6ow we must take it up, not in a &onte3t o! uni1ersal, unra&ed sub"e&ts BWhitesC nor in a &ulturally modi!ied &onte3t o! spe&i!i& identities B;dark< Whites and non-Bla&ksC, but rather in a &onte3t o! positional polarity whi&h stru&tures &i1il so&iety and its nether region?namely, the polarity o! >uman and Bla&k, the &onte3t o! masters and sla1es. +he analyti& s&hema o! Ja&Gues La&an:s breakthrough known as ;!ull spee&h< posits a sub"e&t whose su!!ering is produ&ed by alienation in the image o! the other, or &aptation within Imaginary, and whose !reedom must be produ&ed by alienation in the language o! the other, or interpellation within the 2ymboli&. +he sub"e&t is &onstituted as sub"e&t proper only through a relation to the other. For La&an, alienation, either in the Imaginary or in the 2ymboli&, is the modality produ&ti1e o! sub"e&ti1ity !or all sentient beings. In other words, sub"e&ti1ity is a dis&ursi1e, or signi!ying, pro&ess o! be&oming. @sy&hi& disorder, by way o! the death dri1e, is that me&hanism in La&anian analysis that brings the analysand to hisHher understanding o! himHhersel! as a 1oid. For La&an, the problems o! spee&h and the death dri1e are relatedE the relationship presents the irony ;o! two &ontrary terms' instin&t in its most &omprehensi1e a&&eptation being the law that go1erns in its su&&ession a &y&le o! beha1ior whose goal is the a&&omplishment o! a 1ital !un&tionE and death appearing !irst o! all as the destru&tion o! li!e< B crits 141C. But La&an is &lear that though death is implied, it is li!e through language whi&h is the aim o! analysis. B+his too bears hea1ily on what, I argue below, is the po1erty o! !ull
144 ,
spee&h:s politi&al or eman&ipatory promise.C *nly by being alienated within the Big
language, or the 2ymboli& *rder, does the moi, small a or ego, &ome to be the 5e, the sub"e&t o! la&k, the sub"e&t o! a 1oid. @rior to the analysand:s reali=ing !ull spee&h, sHhe pro"e&ts onto the analyst all o! the !antasms whi&h &onstitute hisHher ego. +he eman&ipatory pro&ess o! La&an:s psy&hoanalyti& en&ounter is one in whi&h the analysand passes !rom positing the analyst as the small a, to one in whi&h the analyst o&&upies, !or the analysand, the position o! the Big , a position synonymous with language itsel!. For La&an, these two mo1es &omplement ea&h other. It bears repeating that this intersub"e&ti1ity, alienation in the other, e3ists whether the sub"e&t grasps it or not, whether or not sHhe is the sub"e&t o! !ull spee&h or empty spee&h. But we are still le!t with alienation as the stru&turing modality !or sub"e&ti1ity. Whether, by way o! description, we posit the analysand as being either alienated in the Imaginary Bego, small aC or as being alienated in the 2ymboli& Blanguage as stru&ture, as the un&ons&ious o! the *therC ? or e1en i!, in addition, we re&ogni=e the !a&t that !ull spee&h as prescription demands alienation within the 2ymboli&?we remain le!t with the !a&t that, where becoming is &on&erned, alienation is sub"e&ti1ity:s essential modality o! e3isten&e. La&an, an essential grammar o! politi&al ontology. s I stated abo1e, I am not arguing that the un&ons&ious does not e3ist. 6or am I &laiming that sentient beings, whether >uman or Bla&k, are not indeed alienated in the Imaginary and the 2ymboli&. I am arguing that whereas alienation is an essential grammar underpinning >uman relationality, it is an important but ultimately inessential grammar when one attempts to think the stru&tural interdi&tion against Bla&k re&ognition and in&orporation331ii. In other words, alienation is a grammar underwriting all manner o! lienation is, !or
141
relationality, whether nar&issisti& Begoi&, empty spee&hC or liberated B!ull spee&hC. But it is not a grammar that underwrites, mu&h less e3plains, the absen&e o! relationality.
%anon and %ull Speech Ja&Gues La&an and Frant= Fanon grappled with the Guestion &hat does it mean to be freeF and its &orollary &hat does it mean to suffer> at the same moment in history. +o say that they both appeared at the same time is to say that they both ha1e, as their intelle&tual &ondition o! possibility, Fran&e:s brutal o&&upation o! lgeria. It is not my
intention to dwell on La&an:s la&k o! politi&al a&ti1ism or to roll out Fanon:s re1olutionary war re&ord. /y intention is to interrogate the breadth o! !ull spee&h:s descripti$e uni1ersality and the depth o! its prescripti$e &ure?to interrogate its !oundation by staging an en&ounter between, on the one hand, La&an and his interlo&utors and, on the other hand, Fanon and his interlo&utors. +o this end alone do I note the two men:s relation to Fren&h &olonialism, as the !or&e o! that relation is !elt in their te3ts. Frant= Fanon:s psy&hoanalyti& des&ription o! Bla&k neurosis, ;hallu&inatory whitening,< and his pres&riptions !or a &ure, ;de&oloni=ation< and ;the end o! the world< BBSW( 7,C resonate with La&an:s &ategories o! empty spee&h and !ull spee&h. +here is a monumental disa1owal o! emptiness in1ol1ed in hallu&inatory whitening, and disorder and death &ertainly &hara&teri=e de&oloni=ation. For Fanon the trauma o! Bla&kness lies in its absolute *therness in relation to Whites. +hat is, White people make Bla&k people by re&ogni=ing only their skin &olor. Fanon:s Bla&k patient is ;o1erwhelmed$by the wish to be white< BBSW( 144C. But unlike La&an:s diagnosis o! the analysand, Fanon makes a dire&t and sel!-&ons&ious &onne&tion between his patient:s hallu&inatory
14#
whitening and the stability o! White so&iety. I! Fanon:s te3ts rat&het 1iolently and unpredi&tably between the body o! the sub"e&t and the body o! the so&ius, it is be&ause Fanon understands that ;outside LhisM psy&hoanalyti& o!!i&e, Lhe mustM in&orporate LhisM &on&lusions into the &onte3t o! the world.< +he room is too small to &ontain the
en&ounter. ; s a psy&hoanalyst, I should help my patient to be&ome &ons&ious o! his un&ons&ious and abandon his attempts at a hallu&inatory whitening$< >ere we ha1e a dismantling o! all the !antasms that &onstitute the patient:s ego and whi&h sHhe pro"e&ts onto the analyst that resonates with the pro&ess o! attaining what La&an &alls !ull spee&h. But Fanon takes this a step !urther, !or not only does he want the analysand to surrender to the 1oid o! language, but also to ;a&t in the dire&tion o! a &hange$with respe&t to the real sour&e o! the &on!li&t?that is, toward the so&ial stru&tures< BBSW( 144C. s a psy&hoanalyst, Fanon does not dispute La&an:s &laim that su!!ering and !reedom are produ&ed and attained, respe&ti1ely, in the realm o! 2ymboli&E but this, !or Fanon, is only hal! o! the modality o! e3isten&e. +he other hal! o! su!!ering and !reedom is 1iolen&e. By the time Fanon has wo1en the des&ription o! his patient:s &ondition Bi.e., his own li!e as a Bla&k do&tor in Fran&eC into the pres&ription o! a &ure Bhis &ommitment to armed struggle in lgeriaC, he has e3tended the logi& o! disorder and death !rom the
2ymboli& into the Deal. De&oloni=ation, whi&h sets out to &hange the order o! the world, is, ob1iously, a program o! &omplete disorder$LIMt is the meeting o! two !or&es, opposed to ea&h other by their 1ery nature$+heir !irst en&ounter was marked by 1iolen&e and their e3isten&e together$was &arried on by dint o! a great array o! bayonets and &annons$L+Mhis narrow world,
140
strewn with prohibitions, &an only be &alled in Guestion by absolute 1iolen&e. B!he Wretched of the arth 0,-0.C +his is be&ause the stru&tural, or absolute, 1iolen&e or what Loi& Wa&Guant &alls the ;&ar&eral &ontinuum,< is not a Bla&k e)perience but a &ondition o! Bla&k ;li!e.< It remains &onstant, paradigmati&ally, despite &hanges in its ;per!orman&e< o1er time? sla1e ship, /iddle @assage, sla1e estate, Jim )row, the ghetto, the prison industrial &omple3.331iii +here is an un&anny &onne&tion between Fanon:s absolute 1iolen&e and La&an:s Deal. +hus, by e3tension, the grammar o! su!!ering o! the Bla&k itsel! is on the le1el o! the Deal. In this emblemati& passage, Fanon does !or 1iolen&e what La&an does !or alienation' namely, he remo1es the negati1e stigma su&h a term would otherwise in&ur in the hands o! theorists and pra&titioners who seek &oheren&e and stability. >e also raises within La&an:s s&hema o! su!!ering and !reedom a &ontradi&tion between the idea o! uni1ersal un-ra&ed &ontemporaries and two !or&es opposed to ea&h other, whose !irst en&ounter and e3isten&e together is marked by 1iolen&e. In short, he di1ides the world not between &ured &ontemporaries and un&ured &ontemporaries, but between &ontemporaries o! all sorts and sla1es. >e lays the groundwork !or a theory o! antagonism o1er and abo1e a theory o! &on!li&t. I! La&an:s !ull spee&h is not, in essen&e, a ;&ure< but a pro&ess promoting psy&hi& disorder, through whi&h the sub"e&t &omes to know herHhimsel!, not as a stable relation to a true ;sel!<?the Imaginary?but as a 1oid &onstituted only by language, a be&oming toward death in relation to the *ther?the 2ymboli&?then we will see how this symboli& sel!-&an&ellation B2il1erman, (ale Sub5ecti$it"*,0-,(, 1#,-1#-C is possible only when the sub"e&t and ;his &ontemporaries< BLa&an, crits %.C are White or >uman.33i3 +he
14%
pro&ess o! !ull spee&h rests on a tremendous disa1owal whi&h re/monumentali=es the BWhiteC ego be&ause it sutures, rather than &an&els, !ormal stagnation by !orti!ying and e3tending the interlo&utory li!e o! intra->uman dis&ussions. I am arguing that B1C &i1il so&iety, the terrain upon whi&h the analysand per!orms !ull spee&h, is always already a !ormally stagnated monumentE and B#C the pro&ess by whi&h !ull spee&h is per!ormed brokers simultaneously two relations !or the analysand, one new and one old, respe&ti1ely. +he pro&ess by whi&h !ull spee&h is per!ormed brokers a BnewC deconstructi$e relationship between the analysand and hisHher !ormal stagnation &ithin &i1il so&iety and a Bpre-e3isting orC reconstructi$e relationship between the analysand and the !ormal stagnation that constitutes &i1il so&iety. Whereas La&an was aware o! how language ;pre&edes and e3&eeds us< B2il1erman #444' 1(.C, he did not ha1e Fanon:s awareness o! how 1iolen&e also pre&edes and e3&eeds Bla&ks. n awareness o! this would ha1e disturbed the &oheren&e o! the
ta3onomy implied by the personal pronoun ;us.< +he tra"e&tory o! La&an:s !ull spee&h there!ore is only able to make sense o! 1iolen&e as &ontingent phenomena, the e!!e&ts o! ;transgressions< Ba&ts o! rebellion or re!usalC within a 2ymboli& *rder. >ere, 1iolen&e, at least in the !irst instan&e, is neither sense-less BgratuitousC nor is it a matri3 o! human BimCpossibility' it is what happens a!ter some !orm o! brea&h o&&urs in the realm o! signi!i&ation. +hat is to say, it is &ontingent. Implied in this gesture toward La&an:s tra"e&tory on 1iolen&e are se1eral Guestions regarding !ull-spee&h. First, &an La&anian !ull-spee&h, so wedded as it is to the notion that there is no world to apprehend beyond the realm o! signi!i&ation, adeGuately theori=e those bodies that emerge !rom dire&t relations o! !or&eF Whi&h is to ask, is the logi& o!
14(
!ull spee&h too imbri&ated in the institutionality o! anti-Bla&kness to be des&ripti1ely or pres&ripti1ely adeGuate !or thinking Bla&k positionalityF In trying to read >uman su!!ering and its e!!e&ts Bwhat La&an &alls empty spee&hC as well as >uman !reedom and its e!!e&ts Bwhat he &alls !ull spee&hC through the !igure o! a Bla&kened position &an one simply assume that, despite relations o! pure !or&e whi&h distinguish one ;epidermal s&hema< BBSW( 11#C !rom another, relations o! signi!i&ation ha1e the power to &ast webs o! analogy between su&h disparate positions, webs o! analogy strong enough to &ir&ums&ribe relations o! pure !or&e, so that all sentient beings &an be seen as ea&h others: ;&ontemporaries<F @ut another way' is !ull spee&h !or the master !ull spee&h !or the sla1eF What would it mean !or a master to li1e in a de&onstru&ti1e relation to his moiF Is ;liberated master< an o3ymoron or, worse yet, simply redundantF +hrough what agen&y B1olitionF willFC does a sla1e enti!y the signi!ierF Whi&h is to ask, &an there be su&h a thing as a nar&issisti& sla1eF *r, what is !ull spee&h !or a sla1eF La&an seems to take !or granted the uni1ersal rele1an&e o! B1C the analyti& en&ounter, B#C the &entrality o! signi!i&ation, and B0C the possibility o! ;&ontemporaries.< But &an a Bla&kened position take up these &oordinates with merely a !ew &ulturally spe&i!i& modi!i&ations, or is to bla&ken these &oordinates pre&ipitous o! &rises writ largeF I &ontend that the web o! analogy &ast between the sub"e&t o! analysis and her ;&ontemporaries,< in the pro&ess o! !ull spee&h, is rent asunder by insertion o! the Bla&k position, who is less a site o! sub"e&ti!i&ation and more a site o! desub"e&ti!i&ation?a ;spe&ies< BFanonE >artmanC o! ;absolute dereli&tion< BFanonC, a hybrid o! ;person and propertyartmanC, and a body that magneti=es bullets B/artinot and 2e3tonC. I intend to s&ale upward Bto the so&iusC the impli&ations o! La&anian !ull spee&h to illustrate its
14,
pla&e as a strategy whi&h !orti!ies and e3tends the interlo&utory li!e o! &i1il so&iety, and s&ale downward Bto the bodyC the impli&ations o! Fanonian de&oloni=ation to illustrate the in&ommensurability between the Bla&k !lesh and the body o! the analysand. Full spee&h is a strategy o! psy&hi& disorder, within >uman limits, and de&oloni=ation is a strategy o! &omplete disorder, without any limits. 333 +he impli&ations o! this dilemma are e3tremely high, !or it suggests that La&anian !ull spee&h?like Film +heory, so mu&h o! whi&h stands on its shoulders?is an a&&ompli&e to so&ial stability, despite its &laims to the &ontrary. t the &ru3 o! this &ritiGue is BaC the unbridgeable gap between the ethi&al stan&e o! La&anian !ull spee&h and the ethi&al stan&e o! Fanonian de&oloni=ation?in other words, the method by whi&h La&anian !ull spee&h intensi!ies a disa1owal o! a 1iolen&estru&turing matri3?and BbC the Guestion o! the analysand:s ;&ontemporaries,< the language o! whi&h, a&&ording to La&an, the analysand speaks when sHhe shatters the monuments o! the ego:s ;!ormal stagnation.< +o what e3tent &an the analysand be&ome the sla1e:s &ontemporary as the latter seeks to shatters &i1il so&ietyF +o whi&h &all to arms would the analysand be &ompelled to respondF What &onstitutes the ground on whi&h the analysand is able to do the de&onstru&ti1e work o! !ull spee&hF /y &ontention is that prior to, and &ontemporaneous with, the analyti& en&ounter, the Bla&k body ;labors< as an ensla1ed hybridity o! person and property B>artmanC so that the analysand may ;labor< as a liberated sub"e&t. Furthermore, it is the matri3 o! 1iolen&e whi&h di1ides the ensla1ed !rom the unensla1ed, "ust as the matri3 o! alienation di1ides the infans !rom the sub"e&t' 1iolen&e 1ones the Bla&k whereas alienation =ones the >uman. But whereas ;be&oming towards death,<
14.
whi&h results !rom the La&anian analyti& en&ounter, allows the analysand to de&onstru&t hisHher monumentali=ed presen&e in the !a&e o! alienation and a li!e papered o1er by language, analysis additionally allows the analysand to take !or granted Bbe obli1ious toC the matri3 o! 1iolen&e whi&h =oned his terrain o! ;generali=ed trust< BBarrettC, that terrain euphemisti&ally re!erred to as ;&i1il< so&iety. ;Kenerali=ed trust< Bra&iali=ed WhitenessC, along with relati1e stability, are the pre&onditions !or the analyti& en&ounter, or any other ;&i1il< en&ounter. Fanon makes &lear how some are =oned, a priori, beyond the borders o! generali=ed trust' +his world di1ided into &ompartments, this world &ut in two is inhabited by two di!!erent spe&ies$When you e3amine at &lose Guarters the &olonial &onte3t, it is e1ident that what par&els out the world is to begin with the !a&t o! belonging to a gi1en race, a gi1en species Lmy emphasisM. In the &olonies the e&onomi& substru&ture is also a superstru&ture. +he &ause is the &onseGuen&eE you are ri&h be&ause you are white, you are white be&ause you are ri&h. B07-%4C When I say that the analysand &an take !or granted the matri3 o! 1iolen&e whi&h =oned his terrain o! ;generali=ed trust,< I mean that unless the world is par&eled out? unless there are two spe&ies?sHhe &annot &ommen&e the work o! be&oming toward death ?nor &ould La&an ha1e theori=ed the work. In short, 1iolen&e?the ;spe&ies< di1ision, the =oning, o! the ensla1ed and the unensla1ed?is the condition of possibilit" upon &hich sub5ecti$it" Bempty-, !ull spee&h paradigm' the Imaginary 1s. 2ymboli& diale&ti&C &an be theori=ed Bi.e., the writing o! critsC and per!ormed Bthe analyti& en&ounterC. But this theori1ation and performance, b" ignoring its relation to the species 1oning &hich
14-
,labors- for its condition of possibilit", deconstructs the monuments of the anal"sand4s ego, &hile simultaneousl" fortif"ing and e)tending the ramparts of ci$il societ" &hich circumscribed those monuments. 6n short, the tra5ector" of disorder to&ard full speech deconstructs that &hich prohibits relations bet&een the anal"sand and his ,contemporaries- &hile simultaneousl" entif"ing and unif"ing that &hich prohibits relations bet&een species 7bet&een masters and sla$es C. Despite La&an:s radi&al inter1entions against the pra&ti&al limitations o! *b"e&t Delations and the ideologi&al pit!alls o! 5go @sy&hology, the pro&ess o! !ull spee&h is nonetheless !oundational to the 1erti&al integration o! anti-Bla&kness. I said abo1e that I wanted to s&ale upward the impli&ations o! La&anian !ull spee&h to illustrate its pla&e as a strategy whi&h !orti!ies and e3tends the interlo&utory li!e o! &i1il so&iety, and s&ale downward the impli&ations o! Fanonian de&oloni=ation to the le1el o! the body to illustrate the in&ommensurability between Bla&k !lesh and the body o! the analysand?how those two positions subtend ea&h other but, like a plane to an angle, mutually &onstru&t their triangulated &onte3t. Be!ore unpa&king, at the le1el o! the body, what this relationship makes BimCpossible, I am &ompelled to e3tend the &artography o! this 1ery intimate en&ounter, that is, to rat&het the s&ale up !rom the body to the so&ius?where &i1il so&iety subtends its nether region.
Civil Societ( and Its "iscontents s noted abo1e, be!ore the ;healthy< ran&or and repartee that represent the &ornerstone o! &i1il so&iety Bbe it in the boardroom, at the polling booth, in the bedroom, or on the analyst:s &ou&hC &an get underway, &i1il so&iety must be relati1ely stable. But
147
how is this stability to be a&hie1ed, and !or whomF For Bla&k people, &i1i& stability is a state o! emergen&y. Frant= Fanon BWretchedC and /artinot and 2e3ton B;+he 1ant-
garde o! White 2uprema&y<C e3plain why the stability o! &i1il so&iety is a state o! emergen&y !or Bla&ks. Fanon writes o! =ones. For our purposes, we want to bear in mind the !ollowing' the =one o! the >uman Bor non-Bla&k?notwithstanding the !a&t that Fanon is a little to loose and liberal with his language when he &alls it the =one o! the Lpost&olonial nati1eMC has ;rules< within the =one that allow !or e3isten&e o! >umanist intera&tion?i.e., La&an:s psy&hoanalyti& en&ounter andHor Krams&i:s proletarian struggle. +his stems !rom the di!!erent paradigms o! =oning mentioned earlier in terms o! Bla&k =ones B1oid o! >umanist intera&tionC and White =ones Bthe Guintessen&e o! >umanist intera&tionC.333i +he =one where the nati1e li1es is not &omplementary to the =one inhabited by the settler. +he two =ones are opposed, but not in the ser1i&e o! higher unity. *bedient to the rules o! pure ristotelian logi&, they both
!ollow the prin&iple o! re&ipro&al e3&lusi1ity. 6o &on&iliation is possible, !or o! the two terms, one is super!luous$+he settler:s town is a town o! white people, o! !oreigners. BWretched 0--07C +his is the basis o! his assertion that two =ones produ&e two di!!erent ;spe&ies.< +he phrase ;not in ser1i&e o! higher unity< dismisses any kind o! diale&ti&al optimism !or a !uture synthesis. Fanon:s spe&i!i& &onte3t does not share the same histori&al or national &onte3t o! /artinot and 2e3ton, but the settlerHnati1e dynami&, the di!!erential =oning and the gratuity Bas opposed to &ontingen&yC o! 1iolen&e whi&h a&&rue to the bla&kened position, are shared by the two te3ts.
114
/artinot and 2e3ton assert the prima&y o! Fanon:s /ani&hean =ones Bwithout the promise o! higher unityC e1en when !a&ed with the !a&ti&ity o! meri&an integration' +he di&hotomy between white ethi&s Lthe dis&ourse o! &i1il so&ietyM and its irrele1an&e to the 1iolen&e o! poli&e pro!iling is not diale&ti&alE the two are in&ommensurable whene1er one attempts to speak about the paradigm o! poli&ing, one is !or&ed ba&k into a dis&ussion o! parti&ular e1ents?high pro!ile homi&ides and their related &ourtroom battles, !or instan&e Lemphasis mineM. B/artinot and 2e3ton ,C It makes no di!!eren&e that in the 82 the ;&asbah< and the ;5uropean< =one are laid one on top o! the other, be&ause what is being asserted here is the s&hemati& inter&hangeability between Fanon:s settler so&iety and 2e3ton and /artinot:s poli&ing paradigm. BWhites in meri&a are now so settled they no longer &all themsel1es settlers.C
For Fanon, it is the poli&eman and soldier Bnot the dis&ursi1e, or the hegemoni& agentsC o! &olonialism that make one town White and the other Bla&k. For /artinot and 2e3ton, this /ani&hean delirium mani!ests itsel! by way o! the 82 paradigm o! poli&ing whi&h BreCprodu&es, repetiti1ely, the insideHoutside, the &i1il so&ietyHBla&k 1oid, by 1irtue o! the di!!eren&e between those bodies that don:t magneti=e bullets and those bodies that do. ;@oli&e impunity ser1es to distinguish between the ra&ial itsel! and the elsewhere that mandates it$the distin&tion between those whose human being is put permanently in Guestion and those !or whom it goes without saying< B/artinot and 2e3ton -C. In su&h a paradigm White people are, ipso !a&to, deputi=ed in the !a&e o! Bla&k people, whether they know it B&ons&iouslyC or not.
111
8ntil the re&ent tapering o!! o! weekly lyn&hing in the 17,4s, Whites were &alled upon as indi1iduals to per!orm this deputation.333ii +he 171% @h.D. dissertation o! >. /. >enry Ba s&holar in no way hostile to sla1eryC, !he +olice Control of the Sla$e in South Carolina, re1eals how 1ital this per!orman&e was in the &onstru&tion o! Whiteness !or the 2ettlers o! the 1,44s, 1.44s, and 1-44s, as well as !or the 2ettler-s&holar B>enry himsel!C o! the 1744s' +he e1olution o! the patrol system is interesting. +he need o! keeping the sla1es !rom ro1ing was !elt !rom the 1ery !irst. mong the earliest o! the
&olonial a&ts in 1,-, is one that ga1e any person the right to apprehend, properly &hastise, and send home any sla1e who might be !ound o!! his master:s plantation without a ti&ket. +his plan was not altogether e!!e&ti1e, and in 1,74 it was made the dut" o! all persons under penalty o! !orty shillings to arrest and &hastise any sla1e L!oundM out o! his home plantation without a proper ti&ket. +his plan o! making it e1erybody:s business to punish wandering sla1es seems to ha1e been su!!i&ient at least !or a time. B#--#7C But today this pro&ess o! spe&ies di1ision does not turn Bla&ks into spe&ies and produ&e Whites with the e3istential potential o! !ully reali=ed sub"e&ti1ity in the same spe&ta&ular !ashion as the spe&ta&le o! 1iolen&e that >enry wrote o! in 2outh )arolina and that Fanon was a&&ustomed to lgeria. In !a&t, /artinot and 2e3ton maintain that attention to the
spe&ta&le &auses us to think o! 1iolen&e as &ontingent upon symboli& transgressions rather than thinking o! it as a matri3 !or the simultaneous produ&tion o! Bla&k death and White &i1il so&iety'
11#
+he spe&ta&ular e1ent &amou!lages the operation o! poli&e law as &ontempt, poli&e law is the !a&t that there is no recourse to the disruption of LBla&kM people4s li$es b" these acti$ities. B,C By ;no re&ourse< the authors are suggesting that Bla&k people themsel1es ser1e a 1ital !un&tion as the li1ing markers o! gratuitous 1iolen&e. nd the spe&ta&ular e1ent is a s&ene that draws attention away !rom the paradigm o! 1iolen&e. It !un&tions as a &rowding out s&enario. )rowding out our understanding that, where 1iolen&e is &on&erned, to be Bla&k is to be beyond the limit o! &ontingen&y. +his thereby gi1es the bodies o! the rest o! so&iety B>umansC some !orm o! &oheren&e Ba &ontingent rather than gratuitous relationship to 1iolen&eC' In !a&t, to !o&us on the spe&ta&ular e1ent o! poli&e 1iolen&e is to deploy Band thereby a!!irmC the logi& o! poli&e pro!iling itsel!. ?et, &e can4t a$oid this logic once &e submit to the demand to pro$ide e)amples or images of the paradigm Lon&e we submit to signi!ying pra&ti&esM. s a result, the
attempt to articulate the paradigm of policing renders itself non/ paradigmatic, reaffirms the logic of police profiling and thereb" reduces itself to the fraudulent ethic b" &hich &hite ci$il societ" rationali1es its e)istence Lemphasis mineM. B,-.C ;+he !raudulent ethi& by whi&h white &i1il so&iety rationali=es its e3isten&e< endures in arti&ulations between that spe&ies with a&tual ;recourse to the disruption< o! li!e Bby the poli&ing paradigmC and another member o! the same spe&ies, su&h as the dialogue between news reporter and a reader, between a 1oter and a &andidate, or between an analysand and hisHher &ontemporaries. ;De&ourse to the disruption< o! li!e is
110
the !irst &ondition upon whi&h a &on!li&t between enti!ied signi!i&ation and a true language o! desire, a non-egoi& language of contemporaries, !ull spee&h, &an be staged' one must !irst be on the poli&ing side, rather than the poli&ed side, o! that di1ision made possible by the 1iolen&e matri3. In other words, where 1iolen&e is &on&erned, one must stay on this side o! the wall o! &ontingen&y B"ust as one must ;stay on this side o! the wall o! language< by operating within the 2ymboli&C to enable !ull spee&h. Both matri3es, 1iolen&e and alienation, pre&ede and anti&ipate the spe&ies. Whiteness, then, and by e3tension &i1il so&iety:s "unior partners, &annot be solely ;represented< as some monumentali=ed &oheren&e o! phalli& signi!iers but must, in the !irst ontologi&al instan&e, be understood as a !ormation o! ;&ontemporaries< who do not magneti=e bullets. +his is the essen&e o! their &onstru&tion through an asigni!ying absen&eE their signi!ying presen&e is mani!est in the !a&t that they are, i! only by de!ault, deputi=ed against those who do magneti=e bullets' in short, White people are not simply ;prote&ted< by the poli&e, they are the poli&e. /artinot and 2e3ton &laim that the White sub"e&t-e!!e&ts o! today:s poli&ing paradigm are more banal than the White sub"e&t-e!!e&ts o! Fanon:s settler paradigm. For /artinot and 2e3ton, they &annot be e3plained by re&ourse to the spectacle o! 1iolen&e. ;@oli&e spe&ta&le is not the e!!e&t o! the ra&ial uni!ormE rather, it is the poli&e uni!orm that is produ&ing re-ra&iali=ation< B/artinot and 2e3ton -C. +his ;re-ra&iali=ation< e&hoes Fanon:s assertion that ;the &ause is the &onseGuen&e. 9ou are ri&h be&ause you are white, you are white be&ause you are ri&h< BFanon Wretched$%4C. Whereas in Fanon:s settler paradigm this WhiteHri&hHri&hHWhite &ir&ularity mani!ests itsel! in the automati& a&&rual o! li!e produ&ing potential, in /artinot and 2e3ton:s paradigm o! poli&ing it mani!ests
11%
itsel! in the automati& a&&rual o! li!e itself. It marks the di!!eren&e between those who are ali1e, the sub"e&ts o! &i1il so&iety, and those who are !atally ali1e B/arriott 1,C, or ;so&ially dead< B@attersonC, the ;spe&ies< o! ;absolute dereli&tion< BFanon, Wretched*C. gain, the sub"e&t o! &i1il so&iety is the spe&ies that does not magneti=e bullets, though sHhe does not ne&essarily perform any ad1o&a&y o! poli&e pra&ti&es or o! the poli&ing paradigm the way sHhe had to in the >./. >enry:s 17 th &entury 2outh )arolina. s /artinot and 2e3ton argue, the &i1i& stability o! the #1 st &entury 8.2. sla1e estate is no longer e1ery White person:s duty to per!orm. In !a&t, many Whites on the Le!t a&tually per!orm progressi1e opposition to the poli&e, but ea&h per!orman&e o! progressi1e opposition en&ounters what /artinot and 2e3ton &all $a &ertain internal limitation. $+he supposed se&rets o! white suprema&y get sleuthed in its spe&ta&ular displays, in pathology and instrumentality, or pawned o!! on the !igure o! the ;rogue &op.< 5a&h approa&h to ra&e subordinates it to something that is not ra&e, as i! to &ontinue the noble epistemologi&al endea1or o! getting to know it better. But what ea&h ends up talking about is that other thing. In the !a&e o! this, the le!t:s antira&ism be&omes its passion. But its passion gi1es it away. It signi!ies the passi1e a&&eptan&e o! the idea that ra&e, &onsidered to be either a real property o! a person or an imaginary pro"e&tion, is not essential to the so&ial stru&ture, a system o! so&ial meanings and &ategori=ations. It is the same passi1e apparatus o! whiteness that in its mainstream guise a&ti1ely !orgets Lin a way in whi&h settlers o! the !irst three &enturies simply &ould notM that it owes its e3isten&e to the killing and terrori=ing o! those it
11(
ra&iali=es !or the purpose, e3pelling them !rom the human !old in the same gesture o! !orgetting. It is the passi1ity o! bad !aith that ta&itly a&&epts as ;what goes without saying< the postulates o! white suprema&y. nd it
must do so passionately sin&e ;what goes without saying< is empty and &an be held as ;truth< only through an obsessi1eness. +he truth is that the truth is on the sur!a&e, !lat and repetiti1e, "ust as the law is made by the uni!orm. B.-7C truth without depth, !lat, repetiti1e, on the sur!a&eF +his unrepresentable sub"e&t-e!!e&t is more &omple3 than >./. >enry:s early 2ettler per!orman&es o! &ommunal solidarity in part be&ause' +he gratuitousness o! its repetition bestows upon white suprema&y an inherent dis&ontinuity. It stops and starts sel!-re!erentially, at whim. +o theori=e some politi&al, e&onomi&, or psy&hologi&al ne&essity !or its repetition, its unending return to 1iolen&e, its need to kill is to lose a grasp on that gratuitousness by thinking its per!orman&e is representable. 6ts acts of repetition are its access to unrepresentabilit" E they dissol1e its e3&essi1eness into in1isibility as simply daily o&&urren&e. Whate1er mythi& &ontent it pretends to &laim is a priori empty. 6ts secret is that it has no depth. !here is no dark corner that, once brought to the light of reason, &ill unra$el its s"stem$LIMts truth lies in the rituals that sustain its &ir&uitous &ontentless logi&E it is, in !a&t, nothing but its 1ery pra&ti&es Lemphasis mineM. B14C
11,
+o &laim that the paradigm o! poli&ing has no ;mythi& &ontent,< that its per!orman&e is ;unrepresentable,< and that there is no ;politi&al, e&onomi&, or psy&hologi&al ne&essity !or its repletion< is to say something more pro!ound than merely ;&i1il so&iety e3ists in an in1erse relation to its own &laims.< It is to say something more than what the authors say outright' that this in1ersion translates today in the poli&e making &laims and demands on the institutionality o! &i1il so&iety and not the other way around. +he e3tended impli&ation o! 2e3ton and /artinot:s &laim is mu&h more de1astating. For this &laim, with its emphasis on the gratuitousness o! 1iolen&e?a 1iolen&e that &annot be represented but whi&h positions spe&ies nonetheless? rearti&ulates Fanon:s notion that, !or Bla&ks, 1iolen&e is a matri3 o! BimCpossibility, a paradigm o! ontology as opposed to a performance that is &ontingent upon symboli& transgressions. lienation, howe1er, that La&anian matri3 o! symboli& and imaginary &astration, on whi&h &odes are made and broken and !ull Bor emptyC spee&h is possible, &omes to appear, by way o! the psy&hoanalyti& en&ounter, as the essential matri3 o! e3isten&e. We are in our pla&e, La&an insists, on this side o! the wall o! language. B crits 141C It is the grid on whi&h the analysand &an short &ir&uit somati& &omplian&e with hysteri&al symptoms and bring to a halt, howe1er temporarily, the egoi& monumentali=ation o! empty spee&h. +hus, the psy&hoanalyti& en&ounter in general, and La&anian !ull spee&h in parti&ular, work to &rowd out the White sub"e&t:s reali=ation o! hisHher positionality by way o! 1iolen&e. It is this &rowding-out s&enario that allows the analysand o! !ull spee&h to remain White, but ;&ured< Ba liberated masterFC. nd, in addition, the s&enario itsel!
11.
weighs in as one more o! &i1il so&iety:s enabling a&&ompaniments Blike 1oting, &oalition building, and interra&ial ;lo1e<C !or the produ&tion o! the sla1e?that entity' $insensible to ethi&sE he Lsi&M represents not only the absen&e o! 1alues, but also the negation o! 1alues. >e is, let us dare to admit, the enemy o! 1alues, and in this sense he is the absolute e1il. >e is the &orrosi1e element, destroying all that &omes near himE he is the de!orming element, dis!iguring all that has to do with beauty or moralityE he is the depository o! male!i&ent powers, the unconscious and irretrie$able instrument of blind forces BFanon, Wretched %1C 8nlike Fanon:s base-line Bla&k, situated a priori in absolute dereli&tion, La&an:s base-line analysand is situated a priori in personhood and &ir&ums&ribed by ;&ontemporaries< who are also persons. La&an:s body o! sub"e&ti!i&ation is not o! the same spe&ies as Fanon:s body o! desub"e&ti!i&ation. I am not suggesting that Bla&k people:s psy&hes are !ree !rom ma&hinations o! the moi and there!ore ha1e no impediments in a pro&ess o! ;be&oming towards death.< What I am asking is' how are we to trust a La&anian assessment o! Bla&k nar&issismF >al! o! this &ontradi&tion &ould be sol1ed i! we simply re-named !ull-spee&h ;White spee&h< Bor >uman spee&hC and atta&hed to the analyst:s shingle Blacks need not appl". ;+hey may not need apply but they are still essential in positing di!!eren&e.< 333iii But &oupled with this gesture o! !ulldis&losure regarding !ull-spee&h, we would ha1e to a&knowledge that e1en in the White analysand:s be&oming toward death, that is to say, e1en a!ter the stays and de!enses that hereto!ore had kept hisHher ego !rom tottering are all stripped away, yes, e1en a!ter the nar&issisti& embra&es o! !ormal stagnation are hewn into kindling, and e1en a!ter the
11-
labor through whi&h the analysand has redis&o1ered hisHher !undamental alienation, there will still be a nigger in the woodpile.
)hat *asters +ediscover in Slaves +he di!!eren&e between Jesus and Buddha is that, though some people may be&ome )hrist-like, the &hur&h does not take kindly to the idea o! Jesus being massprodu&ed. +here is only one Jesus. >e &ame on&e. *ne day, so goes the legend, he will &ome again. men. In the meantime we will "ust ha1e to wait. psy&hoanalysis modeled
on )hristianity would ha1e a hard row to hoe. But by be&oming toward death in a most un!lin&hing manner anyone can be&ome a Buddha. 2mall wonder La&an:s pres&ription !or the analyti& en&ounter looks toward this BnonCreligion with neither a &hur&h nor a god. +oward the end o! ;+he Fun&tion and Field o! 2pee&h and Language in @sy&hoanalysis,< La&an a&knowledges the debt !ull spee&h owes to Buddhism, but he adds, &uriously, that psy&hoanalysis must not $go to the e3tremes to whi&h LBuddhismM is &arried, sin&e the" &ould be contrar" to certain limitations imposed b" @our techni2ueA, a discreet application of its basic principle in anal"sis seems mu&h more a&&eptable to me$in so !ar as LourM te&hniGue does not in itsel! entail any danger o! the sub"e&t:s alienation. For LourM te&hniGue only breaks the dis&ourse in order to deli1er spee&h. B crits 144-141C 8nlike ego psy&hology, and more like Buddhism, La&an embra&ed the death dri1e as the agen&y that &ould de&onstru&t dis&ourse in order to deli1er spee&h and thereby disrupt the
117
&orporeal integrity, presen&e, &oheren&e?the egoi& monumentali=ation?o! stagnated sub"e&ti1ity Bor empty spee&h, a belie! in onesel! as o&&upying a position o! mastery in the Imaginary rather than a position o! nothingness in the 2ymboli&C. /any White !ilm theorists and White !eminists, su&h as /ary nn Doane, )onstan&e @enley, Ia"a
2il1erman, Ja&Gueline Dose, Janet Begstrom, and Lu&e Iigaray, embra&e the utility o! the death dri1e as well, !or it is only through an embra&e o! the death dri1e that ;normati1e< male sub"e&ti1ity, the bane o! women:s liberation, &an !ree itsel! !rom the idiopathi& as opposed to heteropathi& identi!i&ations o! !ormal stagnation. s 2il1erman points out,
psy&hi& death or sel!-&an&ellation is no small matter. >er des&ription o! the pro&ess as a kind o! e&stasy o! pain is noteworthy' /aso&histi& e&stasyimplies a sublation o! sorts, a li!ting o! the psy&he up and out o! the body into other sites o! su!!ering and hen&e a sel!estrangement. It turnsupon a narcissistic deferral and so works against the consolidation o! the isolated ego Lemphasis mineM. B(ale Sub5ecti$it" #.(C For 2il1erman, the eman&ipatory agen&y o! this kind o! psy&hi& death enables ;a kind o! heteropathi& &hain-rea&tion LasM the Lsub"e&tM inhabits multiple sites o! su!!ering.< +hus the ;e3teriori=ation o! one psy&he ne1er !un&tions to e3alt another and identity is stripped o! all Rpresen&e:< B#,,C. +his e3teriori=ation o! the White male psy&he in a Guest to inhabit multiple sites o! su!!ering, i.e. White women, has its &osts. +he politi&al &osts to White men stripped o! all presen&e in relation to White women are death-like but not deadly. 6or do most White !eminists wish it to be deadly. 2il1erman:s &aution, ;I in no way mean to propose
1#4
&atastrophe as the antidote to a mass meconnaissance< B,%C, di1erges dramati&ally !rom Fanon:s demand that ;morality is 1ery &on&reteE it is to silen&e the settler:s de!ian&e, to break his !launting 1iolen&e?in a word, to put him out o! the pi&ture< B Wretched %%C. +he same settler won:t weather both storms in Guite the same way. Fanon:s brand o! ;!ull spee&h< makes this &lear' ;+he 1iolen&e whi&h has ruled o$er the ordering o! the &olonial world$will be claimed and taken o$er by the nati1e at the moment when, de&iding to embody history in his own person, he surges into the !orbidden Guarters< B%4C. For !eminists like 2il1erman, !ull spee&h is that pro&ess through whi&h the analysand has ;&laimed and taken o1er< the alienation whi&h rules o1er the ordering o! her world. +he analysand &omes to hear and assume her spee&h, in other words, as she assumes her desire. +his is not simply a Guest !or personal liberation but instead the assumpti1e logi& that underwrites two Bimbri&atedC re1olutionary pro"e&ts' the politi&al pro"e&t o! B!or 2il1erman et alC institutional, or paradigmati&, &hangeE &oupled with an aestheti& pro"e&t Bi.e., &ounter-&inemaC that a&&ompanies the politi&al pro"e&t?the two, then, work in relay with ea&h other, a mutually enabling diale&ti&. In !he Acoustic (irror: !he %emale :oice in +s"choanal"sis and Cinema, 2il1erman unders&ores the 1ulnerability in the armor o! the *edipal paradigm Bthat point most 1ulnerable to atta&k in what !or her is a world ordering paradigmC. >er &lose reading o! Freud:s go and the 6d reminds us that there are ;two 1ersions o! the *edipus &omple3, one $whi&h$works to align the sub"e&t smoothly with heterose3uality and the dominant 1alues o! the symboli& order, and the other $whi&h is &ulturally disa1owed and organi=es sub"e&ti1ity in !undamentally Rper1erse' and homose3ual ways:< B1#4C. *edipus, there!ore, &an be claimed and taken o$er !or a re1olutionary !eminist agenda.
1#1
Fanon, howe1er, demonstrates how the tools o! spe&ies di1ision are ;&laimed and taken o1er< by that spe&ies o! absolute dereli&tionE how 1iolen&e is turned to the nati1e:s ad1antage. +his notion o! embodying ;history in his own person< &an be likened to a sub"e&t be&oming lost in language Bre&ognition o! the 1oidC. But it:s important not to lose sight o! the di!!eren&e between the Fanonian impli&ations o! ;spe&ies< and the La&anian impli&ations o! ;sub"e&ts< be&ause history, !or Fanon, is in e3&ess o! signi!i&ation. In addition, !or the La&anian sub"e&t, the grid o! alienation holds out the possibility o! some sort o! &ommuni&ation between sub"e&ts?a higher unity o! &ontemporaries. Whereas !or Fanon' +o break up the &olonial world does not mean that a!ter the !rontiers ha1e been abolished lines o! &ommuni&ation will be set up between the two =ones. +he destru&tion o! the &olonial world is no more and no less than the abolition o! one =one, its burial in the depths o! the earth. B%4-%1C +o say, as 2il1erman does, ;I in no way mean to propose &atastrophe as the antidote to a mass meconnaissance< is, I &ontend, to say that the two antagonists are o! the same spe&ies?they ha1e been =oned not apart but together. 2o, they are not reall" antagonists. +o be pre&ise, 1iolen&e as it pertains to and stru&tures gender relations between White men and White women Band it doesAC is o! a &ontingent nature' White women who ;transgress< their positionality in the 2ymboli& order run the risk o! atta&k. But as 2aidiya >artman Band FanonC makes &lear, &ontingen&y is not what stru&tures 1iolen&e between White men and Bla&k women, White women and Bla&k women, White women and Bla&k men, or White men and Bla&k men. +hese White on Bla&k relations
1##
share, as their &onstituent element, an absen&e o! &ontingen&y where 1iolen&e is &on&erned. +he absen&e o! &ontingen&y eliminates the ne&essity o! transgression whi&h is a pre-&ondition o! intra-settler BWhite men to White womenC 1iolen&e. /ore is at work here than the monumentali=ation o! White suprema&y through the imposition o! &ultural signi!iers. Important Guestions emerge regarding the possibility o! !ull spee&h, the possibility o! an analysand speaking in the language o! his ;&ontemporaries< when the !ield is made up o! Whites and Bla&ks. @ut another way, how does one de!er the nar&issism o! a Deal relationF >ow &an spee&h alone strip Whites o! all presen&e in the !a&e o! Bla&ksF What is the real danger entailed in li!ting the White psy&he up and out o! the body into Bla&k sites o! su!!eringF In short, what kind o! per!orman&e would that beF We ha1e &ome up against La&an:s &aution not to take Buddhist te&hniGues beyond ;certain limitations imposed b" @ps"choanal"sisA,- the limitations o! spee&h. In e3amining the spe&ta&les o! the sla1e &o!!le, plantation sla1e parties, the musi&al per!orman&es o! sla1es !or masters, and the s&enes o! ;intima&y< and ;sedu&tion< between Bla&k women and White men, 2aidiya >artman illustrates how no dis&ursi1e a&t by Bla&ks towards Whites or by Whites towards Bla&ks, !rom the mundane and Guotidian, to the horri!ying and outlandish &an be disentangled !rom the gratuitousness o! 1iolen&e that stru&tures Bla&k su!!ering. +his stru&tural su!!ering, whi&h undergirds the spe&trum o! Bla&k li!e, !rom tender words o! ;lo1e< spoken between sla1e women and White men to s&reaming at the whipping post, is imbri&ated in the ;!ungibility o! the &apti1e bodyartman 17C. Bla&k ;!ungibility< is a 1iolen&e-e!!e&t that marks the
1#0
di!!eren&e between Bla&k positionality and White positionality and, as >artman makes &lear, this di!!eren&e in positionality marks a di!!eren&e between &apa&ities o! spee&h. +he 1iolen&e-indu&ed !ungibility o! Bla&kness allows !or its appropriation by White psy&hes as ;property o! en"oyment< B#0-#(C. What:s more remarkable is that Bla&k !ungibility is also that property whi&h inaugurates White empathy to&ard Bla&k su!!ering B#0-#(C. We might say Bla&k !ungibility &ataly=es a ;heteropathi& &hain-rea&tion< that allows a White sub"e&t to inhabit multiple sites o! su!!ering. But, again, does the e3teriori=ation o! one psy&he B2il1erman #,,C, enabled by Bla&kness, su&&ess!ully strip White identity o! all presen&eF >artman poses this Guestion in her &ritiGue o! a 6orthern White man:s !antasy that repla&es the body o! sla1es with the bodies o! himsel! and his !amily, as the sla1es are being beaten' LBMy e3porting the 1ulnerability o! the &apti1e body as a 1essel !or the uses, thoughts, and !eelings o! others, the humanity e3tended to the sla1e inad1ertently &on!irms the e3pe&tations and desires de!initi1e o! the relations o! &hattel sla1ery. In other words, the &ase o! Dankin:s empatheti& identi!i&ation is as mu&h due to his good intentions and heart!elt opposition to sla1ery as to the !ungibility o! the &apti1e body$ In the !antasy o! being beaten$Dankin be&omes a pro3y and the other:s pain is a&knowledged to the degree that it &an be imagined, yet by 1irtue o! this substitution the ob"e&t o! identi!i&ation threatens to disappear. B17C >artman &alls into Guestion the eman&ipatory &laims B!or both the indi1idual psy&he and the so&iusC o! heteropathi& identi!i&ation and maso&histi& sel!-&an&ellation Bloss o! sel! in the other, a pro&ess germane to !ull spee&hC when these &laims are not
1#%
&ir&ums&ribed by a White so&ial !ormation?when they &laim to be more than intra>uman dis&ussions. For no web o! analogy &an be spun between, on the one hand, the !ree body that mounts !ungible !lesh on an eman&ipatory "ourney toward sel!-&an&ellation and, on the other hand, that !ungible being that has "ust been mounted. +he two positions are stru&turally irre&on&ilable, whi&h is to say they are not ;&ontemporaries.< >artman puts a !iner point on it' $the e!!ort to &ountera&t the &ommonpla&e &allousness to bla&k su!!ering reGuires that the white body be positioned in the pla&e o! the bla&k body in order to make this su!!ering 1isible and intelligible. 9et, i! this 1iolen&e &an be&ome palpable and indignation &an be !ully aroused only through the maso&histi& !antasy, then it be&omes &lear that empathy is doubleedged, !or in making the other:s su!!ering one:s own, this su!!ering is o&&luded by the other:s obliteration. B17C It:s worth repeating the lessons o! &ultural historians' that the Bla&k e3perien&e is a ;phenomena without analog< BKeno1eseCE that ;natal alienation< is a &onstituent element o! sla1ery B@attersonE >artmanCE that Bla&k people are so&ially deadE and natal alienation endows the spe&ies with a past but not a heritage B@attersonC. +here!ore, e1en i!, through the i&ono&lasm o! be&oming toward death, the analysand dismantles his monuments, e1en i! he de&onstru&ts his heritage, he will still e3ist in a relation to heritage, howe1er de&onstru&ted, and it is the possibilit" of heritage itself, a li!e o! not magneti=ing bullets B/artinot and 2e3tonC, a li!e o! &ontingent Brather than gratuitousC 1iolen&e, whi&h di1ides his spe&ies !rom those with a li!e o! gratuitous 1iolen&e. By si!ting through the ob"e&t &hoi&es o! his meaning-!ull heritage, rather than a Bla&k and
1#(
sense-less past, he &omes to assume his desire where he is Bthe goal o! !ull spee&hC. But though where he is may not be where he began in his relationship Bbe!ore heteropathi& identi!i&ation with Bla&knessC to his ;&ontemporaries,< it is indeed e1en more intensely where he began in his relationship to Bla&ks.
Conclusion nti-Bla&kness mani!ests as the monumentali=ation and !orti!i&ation o! &i1il so&iety against so&ial death. ;6ar&issism &an be de&onstru&ted in pursuit o! sub"e&ti1ity but &i1il so&iety remains strengthened.<333i1 Whereas La&an:s analyti& en&ounter, the pro&ess o! !ull spee&h, is de&onstru&ti1e o! nar&issism internal to &i1il so&iety, it is one in a wide range o! en&ounters B!rom 1oting to &oalition building to ;inno&ent< !ilial en&ountersC is re-&onstituti1e o! &i1il so&iety:s !orti!i&ation against so&ial death. I!, on the other hand, White suprema&y:s !oundations were built solely on a grid o! alienation, where enti!ied signi!i&ation wards o!! the en&roa&hment o! de&onstru&ti1e signi!i&ation, then !ull spee&h would hold out the re1olutionary promise o! White suprema&y:s demise mu&h the way many White !ilm theorists and !eminists ha1e demonstrated !ull spee&h &an hasten the demise o! intra->uman patriar&hy. But, as Fanon so 1i1idly warns, White suprema&y:s and >umanism:s !oundations are also built on a grid o! 1iolen&e, where positions o! &ontingent 1iolen&e are di1ided !rom positions o! gratuitous 1iolen&e B!rom the sla1e positionC. >ere two kinds o! ;spe&ies< are produ&ed and =oned beyond the pale o! spee&h. +he so&ial distin&tion between Whites Bor >umansC and Bla&ks &an be neither assessed nor redressed by way o! signi!ying pra&ti&es alone be&ause the so&ial distin&tion between li!e and death &annot be spoken. ;It is impossible to !ully redress this pained &ondition
1#,
without the o&&urren&e o! an e1ent o! epi& and re1olutionary proportions * the destruction of a racist social order< Lmy emphasisM B>artman ..C. In li!e, identi!i&ation is limited only by the play o! endless analogies, but death is like nothing at all. @erhaps psy&hoanalysis and the promise o! !ull spee&h are not ready !or the end o! the world.
1#.
Part II: Antwone isher & Bush !ama
1#-
Chapter Three ishing for Antwone
,+eaches- and ,Bro&n Sugar,- ,Sapphire- and , arth (other-* 6 describe a locus of confounded identities, a meeting ground of in$estments and pri$ations in the national treasur" of rhetorical &ealth. (" countr" needs me, and if 6 &ere not here, 6 &ould ha$e to be in$ented.
>ortense 2pillers, Black, White and in Color: ssa"s on American 'iterature and Culture
A Vie! from the Void We now turn our attention to the distan&e between 2la1e &inema that &laims to be so&ially and politi&ally engaged and the 2la1e:s most un!lin&hing meta-&ommentary on the ontology o! su!!ering. In other words, through the lens o! !ro-@essimism we will
s&rutini=e Bla&k &inema:s insisten&e that Bla&kness &an be disaggregated !rom so&ial death. By 2la1e !ilm, I mean a !eature !ilm whose dire&tor is Bla&k and whose narrati1e strategies must intend !or the !ilm:s ethi&al dilemmaBsC to be shouldered by a &entral !igureBsC who is also Bla&k and, !or our purposes, elaborated by the &onditions o! the Western >emisphere. But again, it must be stated that though the so&ial and politi&al spe&i!i&ity o! our !ilmography and &on&erns are lo&ated in the 82, the argument itsel! is transnational. &hille /bembe argues that, on&e the sla1e trade dubs !ri&a a site o!
;territorium nullius< B1-0C, ;the land o! motionless substan&e and o! the blinding, "oy!ul,
1#7
and tragi& disorder o! &reation< B1.,C, e1en the
!ri&an &ho &as not captured is
nonetheless repositioned as a 2la1e in relation to the rest o! the world, the absen&e o! &hains and the distan&e !rom the /iddle @assage notwithstanding. +hough this ;!ree< !ri&an may indeed still know himHhersel! through &oherent &ultural a&&outrements una1ailable to the Bla&k meri&an, sHhe is known by other positions within the global
stru&ture as a being unable to ;attain to immanent di!!erentiation or to the &larity o! sel!knowledge< B1.0C. 2Hhe is re&ast as an ob"e&t in a world o! sub"e&ts. +o put a !iner point on it, 2aidiya >artman writes' ;Indeed, there was no relation to bla&kness outside the terms o! this use o!, entitlement to, and o&&upation o! the &apti1e body, !or e1en the status o! !ree bla&ks was shaped and &ompromised by the e3isten&e o! sla1ery< B Scenes of Sub5ection #(C. In the main, Bla&k &inema deploys a host o! narrati1e strategies to slip the noose o! a li!e shaped and &ompromised by the e3isten&e o! sla1ery. +he aim o! this &hapter is to e3plore how !ilms labeled ;2la1e< by the positionality o! their dire&tor and the positionality o! their diegeti& !igures labor imaginati1ely in ways whi&h a&&ompany or abandon the ethi&al dilemmas o! a &apti1e and !ungible thing. 2pe&i!i&ally, we will e3amine moments in the diegesis and within the 2la1e !ilm:s so&ial and histori&al &onte3t whi&h are indi&ati1e o!, on the one hand, a &apa&ity to dramati=e a wish to destroy &i1il so&iety and its !ounding episteme Bwhat ntonio Krams&i &alls re1olutionary ;good sense<C and, on the other hand, moments where it is o1erwhelmed with dissembling gestures, and as su&h, ;&onsents< to a stru&tural ad"ustment as it takes up the 2ettlerH/aster:s Baka, >uman:sC ensemble o! Guestions Bwhat Krams&i &alls the ;&ommon sense< o! ruling &lass hegemonyC. 3331 t the
heart o! our deliberations on 2la1e &inema is this Guestion' )an !ilm tell the story o! a
104
sentient being whose story &an be neither re&ogni=ed nor in&orporated into >uman &i1il so&ietyF :ariet" is a >ollywood tabloid with the good sense not to promote itsel! as being on the &utting edge o! philosophi&al inGuiry. But in its De&ember 17,- re1iew o! Up !ightB BDassin 17,-C, it hit upon a Guestion &entral to our pursuits' >ow &an &inema narrate a 1oid, without !illing it inF +he :ariet" re1iewer did not share the more politi&ally empatheti& assessment o! Up !ightB o!!ered by the #e& Republic:s 2tanley Iau!!mann, who seemed not to !lin&h as he e3plained how ;the !ilm mo1es uneGui1o&ally toward a !inale o! re1olutionary resol1e, with the ine1itability o! ra&e war as its &on&lusion< BDe&ember #1, 17,-C. :ariet" panned it as ;a !ilm hammered to &apitali=e upon, rather than e3plore the &omple3 !a&ets o! ra&ial problemsE< labeling it ;merely LaM so&ial polemi&.< 2in&e Up !ightB had su&h a short theatri&al run, ne1er !ound its way to 1ideo, and has long been out o! &ir&ulation as a 0( mm print, it is all but impossible to ad"udi&ate su&h di1ergent &laims regarding its aestheti& Guality or its so&ial &omple3ity. But midway through :ariet"4s !our-&olumn disappro1al, one !inds the !ollowing' +he too-!a&ile parallel drawn Lbetween the ID and Up !ightB:s Bla&k
underground !ightersM$in1ol1es 1iolen&e-oriented 6egro militants in this &ountry, as though America once &as a #egro countr", con2uered b" &hites. In &ontrast, were /e3i&an- meri&an, or, better, meri&an Indian
minorities more in 1ogue, the literary parallel Lbetween Up !ightB and its narrati1e model Liam *:Flaherty:s no1el !he 6nformersM might ha$e the
101
smattering of historical analog", totall" missing here BUUU, emphasis mineC +he writer is neither astonished nor enraged by hisHher re1elation that there are 0( million people in the 82 who are barred, stru&turally, !rom the rhetori&al strategies o! analogy that might suture them into an ensemble o! national names. 6onetheless, she or he has unwittingly reiterated >artman:s &aution that ;e1ery attempt to emplot the sla1e in a narrati1e ultimately resulted in his or her obliteration< B;8nthought< 1-(C. For indeed, meri&a is not ;a 6egro &ountry &onGuered by whites.< gain, i! the rebar o! &inemati&
and re1olutionary narrati1e reGuires that the !igure within the diegesis possesses an analogi& historiography, then the :ariet" writer is &orre&t, the sla1e re1olt &annot be mapped onto the post&olonial struggle. Where, then, does that lea$e the celluloid Sla$eF What pit!alls await a !ilm that attempts to !ill in the 1oidF In another arti&le about Up !ightB, a :illage :oice re1iewer obser1ed, ;It:s still a sho&k to see bla&kness as a !rame o! re!eren&e on the s&reen< B/ar&h ,, 17,-C. /u&h like the :ariet" re1iewer, the :illage :oice writer says more than sHhe means. +he :ariet" writer draws our attention to the ruse o! analogy?the limit end o! its absurd impli&ations. +he :illage :oice re1iewer draws our attention to how destru&ti1e re&ognition and in&orporation o! the 2la1e would be !or all those *thers who are endowed with analogi& &apa&ity. +he &atastrophe B;a sho&k<C that would result !rom &oin&iden&e o! sla1eness BBla&knessC and the &onstituent elements o! politi&al ontology B;a !rame o! re!eren&e<C. Den=el Washington:s Ant&one %isher is the story o! a 2la1e in sear&h o! a !rame o! re!eren&e. *r is itF @erhaps the hubris o! the !ilm is more auda&ious than that. For the !ilm &ompels the spe&tator to suspend another layer o! disbelie!. +he !ilm is not Guite so
10#
sel!-re!le3i1e as to interrogate what I ha1e argued is an unbrea&hable &hasm between >umanness and Bla&kness, and then lay &laim to a &oin&iden&e o! the two. Its auda&iousness rests in the !a&t that it assumes ntwone Fisher:s humanity and takes !or
granted his pla&e with in a !rame o! re!eren&e. )uriously, what gets pro"e&ted onto the s&reen and what the spe&tator e3perien&es is not a sho&k. 8nlike mu&h o! the Bla&k &inema o! the 17,4s and 17.4s, the spe&tator is not le!t shi1ering with an3ietyE there is no horri!ying &ontemplation o! the ;what i!< o! Bla&ks entering the !rame o! human &i1il so&iety. *n the &ontrary, the !ilm is widely thought o! as ha1ing therapeuti& properties Bmu&h like a Bara&k *bama rallyC, as &an be gleaned !rom sampling the ;8ser )omments< on the Internet /o1ie Data Base website' ITm a (( year old guy that tea&hes in )le1eland and I ne1er thought I would &ry, but there I was with tears streaming down my !a&e, all alone in my li1ing room late at night$+his was a li!e-&hanging e3perien&e - not a mo1ie. Kod bless you all !or putting this together$
/u&h like his per!orman&e as a &ompassionate lawyer in +hiladelphia, Den=el WashingtonTs s&reen presen&e in ntwone Fisher &ommands our
attention and emotions, lea1ing !ew dry eyes in the theater.
>eartbreakingly poignant and all too knowing in its depi&tion o! the triumph o! the human spirit.
100
51ery one should see this mo1ie be&ause ea&h one o! us is broken in some way and it may help us reali=e 1C /y li!e isnTt as bad as I thought it was and #C >ow important it is to adopt a &hild in need. +here are so many out there. +o think that the mo1ie was a&tually based on a real person made us think deep Lsi&M about li!e and how the world has and always will be Lsi&M. )orrupt, but that &orruption doesnTt ha1e to rea&h your home. We all ha1e a &hoi&eA +he &onsensus around the !ilm-as-therapy resonates with the glaringly unra&ed prV&is written by anonymous &ommenters on the I/DB website. *ne person writes' sailor prone to 1iolent outbursts is sent to a na1al psy&hiatrist !or help. De!using at !irst to open up, the young man e1entually breaks down and re1eals a horri!i& &hildhood. +hrough the guidan&e o! his do&tor, he &on!ronts his pain!ul past and begins a Guest to !ind the !amily he ne1er knew. nother !ollows with' +hings work out, as working with him. ntwone is able to &on1in&e the do&tor to keep on ntwoneTs past is re1ealed in detail. +he abuse he
su!!ers at the hands o! /rs. +ate, his !oster mother, is brutal, to say the least. +he attempt at the hand o! an older woman in the +ateTs household o! a se3ual molestation, gi1es ntwone a bitter taste that stays with him
throughout his adult li!e, as he has been s&arred by the shame he &arries with him.
10%
mong 82 spe&tators, there is a strong tenden&y to ;see< anything and e1erything in a !ilm e3&ept ra&e, to intuiti$el" &rowd out or simply !orget any mani!estation o! stru&tural antagonism by speaking about the plot at the lowest s&ale o! abstra&tion?a sailor with an anger problem meets a na1al psy&hiatrist who stands in as his !ather?and by psy&hologi=ing not "ust the !or&es that set the plot in motion but the e!!e&ts o! the &inemati& e3perien&e upon themsel1es as spe&tators' ;+his was a li!e-&hanging e3perien&e - not a mo1ie<$ ;LIMt may help us reali=e 1C /y li!e isnTt as bad as I thought it was and #C >ow important it is to adopt a &hild in need<$ ;We all ha1e a &hoi&eA< +he elaboration o! su&h symptomati& spee&h as a means o! &rowding out so&ial &ontradi&tions that were raised by the !ilm itsel! or as a way o! rat&heting down those &ontradi&tions to a manageable s&ale o! abstra&tion are remarkable !eats when one &onsiders the !a&t that the &ast was nearly 144W Bla&k, and the mise/en/scCne and dialogue !reGuently tou&hed issues o! po1erty, homelessness, the !rayed relations between Bla&ks and law en!or&ement, and e1en sla1ery. +he !ilm was also lauded by *prah Win!rey Bnot surprisinglyC and re&ei1ed two 2tanley wards !rom the @oliti&al Film 2o&iety, one !or ;Best Film 53posV< and the
other !or ;Best Film on @ea&e< in #44#. @ea&e between whomF America &as not once a #egro countr" that &as con2uered b" Whites. Ant&one %isher, a !ilm in whi&h Bla&ks !eature prominently within the diegesis B6a1al psy&hiatrist and &ommander Dr. Da1enport, played by Den=el Washington and 2eaman ntwone Fisher, played by Derek LukeC and within the &inemati& apparatus o!
enun&iation Bdire&tor Washington and s&reenwriterHmemoirist FisherC, argues, narrati1ely and &inemati&ally, against Fanon:s &laim that the Bla&k is a 1oid beyond >uman
10(
re&ognition. +he thesis o! the !ilm is that a stru&tural prohibition that !ore&loses upon a sub"e&ti1e relationship between Bla&ks and >umans does not e3ist. +he s&reenplay re"e&ts the &laim that the only way the Bla&k and the >uman &an meet, stru&turally, is when the Bla&k is !or&ed into a stru&tural ad"ustment through whi&h sHhe &an be known as anything but Bla&k?worker, woman, man, gay, lesbian, et&.. +hus, Bla&k ;institutionality,< whether !ilial as in Bla&k !amily or a!!ilial as in Bla&k &ommunity, is not simply impossibleE it is unthought and unimaginable. But !rom 1iewing Ant&one %isher, one would think that the terms ;Bla&k !amily< or ;Bla&k mas&ulinity< are not o3ymorons and &an indeed be established and authenti&ated as something other than ;borrowed institutionality.< 3331i Ant&one %isher makes the &ase !or the possibility o! Bla&k kinship stru&tures, !reed temporally and prote&ted &artographi&ally !rom the open 1ulnerability o! an ob"e&t:s a&&umulated and !ungible status. +he !ilm asserts that ntwone Fisher BDerek LukeC and )ommander
Da1enport BDen=el WashingtonC and all the ;barren Bla&k women who populate the !ilm< do in !a&t possess the &apa&ity to trans!orm limitless spa&e and endless time into pla&e and e1entE into something other than borrowed institutionality. 3331ii It presumes the young man:s relational &apa&ity. Be!ore Ant&one %isher &an deli1er the 2la1e into relational presen&e it must &lear the hurdles Fanon puts in its path' B1C the nigger is ontologi&al e3&essE B#C the sla1e has no resistan&e in the eyes o! the *ther, whi&h is not, howe1er, the same as saying the 2la1e does not su!!er, but that, like the tree that !alls in an empty woods, Bla&k su!!ering has no auditorE and B0C whate1er ethi&al dilemmas that &an be &onstituted within su&h an auditory 1oid are &onstituted without analogy. +he !ilm, then, &annot o1er&ome these
10,
hurdles by simply dressing
ntwone Fisher up as a &ultural andHor histori&al being. It
must re!ute Fanon by bringing the position o! the 2la1e ;into 1iew< instead o! "ust &amou!laging it and, on&e in 1iew, render the 2la1e ;a lo&us o! positi1e 1alueartman, ;8nthought< 1-(C. But la&king authentic indigenous, proletarian, or gendered attributes with whi&h ;to !ill in the 1oid< B1-(C, Ant&one %isher is burdened with the task o! obliterating the list o! Fanonian &laims, not by deploying ntwone to per!orm what he is, that would be !utile, but through a series o! narrati1e strategies that ;&on1in&e< the spe&tator o! what ntwone Fisher is not. Dather than strain the suspension o! disbelie! by positing the young man as a spe&i!i& &ultural or histori&al someone, the !ilm simply re&onstru&ts him as ;not a nigger.< *nly then &an his dilemmas o! !ilial loss and his Guest to restore mas&ulinity be dramati=ed and belie1ed. But, !or this to happen, !our Bla&k women must take the rap !or his 1oid. It is Bla&k !emininity that deli1ers him !rom niggerhood, that his ethi&al dilemmas &an be negotiated within a !rame o! re!eren&e. Like so many !ilms about loss and re&o1ery, Ant&one %isher is bra&keted by a rather melodramati& de&laration o! what has been lost and what must be regained. +he opening bra&ket is a dream-seGuen&e in whi&h a small BabandonedFC boy runs alone through a !ield o! wheat until he &omes upon a barn. >e enters the barn and takes the hand o! a paternal !igure who leads him to a long table o! &ulinary abundan&e. But this is not all. +hirty to !i!ty people are seated and standing around the table and the 1estmentary &odes o! this mise-en-s&ene blossom with abundan&e as well' garments, a&&essories, and hairstyles spanning two hundred years o! sla1ery, Jim )row, and )i1il Dights?though, oddly enough, the 1estments are not &oded by Bla&k @ower, whi&h also e3ists in this &ostumed time spanA In this dream, the sla1e &ommunity has been liberated and is
10.
restored to un!ettered !iliationE the name o! the !ather &an now !un&tion, not merely as domesti& head, but as that paternal signi!ier inde3i&al o! the promise o! &ultural inheritan&e. +here is no more terror. +here is no &apti1ity. +he boy is in the bosom o! his ;true< relations and not abandoned to the apparatus o! round up. Domesti&ity is possible. Iinship is possible. Whi&h is to say, &ulture is possible. @ut another way, the Bla&k has trans&ended absolute dereli&tion and is now instantiated as a sub"e&t amongst sub"e&ts. +he same s&ene is resurre&ted !or the &losing bra&ket o! the !ilm, e3&ept this time it is not the boy in a dream whose loss is re&o1ered and restore, but the grown man in real li!e. Den=el Washington, as dire&tor?as a !igure within the apparatus o! enun&iation?is onto something as he &alls our attention, at the 1ery beginning o! the !ilm and at the 1ery end, to the breadth and depth o! sla1ery:s toll' what has been stolen is the ;!lesh< B2pillersC and the 1ery semanti& !ield upon whi&h one &an be imagined to be human, whi&h is why the pri&e-tag on reparations would not merely bankrupt the world e&onomy but would obliterate a global !rame o! re!eren&e?one whi&h allows arti&ulation B!rom war to diploma&yC between myriad nations and &ultures possible. But as we mo1e !rom the opening dream seGuen&e o! abundan&e through the 1iolen&e that &ataly=es loss, we !ind not one White hand at the end o! all the literal and !igurati1e whips that &ut deep into ntwone Fisher:s ba&k and psy&he. Instead, we ha1e ntwone Fisher !rom the
the !igure o! !our Bla&k women. In !a&t, as we tra1el with
sleeping dream o! loss to the waking reali=ation o! re&o1ery, a "ourney through s&enes o! &apti1ity and abandonment, as we !ollow ntwone into and out o! the hell o! ;open
1ulnerability< B2pillersC, we !ind that the staging o! this open 1ulnerability is &ompletely internal to the sla1e &ommunity. +he image tra&k and the mise/en/scCne lo&ate the
10-
technologies of sla$er" in the body o! Bla&k !emininity?alwaysE and ne1er in the body o! Bla&k mas&ulinity or Whiteness nor in ;mulatta< !emininity. Light &omple3ion and ra&ial ambiguity does not &ode the !emininity o! the Bla&k women who abuse himE though it &odes the !emininity o! the Bla&k women who are ;a&&eptable< romanti& partners and who represent the hope o! !ilial restoration. In this !our-&ornered hell o! BunambiguousC Bla&k !emininity, where does the !ilm lo&ate the terrain o! Bla&k male respiteF +his is to ask not merely how and where ntwone &an &at&h his breath in his !light !rom loss to re&o1ery, but to ask on what terrain the !ilm imagines that Bla&k mas&uline liberation &an be strategi=ed, re!le&ted upon, dis&ussed, dreamt about, imaginedF +he answer is the 82 6a1y, whi&h is to say, the poli&e' in this ;Bla&k !ilm,< the apparatus o! round-up writ large Bwhat used to be known as the pigsC stands in !or the 8nderground Dailroad in a relentless nightmare where Bla&k women not only administer the te&hnologies o! sla1ery but embody its estate. I! not !or the glory-land o! the apparatus o! round-up B ntwone:s military ;sa!eha1en<C, one million &ute and &uddly little Bla&k boys might still be sha&kled in oneroom plantations all o1er the )le1eland ghetto, plantations owned and operated by big, dark, le&herous Bla&k women like /rs. +ate and her daughter. +he s&reenplay !irst in1erts the world, and then makes it spin ba&kwards on its a3is. +he mind boggles. In addition, the !ilm:s &inemati& strategies &ontribute to this in1erted tailspin. +his ;old !ashioned &rowd pleasing holiday tear-"erker< B5rnest >ardy, '.A. Weekl"C sele&ts 1estmentary &odes o! military attire and &ombines them with radiant Bla&k male !a&es set within the grandeur o! a mise/en/scCne o! bustling base li!eE &lose-but-in1iting below de&k GuartersE lots o! ;sho: good eatin:< BFanon BSW( 11#CE and panorami& shots o!
107
long, blue-gray destroyers and warm red, white, and blue !lags wa1ing in the wind in order to &rowd out the idiom o! power that e3plains the essential dynami& between Bla&kness and poli&ing. +hough o!!-s&reen the poli&e are e1erywhere the Bla&k body is not Bmeaning that Bla&ks are the ob"e&ts, not the sub"e&ts, o! poli&ing e1en when in uni!ormC, popular &inema is able to in1ert the world so that, on/screen, through sele&ted i&onographi& and a&ousti& &ombinations, Bla&kness &an embody the agen&y o! poli&ing. In !a&t, !ew &hara&ters aestheti&i=e White 2uprema&y more e!!e&ti1ely and persuasi1ely than a Bla&k male &op. 3331iii Den=el Washington has played a poli&e o!!i&er se1en times? eight, i! one in&ludes, as I do here, his role as a na1al &ommander and psy&hiatrist in Ant&one %isher. While Bla&k mas&ulinity is harnessed to make the law look good, a &ertain i&oni& &on!iguration o! Bla&k !emininity is harnessed to make ra&ial re&on&iliation within &i1il so&iety seem not only possible but ne&essary !or any kind o! trans&endental redemption. Den=el Washington:s )ommander Da1enport and Derek Luke:s 2eaman ntwone Fisher help sustain the illusion that Bla&ks &an indeed e3ist o!!-s&reen as >uman beings, rather than as beings ;!or the &aptor< B2pillers #4,C. In &inema su&h as this, the Bla&k body is portrayed as something other than ;a toy in the White man:s hands< BFanon BSW(C. It is this ;something other< whi&h allows &inema to portray as uni1ersal the ethi&al dilemmas o! whi&h in real li!e only Whites and non-Bla&ks are allowed to partake. I! one were to in1entory the &atalysts !or words, i! one were to list the ways in whi&h ntwone Fisher:s su!!ering?in other
ntwone Fisher was dispossessed?one
might say' !irst, a Bla&k woman blew his !ather away with a shotgun, depri1ing him o! the paternal signi!ier as well as the possibility o! &ulture writ large Bwhat ntonio 6egri
1%4
&alls the ;&ommons,< what /i&hael >ardt &alls ;li!e time,< what Nine Deloria, Jr. &alls ;so1ereignty,< what Ia"a 2il1erman &alls either ;positi1e and negati1e *edipus<CE +hen, a se&ond Bla&k woman, in the guise o! a ;wel!are Gueen,< ga1e birth to him behind bars and abandoned him to the state through whi&h he spent toddler-time in an orphanage. !ter that, a third Bla&k woman?/rs. +ate, his !oster mother?takes him in only to make his body the ob"e&t o! repetiti1e lyn&hing pageantries in her basement where she ties him to a post and tortures him with !lame and beats him un&ons&ious with wet rags. Finally, a !ourth Bla&k woman, /rs. +ate:s daughter, habitually slaps and rapes or molests him Bit is ne1er &learC when he is si3 years old, in the same basement where he is o!ten sub"e&ted to reena&tments o! a lyn&hing. +his is the &hronology that un!olds in his sessions with Dr. Da1enport' 1. 0ratuitous $iolence and spectacular death' +he murder o! his !ather by his pregnant mother. Flashba&k o! his !ather being blown away and tumbling down the stairs !rom by blast o! a shotgun. #. Capti$it" and abandonment' >is birth in prison. li!e begun in, and
administered by, an apparatus o! round-up Bthe prison-industrial &omple3 and the !oster &are systemC. 0. Being made fungible for the purposes of punishment and pleasure<a being for the captor' >is &hildhood and adoles&en&e with /rs. +ate and her daughter. ntwone Fisher as the ob"e&t o! spe&ta&ular bodily mutilation and
spe&ta&ular illi&it se3ual grati!i&ation?a body to be used in any way imaginable and a body a1ailable !or use in ways as yet unimagined.
1%1
+he &ondition o! the 2la1e, then, i! we are to be hailed by the !ilm:s narrati1e and &inemati& strategies, is not an outgrowth o! stru&tural and e3ternally indu&ed 1iolen&e. It is an e!!e&t o! so&ial pseudopodia. s biologi&al organisms, amoeba are &apable o!
mo1ing by e!!e&ting temporary protrusions o! the &ytoplasm through whi&h they are able to ingest !ood and, to the point o! our analogy, &hange their own li!e !orms in inde!inite 1arieties. +hey are sel!-generating &atalysts. For Den=el Washington and the &hara&ter he plays, the 2la1e:s &ondition bears striking similarities to those o! amoeba, in that the 1iolen&e &onstituti1e o! a&&umulation and !ungibility arise !rom their own ne&essities. 2la1es birth sla1ery and morph its terror through the internal dynami&s o! autoinstitutionality' +he Kod-!earing !oster mother who takes in Fisher and two other boys pits the !air-skinned boy with good hair against his nappy-headed, darker !oster sibling$2he ne1er &alls the boys by their names, instead 1arying 1o&al in!le&tions when she &alls 6iggerA in order to di!!erentiate among the three. nd in one o! the !ilm:s sharpest insights$Dr. Da1enport
identi!ies the 1iolent beatings the boys !reGuently endured as a lega&y o! sla1ery that bla&k !olk ha1e in&orporated as a &ultural norm. B5rnest >ardyC ; &ultural normAF< Beatings and bondage, torture and 1erbal abuse are only a&&epted by &i1il so&iety as both &ultural and normati1e in an ethnography o! Bla&kness. *ddly enough, it is 5rnest >ardy:s use o! the word ;lega&y< whi&h 1ou&hsa!es su&h terror as &ultural and normati1e. 2la1ery, a!ter all, is ;a thing o! the past.< 2la1ery:s te&hnologies, whi&h hang on so tena&iously to Bla&k &ulture and norms, are the produ&t o! a sel!-
1%#
generating so&ial organism, di1or&ed !rom the press o! &i1il so&iety?the result o! so&ial pseudopodia. I! the sla1e estate is neither an histori&al lega&y nor an amoeba-like &ultural norm whi&h sel!-mutates where1er Bla&ks are gathered, then how does it e3ert the te&hnologies o! a&&umulation and !ungibility upon the Bla&k while gi1ing the appearan&e that the te&hnologies emerge !rom within the Bla&kF nd how does Ant&one %isher appropriate &lue is
these strategies and bring Bla&kness into 1iewF >ow does it !ill the 1oidF
pro1ided by the un&anny resonan&e between the logi& o! anti-Bla&k legislation Ba euphemism !or the rule o! lawC and the logi& o! the s&reenplay.
,o! *assa -ot ,is ST.P #ac$ In 17--, the state o! )ali!ornia intensi!ied and re-&odi!ied its &apa&ity to &apture the Bla&k body within a ;&ar&eral &ontinuum< BLoi& Wa&GuantC when it passed the 2treet +errorism 5n!or&ement and @re1ention &t 1-,.##H1-,.##a B2+5@C. It passed into
legislation an e3isting law en!or&ement pra&ti&e whereby authorities !o&used their attention on the parents o! suspe&ted ;gang members.< )ali!ornia was not the !irst state to transpose su&h de !a&to pra&ti&es into de "ure law' ;In one rkansas town an ordinan&e
was passed permitting the "ailing and publi& humiliation o! parents whose &hildren 1iolate &ur!ew. +he law was passed in response to in&reased street gang a&ti1ity.< But 2+5@ went a step !urther. 6ot only did it ;permit$the perse&ution o! parents under a parental responsibility theory,< but it ;&reatLedM a nuisan&e pro1ision aimed at buildings in whi&h &riminal gang a&ti1ity takes pla&e< B2usan L. Burrell .%(C'
1%0
51ery building or pla&e used by members o! a &riminal street gang !or the purpose o! the &ommission o! the o!!enses listed in subdi1ision o! BeC o! 2e&tion 1-,.## or any o!!ense in1ol1ing dangerous or deadly weapons, burglary, or rape, and e1ery building or pla&e wherein or upon whi&h that &riminal &ondu&t by gang members takes pla&e, is a nuisan&e whi&h shall be en"oined, abated Lmeaning redu&ed or remo1edM, and pre1ented, and !or whi&h damages may be re&o1ered, whether it is a publi& or pri1ate nuisan&e. B)ali!ornia @enal )ode 1-,.#4-#.C +here are two key problems buried in this portion o! the statute and in the rhetori&al ar& o! anti-gang legislation more broadly. First, an anti-Bla&k tautology is already at work within su&h terminology as ;gang member< or ;gang related< o!!ense, be&ause the ;need< !or the legislation &annot be disaggregated !rom prior ;knowledge< o! the depra1ity o! Bla&k urban spa&es nor !rom a pri1ate and Guotidian &onstru&tion and interpretation o! images o! your Bla&k men. ;=eal to obliterate< is elaborated out o!
these knowledge and image !ormations. +he !a&t that the te3tual heat o! the legislation, as it is written, seems not to register this =eal to obliterate, but a wish to prote&t, should not !ool the reader. For i! gang-ness was not o1erdetermined by Bla&kness, a longstanding de!initional hole in the terms ;gang member< and ;gang related o!!enses< would ha1e been !illed in an e!!ort to ha1e the terms pass muster with respe&t to due pro&ess and at le1el a&&eptable to the legislators and their kin. Instead, as 2usan Burrell notes' L+Mhere is still a good deal o! sub"e&ti1ity in who is &onsidered a ;gang member< and what is &onsidered a ;gang related< o!!ense. *ne need look no !urther than re&ent Los ngeles ;sweeps< to be satis!ied that o!!i&ers
1%%
are less than &are!ul in arresting ;suspe&ted gang members.< /oreo1er, &ase statisti&s are sometimes altered, simply to meet the needs o! law en!or&ement$Furthermore, as &riminologi&al theory &hanges o1er time, the &hara&teri=ation o! what is gang related may shi!t. B.%,-.%.C Burrell:s training as a lawyer, or perhaps the need !or her arti&le to work within the parameters o! a law re1iew, render her te3t in in&apable o! interpreting this shifting characteri1ation as part and par&el o! &i1il so&iety:s reGuisite &apa&ity to stabili=e its !rame o! re!eren&e. ;Due pro&ess,< she writes, ;reGuires that a &riminal statute pro1ide both !air noti&e and !air warning o! the a&t whi&h it prohibits.< 2he e1en &ites the rele1ant &ourt rulings in support o! this assertionE as though the "udi&iary is an institution that a&ts as a &he&k on, rather than a &onduit !or, gratuitous 1iolen&e. ;6oti&e is important,< she &ontinues, ;!or both the person who may 1iolate the law as well as !or those who must en!or&e it< B..(-..,C. Like the narrati1e and &inemati& logi& o! Ant&one %isher, Burrell:s "urisprudential logi& assumes a world in whi&h the site o! Bla&kness is not a priori &riminali=ed and sites o! en!or&ement and ad"udi&ation are not a priori anti-Bla&k. 6onetheless, the Deal o! stru&tural 1iolen&e erupts into the 2ymboli&, despite her e!!orts to disa1ow this eruption. ;2e1eral terms used in )ali!ornia @enal )ode 1-,.## may well sweep in inno&ent persons simply by 1irtue o! their asso&iation with persons or groups &oming within the statute< B...C. gain, it is not a problem o! guilt or inno&en&e or, as
Burrell would ha1e it, a problem out there in &orrupt per!orman&es?it is not a mis&arriage o! "usti&e but the 1ery essen&e o! "usti&e. Furthermore, the problem is ens&on&ed within her test as ha1ing &on!used the plantation with &i1il so&ietyE one o! ha1ing read the &artographi& and temporal ins&ription in ;&ar&eral &ontinuum<
1%(
BWa&GuantC not as an ontologi&al guarantee !or the >uman ra&e, but as a pla&e in the 2outh and a time in the past. +here is another problem buried in the portion o! the statute under &onsideration. +he ne3t mo1es it makes Ba!ter insuring that the breadth and 1agueness o! its terms lea1e no room !or Bla&k maneu1erC, buttressed by its ;parental responsibility theory< and mapping o! ;publi& or pri1ate nuisan&e< monikers on ;e1ery building or pla&e used by members o! a &riminal street gang !or the purposes o! the &ommission o! o!!enses< Bremember' ;member< and ;o!!ense< are shi!ting &ategories to be determines by the poli&e at the point and time o! the en&ounterC, are 7a8 to dra& parents into sla$er" through their children 7an ama1ing re$erse s"mbiosis of the process during chattel sla$er" &hen ensla$e mothers ga$e birth to sla$e childrenD no&, ensla$ed children are capable of gi$ing birth to sla$e parents8D and 7b8 to transform the home from a ci$ic sanctuar" into a cabin in the 2uarters of a plantation. +he 2treet +errorism 5n!or&ement and @re1ention &t should ha1e been all the
e1iden&e the Bla&k intelligentsia needed to a&knowledge the repetition &ompulsion o! &i1il so&iety whi&h &an only be assured o! its own &artographi& integrity to the e3tent that it &ontinuously marks and re-marks a spatial 1oid a&ross Bla&k domesti&ity, Bla&k bodies, and Bla&k psy&hes. By the mid-1774s, when laws su&h as 2+5@ proli!erated a&ross the state and a&ross the &ountry?where1er &on&entrations o! Bla&ks are !ound?e1en )ornel West, one o! the more hope!ul Bla&k intelle&tuals and &ertainly the most &oalitionminded Bla&k politi&o, made an assessment o! hegemony and the impotent promise o! &ounter-hegemoni& resistan&e when the 2la1e is under &onsideration'
1%,
&entral preo&&upation o! bla&k &ulture is that o! &on!ronting &andidly the ontologi&al wounds, psy&hi& s&ars, and e3istential bruises o! bla&k people while !ending o!! insanit" and self/annihilation+his is why the ;ur-te3t< o! bla&k &ulture is neither a &ord nor a book, not an architectural monument or a legal brief. L nd why hegemoni& domination is essential problem o! workers not sla1es.M Instead, L;ur-te3t< o! bla&k &ultureM is a guttural &ry and a wren&hing moan?a &ry not so mu&h !or help as !or home, a moan less out o! &ompliant than !or recognition B-4--1 emphasis mineC. In the 17-4s and 1774s, intelle&tuals, musi&ians, artists and no1elists were on&e again &ompelled to meditate on the 1oid o! Bla&kness with a Guality o! pessimism un&hara&teristi& o! the )i1il Dights and Bla&k @ower eras.333i3 Laws like 2+5@ and the meteori& rise o! the Bla&ks prison population made themsel1es !elt as reminders to Bla&k s&holars, a&ti1ists, and artists that Bla&ks &ould neither !ind respite nor re&ognition within the elasti& O&ontrariness o! liberal &i1il so&iety< BJudy, ;6igga uthenti&ity< ##(-#,C. By
the 17-4s, the post-)i1il Dights, post-Bla&k @ower ba&klash laid to rest the illusion that su&h Krams&ian &ontrariness Be.g., ma&hinations o! hegemonyC held out any hope o! a&&ommodating Bla&kness, "ust as it had been laid to rest between 1-44 and 1-(4, in the !irst twenty years o! the #4th &entury Be.g., the Ded DiotsC, and again between 17%% and 17,%.3l Between 177# and #44#, Ant&one %isher was written, produ&ed, dire&ted and distributed as a bold disa1owal o! the era in whi&h it emerged, the era o! 2+5@. +he word ;disa1owal,< howe1er, is impre&ise. For, in point o! !a&t, the !ilm does a1ow the
1%.
assumpti1e logi& o! 2+5@, but it a1ows it in bad !aith. +he !ilm reprodu&es the assumpti1e logi& that a Bla&k spatial 1oid is enabling o! a &i1il spatial presen&e, but it does so by a&knowledging only one o! the law:s two embodied dereli&tions' 2+5@, as a genuine gesture o! &i1il so&iety, as&ribes absolute dereli&tion to both the ;wel!are Gueen< and to the ;gang banger.< Ant&one %isher &an only bring one prototype along !or the ride o! sel!-a&tuali=ation within &i1il so&iety, so it sele&ts the potential ;gang banger< o1er the ;wel!are Gueen< as the !igure that &an mobili=e its tropes o! modernity and temporal and &on&eptual an3iety regarding the Bla&k ra&e:s identity and moral standing in the world. In this way, it is one o! the more pro!ound and sophisti&ated integrationist !ilms to hit the theaters sin&e 0uess Who4s Coming to 3inner. Its sophisti&ation rests in its ability to render an integrationist drama that does not depend upon the emotionally &harged politi&al pathos or the so&ially &ontro1ersial se3ual desire or interra&ial 1iolen&e whi&h threaten the diegesis whene1er Bla&ks and Whites are pro"e&ted together onto the s&reen. Will they kissF Will they s&rewF Will the Bla&k kill the WhiteF Will the White kill the Bla&kF +he 1isual !ield is so saturated with su&h Guestions when Bla&ks and Whites are intimate on s&reen that philosophi&al re!le&tion on the ethi&al dilemmas bound up in Guestions o! a&&ess to &i1il so&iety is o!ten &louded i! not &ompletely obs&ured. In other words, e1en i! the so&ial &ontradi&tions are smoothed o1er by the end o! the !ilm, the spe&tator may be &ompelled to &ontemplate, albeit in a !ragment !ashion, the antagonism between Bla&ks and the world, as with the :ariet" and :illage :oice re1iewers. Ant&one %isher, by &rowding out the Bla&kHWhite antagonism, is able to turn ;the narrati1e o! de!eat Lli!e within the &ar&eral &ontinuumM into an opportunity !or &elebrationE< that
1%-
sub"e&ts o! &i1il so&iety might ;!ind a way to !eel good about Lthemsel1esMartman, ;+he @osition o! the 8nthought< 1-(C +he ;best< integrationist !ilm, there!ore, would be one &ithout Whites, a !ilm with only Bla&ks. Ant&one %isher, as the &inema o! what >artman &alls an ;integrationist rights agenda,< is sa!e politi&ally and unsullied philosophi&ally be&ause it is able to deploy the Bla&k BmaleC not as some &ra1en &reature desiring a&&ess to White beds, nor as some so&ially e3pedient opportunist desiring a&&ess to White institutions Be.g. money, !ameC, but as an ontologi&al entity in the ;true,< ;uni1ersal,< sense o! the word, someone, who seeks only to reali=e his own being. 8nlike 2idney @oitier, who stumbles through the %4s, (4s, ,4s, and .4s trying to pro1e the e3isten&e o! his being to the law so that he might e3perien&e the nature o! that being despite the law, Ant&one %isher begins by assuming that Bla&k mas&ulinity is the law Bna1al o!!i&ers and ensignsC rather than a 1oid &reated by the !or&e o! law. +he law, then, is not an impediment to ntwone:s a&&ess to
&i1il so&iety:s ensemble o! Guestions, to the ethi&al dilemmas o! his e3istential being. But i! the Bla&k male ;gangster< is to be redeemed !rom the 1oid o! Bla&kness and a&&ess his putati1e presen&e within &i1il so&iety, then the !ilm must work to se&ure the double dereli&tion o! the Bla&k woman?his and hers. It must mimi&, and ruthlessly so, 2+5@:s assault on the !emale parent. 6ot only did 2+5@ a&t out the repetition &ompulsion that &ommonly reterritoriali=es the body o! the Bla&k &hild, !rom teenager to ;terrorist,< but it reterritoriali=ed the body o! the Bla&k &aregi1er !rom ;parent< to ;a&&essory< to terrorist' !ter LKloriaM Williams:s 1(-year old son was pi&ked up and &harged in the gang rape o! a 1#-year-old girl, poli&e showed up at her house in 2outh
1%7
Los
ngeles. +hey noted gra!!iti and paraphernalia o! the )rips gang.
+hey !lipped through a photo album showing LherM posing with gang members$+hen the" accused Williams of failing her maternal duties by allowing the son to "oin a gang and arrested her under the state:s 2treet +errorism 5n!or&ement and @re1ention &t B2+5@C, whi&h treats street-
gang a&ti1ity as a !orm o! organi=ed &rime$2+5@ allows an e3pansi1e prose&utor to argue deducti$el" toward the ne& crime o! !aulty &hild super1ision BLeo ,1, emphasis mineC. 2+5@:s &artography did not end with the body o! the parentE it also reterritoriali=ed what was on&e the only semblan&e o! &i1il so&iety, other than the &hur&h, within the Bla&k &ommunity' 51ery building or pla&e used by members o! a &riminal street gangis a nuisan&e whi&h shall be en"oined, abated, and pre1ented and !rom whi&h damages may be re&o1ered whether it is publi& or pri1ate.3li +his was how 2.2. 1-,.##a read in 1774 be&ause, a!ter 17--, when the statute was !irst passed, it was amended to delete the !ollowing' ;other than residential buildings in whi&h there are three or !ewer dwelling units.< In the original, this phrase had, in !a&t, appeared t&ice !ollowing the phrase ;building or other pla&e.< But on&e the phrase was deleted the housing grid o! the plantation was unambiguously reins&ribed. +here was no a!ter-hours e1ening san&tuary in the 17th &entury. With the ad1ent o! 2+5@, there was no e1ening san&tuary away !rom poli&ing and punishment in the #4th &entury.
1(4
Ant&one %isher !ails to a&knowledge how the e3isten&e o! &i1il so&iety depends upon this sort o! repetition &ompulsion through whi&h it maps and re-maps a grid o! &apti1ity a&ross spatial dimensions o! the Bla&k ;body,< the Bla&k ;home,< and the Bla&k ;&ommunity.< +he guarantee o! &oheren&e !or &i1il so&iety reGuires that, !or the Bla&k, there be no inside to &i1il so&iety and no outside to poli&ing. I! there is no outside to poli&ing then there &an be no outside to guilt or &riminality, there &an be no &ontemplation o! &i1il a&&ess, o! li!e in a world o! ;&ontemporaries<E and so the integrationist narrati1e is a narrati1e o! disa1owal. In order to produ&e an arti!i&ial sub"e&ti1ity outside o! guilt and &riminality so that a legible ;Bla&k< story &an be told?in short, !or the !ilm to &ontemplate the young na1al ser1i&eman:s li!e as the li!e o! a &iti=en and not as a 2la1e? Ant&one %isher !ollows the same steps as 2+5@' it reterritoriali=es the Bla&k home as sla1e Guarter. But it also liberates Bla&k male &hara&ters !rom a priori and paradigmati& &riminality by B1C e3alting and &elebrating their embodiment as agents o! state 1iolen&e and poli&ing Bin this !ilm it is the 6a1yCE B#C by reprodu&ing a 1erti&al &ontinuum o! Bla&k !emininity B!rom +ragi& /ulatta down to 2apphire and unt JemimaCE and by as&ribing to the ;lower< registers o! that &ontinuum the administration and embodiment o! the sla1e estate Bdark-skinned Bla&k women who raped him, &hained him to a post and whipped him, shot and killed his !ather, birthed him in prison and abandoned him to the worldC. 2u&h is the ;brillian&e< o! its so&ial pseudopodia. Like the D. . armed with the 2treet +errorism 5n!or&ement and @re1ention &t,
the !ilm is an ;e3pansi1e prose&utor.< It argues ;dedu&ti1ely toward the new &rime o! !aulty &hild super1ision.< But the !ilm may be more e!!e&ti1e, i! not more power!ul, than
1(1
the statute. /illions o! people saw Ant&one %isher, whereas 1ery !ew are aware o! 2+5@:s e3isten&eE only a smattering o! those in the know a&tually read the statuteE and it is sa!e to assume that a statisti&ally insigni!i&ant number o! that smattering &an &laim to ha1e laid the statute down a!ter perusing it and sighed, ;>eartbreakingly poignant and all too knowing in its depi&tion o! the triumph o! the human spirit.<3lii +he !ilm:s ;brillian&e< is !urther enhan&ed by its knowledge understanding o! the world o! &inemati& e3hibitionE a world o! mo1ie theaters that e3&eeds and anti&ipates the !ilmE a world predisposed to the loopy, li&e in Wonderland logi& on whi&h it stakes its
&laim. >istori&ally, manumission and in&ar&eration do not !un&tion in the 5nglish language as synonyms. %ish, las, there is no time in the un&ons&ious. In his memoir %inding
ntwone Fisher ;es&aped< !rom the +ates to re!orm s&hool to ele1en years in the
military Bas an alternati1e to the homeless shelter he was li1ing in and as an alternati1e to the prison he was headed !orC, to be&oming a &orre&tional o!!i&er at a state prison to be&oming a se&urity guard on the lot at 2ony @i&tures. What the !ilm and the memoir !ail to let break in on the spe&tator and the reader is that it was the L. . Debellion o! 177# that may ha1e ;sa1ed< the real ntwone Fisher. !ter lea1ing the na1y, he was &learly on another downward spiral?"ust one step !rom the 2ony lot ba&k to the homeless shelter where Nets, more o!ten than not, would end up. But a!ter the L. . Debellion, an army o! White do-gooders des&ended on 2outh )entral, L. ., "ust as they had during the a!termath o! riots in the 17,4s. +hey &ame to ;dialogue< with Bla&ks. *ne su&h dialogue was a s&reenwriting &lass held in a Bla&k &hur&h and &ondu&ted by a White >ollywood s&reenwriter. +he s&reenwriter was a !ormer &ollege roommate o! +odd Bla&k Bwho is also WhiteC, a >ollywood produ&er. +he
1(#
s&reenwriter was ;mo1ed< by ntwone:s story and knew +odd Bla&k would be mo1ed as well. +odd Bla&k set Fisher up in an o!!i&e and paid him to write the s&ript o1er a period o! more than two years. +hen +odd Bla&k &onta&ted Den=el Washington and e3e&uti1es at #4th )entury Fo3. But in the telling o! this story Bon the ;)ommentary by Dire&tor Den=el Washington and @rodu&er +odd Bla&k<C,3liii /r. Bla&k and his roommate be&ame its &atalysts and the L. . Debellion !ell out o! the narrati1e. It is well known in meri&a
that Bla&k 1iolen&e is a pre-&ondition !or genuine dialogue between Bla&ks and &i1il so&iety, but su&h knowledge rarely gets in the way o! a good story. Judging by the way this tra"e&tory is imagined, 1isually, a&ousti&ally, and narrati1ely in the !ilm?and here I am returning to the diegeti& story o! the &hara&ter, not the e3tra-diegeti& story o! the man himsel!?in&ar&eration B&apti1ity at birth !ollowed by re!orm s&hoolC, homelessness, and the military all !un&tion as something more than synonyms !or manumission. +he !ilm pro!!ers &apti1ity as the highest !orm o! !reedom, and it dramati=es li!e with unambiguously Bla&k women as the lowest !orm o! bondage. +he most remarkable thing about the per1ersely in1erted logi& o! the !ilm is that it does not need to argue its &ase through the realism o! &inVma-1VritV or do&u-drama. It simply has to sele&t and &ombine sounds and images !rom &i1il so&iety:s pri1ate and Guotidian ;knowledge< about Bla&kness and !emininity, to whi&h the a1erage gathering o! spe&tators is already predisposed. It selects large, dark, !ull-!eatured Bla&k women and then combines them with kerosene-doused newspapers lit at one end and "abbed &lose to ntwone:s si3 year old !a&e, rope used to tie him to basement posts !or long damp hours, or rags wrung and twisted into !lesh-&utting whips. 6o one sees the sleight o! hand through whi&h moral "udgments about Bla&k women are substituted !or institutional
1(0
analyses about White power, be&ause it is not a magi& tri&k but a relay o! &onsent between the spe&tator and the s&reen. During the !ilm:s !irst !orty-!i1e days in theaters a&ross the &ountry, intermittent sni!!ling and sobs were so audible as to make one miss swaths o! dialogue. 6o one seemed to mind. +his was true in theaters whether the audien&e was primarily Bla&k, as in 5mery1ille, )ali!ornia, or ra&ially ;balan&ed,< as in downtown Berkeley. 3li1 5rnest >ardy o!!ers insight as to why the &inemati& strategies o! the !ilm &ontributed to the su&&ess o! its ;argument,< espe&ially !or Bla&k spe&tators. ;)redit !irst time dire&tor Washington !or being among the !ew to employ a &inematographer, @hilippe Dousselot, who a&tually knows how to light dark skin< B'.A. Weekl" De&ember #4-#,, #44#C. +his is &ertainly true o! the homoso&ial world &omposed o! ntwone and Dr. Da1enport Bthe
long segments o! dialogue between them during psy&hiatri& sessions, +hanksgi1ing at Da1enport:s house, and their en&ounters aboard 2eaman Fisher:s destroyerC. In !a&t, the lighting, along with the slow !ades, the dissol1es, and the !reGuent shot-rea&tion-shots between the two o! them?!ramed as &lose-ups and medium &lose-ups?are so poignant and tender, so lushly lit to enhan&e the beauty o! Bla&k skin, that this same ar&hi1e o! shots &ould be used to dire&t a gay lo1e story between Fisher and Da1enport. It would seem as though the !ilm anti&ipates Bwhi&h is not the same as ;wel&omes<C the possibility o! su&h a reading when, during one o! the sessions, ntwone, about to embark on his !irst date with a 2eawoman named )heryl, re1eals that he is both shy and a 1irgin. Da1enport de&ides to guide him through a !irst-date role-play. ;9ou play yoursel!,< the good do&tor instru&ts, ;I:ll play )heryl.< ;9ou:ll play, )herylF< says Fisher with an an3ious &hu&kle. ;>eyA I:m man enough to play, )heryl, all right.< 6a1al
1(%
)ommander and psy&hiatrist Dr. Da1enport may be reassuring 2eaman Fisher, but !irst time dire&tor and top billing star Den=el Washington, on the other hand, appears to be reassuring the spe&tator. +his reassuran&e !alters, howe1er, be&ause, as the role-playing &ontinues, Da1enport is emphati& that the date between ntwone and )heryl not
;es&alate.< +his warning, albeit &oded, should be enough. But Da1enport has !orgotten that Fisher is a 1irgin. Fisher asks him, also emphati&ally, es&alate into whatF +o whi&h the good do&tor dissembles, ;/arriage.< +he lighting, howe1er, whi&h pro"e&ts these two men onto the s&reen together, produ&es a 1isual dis&ontinuity between romanti& 1isuali=ation and narrati1e pruden&e. /oreo1er, what 5rnest >ardy, a Bla&k !ilm &riti& who appre&iates the lighting o! Bla&k skin, has missed in his admiration o! the !ilm:s &inematographer is the way the !ilm re1erts ba&k to >ollywood:s standard anti-Bla&k lighting traditions when ntwone:s
!oster sister and his birth- and !oster mothers appear. In !a&t, the lighting o! these three women is de&idedly ghoulish. +he warm glow o! @hilippe Dousselot:s &inematography is brie!ly &ast upon light-skinned and ra&ially ambiguous women, like )heryl and Berta, Da1enport:s wi!e, when it is shared with women at all. /u&h like the prison industrial &omple3, &inema is an institution &alled upon to pull its weight as an apparatus !or the a&&umulation and e3&hange o! 2la1es. But the libidinal e&onomy o! &inema has resour&es whi&h the politi&al e&onomy o! prisons doesn:t ha1e' it &an make an o!!ering o! Bla&k !lesh !or the psy&hi& a&&umulation o! &i1il so&iety in a way that not only hides the dimension o! gratuitous 1iolen&e and !or&e ne&essary to bring about this o!!ering but, like those spe&ta&les o! lyn&hing in whi&h a Bla&k penis is &ut o!! and then the 1i&tim is not only !or&ed to eat it but must tell his
1((
murderers how good it tastes B/arriott ,C, &inema &an gi1e &i1il so&iety the pleasure o! seeing Bla&ks maimed as well as the pleasure o! Bla&ks taking pleasure in the pro&ess. Fanon Guotes Bernard Wol!e on this s&ore' ;It pleases us to portray the 6egro showing us all his teeth in a smile made !or us. nd his smile as we see it? as &e make it ?always means a gift< BBlack Skin, White (ask %7, emphasis mineC. Bla&ks are so &omprehensi1ely !ungible that &inema &an make them die and smile at the same time. s
noted abo1e, the gi!t o! Ant&one %isher4s broad and &omple3 &inemati& smile was so pleasing ;to portray< that it won two 2tanley wards !rom the @oliti&al Film 2o&iety. In
awarding it the pri=e !or Best Film 53pose, the @oliti&al 2o&iety wrote' Few in the audien&e knew until seeing Ant&one %isher how lo&ating birth parents$&an be so important to someone who !eels that he was on&e abandoned. +he !ilm &an be seen as a plea !or go1ernments in the !i!ty states to open up re&ords so that those who su!!er psy&hologi&ally &an be&ome whole. /ore e3pli&itly the !ilm is an e3posV o! what Dr. Da1enport BDen=el Washington:s &hara&terC &alls ;sla1e mentality,< that is, the tenden&y !or generations o! !ri&an meri&ans to engage in ethni&
sel!-hate by abusing one another, "ust as they were on&e abused by their white masters, a maso&histi& ;identi!i&ation with the aggressor< that was identi!ied by +heodore Dei&h as an e3planation !or the trans!ormation o! ordinary Kermans into militant anti-2emites a!ter >itler &ame to power. B@oliti&al Film 2o&iety web pageC s a !irst impression, one is stru&k by the resilien&e, the stamina and durability o! the Jewish holo&aust as the ;a!!e&ti1e destination< o! rhetori&al strategies that seek to
1(,
appre&iate su!!ering and re&ogni=e a dispossessed body. What is ama=ing here, is how one small gi!t &an bestow upon the world the &apa&ity to talk about anything and e1erything' &hild abandonment, !ilial and reprodu&ti1e an3iety, responsible go1ernment, national identity B;ordinary Kermans<C, anti-2emitism, the rise o! di&tatorships, psy&hoanalysis, and the Jewish holo&aust. +he gi!t o! sla1ery !orti!ies and e3tends the interlo&utory li!e o! a wide range o! ethi&al dilemmas to whi&h the 2la1e herHhimsel! is barred' Guestions a&&ess to institutionalityE dis&ontent o1er the &risis o! !ilial and a!!ilial relationsE meditations on the loss o! indi1idual autonomyE nostalgia !or a on&e robust demo&ra&y and 1ibrant publi& sphere. *n&e the list begins its proli!eration it takes on a li!e o! its own. *ne knows the &elluloid 6egroes ha1e done their duty when &iti=ens lea1e the !ilm with teary eyes, &athedrali=ing it as ;+he best psy&hologi&al drama sin&e Erdinar" +eople and 0ood Will .unting.<3l1 gi!t that goes on gi1ing, Ant&one %isher
is a !i!ty-two teeth salute to the meri&an Dream.
1(.
Chapter %our Cinematic Unrest: #ush *ama & The B)A
6ow the problem is to lay hold o! this 1iolen&e. Frant= Fanon, !he Wretched of the arth
)as it /ust a %antas(0 +hroughout the early works o! !ilmmakers like )harles Burnett, >aile Kerima, Jamaa Fanaka, and Julie Dash Bknown as ;the L. . Debellion 2&hool o! !ilmmakers<C one is stru&k by their &inemati& translations o! the 1arious ways in whi&h &i1il so&iety is nonBla&k spa&e? somewhere o1er there, !ar away !rom and ina&&essible to the li!e o! their &hara&ters. In )harles Burnett:s !he .orse, !or e3ample, this unbridgeable gap is rendered more immediate and pro!ound then merely the =onal di1ision between )ompton and Be1erly >ills. +he unbridgeable gap between &i1il so&iety and the sla1e estate is !ilmed at and e3amined along the s&ales o! the body and domesti&ity. In this short !ilm, one sees not only how the !ormal aspe&ts o! &inema are &alled upon to re&ogni=e the degrees to whi&h &i1il so&iety is barred to Bla&kness, but how &i1il so&iety:s ethi&al dilemmas are murderous pro"e&tions that threatens Bla&kness at e1ery turn. +his ;moody enigmati& L!ilmM depi&ts a blea&hed rural lands&ape where 1arious &hara&ters, in&luding a young LBla&kM boy, anti&ipate an ine1itable a&t o! 1iolen&e< BBA(=+%A 7C. +he aerial establishing shots o! the lands&ape bear witness to a barren arid Guality made all the more so by the harshness o! the light. +his gi1es way to tight shots o! a house and medium &lose ups o! the three BWhiteC brothers who will spend most o! the
1(-
!ilm in mena&ing anti&ipation on the por&h. +he house is in shambles, open, dilapidated and uninhabitable. +he kinesi& or bodily &ode o! the mise-en-s&ene positions the patriar&h away !rom his sons?o!! &amera !or mu&h o! the !ilm. +his &omposition o! lighting, &amera angles, mise/en/scCne and sound, i! le!t to its own de1i&es, would interpellate us to the ethi&al dilemmas o! &i1il so&iety and its dis&ontents?the Guestions o! shattered domesti&ity and a barren &i1i& sphere, &onnoted by the barren lands&ape. But there is a boy in the !ield, tending to a horse that is about to be put to death. +he little Bla&k boy spends nearly all o! the !ilm standing in the !ield with the horse that is about to be put to death by the patriar&h and his sons' here, not only is the ;!lesh< o! the 2la1e and the bestiality o! the horse barred !rom the ethi&al dilemmas o! &i1il so&iety, but the ma&hinations o! &i1il so&iety:s dis&ontent?the !ailed !iliation o! a homoso&ial world, in other words, intra-White turmoil?make the Bla&k boy 1ulnerable to the same 1iolen&e this !amilial !ormation o! &i1il so&iety will pro"e&t onto the horse. 6n fact, the horse is 5ust an alibi and the bo" and the spectator kno& it, though little in the dialogue gi$es this a&a". >ollywood &inema and White politi&al &inema would ha1e staged this di!!erently. >ollywood &inema would ha1e brought the Bla&k boy and the White brothers in &onta&t with ea&h other !or the purpose o! either re&on&iliation or !or the purpose &asting Bla&k attention upon White ethi&al dilemmas. White politi&al &inema may ha1e brought the Bla&k boy and the White brothers in &onta&t !or more ;noble< intentions. But the point is this' neither &inema would ha1e been able to bear the psy&hi& &osts o! &ontemplating a stru&tural non-&ommuni&ability between White and Bla&kE whi&h is to say, neither
1(7
&inema would own up to the presen&e o! the #4 th &entury 2la1e estate in &ontradistin&tion to the presen&e o! &i1il so&iety. Between 17,. and 17.., Bla&k &inema was pulled &loser to the dream o! gratuitous !reedom than any genre had been pulled sin&e 6at +urner:s night o! gratuitous 1iolen&e. Films su&h as Bush (ama B17.,C, !he 'ost (an B17,7C, !he Spook Who Sat b" the 3oor B17.0C, !he Ri$er #iger B17.,C, and UptightB B17,7C were resolute translations o! the 17,4sH.4s 1iolent historiography, inde3i&al o! a historiography !rom street li!e to politi&al awareness to armed insurgen&y. >aile Kerima:s Bush (ama is the story o! Dorothy BBarbara *. JonesC ;a wel!are mother who gradually &omes to politi&al &ons&iousness while !a&ing e&onomi&, politi&al, and so&ial oppression$. L2heM is !or&ed to 1iolent a&tion as a means o! prote&ting Lher daughterM against a se3ual assault &ommitted by a member o! the L @D. +he 1iolen&e ser1es a parti&ular purpose in indi&ating LherM politi&al trans!ormation,< and it emphasi=es how ;LbMoth L>aileM Kerima Ldire&torHwriterHeditorM and L)harlesM Burnett L&inematographerM were &on&erned Rwith the politi&s o! resistan&e within the !amily whi&h emerged a!ter the Watts Debellion:< B/assood 14--147C. Jules Dassin:s UptightB tells the story o! the assassination o! a ghetto in!ormer who was part o! an underground Bla&k army spawned by urban unrest in )le1eland BKuerrero -4C. !he Spook Who Sat b" the 3oor ends with a street gang, the )obras, ha1ing trained other street gangs around the &ountry, !inally unleashing their torrent o! 1iolen&e against the poli&es and the 6ational Kuard, as the Bla&k e3-)I agent who trained them ;raises his wineglass in a solitary toast to the o!!ensi1e he has begun< BBerry & Berry 10%C. nd by the time eighty minutes had elapsed in !he Ri$er #iger, an entire Bla&k working &lass !amily B)i&ely +yson, James 5arl Jones, and Klynn +hurmanC
1,4
and their !amily do&tor BLouis Kossett, Jr.C had been indu&ted into a Bla&k underground army and imbri&ated in a plot to ambush poli&e o!!i&ers. 51en ;2idney @oitier, eager to re1i1e and update his image, starred in !he 'ost (an B17,7C as a re1olutionary e3e&uting an armed robbery to !inan&e the bla&k takeo1er o! @hiladelphia< BKuerrero -4C. +he relationship o! su&h !ilms to the era:s upsurge in Bla&k-on-&i1il-so&iety 1iolen&e was not merely re!le&ti1e but was also symbioti&' Delu&tantly released by 8nited rtists, !he Spook Who Sat b" the 3oor
attra&ted lines that went around the blo&k at the ba&k-alley theaters in whi&h it was booked. Weeks later, a!ter a 6ational Kuard rmory in
)ali!ornia was robbed Bmu&h in the same way that had been depi&ted in the mo1ieC, the !ilm was snat&hed o!! the s&reen and pulled !rom distribution. BBerry & Berry 10%C In !a&t, the !ilm was almost ;pulled< be!ore it was released. Dire&tor I1an Di3on and no1elistHs&reenwriter 2am Kreenlee beat the pa1ement !rom >ollywood studios to Bla&k millionaires to the ministers o! !oreign go1ernments in sear&h o! !unds, to no a1ail. t
last, it appeared that a group o! 6igerian !inan&iers and dignitaries would put a pa&kage together. ;+here were ten or twel1e< 6igerians dis&ussing the deal at the Bank o! 6igeria, in London' nd all o! a sudden this white man walked into the room. +hey said they don:t know how he e1en got through se&urity. But he &ame in the room and said, ;I:m here !rom the meri&an go1ernment. We hear you are
about to do business with a gentleman named Di3on$you do not want to do business with this gentleman.< nd then he turned and walked out.
1,1
BI1an Di3on inter1iewed by 2. +orriano Berry, June ., 177-, in Berry & BerryC Film s&holars routinely a&knowledge the impa&t o! the ethos o! Bla&k @ower and urban rebellion Bthe 0-% uprisings in #7- &ities between 17,. and 17,-, &hara&teri=ed as mu&h by sniper atta&ks as by mass looting LKuerrero .1MC on !ilms that &ame out o! the ;L. . Debellion 2&hool< BFiller of Sheep, Bush (ama, !he .orseC, as well as on !ilms o! that are more di!!i&ult to &lassi!y B!he Spook Who Sat b" the 3oor, S&eet S&eetback...C. /y purpose here is not to rehearse these arguments. 3l1i I submit, howe1er, that su&h arguments, though histori&ally a&&urate, are too mired in the &on&eptual !ramework o! post&olonial theory !or the a&tual analysis o! the !ilms themsel1es to be su!!i&iently attenti1e to and appre&iati1e o! the radi&al way in whi&h these !ilms grappled?i! not narrati1ely than at least &inemati&ally? with the ethi&al dilemmas o! the sla1e' B1C the stru&ture o! gratuitous 1iolen&e Bas opposed to the post&olonial sub"e&t:s sub"ugation to a stru&ture o! &ontingent 1iolen&eC, and B#C Guestions o! gratuitous !reedom and the ne&essity o! gratuitous 1iolen&e that might bring it about Bwhat Fanon &alled the end o! the worldC. While I &on&ur &ompletely with one o! the two &omponents o! the &ommon arguments noted abo1e, that ;the intelle&tual and &ultural &oordinates o! LtheM Bla&k independent !ilm mo1ement Land many Bla3ploitation !ilmsM are inseparable !rom the politi&al and so&ial struggles and &on1ulsions o! the 17,4s< B/asilela 14.C, I want to supplement and ultimately de1iate !rom the other &omponent' Bla&ks?o!! s&reen and on ?&ere in $iolent re$olt for politicall" achie$able and philosophicall" legible ends . +his &omponent is stated most emphati&ally by 6tongela /asilela who writes, ;Fanon:s !he
1,#
Wretched of the arth$was a &entral te3t, !or it &lari!ied the histori&al moment in whi&h these !ilmmakers !ound themsel1es< B147C. 6o doubt, !he Wretched of the arth was a &entral te3tE inter1iews with dire&tors Kerima, Burnett, and Di3on attest to this, as do the pronoun&ed goals and ob"e&ti1es o! heroi& !igures within the diegesis o! the era:s !ilms. In Kerima:s Bush (ama, a poster pla&ed on Dorothy:s wall by a young militant woman who li1es in the &omple3 is meant to be a &atalyst !or ;Dorothy:s growing &ons&iousness o! her !igurati1e imprisonment$. LIt isM the image o! an !ri&an woman holding a gun in one hand and a baby in another$+he poster was produ&ed by the /o1imento @opular de Liberta&ao de ngola B/@L C, whi&h was !ormed in 17(, and !ought !or sel!ngola< B/assood 11#-
determination and the withdrawal o! @ortuguese troops !rom 110C.
6arrati1ely, these !ilms are predi&ated on Fanon:s post&olonial paradigm. But this &ons&ious paradigm was not what, &ontrary to the 1iew o! many !ilm s&holars, &lari!ied the histori&al moment. Dather, it pro1ided an ob"e&t who possesses no &ontemporaries, the 2la1e, with the alibi o! a sub"e&t who does in !a&t possess &ontemporaries, the post&olonial sub"e&t, so that the sla1e might pro"e&t hisHher 1iolent desire, &inemati&ally, in a manner that &ould be understood and perhaps appre&iated by spe&tators who were not 2la1es. But as we saw in the 2la1e &inema that !ollowed three de&ades later B Ant&one %isherC, the ruse o! analogy had its pri&e. )onsider what appears at !a&e 1alue to be two wildly di1ergent interpretations o! the same !ilm, !he Spook Who Sat b" the 3oor BI1an Di3on 17.0C. In ;+his 2pook >as 6o Despe&t !or >uman Li!e< B#? +imes 11H11H.0C, /eyer Iantor &omplained that !he Spook Who Sat b" the 3oor la&ked respe&t !or the poli&e and the military B;the enemy<C,
1,0
la&ked respe&t !or &i1il so&iety B;the system<C, la&ked respe&t !or human li!e Bthe Whites killed by the )obra insurgentsC, and portrayed ;anger without reason.< >e said that the !ilm !ailed ;to present a &lear indi&tment o! white so&iety:s treatment o! third world people Land thisM &auses the !ilm to dri!t !rom meaning!ul outrage to senseless James Bond-like 1iolen&e.< Iantor &on&luded by saying the !ilm had some so&ial 1alue despite its 1iolent ;e3&esses< BBerry & Berry 10(C. +hough Di3on:s &omments on his own !ilm suggest a di!!erent politi&al orientation to the !ilm, it is the intra&tability o! the word ;e3&ess< whi&h is implied in both their statements. ;It really wasn:t a solution,< Di3on &on&edes, re!le&ting upon his inter1iewer:s suggestion that the !ilm o!!ered a politi&al solution to Bla&k oppression in meri&a. ;I:1e got to tell you$It was a !antasy.< >ere,
Di3on:s assessment o! his own !ilm &on1erges with Iantor:s a&&usation o! ;anger without reason.< Di3on goes on to say, ;but it was a !antasy that e$er"bod" !elt< BBerry & Berry 1%4, emphasis mineC. +he problem then is two!old' !irst, it mani!ests itsel! in the dis&ontinuity between /eyer Iantor:s White ;human< and I1an Di3on:s Bla&k ;e1erybody.< +he dis&ontinuity, whi&h presents itsel! to us as a politi&al and aestheti& di1ergen&e, is in !a&t produ&ti1e o! the ontologi&al Guestions that embra&e the ethi&al dilemma o! the Bla&k. What Iantor des&ribes as the $iolence of anger &ithout reason, Di3on des&ribes as a fantas" &ithout ,ob5ecti$e $alue- B/arriottC. Degardless o! the !a&t that these two men ha1e di!!erent aestheti& sensibilities and are so !ar apart politi&ally that they &ouldn:t agree on lun&h, they ha1e in !a&t both stumbled upon the ontologi&al problemati& o! the Bla&k, "ust as :ariet" maga=ine stumbled upon it when it panned Jules Dassin:s UptightB as a !ilm !ull o! ;1iolen&e-oriented 6egro militants in this &ountry, as though meri&a on&e was a
1,%
6egro &ountry &onGuered by whites< B:ariet" Re$ie&s 1#H1-H,-C. I am arguing that this &ontradi&tion disturbs the generally a&&epted readings o! politi&al 1iolen&e, the ethi&al dilemmas o! Bla&k @ower, and the politi&al !antasies o! Bla&ks more broadly. In addition, this &ontradi&tion should also disturb our reading o! !he Wretched of the some &onsider to be the ;ur-te3t< o! the era. In !he Wretched of the arth, Fanon makes two gestures &on&erning 1iolen&e. arth, what
+he !irst is that 1iolen&e is a pre&ondition !or thought, meaning that without 1iolen&e the reigning episteme and its elaborated so&ial stru&tures &annot be &alled into Guestion, paradigmati&ally BWretched 0.C. Without re1olutionary 1iolen&e, politi&s is always predi&ated on the ensemble o! e3isting Guestions. +he other is that this absolute, or in our parlan&e gratuitous, 1iolen&e is not so absolute and gratuitous a!ter all?not, that is, in lgeria. It &omes with a therapeuti& grounding wire, a purpose that &an be arti&ulated' the restoration o! the nati1e:s land B07C. *ne &an read the se&ond gesture as either an alibi !or or as a &on&ession toward his hosts, the lgeriansE it does not matter. What matters is the inappli&ability o! the gesture when trying to re!le&t upon the 1iolen&e o! the 2la1e and the signi!i&an&e o! politi&al 1iolen&e in 2la1e !ilms. +he 1ulnerability o! the post&olonial is open, but not absolute' materially speaking, sHhe &ar1es out =ones o! respite by putting the 2ettler ;out o! the pi&ture< BFanon Wretched %%C, whether ba&k to the 5uropean =one or into the sea. +here is no analogy between the post&olonial:s guarantee o! restoration predi&ated on herHhis need to put the 2ettler out o! the pi&ture?the Fanon o! !he Wretched of the arth B%%C?and the 2la1e:s guarantee o! restoration predi&ated on
herHhis need to put the >uman out o! the pi&ture?the Fanon o! Black Skin, White (asks B7,C.
1,(
+his !ailed analogy has other impli&ations. It also means that the post&olonial:s ps"chic 1ulnerability is not absolute' one &an dream, legitimately, o! a land lost and, legitimately, &ontemplate a land to be restored. In this respe&t, Dorothy Bin Kerima:s Bush (amaC is not 2uite the woman in the /@L poster3l1ii whom the !ilm suggests she
&hannels be!ore and a!ter killing the poli&eman. >owe1er, though Dorothy does not share the post&olonial:s &apa&ity !or &artographi& restoration, what they ha1e in &ommon is a ;&leansing< relationship to 1iolen&e' ;L+Mhis narrow world, strewn with prohibitions, &an only be &alled in Guestion by absolute 1iolen&e< BWretched of the arth 0.C. But !ilm s&holars, !ilm &riti&s, and the s&ripts o! most o! the !ilms themsel1es ha1e been de&idedly un&om!ortable with embra&ing, !ully, what is &alled into Guestion by the absolute 1iolen&e o! the 2la1e' an epistemologi&al 1iolen&e una&&ompanied by the psy&hi& grounding wires o! post&olonial restoration, !antasies an&hored by &artography. In Bush (ama, Dorothy BBarbara *. JonesC struggles to na1igate Los ngeles:s
poli&ing, wel!are, and the sterili=ation agenda !or Bla&k women. 2hot in bla&k and white &inema 1VritV, the !ilm is a work o! !i&tion, but the opening s&ene, in whi&h Kerima and his &rew are hassled, pushed, !risked, and 1erbally assaulted by the L @D, is not a dramati=ation. +he poli&e simply saw Bla&k people with &ameras and des&ended. Kerima le!t this !ootage in the !ilm. >ere the !i&tional diegesis o! state 1iolen&e Bthe s&ript Kerima intendedC is !or&ed to en&ounter the e3tra-diegeti& 1iolen&e o! the state Bthe s&ript the state intendedC. +his kind o! do&umentary-inspired en&ounter was not un&ommon during the 17,4sH.4s. 2e1eral White so&ially and politi&ally engaged dire&tors took their &inemati& apparati into the streets in sear&h o! the ;re1olution.< While shooting (edium Cool
1,,
B17,7C, >askell We3ler took his a&tors to a 6ational Kuard military base and had them pretend to be the newsmen they played in the diegesis so that he might re&ord the anti&s and beha1ior o! soldiers in the presen&e o! ;newsmen.< >e also wrote the s&ript to &oin&ide with the Demo&rati& )on1ention o! 17,-. Dather than stage the drama in a park either be!ore or a!ter the &on1ention, he on&e again had the a&tors per!orm the s&ript in the midst o! )hi&ago:s poli&e riot BDire&tor:s )ommentary, (edium Cool DND 1ersionC. But whereas White !ilmmakers like We3ler deliberately transported their apparati o! enun&iation Btheir &ameras and &rewC in search of the state, Kerima and his &rew had barely taken their &ameras out o! the &ar when their apparatus o! enun&iation magneti1ed 2tate 1iolen&e. Bush (ama opens with a poli&e brutality s&ene whi&h, unlike similar !ormal en&roa&hments on the mise-en-s&ene o! White !ilms like (edium Cool, was neither anti&ipated nor sought a!ter. It emerged !rom the ontologi&al &ondition o! the !ilmmakers themsel1es, not !rom their aestheti& or politi&al intentions. *ne &ould say it erupted !rom the ;!a&t o! Bla&kness< BFanon BSW(C. (edium Cool:s apparatus o! enun&iation in$ites the state into its diegesis to bolster the !ilm:s hegemoni& impa&t, but the state simply in1ades both the diegesis and the apparatus o! Bush (ama be&ause, like its main &hara&ter, like the !lesh o! Bla&k bodies, and like the narration o! Bla&k stories, the institutionality o! Bla&k &inema is 1ulnerable in absolute terms. Bla&k !ilm is the one &inema in whi&h the sub"e&t o! spee&h B&hara&ters in the diegesis, DorothyC and the speaking sub"e&t Bthe apparatus o! enun&iation, Kerima and his &rewC are both beings !or the &aptor. Ki1en this state o! open 1ulnerability?gi1en Bla&kness as the always already a1ailable prey o! &i1il so&iety and the state?the two most di!!i&ult psy&hi& gestures !or
1,.
Bla&k politi&s and Bla&k &inema to make are those gestures that BaC a&knowledge &i1il so&iety:s gratuitous 1iolen&e against the Bla&k body and BbC legitimate the Bla&k:s 1iolent response against &i1il so&iety. Bush (ama is one o! se1eral !ilms, almost all o! them shot and released between 17,. and 17.., that liberate the Bla&k politi&al imaginary in its Guest to make those two essential gestures. Bush (ama, o! &ourse, &ould not ha1e &ataly=ed these gestures on its own, but rather it was indebted to the spe&ter o! the Bla&k Liberation rmy. +hat is to say, to the spirit o! the 2la1e re1olt. I am interested in Bla&k !ilmmakers o! the 17.4s, like )harles Burnett, >aile Kerima, Julie Dash, I1an Di3on, and Jamaa Fanaka, not as auteurs, or brilliant indi1iduals, but as &inemati& prisms. I belie1e that, regardless o! the politi&al 1iews these !ilmmakers may or may not hold, their bodies and their aestheti& sensibilities be&ame &iphers !or a rather spe&ial, intense, and rare phenomenon o! Bla&k people on the mo1e politi&ally. *! &ourse, this mo1ement was a long time &oming and a long time building. But I think that this moment in history was spe&ial be&ause it &ulminated in an embra&e o! Bla&k 1iolen&e whi&h had not been seen be!ore. I propose that the spe&ter o! the Bla&k Liberation rmy?and by spe&ter, I mean the 1eitgeist rather than the a&tual histori&al
re&ord o! the BL ?pro1ides us with both a point o! &ondensation !or thinking Bla&k people on the mo1e and a stru&ture o! arti&ulation between the un!lin&hing mo1ement o! Bla&ks, politi&ally, and the un!lin&hing !antasies o! Bla&ks, &inemati&ally. In the remainder o! this &hapter I would like to' 1. +ake the &redit !or a shi!t in the politi&s o! &inemati& thought, and the cinematic unrest that it &ataly=ed, away !rom the Bla&k !ilmmakers as auteurs and pla&e it at the !eet o! Bla&k people on the mo1e.
1,-
#. 2uggest that the politi&al antagonism that was e3plained and the insurgent i&ono&lasm that was harnessed by these !ilmmakers, in their !ilms: a&ousti& strategies, lighting, mise-en-s&ene and image &onstru&tion, and &amera work, marked an ethical embrace o! the 2la1e:s ensemble o! Guestions regarding the 2la1e estate:s stru&ture o! 1iolen&e and the 2la1e re1olt:s stru&ture o! !eeling. +his was the &ase e$en though the narrati$e logic of their films often shared the inspiration of the personal pronoun ,&e- and, as such, genuflected to the ethical dilemmas of the postcolonial 7or proletariat, White feminist, or colored immigrantC. Bush (ama is one o! the more e3emplary points o! &ondensation between &inema and that spe&ial moment o! Bla&kness on the mo1e, the late 17,4s to mid 17.4s. It is an impressionisti& 1iew o! L. . ghetto li!e in the .4s, well written and per!ormed, but shot on a shoestring budget?hen&e its low produ&tion 1alues. >owe1er, these low produ&tion 1alues work !or it, rather than against it. 2o ;real< ha1e the tragi&, banal, and horri!ying en&ounters been among the Bla&ks in the !ilm Bthe long politi&al &on1ersations or the humorous and sad interpersonal &ommentaries and soliloGuiesC that we !ind it has not ;prepared< us !or Luann:s B2usan WilliamsC rape at the hands o! a poli&eman in the way, !or e3ample, a high-budget >ollywood !ilm would ha1e. +his is how the seGuen&e un!olds' a!ter listening to 2immi B2immi 5lla 6elsonC, an older Bla&k woman, &ounsel a young man on Bla&k militan&y and the need !or Bla&k ;togetherness,< Dorothy, the protagonist, and her !riend /olly B)ora Lee DayC ha1e a heated and abrupt disagreement with respe&t to what 2immi has been saying. +hen, while waiting !or her mother to &ome home !rom work, Luann, Dorothy:s ten- or ele1en-year-
1,7
old daughter, is raped by a poli&eman B)hris )layC. Dorothy walks in as the rape is in progress and kills the poli&eman. Dorothy is in&ar&erated and then beaten in her &ell by a White dete&ti1e when she re!uses to sign a poli&e-prepared &on!ession that says she killed the &op in &old blood, &hained her own daughter to the bed, and then pulled the dead poli&eman:s pants down in order to in&riminate him. +wo or three seGuen&es prior to the !ilm:s &limati& ending, Dorothy:s partner, +.). BJohnny WeathersC, a Nietnam 1eteran, is sent to prison !or a &rime he did not &ommit. We ha1e also learned that Dorothy is pregnant with +.).:s baby. +he signi!i&an&e o! this is that the blood on the !loor o! her &ell is hers and probably that o! the baby aborted during the beating. +here is a &orresponden&e between the intima&y o! the poli&eman:s 1iolen&e and the intima&y o! Dorothy:s murder o! him. Like the rape, the murder is body to body?or, more pre&isely, the rape is body to ;!lesh< Bsub"e&t to ob"e&t, >uman to 2la1eC and the murder is ;!lesh< to body. +he &inemati& strategies do not rob the spe&tator who is positioned as a 2la1e in this deli&ious moment, but sa1ors it well beyond the duration o! both real time and the borders o! Ba=inian naturalism. Dorothy does not blow the o!!i&er away with multiple rounds o! an automati& weapon, but &rawls on top o! him?as he has been on top o! her daughter?and stabs him to death with the blunt point o! her umbrella. s he has e3hausted, relie1ed, and renewed himsel! se3ually at the e3pense o! her daughter, she now e3hausts, relie1es, and renews hersel! through the repeated thrust o! her umbrella. +o paraphrase Fanon, the 1iolen&e &leanses her. >ere the intima&y between Bla&ks and Whites, whi&h has been the hallmark o! the meri&an imaginary sin&e
sla1ery, &annot be denied, but the idiom o! that intima&y?the ontologi&al nature o! that uniGuely /odern relation?has always been the 1i&tim o! an3ious euphemisms. +oward
1.4
the end o! Bush (ama, Dorothy:s ;!lesh<-to-body en&ounter with the poli&eman &alls that intima&y by its proper name' murder.
@oliti&al ontology is thought through two ensembles o! Guestions' a des&ripti1e ensemble that asks ;What does it mean to su!!erF< and a pres&ripti1e ensemble that asks ;>ow does one be&ome !ree o! su!!eringF< Bush (ama arti&ulates these two ensembles in a manner emblemati& o! this spe&ial moment in Bla&k &inema and Bla&k struggle. +he des&ripti1e ensemble &an be thought o! as Guestions related to how gratuitous 1iolen&e stru&tures and positions the Bla&k. )harles Burnett:s !he .orse in1ests nearly all o! its points o! attention with the des&ripti1e ensemble. +he pres&ripti1e ensemble &an be thought o! as Guestions &on&erning the turning o! the gratuitous 1iolen&e that stru&tures and positions the Bla&k against not "ust the poli&e, but against &i1il so&iety writ large. Let us think about the !ilm and &inemati& !orm in relation to an ensemble o! des&ripti1e Guestions. Dorothy:s open 1ulnerability to gratuitous 1iolen&e is absolute. +his is &on1eyed subtly, at the le1el o! the image whereby tight shots o! Dorothy at home, Luann at home, +.). in prison, and Dorothy in prison emphasi=e the disintegration o! e1ery in!rastru&ture they inhabit. What is shared between all o! these images is &hipped paint, dirty and battered walls, gra!!iti &ar1ed and written with sharp ob"e&ts. In one s&ene in parti&ular, ngie BDenna Ira!tC, a young neighbor and Bla&k militant, reads t the start o!
one o! +.).:s letters !rom prison to Dorothy, who, we reali=e, &annot read.
the s&ene, the low &amera angle !oregrounds the &hipped paint o! the walls and the doorway. +his spe&ta&le remains !oregrounded, with Dorothy lying e3hausted on the
1.1
&ou&h in the ba&k' the door opens abruptly and we see the !eet and legs o! a person enter. +he ne3t shot shows the person to be ngie. s ngie reads the letter her 1oi&e slowly gi1es way to +.).:s 1oi&e and we &ut to him speaking the letter in a soliloGuy through the bars?the bars with their &hipped paint and the &ell walls with its &ar1ed gra!!iti. +he &amera pans right, along the row o! &ells, and +.).:s 1oi&e be&omes a 1oi&eo1er !or a series o! images o! &aptured Bla&k men, &lose-up and medium &lose-up shots o! them looking dire&tly at the &amera through the bars. s the s&ene &on&ludes, +.).:s letterHsoliloGuy draws to a &lose, and the &amera
pans ba&k, le!t, along the &ells in +.).:s row?e3&ept, instead o! ending where it began, on +.)., it ends on a tight &lose up o! Dorothy resting her &hin on the ba&k o! her hands the same way some o! the men in prison ha1e been doing. +he &amera holds on this image !or at least two or three beats be!ore we reali=e that Dorothy is not also in&ar&erated. +he image is &ut so tightly that the window !rame appears to us as prison bars. +hen the wind blows the &urtain a&ross Dorothy:s !a&e, and we reali=e that she is at home, but also that ;home< is no di!!erent than prison. Luann:s en&ounter with the poli&eman &on!irms, through the spe&ta&le o! &hild rape, what the !ilm:s &inemati& !orm has worked so diligently to build' the !a&t that ;Bla&k home< is an o3ymoron be&ause a notion o! a Bla&k home !inds no stru&tural analogy with a notion o! White or non-Bla&k domesti& spa&e. +he open 1ulnerability o! Bla&k domesti&ity !inds its stru&tural analogy?i! it &an be metaphori=ed as an analogy? with that domain known as the sla1e Guarter' a ;pri1ate< home on a /aster:s estate' a building with walls and a door, the open 1ulnerability o! whi&h is so absolute that it &an
1.#
be &onsidered neither ;pri1ate< nor ;home.< >ome then, o!!ers no san&tuary in the !ilm:s libidinal e&onomy be&ause &apti1ity is a &onstituent element o! the &hara&ters: li1es. +he !ilm:s a&ousti& strategies also e1oke this stru&tural position o! the Bla&k as one o! open 1ulnerability to 1iolen&e. +hroughout the !ilm, Dorothy hears 1oi&es in her head. +hey are the 1oi&es o! wel!are agen&y workers who ha1e impaled her on the horns o! a dilemma' since "ou are not married to !.C. and since "ou alread" ha$e a child, &e demand that "ou ha$e an abortion if "ou &ant to go on recei$ing "our check. +he words, ;Do you agree,< ;Do you understand,< whi&h Dorothy hears in the seGuen&e are similar to those she:s been hearing throughout the !ilm. +he gratuitous 1iolen&e o! sound, to whi&h Dorothy is openly 1ulnerable throughout the !ilm, the 1oi&es demanding she abort her se&ond &hild, are important to &ontemplate, espe&ially &onsidering the histori&al moment o! this !ilm, the early to mid-17.4s' the moment o! Doe 1. Wade and the White !eminist mo1ement:s &ries, ;our bodies, oursel1esA< and ;a woman:s right to &hooseA< I ha1e no interest in debating the so&ial or moral pros and &ons o! abortion. Dorothy will abort her baby either at the &lini& or on the !loor o! her prison &ell, not be&ause she !ights !or?and either wins or loses?the right to do so, but be&ause she is one o! thirty-!i1e million a&&umulated and !ungible Bowned and e3&hangeableC ob"e&ts li1ing amongst #04 million sub"e&ts?whi&h is to say, her will is always already subsumed by the will o! &i1il so&iety. >er will is inessential to the ma&hinations o! hegemony. Bush (ama raises disturbing Guestions about the degree to whi&h hegemoni& struggles within &i1il so&iety are, ultimately, meaning!ul to the 2la1e:s liberation. /y thesis is that Guestions regarding the stru&tural in&ompatibility between the worker and the 2la1e or between the woman and the 2la1e, &ould be raised &inemati&ally be&ause
1.0
su&h Guestions had already emerged as !ull-blown &ontradi&tions with the ranks o! armed insurgents. +hey are e&hoed in &ommentary on the relationship between Bla&k re1olutionaries and White re1olutionaries. In 2eptember 17.7, Jalil /untaGuim, a Bla&k @anther turned Bla&k Liberation rmy soldier wrote' LIMt must be stated, a ma"or &ontradi&tion was de1eloping between the Bla&k underground and those 5uro- meri&an !or&es who were employing armed ta&ti&s in support o! Nietnamese liberation struggle$By 17.0-.(, this &ontradi&tion be&ame !ull blown, whereby, spe&i!i& 5uro- meri&an re1olutionary armed !or&es re!used to gi1e meaning!ul material and politi&al support to the Bla&k Liberation /o1ement, more spe&i!i&ally, to the Bla&k Liberation rmy. +hereby, in 17.%, the Bla&k Liberation rmy
was without an abo1e-ground politi&al support apparatusE logisti&ally and stru&turally s&attered a&ross the &ountry without the means to unite its &ombat unitsE abandoned by 5uro- meri&an re1olutionary armed !or&esE and being relentlessly pursued by the 2tate rea&tionary !or&es )*I6+5L@D* BFBI, )I and lo&al poli&e departmentC$LIMt was only a rmy would be 1irtually
matter o! time be!ore the Bla&k Liberation
de&imated as a !ighting &landestine organi=ation. B147C3l1iii *ne need only try &omparing the stru&ture o! !eeling o! Da1id Kilbert, a White member o! 2D2 and the Weather 8nderground Band who, in !a&t, went on to be&ome a dedi&ated member o! the Bla&k Liberation rmyC, with the stru&ture o! !eeling o! Bla&k @anther
@arty &adres to dis&o1er how in&ompatible the stru&tures o! !eeling were between Bla&k re1olutionaries and e1en the tiny hand!ul o! Whites who allowed themsel1es to be
1.%
elaborated by Bla&kness when the Nietnam War ended. Kilbert, speaking to White inter1iewers and &amera &rew !or a !ilm that was edited and produ&ed through the ethi&al dilemmas o! White a&ti1ism and &onsumed by a White progressi1e audien&e, has this to say' I !ound out Lthat inM street !ighting situations my de!ensi1e re!le3es were 1ery good LbutM my o!!ensi1e re!le3es were pretty hesitant$+here were times when !or the purposes o! demonstration I should ha1e been more o!!ensi1e or aggressi1e and it "ust wasn:t me. It "ust didn:t happen$2o many o! us had su&h little e3perien&e with 1iolen&e and so little relationship to 1iolen&e and LhadM led really relati1ely sheltered li1es. nd
as I said, !or my !irst se1en years o! a&ti1ism I was philosophi&ally a pa&i!ist$B3a$id 0ilbert: A 'ifetime of StruggleC By way o! &ontrast, the words o! the underground @anthers ;Dynamite< and ;*batunde,< along with those o! 5ri&ka >uggins, Fred >ampton, and Judi Douglas?words written in a Bla&k newspaper, &onsumed by a primarily Bla&k readership?e&ho !rom a &ompletely di!!erent =one than those o! Da1id Kilbert. In ;*pen War!are in Berkeley,< ;Dynamite< writes' ;+he Bla&k @anther @arty is making the re1olution$We see that the white mother &ountry radi&al is willing to lay down a li!e. We ask is he willing to pi&k up the gunF< B/ay #(, 17,7' ,C In ;6o Ji1e De1olution,< ;*batunde< asserts, ;De1olution destroys e1erything that gets in its way$i! you are going to mo1e on some money Lhe has been writing about bank e3propriations !or the purposes o! !inan&ing politi&al a&ti1itiesM, mo1e on some money. +hink big, a&t bad, and be deadly. 2trike as mu&h terror in the white boy:s heart as possible< B6o1. 1,, 17,-'1,C. *n /ay #(, 17,7 5ri&ka >uggins writes'
1.(
;+his is$the year o! the @anther. +his is the beginning$o! re1olutionary struggle$the world o! guns and politi&al dire&tion$+his is the dawning o! the age o! re1olutionA gunsA bloodshedA< *n pril 11, 17.4, Judy Douglas wrote' ;Four pigs were o!!ed this week$a 1i&tory !or the people.< In the same arti&le, Judy Douglas noted that the shoot-out was pre&ipitated by straight-up &riminal a&ti1ity, and she stated that it would ;ha1e been a great e1ent i! we &ould attribute this a&t to some brothers who righteously got down and went out to deal with the oppressor:s troops in the &ommunity.< But her unwillingness to &ondone &riminal a&ti1ity did not make her look a gi!t horse in the mouth' she took a dead &op any way she &ould get it. In the end she writes, ;Four pigs deadA ll @ower to
the @eople. +ake the 2truggle to the 2treets.< It was Fred >ampton, perhaps the most respe&ted @anther beyond the terrain o! Bla&kness, whose remarks went unapologeticall" to both the heart o! Bla&k politi&al pleasure and to the &enter o! the terri!ying promise through whi&h the spe&ter o! Bla&kness haunts &i1il so&iety. *n pedagogy, pleasure, and desire, >ampton writes' I! you kill a !ew, you get a little satis!a&tion. +hat:s why we ha1en:t mo1ed. We ha1e to organi=e the people. We ha1e to tea&h them about re1olutionary politi&al power. nd when they understand all that we won:t be killing no !ew and getting
no little satis!a&tion. We:ll be killing Rem all and getting &omplete satis!a&tion. BJuly 7, 17,7'.C +hese arti&les and editorials may seem &hilling and e1en inhumane to some, but in e1ery metropolis in this &ountry there are still, to this day, rooms !ull o! Bla&k men and women, apartments and prison &ells, streets and &orners ri!e with a presen&e !or whom the emotional and politi&al proto&ol o! the @anther editorials is e3hilarating, inspiring and
1.,
true, ri&h with symboli& 1alue.3li3 Why, in this politi&al milieu, when Bla&k people &ere at the &enter o! politi&al pra3is whi&h mo1ed on this apparatus o! round-up?the period o! the @anthers and the subseGuent period o! the BL ?were White radi&als so ta&iturn and s&ar&eF +he distan&e between the stru&ture o! !eeling arti&ulated by White radi&alism, in the e3ample o! Da1id Kilbert, and the stru&ture o! !eeling arti&ulated by Bla&k radi&alism, in the @anther editorials, reprodu&ed itsel! in the !orm o! an irre&on&ilable gap between the ethi&al dilemmas o! that period:s White politi&al &inema and !ilms like Bush (ama, Filler of Sheep, and Soul :engeance. What, we might ask, e3plains the ta&iturn absen&e o! White radi&alism in the !a&e o! Bla&k ethi&al dilemmasF Is it the di!!eren&e between laying down one:s li!e and pi&king up the gun, or between supporting the Nietnamese thousands o! miles away and the Bla&k Liberation rmy right here at home, or the
di!!eren&e between de!ensi1e re!le3es and o!!ensi1e re!le3esF >ow do we e3plain a White politi&al &inema genuinely an3ious about go1ernment &orruption, the integrity o! the press, a woman:s right to &hoose, the plight o! turtles and whales, or the status o! the publi& sGuare, and a Bla&k politi&al &inema &alling !or the end o! the worldF I belie1e that when we &ontemplate a grammar o! su!!ering through the ma&hinations o! libidinal e&onomy?those largely un&ons&ious identi!i&ations with &orresponden&es o1erdetermined by stru&tural positionality?we !ind that the imaginati1e labor o! White radi&alism and White politi&al &inema is animated by the same ensemble o! Guestions and the same stru&ture o! !eeling that animates White suprema&y. Whi&h is to say that while the men and women in blue, with guns and "ailers: keys, appear to be White suprema&y:s !ront line o! 1iolen&e against Bla&ks, they are merely its reser1es,
1..
&alled upon only when needed to augment White radi&alism:s always already ongoing patrol o! a =one more sa&red than the streets' the =one o! White ethi&al dilemmasE o! &i1il so&iety at e1ery s&ale, !rom the White body, to the White household, through the publi& sphere on up to the nation. nti-Bla&kness, then, as opposed to White apathy, is
ne&essary to White politi&al radi&alism and to White politi&al &inema be&ause it sutures a!!e&ti1e, emotional, and e1en ethi&al solidarity between the ideological polar e3tremes o! Whiteness. +his ne&essary anti-Bla&kness ere&ts a stru&tural prohibition that one sees in White politi&al dis&ourse and in White politi&al &inema that pre1ents Whites !rom being authori=ed by the ethi&al dilemmas o! the 2la1e. I drew upon the White re1olutionary !igure o! Da1id Kilbert and not the !igure o! a &ounter-&ultural !lower &hild o! the time so as not to su&&umb to the relati1e ease o! straw-person strategies, and be&ause &omrades like Da1id Kilbert and /arilyn Bu&k were so sin&ere and !orthright in their a&ti1e &ommitment to the Bla&k Liberation rmy that
the 2tate re-&ast them as Bla&k and threw them in prison and threw away the key. l But as sin&ere and true as his words ring in a &ons&ious register, when he tells the 1iewer that ;!or my !irst se1en years o! a&ti1ism I was philosophi&ally a pa&i!ist,< I simply don:t buy it. +his is not to say that he is &ons&iously lying, but rather that the stru&ture o! his testimony partakes o! a &olle&ti1e disa1owal. I do not a&&ept that the stru&ture o! !eeling !oundational to White radi&als has so mu&h pa&i!ist baggage to de&lare that they !ind it hard to in&ul&ate the 2la1e:s stru&ture o! !eeling, but rather that they un&ons&iously prefer the 1iolen&e o! the state to the 1iolen&e o! Bla&ks. +his pre!eren&e !or state 1iolen&e as opposed to Bla&k 1iolen&e is something essential to White gendering, White domesti&ity, and all aspe&ts o! White &i1i& li!eE it is a phenomenon whi&h White politi&al
1.-
&inema !orti!ies and e3tendsE and it is a phenomenon whi&h Bla&k politi&al dis&ourse and &inema struggle to &ontend with, de&onstru&t, and, in the &ase o! a rare sele&tion o! !ilms like Bush (ama, ultimately break through.
White *olicing from the )eft Bush (ama4s editing strategies, its use o! sound, and its imagisti& &omposition in1ite us to 1iew the open 1ulnerability o! Dorothy:s &apti1ity so&ially, politi&ally, and libidinally?what Fanon would &all her ;absolute dereli&tion.< +he a&ousti& strategies, the 1oi&es ringing in her ear Band oursC are emphati& in their assertion that e1en her un&ons&ious is held &apti1e by the sla1e estate. nd the prison &ell where she washes
about in her own blood and the blood o! the !etus un&annily resembles the /iddle @assage horror o! a sla1e ship:s hold. +he !ilm in1ites us to ponder the image o! Dorothy beaten and alone in her &ell and the battering o! her womb as the a priori &apti1ity and se3ual destru&tion that distinguishes Bla&k women !rom the women o! &i1il so&iety. I want to return to the Bla&k Liberation soldier, 2a!iya Bukhari- lston. 2a!iya spent !rom rmy, by way o! its re&ently de&eased pril 17.( to June 17.- trying to get
medi&al treatment !rom prison authorities at the Nirginia )orre&tional )enter !or Women. >er ordeal, anthologi=ed in Joy James: 6mprisoned 6ntellectuals, is &hilling. In 17.7, while still in&ar&erated, she wrote' +he ;medi&al treatment< !or women prisoners here in Nirginia has got to be at an all time low, when you put your li!e in the hands o! a ;do&tor< who e3amines a woman who has her right o1ary remo1ed and tells her there:s tenderness in her right o1aryE or when the same ;do&tor<
1.7
e3amines a woman who has been in prison !or si3 months and tells her she:s si3 weeks pregnant and there:s nothing wrong with her and she later !inds her baby has died and morti!ied inside o! herE or when he tells you you:re not pregnant and three months later you gi1e birth to a se1en pound baby boyE not to mention pres&ribing /aalo3 !or a sore throat that turns out to be &an&er. B104Cli From this ma&abre des&ription o! the state:s poli&ing o! !emale se3uality, 2a!iya mo1es to the spe&i!i&ity o! her own se3uality and its relation to the state' In De&ember 17., I started hemorrhaging and went to the &lini& !or help. 6o help o! any &onseGuen&e was gi1en, so I es&aped. +wo months later I was re&aptured. While on es&ape a do&tor told me that I &ould either endure the situation, take painkillers, or ha1e surgery$I !inally got to the hospital in June o! 17.-. By that time it was too late, 6 &as so messed up inside that e$er"thing but one o$ar" had to go. Be&ause o! the negligen&e o! the ;do&tor< and the lack of feeling o! the prison o!!i&ials, they didn:t gi1e a damn, I was !or&ed to ha1e a hystere&tomy. B104, emphasis in the originalC I want to lo&ate 2a!iya Bukhari- lston:s state-indu&ed hemorrhaging and subseGuent destru&tion o! her womb at another pla&e in spa&e and time outside o! and prior to the prison walls. I want to re-lo&ate the destru&tion o! her womb spatially at the symboli& plentitude o! the White woman:s womb, and lo&ate it temporally at White !emininity:s moment o! possibility. +his ri&h semanti& !ield o! White !emale se3uality whi&h spreads its tendrils through the &on&eits o! &i1il so&iety depends, e$en for its discontents, on a
1-4
repetition o! the always already mutilation and destru&tion o! Bla&k !emale se3uality. For White women to embra&e patriar&hy as its &elebrated dupe or to rail against it, !or them to &elebrate the &on!inement o! domesti&ity or agitate !or a&&ess to the workpla&e, !or them to a&Guies&e to )hur&h do&trines o! se3uality or pro&laim ;our bodies, oursel1es<--!or all su&h &on!li&ts to ha1e &oheren&e, !ind semioti& &orresponden&e, &ash in on symboli& 1alue, and &ulti1ate a semanti& !ield, there must o&&ur, in the !irst instan&e o! ontologi&al time, the rei!i&ation and destru&tion o! 2a!iya Bukhari- lston:s womb. White thought, e1en at its most radi&al outposts, is not possible without the unmooring o! Bla&k !emininity. nd this a&&umulated and destroyed se3uality Bto re&all the 171% dissertation
o! >./. >enryC is e1ery White person:s business to patrol, a patrol a&&omplished not only through the spe&ta&ular 1iolen&e o! a prison hospital, but also through White struggles o1er ethi&al dilemmas in &i1il so&iety' the sele&tion o! topi&s, the distribution o! &on&erns, emphasis, the bounding o! debate within a&&eptable limits, and the propensity !or the a!!e&ti1e intensity o! no more than e1eryday li!e lii?an a!!e&ti1e intensity that may be saddened by the spe&ta&le o! ghetto li!e in its own ba&k yard, yet !inds no "oy at the thought o! !our dead &ops. 51eryday li!e, whi&h is the ba&kdrop, the hum, the pri1ate and Guotidian o! &i1il so&iety, &an only ha1e &oheren&e by way o! the imaginati1e labor whi&h geno&ided and banished the ob"e&t it &onstru&ted as ;2a1age< to the reser1ations o! White ethi&s and by way o! a simultaneous imaginati1e labor that keeps the gratuity o! Bla&k genital a&&umulation and destru&tion !rom o&&urring between White legs. +he &ourts and the prison authorities said that they kept 2a!iya housed in isolation !or three years and se1en months be&ause she was ;a threat to the se&urity o! the !ree world< BJames 10#C. In the politi&al e&onomy o! meri&an institutionality that statement
1-1
is dialogi& with the state:s more empiri&al and nameable an3ieties with respe&t to se&urity. !ter all, 2a!iya Bukhari- lston had been a &adre in the Bla&k @anther @arty
whi&h, at its peak o! 14,444 abo1e ground a&ti1ists, J. 5dgar >oo1er &alled ;the greatest threat to national se&urityE< and later, in the 17.4s, she had been a soldier in the Bla&k Liberation urban rmy, a group the poli&e said were %44 strong and s&attered in &ells through
meri&a and whi&h laun&hed more than ,, atta&ks on law en!or&ement liii. In this
way she &an be imagined as a spe&i!i& threat to the ta&tile in!rastru&ture and politi&al e&onomy o! the state. But in the libidinal e&onomy o! meri&an institutionality, she
threatened something mu&h more !undamental than the men and women in blue, !or as I stated earlier they are only the poli&e in reser1e. 2he stood be!ore her "ailers as a threat to the se&urity o! the !ree world be&ause her e3isten&e, or more pre&isely her li1ing death, threatened the &on&eptual !ramework o! White se3uality writ large, whi&h is to say, only through her death &an White women know themsel1es as women and White men know themsel1es as men. >er stru&tural positionality threatens the se&urity o! the White domesti& s&ene, the White home?the purest distillation o! the state. I want to ponder the image o! 2a!iya Bukhari lston alone in her isolation unit as
a means through whi&h to ponder Bush (ama:s Dorothy, also alone in a prison &ell, the !amiliar images o! blood and destru&tion between their and e1ery other Bla&k man and woman:s legs?images whi&h are seldom thought o! as being essential to both White progressi1e imaginings and White ra&ist imaginings. 2a!iya Bukhari- lston, lying on her ba&k at the Nirginia )orre&tional )enter !or Women waiting !or ;help< that, when it &omes, will wreak e1en more ha1o&. I want to "u3tapose those 17.4s &ar&eral images o! Dorothy and 2a!iya with another set o! 17.4s images' White women burning bras in
1-#
>ar1ard 2Guare or raising passionate issues in a /adison &ons&iousness-raising &ir&le or mar&hing in D.). with signs to bring about and de!end Doe 1. Wade or in /anhattan agitating !or the 5D . I "u3tapose these images not in an e!!ort to present them as =ones whi&h hold out the promise o! some diale&ti&al unity or synthesis, but that we might 1isuali=e the /ani&heism that di1ides Bla&k ethi&al dilemmas and White ethi&al dilemmas into irre&on&ilable =ones. But it would be as intelle&tually shoddy to read the lame libidinal e&onomy o! Betty Freidan and Kloria 2teinam:s !eminism against the un!lin&hing libidinal e&onomy o! 2a!iya Bukhari and ssata 2hakur, as it would ha1e
been earlier to read a !lower &hild:s stru&ture o! !eeling regarding 1iolen&e against that stru&ture o! !eeling whi&h animated the @anthers.li1 Leopoldina Fortunati and the /ar3ist !eminists o! Italy:s utonomia /o1ement,
howe1er, are perhaps the most pro1o&ati1e, i&ono&lasti& and dedi&ated White !emale intelle&tuals and street !ighters ali1e today?whi&h is to say they are as sin&ere as Da1id Kilbert and /arilyn Bu&k. +hrough a glimpse o! their admittedly bold and sub1ersi1e analyses, we &an highlight how the &orresponden&e between White !eminism:s ethi&al dilemmas and White suprema&y works to stru&ture solidarity between White radi&alism and White suprema&y, e$en at some o! White a&ti1ism:s most radi&al outposts. What is remarkable about the Italian !eminists is that the moti1ation that underwrites their work is the same &all !or the destru&tion o! the state arti&ulated by the @anthers and the Bla&k Liberation rmy. But their understanding o! the ontology o! the
one who su!!ers and how that su!!ering is mani!ested is as White as the assumptions !ound in the more disappointing &ommon sense o! meri&an !eminists Bi.e., Betty Freidan
1-0
and Kloria 2teinamC who do not &all !or the destru&tion o! the state, but simply want a&&ess to and trans!ormation o! its e3isting institutions. What I am saying is that the imaginati1e labor?the &ork?o! this most radi&al outpost o! White !eminism poli&es the terrain o! su!!ering and patrols Bla&k !eminism by suggesting that the ultimate !orm o! su!!ering is the su!!ering imposed upon women by way o! the wage relation. +his is a &rowding out s&enario be&ause the most in&isi1e and probing Bla&k !eminists like >ortense 2pillers insist that the Bla&k woman:s relation to &apital is not, in the !irst ontologi&al instan&e, the wage relation o! a sub"e&t but rather the !ungible, 1iolent, relation o! an ob"e&t. White Italian !eminism imagines, mu&h like White meri&an !eminism, an e3ploited and alienated body. But 2pillers reminds us that Bla&ks &annot !orm bodiesE they are ontologi&ally depri1ed o! the body. ;/otherhood,< >ortense 2pillers reminds us, ;as !emale birthright is outraged, is denied LBla&k womenM at the $er" same time that it be&omes the !ounding term !or LWhite women:sM human and so&ial ena&tment< B2pillers -4C. 2pillers rein!or&es this point when she says that !or the Bla&k woman ;Rmother: and Rensla1ement: are indistin&t &ategories,< synonymous elements whi&h de!ine ;a &ultural situation that is !atherla&king< B.7C. +his is not Fortunati:s understanding o! the se3ual rubri&. 2he writes' LWMithin reprodu&tion, the e3&hange Lo! labor powerM takes pla&e on three di!!erent le1els. It, too, is an e3&hange o! non-eGui1alents between uneGuals, but it does not appear e1en !ormally as an e3&hange that is organi=ed in a &apitalist way. Dather, it is an e3&hange that appears to take pla&e between male workers and women, but in reality takes pla&e
1-%
between capital and women with male workers a&ting as the intermediaries B--7C. For Fortunati, &apital has the !emale sub"e&t ens&on&ed within a symboli& illusion in whi&h it appears that the reprodu&ti1e sub"e&t BmotherHwi!eC &on!ronts the produ&ti1e sub"e&t B!atherHhusbandC when in point o! !a&t they are both produ&ti1e sub"e&ts &on!ronted by &apital. nd the sooner they both reali=e it, the sooner they &an get on with the workers: re1olution. +he same &ounter-hegemoni&, anti-illusionary ta&ti&s that animate so&ial mo1ement theory and alternati1e &inema are implied in Fortunati:s analysis. >owe1er, gratuitous 1iolen&e relegates the sla1e to the ta3onomy, the list o! things?to ob"e&ts. /otherhood, !atherhood, and gender di!!erentiations &an only be sustained in the ta3onomy o! sub"e&ts. reading o! Italian !eminist thought through
2pillers reminds us that the !oundation o! all White !eminist thought maintains its &oheren&e not primarily through a &ons&ious understanding o! how the White !emale body is e3ploited, but through the un&ons&ious libidinal understanding that no matter how bad e3ploitation be&omes the White body &an ne1er !all prey to a&&umulation and !ungibility' ;2imple enough one has only not to be a nigger< B BSW( 11(C. In this way, the most radi&al White politi&s !un&tion as the patrols did during sla1ery. Like the grand eman&ipatory rhetori& o! the meri&an De1olution, White !eminism is inessential, while
at the same time being parasiti&, to the grammar o! Bush (ama:s su!!ering. It poli&es and &rowds out Dorothy and 2a!iya:s ethi&al dilemmas be&ause its eman&ipatory imperati1e is predi&ated on a re!usal to relinGuish its body to the ripped-apartness o! Bush (ama4s Bla&k !lesh.
1-(
For Bla&k people, the stru&ture o! essential antagonisms &annot be attributed, a la Fortunati, to the illusor" nature o! the reprodu&ti1e sphere Blaws like 2+5@ in&ar&erate ;Bla&k home< with s&are GuotesC where the woman:s subordination to patriar&hal &apital is brought on by the illusory mysti!i&ation o! her mother-to-&hild, wi!e-to-husband relations Bmysti!ied and illusory be&ause, as Fortunati would ha1e it, the ob"e&ti1e &onditions o! the woman:s oppression stem !rom the !a&t that her waged relation to &apital is hidden by &apitalC. *n the &ontrary, the ontologi&al &ore o! Bla&k su!!ering is not lost in a labyrinth o! produ&tion posing a reprodu&tion posing as natural motherhood. 6or, at the &ore o! Bla&k su!!ering, is the Bla&k woman:s Bor man:sC ontology erroneously gendered by patriar&hal &astration !ears and mas&uline desire as in an *edipal drama. For the produ&tion o! Bla&k su!!ering, no su&h hall o! mirrors is ne&essary. 2pillers again' L+husM gender, or se3-role assignation or the &lear di!!erentiation o! se3ual stu!!, sustained else&here in the culture Lthat is to say, a1ailable to White and non-Bla&k womenM, does not emerge !or the !ri&an- meri&an !emale in this histori& instan&e Lan ;instan&e< whi&h 2piller reminds us spans !rom the /iddle @assage to the /oynihan Deport to the presentM e3&ept indire&tly, e3&ept as a way to rein!or&e through the pro&ess o! birthing Rthe reprodu&tion o! the relations o! produ&tion:$B.7C 2pillers goes on to a&knowledge the symmetry between the Bla&k woman and Fortunati:s working &lass motherHwi!e, in that the birthing pro&ess is indeed one o! the !irst steps in the reprodu&tion o! the relations o! produ&tion. In other words, like White mothers, Bla&k mothers, i! they &an be &alled mothers, &an also help Bla&k babies reprodu&e both
1-,
themsel1es and the 1alues and beha1ior patterns ne&essary to maintain &i1il so&iety:s system o! hierar&hy. But 2pillers is stead!ast in her insisten&e that though Bla&k ;mothers< do indeed e3perien&e the same ;naturali=ed< atta&hments to their &hildren Band to their partnersC as do mothers o! the working &lass, the Black &oman cannot ,claim her child- B-4C. Bla&k &hildren do not belong to Bla&k mothers Bor !athersCE "ust as Bla&k men and women don:t belong to, and thus &annot &laim, ea&h other' !lesh is always already &laimed by dire&t relations o! !or&e. s a result, the &on!li&ts that arise between the disparate ideologi&al elements within &i1il so&iety Bi.e., the White Le!t and the White DightC ultimately strengthen White solidarity within the libidinal e&onomy. +he greater the intensity o! the &on!li&t, the greater the intensity o! an un&ons&ious reminder o! what they &an all agree on' that bodily rei!i&ation and mutilation is not one o! our dilemmas. It:s a Bla&k thing. nd when this
un&ons&ious agreement is made a1ailable to spee&h and there!ore be&omes &ons&ious, it is displa&ed onto a myriad o! in1estments, en1ironmentalism, multi&ulturalism, pa&i!ism, !eminism?but I &all it anti-Bla&k poli&ing.
Invitations to the "ance I! the stru&ture o! politi&al desire in so&ially engaged !ilm hopes to stake out an antagonisti& relationship between its dream and the idiom o! power that underwrites &i1il so&iety, then it should grasp the in1itation to assume the positionality o! ob"e&ts o! so&ial death. I! we are to be honest with oursel1es, we must admit that ;the 6egro< has been in1iting Whites and &i1il so&iety:s "unior partners to the dan&e o! death !or hundreds o! years. )inema is "ust one o! many institutions that ha1e re!used to learn the steps. In the
1-.
17,4s and .4s, as White radi&alism:s Bespe&ially +he Weather 8nderground:sC dis&ourse and politi&al &ommon sense was beginning to be authori=ed by the ethi&al dilemmas o! embodied in&apa&ity Bi.e. Bla&knessC, White &inema:s histori&al pro&li1ity to embra&e dispossession through the 1e&tors o! capacit" Balienation and e3ploitationC was radi&ally disturbed. In some !ilms, this pro&li1ity was so pro!oundly ruptured that while the !ilms in Guestion did not surrender to the authority o! in&apa&ity Bdid not openly signal their ha1ing been authori=ed by the 2la1eC, they were nonetheless unsu&&ess!ul in their attempts to assert the legitima&y o! the White ethi&al dilemmas. lv The period of C I1T.&P+ 'S crushing of the #lac$ Panthers and then the #lac$ &iberation Arm( !as also a period !hich !itnessed the flo!ering of the political po!er of #lac$ness2not as institutional capacit( but as a 3eitgeist4 a demand capable of authori3ing )hite 5Settler6*aster7 radicalism. #( 89:;4 )hite radicalism had comfortabl( re<embraced capacit(2that is to sa(4 it returned to the discontents of civil societ( !ith the same formal tenacit( as it had from 8=>? lvi to 89@A4 onl( no! that formal tenacit( !as emboldened b( a !ider range of alibis than Bust %ree Speech or VietnamC for example4 !omen's4 ga(4 anti<nu$e4 and environmental movements. )inema has been, and remains today?e1en in its most politi&ally engaged moments?in1ested elsewhere, away !rom the ethi&al dilemmas o! beings positioned by so&ial death. +his is not to say that the desire o! all so&ially engaged &inema today is proWhite. But it is to say that it is almost always anti-Bla&k?whi&h is to say it will not dan&e with death.
1--
Bla&k liberation, as a prospe&t, makes radi&alism more dangerous to the 8.2. not be&ause it raises the spe&ter o! some alternati1e polity Blike so&ialism, or &ommunity &ontrol o! e3isting resour&esC but be&ause its &ondition o! possibility as well as its gesture o! resistan&e !un&tion as both a politi&s o! re!usal and a re!usal to a!!irmE that is, it !un&tions as ;a program o! &omplete disorder< BFanon Wretched$0,C. Bush (ama was able to embra&e this disorder, this in&oheren&e and allow !or their &inemati& elaboration. For a brie! moment in history, Bla&k !ilm assumed the Bla&k desire to take this &ountry down. +he &inemati& strategies o! !ilms like Bush (ama were able to &ontend with, de&onstru&t, and ultimately break through the 1eitgeist and politi&al &ommon sense whi&h normally rei!y White &i1il so&iety under the banner o! the uni1ersal ;we,< and open a portal through whi&h the des&ripti1e and pres&ripti1e registers o! Bla&k ethi&al dilemmas &ould be raised without apologyE that is, &ithout the need to comfort the .uman spectator b" 5ustif"ing the $iolence as a response to an inessential grammar of suffering . +he des&ripti1e register &an be imagined as an ensemble o! Guestions through whi&h &inema and politi&al dis&ourse do not blink in the !a&e o! an un!lin&hing analysis o! the Bla&k:s ;absolute dereli&tion,< a &omplete abandonment by the &artography o! &i1il so&iety. +he des&ripti1e imaginary o! these !ilmmakers whi&h a&&rued to them and their !ilms in the 17.4s held them in good stead e1en beyond the period o! the 17.4s. Witness Julie Dash:s 3aughters of the 3ust. What pre1ents this !ilm !rom ha1ing the li!e su&ked out o! it by some grandiose pabulum that pro&laims its ;uni1ersal< message B!or e3ample, the ;uni1ersal< message o! immigration and all its trials and tribulationsC is the !a&t that the spe&tator is made pain!ully aware that what is essential about the "ourney being
1-7
&ontemplated and argued o1er by 1arious members o! the !amily is the !a&t that it &an not be redu&ed to an analogy. )ertainly, immigrants all o1er the world lea1e one &ountry !or another &ountry?whi&h is to say, they lea1e one pla&e !or another. But only Bla&k !olks migrate !rom one pla&e to the ne3t while remaining on the same plantation. Like Julie Dash:s 3aughters of the 3ust, Kerima:s editing and Burnett:s &inematography o! Bush (ama are skepti&al about the uni1ersality o! migration . While eating dinner one e1ening, +.)., Dorothy, and Luanne "oyously muse about the possibility o! emigrating to somewhere, anywhere, outside o! the 82. +hey belie1e that their range o! mobility will be greatly e3tended as result o! +.).:s !irst "ob sin&e he &ame ba&k to the world !rom Nietnam. +he editing and the &inematography work inside o! a bla&k-inspired shorthand whi&h sGuashes the ne&essity o! narrati1eHstoryline e3planation !or what is about to happen. +he ne3t morning, a!ter this "oy!ul dinner s&ene, +.). lea1es the apartment !or his new "ob. +here:s an abrupt edit in whi&h we &ut !rom Dorothy, wa1ing a smiling goodbye, to the image o! +.). being es&orted down long seemingly endless prison &orridors to a &ell. Dather than s&ript the how or why o! his in&ar&eration, the &inematography and editing know what all Bla&k people know, that the &ir&uit o! mobility is between what Jared 2e3ton &alls the so&ial in&ar&eration o! Bla&k li!e and the institutional in&ar&eration o! the prison industrial &omple3?so mu&h !or the &inemati& elaboration o! the descripti$e register o! Bla&k ethi&al dilemmas. +he prescripti$e register, on the other hand, might be &alled the 6at +urner syndrome. Bla&ks arti&ulate and ruminate on these ensembles o! Guestions, in hushed tones, in ba&k rooms, Guietly, alone, or sometimes only in our dreams. 2a1e !or a sele&t !ew !ilms like Up !ightB, !he 'ost (an, !he Spook Who Sat b" the 3oor, and Jamaa
174
Fanaka:s Soul :engeance, this ensemble o! Guestions rarely !ound its way into the narrati1e &oheren&e o! a s&reenplay. 51en in >aile Kerima:s Bush (ama, one gets the sense that whereas Burnett:s &inematography and Kerima:s editing and a&ousti& inno1ation a&knowledge the gratuitousness o! 1iolen&e that stru&tures the &haos o! Bla&k li!e and simultaneously stru&tures the relati1e &alm o! White li!e, the s&reenplay, on the other hand, insists on &ontingent and &ommonsense notions o! poli&e brutality and there!ore is only willing or able to identi!y poli&ing in the spe&ta&le o! poli&e 1iolen&e Be.g., Luann being rapedC and not in the e1eryday banality o! ordinary White e3isten&e. 2till this is a shi!t, a breakthrough, and we ha1e e1ery reason to belie1e that this &inemati& breakthrough !inds its ethi&al &orresponden&e not in the archi$e of film histor" but in a&tions su&h as those taken by the BL Bla&k people who were emerging all a&ross and by random, angry, and moti1ated
meri&a at this time with "ust a bri&k and a
bottle and &ertainly no more than a ri!le and a s&ope. s sites o! politi&al struggle and lo&i o! philosophi&al meditation, cultural capacit", ci$il societ", and political agenc" gi1e rise to maps and &hronologies o! loss and to dreams o! restoration and redemption. +he /ar3ist, post&olonial, e&ologi&al, and !eminist narrati1es o! loss !ollowed by restoration and redemption are predi&ated on e3ploitation and alienation as the twin &onstituti1e elements o! an essential grammar o! su!!ering. +hey are politi&al narrati1es predi&ated on stories whi&h they ha1e the &apa&ity to tell?and this is key?regarding the &oherent ethi&s o! their time and spa&e dilemmas. +he 2la1e needs !reedom not !rom the wage relation, nor se3ism, homophobia, and patriar&hy, nor !reedom in the !orm o! land restoration. +hese are part and par&el o! the di1erse list o! &ontingent !reedoms o! the ;multitudesardt & 6egri, mpireC. +he
171
2la1e needs !reedom !rom the >uman ra&e, !reedom !rom the world. +he 2la1e reGuires gratuitous !reedom. *nly gratuitous !reedom &an repair the ob"e&t status o! hisHher !lesh, whi&h itsel! is the produ&t o! a&&umulation and !ungibility:s gratuitous 1iolen&e. But what does the 2la1e:s desire !or gratuitous !reedom mean !or the >uman:s desire !or &ontingent !reedomF +his di!!eren&e between &ontingent !reedom and gratuitous !reedom brings us to Bush (ama and the spe&ter o! the BL , to the irre&on&ilable imbroglio between the Bla&k as a so&ial and politi&al being and the >uman as a so&ial and politi&al being?what Jalil /untaGuim termed, a bit too generously, ;a ma"or &ontradi&tion$ between the Bla&k underground and$5uro- meri&an Lre1olutionaryM !or&es< B147C. +he inability o! the >uman:s politi&al dis&ourses to think gratuitous !reedom is less indi&ati1e o! a ;&ontradi&tion< than o! how anti-Bla&kness subsidi=es >uman sur1i1al in all its di1ersity. 0i$en this state of affairs, the onl" &a" the Black can be imagined as an agent of politics is &hen s=he is cro&ded out of politics . @oliti&s, !or the Bla&k, has as its prereGuisite some dis&ursi1e mo1e whi&h repla&es the Bla&k 1oid with a positi1e, >uman, 1alue. +hus, i! the Bla&k is to be politi&ally within the world, rather than against the world, sHhe only re!le&ts upon politi&s as an ontologist, ponti!i&ates about politi&s as a pundit, or gestures politi&ally as an a&ti1ist or re1olutionary, to the e3tent that sHhe is willing to be stru&turally ad"usted. 2in&e e3ploitation and alienation:s grammar o! su!!ering has &rowded out the grammar o! su!!ering o! a&&umulation and !ungibility? whipped a poli&e a&tion on it?the Bla&k &an only meditate, speak about, or a&t politicall" as a worker, as a post&olonial, or as a gay or !emale sub"e&t?but not as a Bla&k ob"e&t.
17#
*ne might per!orm an ;anthropology o! sentiment< on the Bla&k and write ;ontologi&al< meditations, politi&al dis&ourse, or agitate politi&ally, based on how o!ten the Bla&k feels like a man, feels like a &omen, feels like a gendered sub5ect, feels like a &orker, or feels like a postcolonial , and those !eelings are importantE but they are not essential at the le1el o! ontology. +hey &annot address the gratuitous 1iolen&e whi&h stru&tures that whi&h is essential to Bla&kness and su!!ering, and they are imaginati1ely &onstrained in their will' they &annot imagine the kind o! 1iolen&e the Bla&k must harness to break that stru&ture. +here is nothing in those Bla&k sentiments power!ul enough to alter the stru&ture o! the Bla&k:s .44-year-long relation to the world, the relation between one a&&umulated and !ungible thing and a di1erse plethora o! e3ploited and alienated human beings. In other words, there are no feelings power!ul enough to alter the stru&tural relation between the li1ing and the dead, not i! !eelings are pressed into ser1i&e o! a pro"e&t whi&h seeks to bring the dead to li!e. But one &an imagine !eelings power!ul enough to bring the li1ing to death. Whene1er Bla&k people walk into a room, spines tingles with su&h imagination. Will the" insist upon a politics predicated on their grammar of suffering or &ill the" gi$e us a break and talk about e)ploitation and alienation> Will the" pretend to 5oin the li$ing or &ill the" make us 5oin the dead> +he work o! e3ploitation and alienation labors to make politi&s both possible and impossible. It is a two-pronged labor' it must animate the politi&al &apa&ity o! the >uman being while at the same time poli&e the politi&al &apa&ity o! the Bla&k. In the 17,4s and 17.4s, &inema bene!ited !rom the spe&ter o! the Bla&k Liberation rmy:s power to wren&h the Guestion o! politi&al agen&y !rom the grasp o! the >uman being. +ransposed by the ethi&al dilemmas o! the 2la1e, the Guestion o! politi&al agen&y
170
began to go something like this' what kind o! imaginati1e labor is reGuired to sGuash the politi&al &apa&ity o! the human being so that we might &ataly=e the politi&al &apa&ity o! the Bla&kF I! one were a Krams&ian, the word ;hegemony< would spring to mind, and !rom that word, the politi&al ontologist would begin to meditate on and brainstorm around 1arious ethi&al dilemmas implied in the phrase ;hegemoni& struggle.< +his, o! &ourse, would be ontologi&ally and ethi&ally misguided, be&ause struggles !or hegemony put us ba&k on the terrain o! >uman beings?the ground o! e3ploited and alienated sub"e&ts? whereas we need to think this Guestion through not on the terrain o! the li1ing e3ploited and alienated sub"e&t, but on that o! the a&&umulated and !ungible ob"e&t. appropriate word than hegemony is murder. I!, when &aught between the pin&ers o! the imperati1e to meditate on Bla&k dispossession and Bla&k politi&al agen&y, we do not dissemble, but instead allow our minds to re!le&t upon the murderous ontology o! &hattel sla1ery:s gratuitous 1iolen&e? .44 years ago, (44 years ago, #44 years ago, last year, and today, then maybe, "ust maybe, we will be able to think Bla&kness and agen&y together in an ethi&al manner. +his is not an !ro-)entri& Guestion. It is a Guestion through whi&h the dead ask themsel1es gain, a more
how to put the li1ing out o! the pi&ture. +hrough its use o! imagery, &amera work, editing, mise-en-s&ene, and its a&ousti& inno1ations, Bush (ama un!lin&hingly arti&ulates the 2la1e:s des&ripti1e ensemble o! Guestions. In other words, it manages to arti&ulate the ethi&al dilemmas o! the 2la1e:s positionality &ithout<and this is ke"<appeal to some shared proletarian or White feminist ensemble of 2uestions. *ne &ould say that its &inemati& !orm shits on the
17%
inspiration of the personal pronoun ,&e.- But how un!lin&hingly does the !ilm embra&e the 2la1e:s prescripti$e ensemble o! GuestionsF )learly, Burnett:s &inematography, as it lingers and =ooms in on Dorothy:s repeated stabbing o! the &op, claims !or the Bla&k the gratuitous 1iolen&e whi&h positions and re-positions the Bla&k. >ere and elsewhere, the non-narrati1e work o! the !ilm engages, in good !aith, Fanon:s in1itation to ;lay hold o! the 1iolen&e< BWret&hed$ @ K5C. But Kerima:s s&ript seems to want to work &ontrapuntally to the !ilm:s !ormal Bthat is, &inemati&C embra&e o! the stru&tural antagonism. In other words, the s&ript needs the ;e1ent< o! poli&e brutality as a "usti!i&ation !or Bla&k on White 1iolen&e. Whereas the &inemati& !orm is &ontent with a stru&tural and ontologi&al argument !or Bla&k on White 1iolen&e B!or instan&e, the repetition o! the stabs and the &amera:s !as&ination with that repetitionC, the narrati1e &an only meet the !orm hal!way. +he s&ript reGuires the moral and "uridi&al persuasion o! the ;e1ent< o! poli&e brutality?something /artinot and 2e3ton ha1e argue is a way o! mysti!ying rather than &lari!ying the issue. +he s&ript thus responds to and imagines White on Bla&k 1iolen&e as though su&h 1iolen&e was indi1iduated and &ontingentE as though it had e1erything to do with the poli&e in )ompton, and nothing to do with White women burning bras in >ar1ard 2GuareE and as though it were not stru&tural and gratuitous. 6onetheless, this tension between the &omplete antagonism o! the !ilm:s &inemati& !orm and the ;prin&ipled< militan&y o! the !ilm:s narrati1e is important and not to be taken lightly or dismissed. It is a tension we &annot e1en hope !or anymore in the &inema o! today, as our analysis o! Ant&one %isher suggests. +he &inemati& tension itsel!
17(
owes mu&h to the !a&t that in this period Bla&k !olks had taken up arms, that is, taken up the tension in a &on&rete way, taking their tensions to the streets. Bla&k &inema:s ability to distinguish between the story o! the sla1e estate and the story o! &i1il so&ietyE the power o! its &inematography to embra&e and harness the 1iolen&e o! a&&umulation and !ungibility?howe1er embryoni& and emerging it was in !ilms su&h as Bush (ama<did not &ome easily nor was it epiphenomenal or autodida&ti&. It was the outgrowth o! aestheti& meditations written in blood?the blood o! Bla&k !olks on the mo1e and the blood Bla&k !olks spilled while on the mo1e. Without the &ontradi&tions between White progressi1ism and Bla&k radi&alism being played out with deadly !or&e, with li!e-and-death &onseGuen&es, it is doubt!ul that !ilms su&h as Bush (ama, !he .orse, !he 'ost (an, !he Spook Who Sat b" the 3oor, Up !ightB , or e1en their supposed ideologi&al nemeses, the !ilms o! Bla3ploitation, &ould ha1e elaborated in their sound, image, &amera work, and editing strategies the ;anger without reason< that ga1e Whites like /eyer Iantor pause and !ueled the !antasies o! I1an Di3on:s ;e1erybody.< Without su&h eruption o! desire on the ground, Bla&k &inema might not ha1e engaged the gratuitous 1iolen&e bound up in the post-eman&ipation ethi&s o! gratuitous !reedom. +hese !ilms might ha1e been both narrati1ely as well as &inemati&ally mired in the ;responsible< post-&olonial ethi&s o! &ontingent !reedom Be.g., land restorationC. &&ording to the Justi&e Department, the !irst BL a&tion o&&urred on *&tober
##, 17.4, when an antipersonnel time bomb e3ploded outside a White &hur&h in 2an Fran&is&o, showering shrapnel on mourners o! a patrolman slain in a bank holdup. 6o one was in"ured. +he BL was suspe&ted. +he politi&al and sub"e&ti1e signi!i&an&e o!
17,
this is not to be !ound at the le1el o! !a&ti&ity?at the le1el o! the e1ent. What is important !or the elaboration o! Bla&k antagonisti& identity !ormation is not so mu&h the su&&ess or !ailure o! operations su&h as this, but rather their mere o&&urren&e and the !reGuen&y o! their o&&urren&e !rom 17,. to 17-1. Like 6at +urner:s inter1entions, the specter of B'A/like acti$it" in the 17,4sH17.4s allowed !or a &ertain &on&rete &orresponden&e between Bla&k !antasies and Bla&k li!e?and !ilms like Bush (ama bene!ited immensely !rom this &orresponden&e. +he milieu o! this brie! 6at +urner moment in the #4th &entury pro1ided Bla&k !antasies with what Da1id /arriott has &alled ;ob"e&ti1e 1alue< in a &ountry where Bla&k !antasies ordinarily ha1e no ob"e&ti1e 1alue and where White !antasies ha1e endless and e3ponential ob"e&ti1e 1alue?today a White !antasy, tomorrow a new law. +his ob"e&ti1e 1alue &an be tested by White ability to take up spe&tatorship at a wide array o! spe&ta&les o! Bla&k death, !rom a ba&k row position at a 2outh )arolina lyn&hing to a !ront row seat at a Berkeley theater !or a matinee tear"erker like Ant&one %isher. Films o! the 17.4s like Bush (ama, !he Spook Who Sat b" the 3oor , Soul :engeance, and !he .orse were in large part elaborated by this histori&al &on"un&ture in whi&h Bla&k militants were slowly but steadily de1eloping the &ons&iousness, the &on1i&tion, and perhaps e1en the &om!ort le1el needed to read the most ;inno&ent< and banal terrains and a&ti1ities o! White &i1il so&iety?like the &hur&h and the san&tity o! a !uneral?merely as di!!erent s&ales o! poli&e a&ti1ity. gain, this represents no small shi!t in thinking but a ma"or re-&on!iguration o! &ons&iousness by way o! the un&ons&ious, !or in the end it remo1es the psy&hi& en&umbran&e o! &ontingen&y !rom the &ontemplation o!
17.
Bla&k on White 1iolen&e, an en&umbran&e that has ne1er e3isted in the &ontemplation o! White on Bla&k 1iolen&e?whether on the sla1e ship or on the s&reen.
17-
Part III: Skins
177
Chapter %ive A$surd !o$ilit&
%or indigenous people, ci$il societ" is*a creation of settler coloni1ers. >aunani-Iay +rask, #otes from a #ati$e 3aughter
We now turn to the arti&ulation between ;2a1age< &inema that sel!-&ons&iously engages politi&al ethi&s and the ;2a1age:s< most un!lin&hing meta-&ommentary on the ontology o! su!!ering. By ;2a1age< !ilm I mean a !ilm where the dire&tor is Indian. In addition, to Guali!y as a ;2a1age< !ilm the narrati1e strategies o! the !ilm must intend !or the !ilm:s ethi&al dilemmaBsC to be shouldered by a &entral !igure who is 6ati1e meri&an. +hough the number o! !i&tion !eature !ilms dire&ted by 6ati1e meri&ans in
the 8nited 2tates is small &ompared with !ilms dire&ted by Bla&ks or Whites, they &ould all be &onsidered part o! our !ilmography be&ause the s&ripts and dire&torial intentions o! ea&h o! them pro&laim themsel1es to be engaged so&ially and politi&alE unlike, !or e3ample, most White-dire&ted !ilms Bespe&ially those made in >ollywoodC and a growing number o! Bla&k-dire&ted !ilms whi&h pro&laim themsel1es to be apoliti&al?;"ust< &omedy, drama, or suspense. /ost non-White and non-hetero people in the 8nited 2tates e3ist in so&ial and politi&al &on!li&t within its stru&ture. +hroughout this book I ha1e been at pains to point out that this is not the same as e3isting in so&ial and politi&al antagonism to its stru&ture. +he ;2a1age< and the 2la1e are positioned as antagonisms be&ause ethi&al restoration o! their essential losses would obliterate the &artographi& and sub"e&ti1e integrity,
#44
respe&ti1ely, o! the
meri&as, i! not the world. +here is, howe1er, a &a1eat to whi&h I
alluded to in )hapter 1. Whereas the ;2a1age< demand !or the return o! +urtle Island? hisHher demand !or the restoration o! so1ereignty?would surely obliterate the &artographi& integrity o! the 8nited 2tates, it is not a !oregone &on&lusion that this demand would obliterate the sub"e&ti1e integrity o! the 2ettlerH/aster. By dismantling the &artographi& institutionality o! the nation-state, a return to 6ati1e meri&an paradigms o!
so1ereignty need not destroy the spatial and temporal &apa&ity Bthe anthropologi&al and historiographi& powerC o! human e3isten&e. In !a&t, as the most proli!i& ontologists o! indigenous so1ereignty are Gui&k to point out, su&h a restoration, while bad !or the 8nited 2tates as a settlement, would ultimately be good !or its 2ettlers. +his is why so many Le!t-leaning and progressi1e 2ettlers take su&h sola&e in 6ati1e meri&an &ustoms and
!orms o! go1ernan&e?but only a!ter they ha1e ;settled< in. +he politi&al &ommon sense o! 2ettler radi&alism has drawn !reely upon the ontologi&al grammar o! indigenous so1ereignty, !rom Ben Franklin to anti-globali=ation a&ti1istHintelle&tuals in 2eattle. /y argument in @art III is that so1ereignty, as one modality o! the ;2a1age< grammar o! su!!ering, arti&ulates Guite well with the two modalities o! the 2ettlerH/aster:s grammar o! su!!ering, e3ploitation and alienation. +he se&ond thrust o! my argument is this' whereas the geno&idal modality o! the ;2a1age< grammar o! su!!ering arti&ulates Guite well within the two modalities o! the 2la1e:s grammar o! su!!ering, a&&umulation and !ungibility, 6ati1e meri&an !ilm, politi&al te3ts, and
ontologi&al meditations are not predisposed to re&ogni=e, mu&h less pursue, this arti&ulation. +o put a !iner point on it, one &ould sa!ely say'
#41
1. ;2a1age< ontologi&al meditations are animated by the net&ork of connections, transfers, and displacements between the &onstituent registers o! indigenous so1ereignty Bgo1ernan&e, land stewardship, kinship stru&ture, &ustom, language, and &osmologyC and the &onstituent registers o! 2ettlerH/aster meditations B/ar3ism, en1ironmentalism, and psy&hoanalysisCE but these ontologi&al meditations do not e3plore the being o! the Indian as a produ&t o! geno&ide Be3&ept in the work o! a hand!ul o! meta-&ommentators on ontology su&h as Ward )hur&hill and, to a lesser e3tent, Leslie 2ilkoC. nd these
meditations are &ertainly not e3plorations o! a network o! &onne&tions, trans!ers, and displa&ements between Ded ontologi&al death and Bla&k ontologi&al death. #. +he small &orpus o! so&ially engaged !ilms dire&ted by 6ati1e meri&ans
pri1ilege an ensemble o! Guestions animated by so1ereign loss. >owe1er, the libidinal e&onomy o! &inema is so power!ul that the ensemble o! Guestions &ataly=ed by geno&ide as a grammar o! su!!ering o!ten !or&e their way into the dis&ourse o! these !ilms with a 1engean&e that e3&eeds their meek?or downright omitted?appearan&e in the s&riptsE s&ripts whi&h, nonetheless, tend to e3ert their authority by poli&ing the &inemati& e3ploration o! geno&ide with the so1ereign power o! the narrati1e. >ereto!ore, little has been written whi&h &omments on the disin&lination o! ;2a1age< ontologi&al meditations to e3plore the network o! &onne&tions, trans!ers, and displa&ements between Ded death and Bla&k death. +his se&tion will end with an analysis o! this disin&lination and its alarming &onseGuen&es !or ;2a1age< &inema. /ost alarming
#4#
is the !a&t that nearly hal! o! the se1en or eight !eature !ilms dire&ted by 6ati1e meri&ans within the past thirty years, %ollo& (e .ome B177,7, Siou) Cit" B177%C, !he Business of %anc"dancing B#44#C and Skins B#44#C, are not &ontent to balan&e the pathos o! their ethi&al dilemmas solely on the ba&k o! White suprema&y. In other words, in these !ilms the aestheti& argument as regards the history Band &ontinuationC o! 6ati1e e3tin&tion rests as much upon the i&onography and symbolism o! Bla&kness as it does upon the i&onography and symbolism o! White suprema&y. When I say as much I do not mean to imply a 2uantitati$e one !or one pilgrim:s progress in whi&h Indian !ilms en1ision 6ati1e en&ounters with Bla&k people as being historicall", or e1en empiricall", the sour&e o! their e3tin&tion?&inema is seldom &alled to su&h a rational and &ons&ious a&&ount. By as much I mean the !ollowing' there are moments in these !ilms in whi&h the spe&tator is being persuaded that the su!!ering o! Indian-ness is untenable, &annot be "usti!ied, and should not be endured. 6one would argue with the politi&al and e&onomi& reasoning o! su&h &laims. But the libidinal ;reasoning< o! these &laims, manifest in some of the most emotionall" charged scenes, relies upon 2ettler &i1il so&iety:s longstanding &ommonpla&e and Guotidian phobias as regards the image- and a&ousti&-based i&onography o! Bla&kness as an unspe&i!ied and undisputed threat' !or e3ample, the Guotidian depra1ity o! Bla&k rap musi& BSkinsC, the !igure the &old and aggressi1e Bla&k woman B !he Business of %anc"dancingC, the loud and impossible Bla&k male task-master B Siou) Cit"Cl1ii, and the 1estmentary and kinesi& &odes o! mise en scCne &ommonly a&&rued to Bla&k youth-2ua-&riminal BSkinsC. +he Bla&k in both ;2a1age< and 2ettler &inema is &ommonly imagined as a threat to so1ereignty and &i1il so&iety, respe&ti1ely. Furthermore, it is the imaginati1e labor around this threat in common whi&h se&ures
#40
&oheren&e !or the grammar o! ;2a1age< so1ereignty. +he argument being made here !or the !irst time in either !ilm studies, 6ati1e meri&an studies, Bla&k studies, or, !or that
matter, &omparati1e ethni& studies, will pro&eed by e3amining not only what a ben&hmark !ilm like )hris 5yre:s Skins yields symptomati&ally but by way o! an e3tensi1e e3amination o! 6ati1e the &oheren&e o! 6ati1e meri&an ontologi&al &ommentaries. In short, whereas
meri&an &inema may not reprodu&e the White suprema&y o!
2ettlerH/aster &inema, its grammar o! su!!ering, and the way that grammar labors &inemati&ally, is dependent on what I will &all ;2a1age< 6egrophobia?a 6ati1e meri&an brand o! an3iety as regards the 2la1e, whi&h is !oundational not only to the emerging !ilmography o! ;2a1age< &inema but also to the more substantial and established ar&hi1e o! 6ati1e on ;2a1age< ontology. Why does ;2a1age< &inema en&ounter the Bla&k as a stimulus to an3iety when, in point o! !a&t, the ;2a1age,< like the 2la1e, is a stru&tural antagonist o! the 2ettlerH/aster ?not to mention the !a&t that this an3iety is the li!eblood o! 2ettlerH/aster &inemaF s meri&an politi&al &ommon sense and meta-&ommentaries
we ha1e seen in )hapter #, Bla&kness does indeed pose a real threat to &i1il so&iety, yet it would seem not to pose a threat to the reser1ation, that terra nullius on the border o! &i1il so&iety. Why, then, does it appear in &inema to be as threatening to the death =one o! the ;2a1age< as it is to the li!e =one o! the ;2ettler<F +he answer to this Guestion is imbri&ated in the way 6ati1e meri&an ontologi&al meditations, politi&al &ommon sense,
and !ilms pri1ilege the so1ereign modality o! the ;2a1age< grammar o! su!!ering to the near e3&lusion o! the geno&ide modality.
#4%
/y aim is to illustrate how a !ilm marked as ;2a1age< by the positionality o! its dire&tor and diegeti& !igures labors imaginati1ely in ways whi&h a&&ompany the dis&ursi1e labor o! ;2a1age< ethi&s?ethi&s mani!est in the ontology o! geno&ide and so1ereignty. nd to !urther e3plore those &inemati& moments when the ;2a1age< !ilm
be&omes so in1ested in that register o! ;2a1age< ontology animated by Guestions o! so1ereignty that it &rowds out its own e3istential register o! geno&ide and thus reprodu&es aestheti& gestures that arti&ulate all too well with 2ettler &i1il so&iety:s tou&hstones o! &ohesion. +he &rowding out, or disa1owal, o! the geno&ide modality allows the 2ettleH;2a1age< struggle to appear as a &on!li&t rather than as an antagonism. +his has therapeuti& 1alue !or both the ;2a1age< and the 2ettler' the mind &an grasp the !ight, &on&eptually, put it into words. +o say, ;9ou stole my land and pil!ered and appropriated my &ulture< and then produ&e books, arti&les, and !ilms that tra1el ba&k and !orth along the 1e&tors o! those &on&eptually &oherent a&&usations is less threatening to the integrity o! the ego, than to say, ;9ou &ulled me down !rom nineteen million to #(4,444.<l1iii Books, arti&les, and !ilms, bound up as they are in the semioti&s o! representation, are simply s&andali=ed by su&h an a&&usation. +he modes o! address and rhetori&al &on1entions o! symboli& inter1ention Bin other words, the ma&hinations o! hegemonyC seem too small !or the task. But the always already disabled &ondition o! symboli& inter1ention when &on!ronted with geno&ide?the !a&t that hegemony has no symbols !or geno&ide Band I do not mean the e1ent o! geno&ide whi&h a people might e3perien&e at one time or another, but rather geno&ide as an idiom power whi&h literally produ&es two positions out o! two peoples' one as sub"e&ts, the other as ob"e&tsC?in no way lessens its
#4(
status as a &onstituent element o! ;2a1age< ontology. We will e3plore the work o! dire&tor )hris 5yre in order to see, inter alia, where a more antagonisti& !ormulation o! so1ereignty attempts to break through, where it is disa1owed in the &inemati& arti&ulation o! ;the +reaty,< and to what degree his e!!orts are able to embra&e geno&ide as a stru&tural la&k. +he !ilms o! )hris 5yre BSmoke Signals and SkinsC are among the most so&ially engaged and politi&ally emphati& !ilms on the &inemati& lands&ape o! the !orty-eight &ontiguous states Bwhether Ded, White, or Bla&kC. >e is also a&knowledged as the most widely distributed 6ati1e meri&an dire&tor working today. Despite his !ilms: plotline
1ariations, they are noted !or the attention they pay?whether humorously, sullenly, sardoni&ally, or enraged?to the intra&table di&hotomy between &i1il so&iety and the ;re=< Bthe reser1ationC. In Smoke Signals, two 6ati1e women who li1e on the reser1ation dri1e their &ar onl" in re$erse, ne1er !orward. +hey sip )o&a-)ola, their re&ent substitute !or beer, as they dri1e, in re$erse, through the reser1ation:s mise en scCne o! po1erty. +his is interesting !or what it signi!ies with respe&t to how geno&ide re-territoriali=es spa&e and how the reser1ation is a spa&e beyond &i1il so&iety. I! the automobile is one o! the 2ettler:s most emblemati& i&ons o! mobility and progress, and one o! hisHher most pro!ound and egoi& monuments, then two 6ati1e women dri1ing ba&kward in this i&on o! mobility, across the cartograph" of terra nullius 7the reser$ation8 , is a &inemati& moment that &ompels the spe&tator to meditate, albeit humorously, on the antagonism between the ;somewhere< o! &i1il so&iety?that pla&e where &ars dri1e !orward as opposed to in re1erse?and the ;nowhere< o! the reser1ation.
#4,
+he meri&an automobile is so malleable and transpositional within the multitude o! narrati1e &ombinations o! 2ettler &inema that it &an animate the pleasures o! both White mas&ulinity, whi&h Ia"a 2il1erman re!ers to as the ;&oheren&e o! the male ego< B,0C, as &ell as White !eminist gestures o! resistan&e to that &onsolidation, as the most &ursory &omparison o! ;male< and ;!emale< road !ilms like %ear and 'oathing in 'as :egas and !helma and 'ouise, respe&ti1ely, will bear out. In )hris 5yre:s Smoke Signals, howe1er, the meri&an automobile is re&on!igured as a medium, not o! &i1i&
aggrandi=ement, but as a lens through whi&h ;2a1age< ontology &an be illuminated and through whi&h BtangentiallyC the 2ettler is re&on!igured !rom a sub"e&t o! agen&y into an ob"e&t, a spe&imen o! the ;2a1age< ga=e. +his o&&urs despite the 2ettler:s a&tual absen&e !rom the !ilm during the reser1ation-dri1ing-ba&kwards-s&enes. +he BabsentC 2ettler be&omes an ob"e&t o! the ;2a1age< ga=e due to the !a&t that, in Smoke Signals, the meri&an automobile, with woman !rom the reser1ation behind the wheel, is disabled. It &an signi!y neither a&&ess to, nor mobility a&ross, &i1il so&iety:s plenitude o! promises and dis&ontents. +he meri&an automobile is now the ;re=<
automobile, and as su&h &annot be pressed into ser1i&e o! an ensemble o! Guestions elaborated by Guestions o! ;&iti=enship,< ;!reedom,< ;autonomy,< or ;se3ual prowess andHor attra&tion<?it &annot se&ure, !or the ;2a1age,< agen&y within &i1il so&iety:s tou&hstones o! &ohesion. 2in&e this is the &ase, Smoke Signals stands the i&on on its head, makes light o! it, and in so doing turns a ;2a1age< ga=e upon the ethi&s o! &i1il so&iety and its ;settled< sub"e&ts. In Smoke Signals the automobile e3hibits the raw absurdity o! ;mobility< as an element &onstituent o! ontology on the reser1ation' how, indeed, is it possible !or the
#4.
dead to mo1eF Where, one &ould ask, are the dead able to goF I! &i1i& ;mobility< re1eals its absurdity Ba &ar mo1ing ba&kwards a&ross a barren plainC within the &onstraints o! the re=, then ;mobility< is ethi&ally bankrupt?and so is the 2ettler in herHhis elaboration 1ia its attendant dilemmas. What begins to un!old is an understanding o! how the relationship between, on the one hand, two 6ati1e women and, on the other hand, two women within &i1il so&iety, my e3ample o! +helma and Louise, is an antagonisti& relationship rather than a &on!li&tual one. +his is be&ause the meri&an automobile in !helma and 'ouise
simultaneously symboli=es the myriad o! &on!li&ts that White !a&e within &i1il so&iety and also carries them for&ard, thus symboli=ing their mobility within &i1il so&iety?it &ompli&ates the pushHpull o! &i1i& &ontrariness that 2ettlers are so !ond o! &alling ;&hange.< In other words, the automobile &an be imagined as that whi&h allows +helma and Louise to struggle with and negotiate their symboli& 1alue within the libidinal e&onomy o! &i1il so&iety, despite the fact that their characters die, ph"sicall", at the end of the film. But a geno&ided ;2a1age< &annot negotiate her symboli& 1alue within White &i1il so&iety pre&isely be&ause her death wasHis one o! the pre&onditions !rom whi&h 1alue &an be &ontested, negotiated, andHor hierar&hi=ed in the !irst ontologi&al instan&e. In Smoke Signals, the automobile &annot assist the 6ati1e women in their negotiation o! li!e as it does White women in 2ettler &inema be&ause the automobile would ha1e to !irst bring the two 6ati1e women ba&k to li!e, be!ore it &ould assist them in their negotiation of li!e. +his, as I ha1e "ust indi&ated, is impossible be&ause the automobile:s symboli& &apa&ity within &i1il so&iety is, a priori, dependent upon these two 6ati1e women:s death. )hris 5yre:s Smoke Signals looks upon this &ondition with light humor, but the impli&ations are deadly serious.
#4-
5yre:s se&ond !ull-length !eature !ilm, Skins, presents us with ontologi&al &hallenges and dilemmas at whi&h the pres&ient but light-hearted Smoke Signals only hinted. In Skins, the impli&ations o! that dead body !rom whi&h &i1il so&iety draws its &apa&ity !or symboli& Band e&onomi&C li!e are rendered humorously as well. But here the humor is anything but ;light'< it is sardoni& and un!lin&hing. 8nlike the two 6ati1e women who appear in Smoke Signals only brie!ly, as minor &hara&ters pro1iding &omi& relie!, Skins pro1ides us with a main &hara&ter, /ogie 9ellow Lodge BKraham KreeneC, who !ills the s&reen and takes no prisoners. In the !a&e o! this enormous presen&e o! death, neither &i1il so&iety:s bad !aith ethi&al dilemmas BGuestions o! a&&ess and mobilityC nor 6ati1e meri&an so1ereignty:s aspirations o! &ultural restoration are sa!eE
nor !or that matter &an /ogie 9ellow Lodge be spared !rom /ogie 9ellow Lodge.li3 What is &urious about Skins is the way in whi&h the s&reenplay surrenders to the story o! /ogie:s brother Dudy B5ri& 2&hweigC, a Bureau o! Indian !!airs poli&eman who embodies the ensemble o! so1ereignty:s ethi&al dilemmas, rather than the ensemble o! geno&ide:s ethi&al dilemmas. /ogie:s embodied geno&ide makes its way into the !ilm largely by way o! dis&ourse rather than story' that is, through the !ormalism o! &inemati& strategies Blighting, sound, &amera angle, editing, mise en scCneC. But this !ormalism is so insistent that it e3&eeds and anti&ipates /ogieE by that, I mean it intrudes upon the story long be!ore either o! the brothers appear on s&reen. +he &redits roll with 1oi&e-o1ers, mo1ing and still images, a pasti&he o! do&umentary-esGue material that pre&edes the !ilm:s s&ripted narrati1e. +he opening shot o! a ramsha&kle trailer-house per&hed on par&hed, la&erated earth was &ulled !rom the Dobert Ded!ord-produ&ed, /i&hael pted-dire&ted do&umentary 6ncident at Eglala: !he
#47
'eonard +eltier Stor". From this image o! indi1iduated dera&ination we &ut to aerial !ootage o! row upon row o! desolate housing grids, a shot o1erlaid with the 1oi&e o! a tele1ision news&aster$ /ale 6ews&aster LNoi&e *1erM' In the shadow o! one o! meri&aRs most
popular tourist attra&tions, 2outh DakotaRs /ount Dushmore, some si3ty miles southeast lies the poorest o! all &ounties in the 8.2.' the @ine Didge Indian Deser1ation. @ine Didge is "ust two miles !rom the 6ebraska border. $to shots o! destitute and into3i&ated 6ati1e men bea&hed on the perimeter o! Whiteowned liGuor stores in White )lay, 6ebraska?population' twentyE &i1il so&iety beyond the reser1ation, where !our million &ans o! beer a year are sold to @ine Didge residents. ;I don:t &all that &apitalism,< 5yre &omments, ;I &all that mer&hants o! death$It has the !eel o! the kind o! treatment animals would be gi1en< B5yre, ;Dire&tor:s )ommentary< Skins DNDC. +his is !ollowed by a montage o! still photography' the 1-74 massa&re at Wounded IneeE a modern day 6ati1e woman bleeding !rom the nose, looking into the &amera while &radling her babyE a young Leonard @eltier being e3tradited !rom )anada to the 82 in hand&u!!sE and an Indian man !a&e down on the !loor in a pool o! blood$ /ale 6ews&aster LNoi&e *1erM' Wounded Inee, lo&ated in the middle o! @ine DidgeE the pla&e where hundreds o! men, women, and &hildren were killed by the 8.2. rmy in 1-74. +oday it:s known as the massa&re at Wounded Inee.
Forty per&ent o! residents here li1e in substandard Guarters. +he X#,44 a1erage yearly earnings are the lowest. 2e1enty-!i1e per&ent unemployment. Death !rom al&oholism is nine times the national a1erage. Li!e e3pe&tan&y here, 1( years less than most meri&ans.
#14
$to !ootage o! @resident Bill )linton glad-handing on the reser1ation. >e wades gregariously through the &rowd?as e1er, in his element. )linton' We:re &oming !rom Washington to ask you what you want to do. nd to tell you that we:ll gi1e you the tools and the support to get done what "ou &ant to do !or your &hildren and their !utureA L pplauseM LDe1erse shot to )linton:s interlo&utor /ilo 9ellow >air B@ine Didge DesidentH &ti1istCM 9ellow >air' I belie1e that meri&a is big enough, it:s power!ul enough, it:s ri&h enough to really deal with the meri&an Indian in the way it should be done. +he shot-re1erse shot o! /ilo 9ellow >air:s &ommentary os&illates between 9ellow >air Bspeaking outside with a group o! people around himC and Bill )linton Balso outside in a &rowdC. )linton is nodding, as though in agreement. +he editing strategy makes it appear as though 9ellow >air and )linton are together in the &enter o! a group o! Indians where )linton is being sub"e&ted to 9ellow >air:s &ritiGue. Whether the two were a&tually engaged in this dialogue or whether Skins: editing strategy spli&ed these two shots together to stage their interlo&ution is un&lear. +he seGuen&e passes too Gui&kly to as&ertain the degree o! &ontinuity or dis&ontinuity between shots and re1erse shots. 6or does 5yre satis!y our &uriosity with a long- or e1en a medium-shot whi&h would pla&e the two men in the same !rame. It is the sele&ted and &ombined truth o! the !ilm:s &onstru&tion and not the ;natural,< or histori&al, truth o! where 9ellow >air and )linton are ;really< positioned in relation to ea&h other that matters here.
#11
We are less than two minutes and !i!ty se&onds into the !ilm and the grammars o! su!!ering that position the ;2a1age,< so1ereignty and geno&ide, ha1e already been established. +his attests both to the brillian&e o! )hris 5yre:s aestheti& sensibilities and to the ontologi&al ne&essity o! those grammars within the stru&ture o! 8.2. antagonisms. 6ot only do the establishing montage and the editing o! 9ellow >air and )linton suggest that the relationship between &i1il so&iety and the @ine Didge Deser1ation is more geno&idal in nature than so1ereign in nature?a litany o! +reaties notwithstanding?but through the !ilm:s initial sound and image strategies, the grammar o! geno&ide breaks in on the spe&tator before its more deliberate and pri1ileged grammar o! so1ereign loss is e1en underway. 2ome o! these 1oi&es and images return throughout the !ilm in emotionally asso&iati1e ways whi&h pun&tuate and interrupt the so1ereign bias o! the s&reenplay. 6ow Skins, the story, a ;blend o! &hara&ter study, so&iology$whodunit< suspense and drama BKardnerC, begins. We are treated to a long shot o! Dudy &oming home !rom one o! his lone 1igilante a&tions. >e is weary as he dri1es his Bureau o! Indian !!airs
@oli&e patrol &ar. ;It:s taken years o!! o! his li!e to be a tribal &op< B)hris 5yre, ;Dire&tor:s )ommentary< Skins DNDC. )ut to interior o! &ar. /edium &lose up o! Dudy, his !a&e bla&kened with shoe polish. >is head and !a&e are &ompletely &o1ered with a panty-hose sto&king. s the !ilm progresses, we learn that during the night, when Dudy 9ellow Lodge:s shi!t ends, he o!ten &o1ers his !a&e with bla&k shoe polish, pulls a nylon sto&king o1er his !a&e, grabs a baseball bat, or a gasoline &an, some rags, and a book o! mat&hes. >e goes out into the @ine Didge night and per!orms his so1ereign a&ts. Dudy:s no&turnal 1igilantism is intended as a kind o! al&hemy' he imbues his imaginary maps o! a
#1#
so1ereign territory with the material !or&e o! 1iolen&e in what he belie1es to be a tra"e&tory that will someday re-map the politi&al and material terrain o! 2ettler &i1il so&iety into a material terrain predi&ated on the imaginary o! indigenism. Dudy:s
1igilantism is a pure distillation o! the so1ereign power he wields by day as a Bureau o! Indian !!airs poli&e o!!i&er. >is "ob as a poli&e o!!i&er, howe1er, &annot represent the imaginary restoration o! indigenous go1ernan&e, and the &inemati& strategies as well as the narrati1e remind the 1iewer o! this. +here are at least three sustained &lose-up shots and &lose to se1en medium shots o! Dudy, !ramed in su&h a way that shoulder o! his BI meri&an !lag pat&h on the le!t
poli&e uni!orm is always prominent and asserti1e. 6arrati1ely, the
s&ript pro&laims a high degree o! so1ereign autonomy !or Dudy and his !ellow Indian poli&e o!!i&ers. +his autonomy breaks down not only when Dudy &rosses the border into White&lay, 6ebraska Bwhere he has no authorityC, but when &apital &rimes are &ommitted on ;his< terrain. In the latter e3ample, there is always an in-house FBI agent lurking about, with whom Dudy must &he&k in and to whom he must be a&&ountable. In short, what the !ilm reali=es, howe1er unintentionally, is that Dudy:s o!!i&ial so1ereign power has little ;ob"e&ti1e 1alue< B/arriott 17C. In addition, his no&turnal 1iolen&e, his 1igilantism, gi1es his so1ereign !antasy the illusion o! ob"e&ti1e 1alue. +o maintain the !antasy o! that ob"e&ti1e 1alue, his rationali=ations morph into obs&ene distortions o! logi&' 6ati1e meri&an youth who are, in Dudy:s eyes, &riminal blights on his 1ision o!
so1ereignty must ha1e their knee&aps broken by his baseball bat, in order that the reser1ation might one day re-embra&e 6ati1e &ulture and restore 6ati1e so1ereignty.
#10
Skins:s tension between the ethi&al dilemmas o! so1ereignty and those o! geno&ide &ulminates in an e3pression o! ;2a1age< liminality within the stru&ture o! antagonisms. +he liminality o! Dedness in the trium1irate o! antagonisms BDed, White, and Bla&kC stems !rom a tension in its ontologi&al stru&ture, a tension e3pressed in the way ;2a1age< ontology is imagined in !ilm and by 6ati1e meri&an ontologists. +hrough an e3amination o! 6ati1e meri&an !ilm and meta-&ommentaries on ontology, we will
see how, though the ;2a1age< modality o! geno&ide disarti&ulates the ma&hinations o! 2ettler hegemony B&i1il so&iety:s sinewsC, those same ma&hinations &an be re&omposed and rearti&ulated through a network o! &onne&tions, trans!ers, and displa&ements pro1ided by the ;2a1age< modality o! so1ereignty. n arti&ulation between &i1il so&iety:s ensemble o! human Guestions and indigenous so1ereignty:s ensemble o! ;2a1age< Guestions o&&urs be&ause 2ettler su!!ering and ;2a1age< su!!ering share a &ommon grammar. +hus, the 2ettler and the ;2a1age< sustain a degree of ontologi&al relationality e1en as the 2ettler massa&res the ;2a1age.< Kranted the Ded is always already ;2a1age< in relation to the White, and the White is always already 2ettler in relation to the Ded. But this does not mean that the idiom o! power whi&h &hara&teri=es the 2ettlerH;2a1age< relation is always antagonisti&, that it is ne&essarily a relation o! irre&on&ilable positions. In one ;2a1age< embodiment, there is the &apa&ity to trans!orm spa&e and time into pla&e and &artography. Dudy 9ellow Lodge' 1irile, mas&uline, &onser1ing and &onser1ati1e?at the 1ery least, he is the lo&us o! a nameable loss. >ere, the ;2a1age< is no more an antagonist to the 2ettler than the @alestinian is to the Jew or than the IraGi is to the meri&an. In short, Dudy 9ellow Lodge embodies the position o! the post-&olonial
#1%
subaltern. +he ethi&s o! this post&olonial stan&e are predi&ated on a &oherent semioti&s o! loss, e.g. territorial integrity, politi&al sel!-determination, e&onomi& independen&e, religious !reedom. +his loss, whether spatial Bas in landC or temporal Bas in language or kinship stru&tureC, stages a drama between two human &ommunities. 6n addition, this drama is not an antagonism because the ,Sa$age- and Settler4s shared grammar of suffering cannot be shared &ith the Sla$e . nd i! the ;2a1age< and 2ettler imaginaries
!ind agreement at moments when their grammars o! loss threaten to di1erge, it is be&ause the agreement is sutured by their &ommon an3iety toward a body in bits and pie&es, the threat o! in&oheren&e that sentient ob"e&ts B2la1esC pose to sub"e&ts?their &ommon 6egrophobia. Skins also struggles with the geno&ide modality o! ;2a1age< ontology in the same way as many 6ati1e meri&an meta-&ommentaries on ;2a1age< ontology. It is di!!i&ult,
i! not impossible, to !ind a language?&inemati& or otherwise?adeGuate to the task o! dramati=ing !i1e hundred years o! geno&ide. +he ma"ority o! ;2a1age< &inema, politi&al dis&ourse and ontologi&al meta-&ommentaries &ontain, rather than e3plain, geno&ide. +hey do so by attempting to a&&ount !or geno&ide through the modality o! so1ereignty. I am not suggesting that there is no relation between the 6ati1e meri&ans:
so1ereign loss o! land and the loss o! eighty-!i1e per&ent to ninety-nine per&ent o! the 6ati1e population?that Bloss o!C so1ereignty and geno&ide are unrelated grammars o! su!!ering. Dather I am attempting to make two points. First, the !ilm:s subordination o! so1ereignty to geno&ide enables the dream o! a &ultural allian&e between the ;2a1age< and the 2ettler Bhowe1er, tenuous and !raught with &ontradi&tions the ontologists &laim that dream isC, while it simultaneously &rowds out the dream o! a politi&al allian&e
#1(
between the ;2a1age< and the 2la1e. 2e&ondly, the subordination o! so1ereignty to geno&ide lends &oheren&e and rationality to the modality o! geno&ide whi&h, i! it were to be &ontemplated on its own terms, would be otherwise in&omprehensible. +hough su&h gestures may ha1e intermediate therapeuti& 1alue?in the way that spee&h pro1ides the grounding wires !or trauma in psy&hoanalysis?they stunt the e3planatory power and politi&al !or&e o! the ;2a1age< position as an antagonism. @ut more &rudely, wallowing in the in&omprehension o! geno&ide &ould, ultimately, not only be produ&ti1e !or 6ati1e meri&an 2tudies and the politi&al demand embedded in !ilms like Skins, but &ould also raise the stakes o! 6ati1e meri&an re1olutionary theory and pra&ti&e. +here is work to be done on the plenitude o! White Band Latino and sianC
sub"e&ti1ity from behind the lens o! Ded geno&ide, work to be done through a Ded ga=e on immigration. *ne Guestion that su&h work might be attenti1e to is' how is the banality o! 2ettler ontology B!amily, se3uality, spirituality, &i1i& pra&ti&eC stru&tured by, and indebted to, the gratuitousness o! ;2a1age< geno&ideF +his is a Guestion large and important enough to !ill the wing o! any de&ent library. +he Ded ontologists would be asking' how does our absen&e !rom &i1il so&iety elaborate your BWhite, Latino, and sianC presen&eF I! this &ould be asked without the therapeuti& re&ourse to the s&a!!olding o! so1ereignty, a singular kind o! rage &ould be &ataly=ed?Ded rage' a rage whi&h &ould not be &ontained through analogy to post&olonial anger. Be!ore e3ploring these tensions in Skins, we must embark upon a substantial s&hemati=ation o! so1ereignty itsel!' what it means in ;2a1age< ontologi&al meta&ommentaries and how its grammar o! su!!ering underwrites key aspe&ts o! 6ati1e meri&an politi&al and &elluloid te3ts. +his reGuires us to suspend, !or one &hapter, our
#1,
a!orementioned &onsideration o! Skins: ideologi&al tensions, that we might stage a &on1ersation between the most proli!i& and re1ered 6ati1e meri&an ontologists.
#1.
Chapter Six The %thics of So(ereignt&
@EurA cultural heroes*ne$er become the ob5ect of indi$idual attention as to the efficac" in either the facts of their e)istence or their present supranatural abilit" to affect e$ents. Nine Deloria, Jr. 0od is Red.
Consider that e$er" inch of stolen ground reco$ered b"*#ati$e Americans comes directl" from the imperial integrit" of the U.S. itself. Ward )hur&hill, (ar)ism and #ati$e Americans
Iinship stru&ture and naming pra&ti&es, religion and spirituality, go1ernan&e, and land are key elements that s&a!!old the ;2a1age< narrati1e o! so1ereign loss. /y purpose is not to reena&t a thorough and pre&ise ethnographi& study o! these elements o! indigenous so1ereignty in their 1arious tribal spe&i!i&ities. Dather, I want to point out that these are the s&a!!olding elements agreed upon by a range o! the most proli!i& and respe&ted 6ati1e meri&an thinkers north o! the /e3i&an border. What is important !or
this study is the way in whi&h these elements are imagined and authori=ed. For indigenous s&holars there is no &ompartmentali=ation or separation among the 1arious elements o! so1ereignty, those elements being land, religion, kinship, and go1ernan&e. >owe1er, throughout the ar&hi1e o! meta-&ommentaries these elements are o!ten treated separately. In the work o! Nine Deloria, Jr., +aiaiake l!red, >aunani-Iay +rask, and Ward )hur&hill, the pro1isional breakdown o! these elements o&&urs !or two
#1-
reasonsE one is methodologi&al and the other is politi&al. First, the dera&ination o! 6ati1e meri&an &ulture on 8nited 2tates soil has been almost as &omplete as the dera&ination o! !ri&an &ulture on 8.2. soil. ll o! these writers imagine themsel1es as not only meditating on a grammar o! ;2a1age< su!!ering, in the way that /ar3ists and psy&hoanalyti& s&holars meditate on a grammar o! 2ettler su!!ering, but they are themsel1es parti&ipating in the ongoing restoration, rein1igoration and, in some &ases re&onstitution o! 6ati1e &ulture !or 6ati1e youth. B+his latter mission is e3pressed most e3pli&itly in the work o! Nine Deloria, Jr. and >aunani-Iay +raskC. +his is a pedagogi& pro&ess whi&h is part o! an ongoing psy&hi&al as well as physi&al re&onstru&tion o! a people. Between 1(44 and the 1-74s, 2ettler geno&ide against indigenous people in the !orty-eight &ontiguous states and >awai:i had redu&ed the population !rom between !i!teen to nineteen million to #(4,444. +oday the 6ati1e meri&an population stands at
%,117,444?a si3teen-!old population in&rease o1er the period o! one &entury. +his !igure is e1en more ama=ing when one &onsiders that geno&idal pra&ti&es ha1e &ontinued, transmogri!ied and, in some &ases, intensi!ied o1er the #4th &entury and that, &onseGuently, the li!e e3pe&tan&y o! 6ati1e meri&an men li1ing on reser1ations is %%
years o! age. 2mall wonder that the most proli!i& meta-&ommentators o! ;2a1age< ontology 1iew their work as integral to the ongoing !ight, as >aunani-Iay +rask puts it, ;against our planned disappearan&e< B#otes from a #ati$e 3aughter 11-C. Nine Deloria, Jr.:s separation o! 1arious elements o! so1ereignty?land, religion Bin&luding language and kinshipC, and go1ernan&e?ser1es as a methodologi&al inter1ention whi&h allows Indian readers, espe&ially youth, to &ontemplate the 1arious
#17
&omponents o! dera&inated 6ati1e
meri&an so1ereignty. It is a pro1isional separation in
ser1i&e to a &ultural and politi&al mo1ement that seeks to re&onstru&t and restore so1ereignty in a more &omprehensi1e way B0od 6s Red ###C. s Deloria &on&ludes' L Mt least part o! the moti1ation !or L !he (etaph"sics of (odern )istenceM &omes !rom the re&eption that some young Indians ga1e to 0od 6s Red, Lwhi&hM attempted to outline the areas o! di!!eren&e between Western religious &on&eptions and a generali=ed theory o! Indian belie!s. In the years sin&e 0od 6s Red was published, a number o! young Indians ha1e thanked me !or writing it, saying they always belie1ed the migration, &reation, or re1elation stories o! their tribe but were unable to de!end the reality they e3perien&ed in the !a&e o! disbelie1ing non-Indians. B !he (etaph"sics of (odern )istence 3iiC >ere, Deloria e3plains how his Band others:C methodologi&al isolation and elaboration o! 1arious elements o! 6ati1e meri&an so1ereignty embolden and en!ran&hise, politi&ally,
6ati1e meri&an youth?thus &ontributing to &olle&ti1e restoration. >e &ontinues' +hat a &atastrophi& theory o! interpretations &ould be used to 1eri!y their tribe:s traditions and, in some instan&es, &ould show them how to relate their traditions to modern de1elopments in physi&s, medi&ine, psy&hology, and religion en&ouraged me to attempt a more thorough outline o! the di!!eren&es that e3ist between traditional 6ewtonian and Darwinian interpretations o! the world and new ideas now sur!a&ing. I thus !irmly belie1e that the newly emerging 1iew o! the world will support and illuminate Indian traditions and that Indian traditions will pro1e e3tremely
##4
use!ul and a&&urate when &ast in a new and more respe&t!ul light. B !he (etaph"sics of (odern )istence 3ii-3iiiC +his passage indi&ates the o1erall political ne&essity !or treating the elements o! ;2a1age< so1ereignty separately' this parti&ular gesture enables the meta-&ommentators to disarticulate the ethi&s o! the 2ettler:s ensemble o! ontologi&al Guestions, the !undamental !a&tor that ;keeps Indians and non-Indians !rom &ommuni&ating is that they are speaking about two entirely di!!erent per&eptions o! the world< B !(E( 1iiC. But this disarti&ulation is also pro1isional' e1entually it gi1es 6ati1e ontologists hope !or the possibility o! an ethi&al arti&ulation between the elements o! ;2a1age< so1ereignty and the elements o! 2ettler ontology elaborated in the work o! e3&eptional 2ettler intelle&tuals, organi=ers o! what Deloria &alls a newly emerging 1iew o! the world B!(E( 1ii, 0od 6s Red #%7C.l3 BIt should be noted here that the degree o! in1estment in this hope 1aries !rom ontologist to ontologist' Deloria is literally high on this hopeE 2ilko dreams o! it in !i&tion Lsee Almanac of the 3eadM, )hur&hill a&knowledges it with &old intelle&tualism Lsee (ar)ism and #ati$e AmericansM, and +rask will not &ountenan&e it at all Lsee #otes from a #ati$e 3aughterM.C Let us now e3amine the imaginati1e labor &ommon to ;2a1age< ontology:s meditations on go1ernan&e, religion, and land. -overnance ll o! the meta-&ommentators on ;2a1age< ontology attribute the destabili=ation o! energy BpowerC in the uni1erse to the &oming o! the haole B+rask 1770C, the destro"er B2ilko 1771' .,4C, or the predator B)hur&hill 177., #%7C' the White, the 2ettler. +he harmoni& balan&e o! &aken, orenda, manitou or mana has yet to be restored in the uni1erse, but the works o! 2ilko, )hur&hill, and +rask point to a moment in re&ent 6ati1e
##1
meri&an history when indigenous people in )anada and the 8.2. began, on&e again, to re&onne&t with the power o! the uni1erse on a grand, &ommunal s&ale. +hey all agree that this period o! rearti&ulated spiritual power &ommen&es in the late 17,4sHearly 17.4s, and e3tends !or some Bthe >awaiiansC into the 17-4s. +rask suggests that, as a result o! a groundswell o! politi&al a&ti1ism, &oupled with the rein1igoration o! tribal &ustoms?in other words, with the re1itali=ation o! indigenous demands !or de&oloni=ation? mana was reasserted as a de!ining element o! &ultural and politi&al leadership within the so1ereignty mo1ement B+rask, #otes from a #ati$e 3aughter 11.C.l3i +rask and Deloria are emphati& in their attempts to distinguish power as it o&&urs in the s&hema o! ;2a1age< so1ereignty !rom power as it o&&urs in the s&hema o! 2ettler so1ereignty. +hey suggest that, where 2ettler so1ereignty is &on&erned, power &an be 1ested as spiritual, as in the hegemony o! )hristian deities and e&&lesiasti&s, or se&ular, as in the power o! money, &i1il rights, or !or&e o! arms. But the mani!estation o! 2ettlerH2o1ereign power di!!ers !rom that o! mana in that 2ettler power is either &ompletely se&ular or, in the &ase o! )hristianity, asserts supreme dominan&e o$er the elements o! the uni1erse rather than balan&e &ithin the elements o! the uni1erse. +he impli&ations o! this di!!eren&e !or the ontologi&al modality o! so1ereignty, though nuan&ed, are in !a&t pro!ound. +rask points out that a high &hie!ly line Bwhose opposite number would mani!est itsel! as some sort o! san&tioned leadership in &i1il so&iety---i.e. &lergy or publi& o!!i&ialC ;may beGueath the potential !or mana, but the a&tuali=ation or a&hie1ement o! mana$ reGuires more than genealogy, it re2uires specific identification b" the leader &ith the people$LandM presupposes that the people a&knowledge mana as an attribute o! politi&al leadership< B+rask 11.C. It would be all too easy to suggest that +rask:s des&ription o!
###
6ati1e power BmanaC and its legitimation is but a re&on!iguration o! the hegemon" in 2ettler &i1il so&iety Bi.e., the &ommuni&ability o! )hristian !aith, the power o! the press, the interpellation o! ad1ertising and media, the plebis&ite:s produ&tion o! &onsensusC. But this is not the &ase. +aiaiake l!red lays su&h misreading to rest by reminding us that the &onstituent
sub"e&ts o! 6ati1e so1ereignty &onsist not only o! the >uman Bwhi&h is the sole sub"e&t position o! Western metaphysi&sC but o! all the &reatures?animate and inanimate?in the uni1erse' ;In indigenous philosophies, power !lows !rom respe&t !or 6ature. In dominant Western philosophy, power deri1es !rom &oer&ion and arti!i&e?in e!!e&t, alienation !rom nature< B l!red ,4C. +his is a signi!i&ant di!!eren&e between the mani!est &ontent o! tribal so&iety and &i1il so&iety, but more importantly, it is an effect o! the latent di!!eren&e between ;2a1age< ontology and 2ettler ontology. >aunani-Iay +rask hints at this di!!eren&e when she writes ;LbMoth the people and their leaders understand the link between mana and pono, the traditional >awaiian 1alue o! balan&e between people, land, and the &osmos< B11.C. +hough balan&e in the uni1erse, pono, and the power of the uni1erse, mana, are two distin&t words, they are in !a&t ine3tri&ably bound. +he &ombined restoration o! the arti&ulation o! mana and pono within the people o! the tribal &ommunity, and the arti&ulation:s subseGuent restoration within the leadership?by way o! the people?are both ne&essary i! 6ati1e go1ernan&e is to be not only legitimate but &oherent. Without both o! these the idea o! the tribe is not possible. +hese interwo1en ne&essities are inde3i&al o! a glaring irre&on&ilability between the stru&ture o! 2ettler so1ereignty Bwhether spiritual or se&ular hegemonyC and that o! ;2a1age< so1ereignty' ;*nly a leader who understands LtheM !amilial genealogi&al link
##0
between >awaiians and their lands &an hope to re-establish pono, the balan&e that has been la&king in the >awaiian uni1erse sin&e the &oming o! the haole. +he assertion o! the 1alue o! pono then, awaits the leader with mana< B+rask 11.C. +rask goes on to state in no un&ertain terms that re&lamation o! mana, 6ati1e power, is a&hie1ed through a pro&ess o! de&oloni=ation whi&h dire&tly ;opposes the meri&an system o! ele&toral power< B11-C' L(Mana$LisM a tremendous &hallenge to the &olonial system whi&h de!ines politi&al leadership in terms o! demo&rati& liberalism$LIndigenousM leaders embody so1ereignty only i! they are pono, that is, only i! they belie1e in and work !or the well being o! the land and the people. In this way >awaiian leaders e3hibit mana and in&rease it if they speak and represent the needs o! >awaiians not the needs of all citi1ens of .a&ai4i, or of legislati$e districts, or of bureaucratic institutions. Bemphasis mine 11-C In other words, mana and pono not only make tribal so&iety irre&on&ilable with &i1il so&iety, but they make tribal so&iety and &i1il so&iety in disarti&ulation o! one anotherE !urthermore, mana and pono, as !oundational to both the &on&eptuali=ation and !un&tioning o! tribal so&iety, bar the sub"e&t o! &i1il so&iety !rom a&&ess? ontologicall"? to the indigenous world' the 2ettler would ha1e to lose hegemon" as the element &onstituent to hisHher ontology prior to a&Guiring a&&ess to a world whose !oundation is the interwea1ing o! mana and pono. In short, the 2ettler would ha1e to die. Nine Deloria, Jr., mu&h like >aunani-Iay +rask, makes an important inter1ention when he splits the hair o! the 2ettlerH;2a1age< &on!li&t between the le1el o! e3isten&e$
##%
We ha1e been taught to look at
meri&an history as a series o! land
transa&tions in1ol1ing some three hundred Indian tribes and a growing 8nited 2tates go1ernment. +his &on&eption is &ertainly the pi&ture that emerges when tribal o!!i&ials Lon the reser1ationM are !or&ed to deal with LstateM o!!i&ials, &lams &ommissioners, state highway departments, game wardens, &ounty sheri!!s and pri1ate &orporations. B0od 6s Red #%7C $and the le1el o! ontology$ 9et Lthis isM hardly the whole pi&ture. @erhaps nearly a&&urate would be the pi&ture o! settlement phrased as a &ontinuous &on!li&t o! two mutually e3&lusi1e world1iews. B#%7C Deloria goes on to e3plain how the most banal and bene1olent impositions o! &i1il so&iety made the ;natural< reins&ription o! ;2a1age< ontology impossible. >e begins by reminding the reader that tribal organi=ation itsel! did not elaborate a collecti$e imaginar" of industrial scale social relations characteristic of Settler ci$il societ". 5uropeans looked upon 1arious tribal groups who had similar language patterns and &ustoms in &ommon and imagined they were en&ountering ;nations.< Deloria argues that instead o! ;nation< the more appropriate simile would ha1e been ;band.< lthough these
bands sometimes &ame together !or &eremonies, to share war parties, or !or treaty signing purposes, they would break apart whene1er they be&ame too large to support themsel1es and needed a large game sour&e to !eed e1eryone B0od 6s Red #%(C. ;For politi&al de&isions, religious &eremonies, hunting and !ishing a&ti1ities, and general &ommunity li!e both the politi&al and religious outlook o! the tribe was designed !or a small group o!
##(
people. It was a 1ery rare tribal group that was larger than a thousand people !or any e3tended period o! time< B0od 6s Red #((C. )learly, Deloria draws here largely !rom the spe&i!i&ity o! his own Lakota people in order to make &omprehensi1e stru&tural generali=ations regarding the tou&hstones o! &ohesion whi&h position Indigenous sub"e&ti1ity. But the spe&i!i&s that he re!eren&es should not distra&t us. >e is speaking o! a s&ale o! so&iability that internally disarti&ulates the s&ale o! industry whene1er the latter en&roa&hes on it. /anageability and de&entrali=ed autonomy B#((C, rather than a nation-state ideology sutured by hegemony, is the primary organi=ing &hara&teristi& o! 6ati1e li!e. +he ;banal< and ;bene1olent< introdu&tion, as well as the 1iolent and militari=ed introdu&tion o! hegemony as a so&ial !oundation, all but destroyed the &on&eptual !ramework o! ;2a1age< so1ereignty. +ono was repla&ed by &onstitutionality. (ana surrendered to Krams&ian hegemony. ;+oday tribal &onstitutions de!ine who shall represent the tribe in its relations with the outside world. 6o Guality is needed to assume leadership, e3&ept the ability to win ele&tions. )onseGuently, tribal ele&tions ha1e be&ome one o! the dirtiest !orms o! human a&ti1ity in e3isten&e< B0od 6s Red #,4C. +he imposition o! &i1il so&iety on the 6ati1e body politi& is both de1astating and parasiti&E de1astating in that it &ripples the ability o! 6ati1e people to think their bodies and their sub"e&ti1e relations through rubri&s o! their own &ultural imaginary, and parasiti& in that it reGuires 6ati1e people to per!orm a pageantry o! so&ial mimi&ry. 2ettler &i1il so&iety feeds o!! o! this mimi&ry, not in ob1ious and straight!orward ways. In other words, 2ettlers do not de1elop a sense that the content o! the 2ettlerH;2a1age< &on!li&t has been mira&ulously laid to rest. +he a!!e&ti1e intensity o! White progressi1e
##,
and &onser1ati1e ire &ataly=ed by the re&ent de1elopment o! gambling &asinos or land use disputes e1in&es &i1il so&iety:s awareness that ;+he Indian Wars< are ongoing. What 2ettler &i1il so&iety is able to !eed o!! o!, howe1er, is a &ondition in whi&h Indians must now &ompose their imaginary o! the 2ettlerH;2a1age< &enturies: old &on!li&t?in other words, they must enun&iate their 2o1ereign demands?through hegemony:s ensemble o! Guestions and ethi&al dilemmas that ontologi&ally enable the 2ettler and de1astate the ;2a1age.< +he &ontent o! the &on!li&t is o! little importan&e when the modality o! simply ha1ing the &on!li&t !orti!ies and e3tends the interlo&utory li!e o! only one &ombatant. Indian go1ernan&e, then, not only !un&tions as the &orpse o! tribal so&iety in the ways des&ribed by Deloria and +rask, but lays its body down as a host on whi&h White ethi&al aggrandi=ement &an !eed and through whi&h the &olle&ti1e ego o! 2ettler &i1il so&iety &an be monumentali=ed. s we saw in )hapter #, something similar transpires between the
analysand Bthe /asterC and the Bla&k Bthe 2la1eC, though there are essential di!!eren&es between the two rubri&s. +eligion I! Ward )hur&hill is the most proli!i& and pro!ound meta-&ommentator on the ontologi&al modality o! geno&ide, then Nine Deloria, Jr. is the most proli!i& and pro!ound meta-&ommentator on indigenous religion. /y emphasis on pro!undity and produ&tion reGuires Guali!i&ation. Deloria and )hur&hill would be the !irst to admit that 6ati1e elders, medi&ine people, and e1eryday Indians Bwhat Nerdell Weasel +ail LKary FarmerM, /ogie:s best !riend and drinking buddy in Skins, &alls ;grassroots Indians<C are as proli!i& and pro!ound as they are, "ust as Fanon, 2pillers, >artman, and the !ro-
@essimists would not &athedrali=e their own wisdom but instead &on!ess to &hanneling the
##. ssata 2hakur, and
wisdom o! the likes o! >arriet +ubman, 6at +urner, /al&olm Q, and
the hundreds o! thousands o! unknown 2la1es. +he ontologists are proli!i& be&ause they write books and arti&les. But they are pro!ound be&ause they &hannel the wisdom o! their people:s knowledge. Dather than ;lead< with ;original< dis&o1eries, they se&ure mandates o! desire. Deloria:s seminal works, 0od 6s Red and !he (etaph"sics of (odern )istence , are attenti1e to two large tasks. +he !irst in1ol1es mapping the &oordinates o! religion &ommon to all those positioned Bin the Western hemisphere at leastC as indigenous. In so doing, he says that there is no &lear or desirable distin&tion between notions o! spiritual and material, and notions o! physi&al and psy&hi&al, within metaphysi&al meditations on indigenism. 2e&ondly, he maintains that there are a plethora o! nodal points at whi&h the &onstituent elements o! Indian religion arti&ulate with nodal points o! Western theology and psy&hoanalysis. +his is neither the mark o! a &ontradi&tion nor an error in Deloria:s work. +hough he is o!ten pessimisti& about, and hostile to, the general !ramework o! Western metaphysi&s, he !inds points o! ontologi&al &oalition in what are !or him ;progressi1e< White so&ial !ormations, as well as in the writing o! ;enlightened< White ontologists. mong his !a1orite e3amples o! su&h 2ettler e3&eption are the Jew, the mish,
the /ormon, and the work o! )arl Jung. +his notwithstanding, Deloria maintains that 6ati1e tou&hstones o! &ohesion are by !ar more ethi&al than 2ettler metaphysi&s, be those metaphysi&s spiritual, as in the &ase o! )hristianity, or se&ular, as in the &ase o! psy&hoanalysis and /ar3ism' ;+he minds and eyes o! Western man ha1e$been rather permanently &losed to understanding or obser1ing religious e3perien&es. Deligion has
##-
be&ome a &om!ortable ethi& !or Western man, not a !or&e o! undetermined intensity and unsuspe&ted origin that may break in on him< B0od 6s Red #74C. Skins4s repeated re!eren&es to the sa&redness o! the Bla&k >ills and the &osmologi&al power o! animate and inanimate !orms o! tri&ksters, its e3tra-diegeti& relian&e o! sa&red musi& at key moments when emotional arguments need to be both made and won, and its emphasis on the &entrality that sweat lodges and o!!erings should play in Dudy:s li!e Be1en i! they ha1e not in the re&ent pastC are all part and par&el o! the representational supports o! a s&reenplay dri1en by Nine Deloria:s argument that religion is a !or&e o! ;undetermined intensity and unsuspe&ted origin< that may, at any moment, break in on the sub"e&t. gain, Dudy 9ellow Lodge is the &hara&ter designated by the
s&ript to shoulder the ethi&al dilemmas this !or&e elaborates. +hrough him, the narrati1e introdu&es Iktomi Ba spirit !or&e and tri&ksterC and de&iphers its !orm and meaning. Iktomi, in the !orm o! spider, !irst bites him when he is a young boy. Later in the !ilm, the spider he sees in his bathroom sink pun&tuates his awareness in a moment when he is bla&kening his !a&e in preparation !or a 1igilante outing. t another point, a medi&ine
man says that Iktomi may ha1e e1en &ome to Dudy in the !orm o! the ro&k on whi&h he hit his head while &hasing one o! the reser1ation:s youth o!!enders. +he !ilm is not as &ons&ious as Deloria o! the di!!eren&es between )hristianity andHor /ar3ism, on the one hand, and indigenous religion, on the other. But Iktomi a&&rues, ad"e&ti1ally, to Dudy:s plot line, and not to /ogie:s, be&ause the !ilm is passionate in its agreement with Deloria that liberation is ine)tricabl" bound to cultural 7especiall" religious8 restoration. ;2kins,< the medi&ine man tells Dudy, ;ha1e !orgotten
##7
the !or&es around themE< and the !a&t that Dudy, and not (ogie, whom the narrati1e ;sele&ts< to re&ei1e this bit o! &autionary and imploring in!ormation, is signi!i&ant. When I say that the idea o! liberation-Gua-religious-restoration does not a&&rue, ad"e&ti1ally, to /ogie:s &hara&ter, I am not making the point that the real /ogies o! this world, the ;grass roots< Indians, are not as &on&erned about this ethi&al dilemma as Nine Deloria and the real Dudys o! this world are. What I am saying is that, as !ar as ;2a1age< &inema in general and Skins in parti&ular are &on&erned, /ogie:s positionality o! red dust and ruin, his embodied geno&ide, is not a persona to whom the ensemble o! Guestions whi&h animate this ethi&al dilemma a&&rue. 2ubseGuently, Guestions o! !ilial and &ommunal sur1i1al 1s. Guestions o! pleasure and release, e.g. the grati!i&ation o! adulteryE Guestions animated by sweat lodge &leansing, sage burning, spirit o!!erings, and prayer 1s. the prolonged angst o! brooding or the rush and ;&ertainty< o! 1igilantism?these Guestions not only &luster around Dudy, to their near e3&lusion o! /ogie, but their presen&e is so o1erwhelming as to &rowd out the narrati$e4s abilit" to sustain fora"s into the ethical dilemmas of genocide. When, at the end o! the !ilm, Dudy &on!esses his 1igilante a&ti1ities to /ogie, he says they were !or ;our people.< ;*ur people,< says /ogie, with pronoun&ed sar&asm and in&redulity, ;who:s our peopleF< ;9ou know our !iospa"e, our E"ate.< ;*ur E"ate,< /ogie laughs, ;you gotta be kidding me.< +here is intimation here that, though it is Rud" who has laun&hed 1igilante atta&ks against troublemakers, /ogie is the one who has blasphemed, !or E"ate implies more than ;people< in the sense o! a body politi&. It has spiritual signi!i&an&e, whereby the sensory sel! is intimately bound with the group. *ne is said to &arry Bor not &arryC the
#04
wel!are o! E"ate in one:s heart. E"ate is that 1essel through whi&h the sensory sel! &an sa&ri!i&e itsel! !or the good o! the nation and ;be &onne&ted with all &reation, both the present uni1erse and the spirits o! those who ha1e gone be!ore< BWhite2hieldC. +he narrati1e does not ne&essarily imply that /ogie is a &ultural s&andal Bhe has too many !a&ts and !igures regarding Indian massa&res, e1en in his most inebriated moments !or him to be a s&andalC, but it does maintain that he is someone desperately in need o! help Bbe&ause he does not per!orm an embra&e o! the 1alues o! E"ateC?help whi&h only someone like Dudy &an pro1ide. +here!ore it is imperati1e that the Dudys o! the world restore their own spirituality, so that the /ogies will be lost &ompletely. What is astounding is the !ilm:s inability to grasp the organi&ity o! /ogie:s intelle&tual and politi&al pro"e&t. It sees /ogie only as an e!!e&t o! 2o1eriegn dera&ination. +his relu&tan&e on the part o! the narrati1e to allow the modality o! geno&ide to either ponder its ethi&al dilemmas, andHor to stage a &on1ersation between the geno&ide modality and the so1ereignty modality, let alone a &ritiGue o! the so1ereignty modality by way o! the geno&ide modality is a relu&tan&e mirrored in Nine Deloria:s meta-&ommentaries on ;2a1age< ontology. Deloria:s primary reader is 6ati1e meri&anE his se&ondary reader is the 2ettler.
>is te3ts address the 2ettler as though sHhe is situated, simultaneously, as his enemy and his possible ally. In other words, he &redits the 2ettler:s se&ular /ani&heism, his spiritual monotheism, and his gratuitous 1iolen&e as threats to the 1ery possibility o! indigenism. But he also a&knowledges pro!ound stru&tural arti&ulations between indigenism and more promising and ;progressi1e< intra-2ettlerism ad1entures. s stated abo1e, these 74-71,
ad1entures in&lude Jungian, as opposed to Freudian, psy&hoanalysis B!(E(
#01 mish and
11--1#4, 1(1-1(0, #4(C and the religious pra&ti&e and spiritual inheritan&e o! Jews.
)arl Jung, Deloria asserts, did not !all into the Freudian trap o! attributing human instin&ts and intuitions to nonhuman spe&ies' se3, indi1idual sur1i1al, and a ;so&ial inheritan&e LnoM larger or more &omple3 than the !amily group< B !(E( 71C. Deloria appre&iates the basi& tenets o! Jungian psy&hoanalysis !or the same reasons he &elebrates the tou&hstones o! indigenous religious &ohesion. Jung ;re&ogni=es the e3isten&e o! instin&ts but$also trans&ends instin&tual problems to draw &on&lusions !rom the study o! the human mind whi&h ha1e uni1ersal impli&ations< B71C. +his e3pansi1e gesture Deloria e3perien&es in the work o! Jung allows !or a Western metaphysi&s o! the human mind whi&h not only has impli&ations ;uni1ersal< enough to embra&e the indigenous sub"e&t, but &an also work hand in hand with an indigenous religious embra&e o! what nati1e people &all ;all my relations<?in short, inanimate and animate beings that are not human B11--1#4C. @ut another way, !or Deloria, Jungian psy&hoanalysis is one o! modernity:s !ew metaphysi&al meditations whi&h ha1e ethi&al &apa&ity. +he potential !or ethi&al &apa&ity is also !ound in the stru&ture and pra&ti&e o! mish and Jewish spirituality. Deloria &laims that the mish, like spiritually &entered
Indians, la&k so&ial alienation !ound elsewhere in 2ettler &i1il so&iety. +his, he belie1es, ;stems !rom their tight &ommunal ways, the !a&t that they settled on de!inite lands and are related to those lands< B0od 6s Red #4-C. +his is one o! the many instan&es when Deloria presents land, &on&eptually, as the &apa&ity to transpose space into place. In other words, he gi1es 1alue to land, subordinating?or outright re"e&ting?its &ommer&ial 1alue !or its ontologi&al 1alue. In this way, the stewardship relationality o! ;2a1age< so1ereignty sets
#0#
the ethi&al standard against whi&h only one or two 2ettler meditationsH!ormations &an measure. In addition, language, mu&h like land, is imbued by Deloria with both a temporal and a spatial &apa&ity. >e maintains the ethi&ality o! language is ens&on&ed within its binding power. @rior to &onta&t and &onGuest, Indian languages 1ou&hsa!ed ea&h Indian tribe:s ;dis&ernable history, both religious and politi&al< and !un&tioned to ;bind ea&h tribe$&loser< together. 2u&h power has been lost to the 2ettler due to the alienating inter1entions o! Western metaphysi&sE &oloni=ation threatens Indians with a similar loss. +he Jews, howe1er, are a notable e3&eption among 2ettlers. *nly with the use o! >ebrew by the Jewish &ommunity, whi&h in so many ways perpetuates the Indian tribal religious &on&eptions o! &ommunity, do we !ind &ontemporary similarities. gain &on&eption o! group identity is
1ery strong among the Jews, and the phenomenon o! ha1ing been born into a &omplete &ultural and religious tradition is present, though many Jews, like many Indians, re!use to a&knowledge their membership in an e3&lusi1e &ommunity. B0od 6s Red ###C Language, then, is a temporal &apa&ity, the power to transpose meaningless and unspe&i!ied time into the meaning!ul and spe&i!i& ;e1ent< known as the tribe. +he ;e1ent< is not a single instan&e but rather a temporal &oheren&e whi&h perpetuates ;the Indian Land JewishM tribal religious &on&eption o! &ommunity.< +he temporal power o! language must not only ha1e been transposed in the past, but must reins&ribe itsel! in the time o! the present, i! the e1ent o! the tribe is to &ohere as ;an e3&lusi1e &ommunity< in the !uture.
#00
Deloria:s outlines o! Indigenous religion Bas a &onstituent element o! ;2a1age< so1ereigntyC mo1e ba&k and !orth between three registers' B1C spatial &apa&ity to transpose terra nullius into nameable pla&e, &oupled with a stewardship, rather than a proprietary relation to those pla&e-names, B#C temporal &apa&ity to transpose meaningless time into &oherent &hronology--the elaboration o! the tribe as ;e1ent< through the rei!i&ation o! language, and B0C a series o! &elebrations o! the holisti& dimensions o! indigenous religion in &ontradistin&tion to the isolating, alienating, and atomi=ing dimensions o! Western metaphysi&s. For Deloria, the holisti& impetus o! indigenous religion stems !rom se1eral attributes, one o! whi&h is the la&k o! do&trine. 2in&e tribal religions are not do&trinaire there &an be no religious heresies within Indigenous spiritualism' It is 1irtually impossible to ;"oin< a tribal religion by arguing !or its do&trines. @eople &ould &are less whether an outsider belie1es anything. 6o separate standard o! religious beha1ior is imposed on !ollowers o! the religious tradition outside o! the reGuirements !or its &eremonies?who shall do what, who may parti&ipate, and who is e3&luded !rom whi&h part o! the &eremony, who is needed !or other parts o! the &eremony. B 0od 6s Red #4#C +he importan&e o! Deloria:s &laims abo1e should not be redu&ed to a mere &omparison between indigenous and )hristian religious pra&ti&es. Dather, his analysis alerts us to a in&ompatibility between important elements o! ;2a1age< e3isten&e and 2ettler e3isten&e' *ne &ould say that the tribal religions &reated the tribal &ommunity, whi&h, in turn, made a pla&e !or e1ery tribal indi1idual. )hristianity, on
#0%
the other hand$&reated the solitary indi1idual who, gathered together e1ery se1en days, &onstitutes the ;&hur&h,< whi&h then de!ines the e3tent to whi&h the religion is to be understood and !ollowed. B0od 6s Red #4%C Deloria throws a spanner in the works o! not "ust )hristianity but o! Western metaphysi&s itsel! by suggesting that it &on&ei1es o! the indi1idual as an element within the group Bso&ietyC, when in point o! !a&t B;!a&t< being the elements o! ;2a1age< ontologi&al thoughtC it is the group that must be apprehended as an element &ithin the indi$idual. Western metaphysi&s: inability to grasp this is &entral to its internally, as well as outwardly, destru&ti1e lega&y' With the indi1idual as the primary !o&al point and his relationship with the deity as his primary &on&ern, the group is ne1er on &ertain ground as to its e3isten&e but must &ontinually &hange its do&trines and belie!s to attra&t a ma3imum number o! !ollowers' it is always sub"e&t to horrendous !ragmentation o1er do&trinal interpretations, whene1er two strong-minded indi1iduals &lash. B0od 6s Red #4%C +his &lash between strong-minded indi1iduals is a &ommon o&&urren&e systemi& to the historiography o! Western metaphysi&s, a hair-trigger that threatens, i! not the rest o! the world, then at least the &oheren&e o! ;2a1age< so1ereignty in the Western >emisphere. Within tribal religions, &ontrary to the built-in dualism o! )hristianity, ;theology is part o! &ommunal e3perien&es needing no elaboration, abstra&tion, or arti&ulation o! prin&iples. 51ery !a&tor o! human e3perien&e is seen in a religious light as part o! the meaning o! li!e< B0od 6s Red #44-#41C. +his sa!eguards against the so&ial mani!estation in )hristianity and Western metaphysi&s writ large whi&h distinguishes between the
#0(
out&ast Bthe hereti&C and the !lo&k. ;Be&ause the )hristian religion is &on&ei1ed as a person,< writes Deloria, ;the indi1idual is both 1i&tim and 1i&tor o! the religion< B0od 6s Red 17-C. Indigenous religion &annot a&&ommodate su&h di1ine indi1idualism. Deloria maintains that su&h di1ine indi1idualism is a key, an internal &atalyst to a wide range o! so&ial ills in &i1il so&iety, despite the !a&t that this di1ine indi1idualism is known by its euphemism, ;sal1ation.< +here is ;no sal1ation in tribal religions apart !rom the &ontinuation o! the tribe itsel!$+he possibility o! &on&ei1ing o! an indi1idual alone in a tribal religious sense is ridi&ulous. +he 1ery &omple3ity o! tribal li!e and the interdependen&e o! people on one another makes this &on&eption improbable at best, a terri!ying loss o! identity at worse< B0od 6s Red #41C. +he absen&e o! a do&trinaire &onte3t !or indigenous religion not only mitigates against e3istential isolation &ommon in the West, but also allows !or a more &omprehensi1e and less atomi=ed e3perien&e o!, and relationship to, the uni1erse and its powers. +his is possible be&ause, as mentioned abo1e, ;tribal religious realities< do not di1ide the world into dualisti& realms o! ;spiritual and material$this worldly and thatworldly, and absolute spa&e and time dimensions< but instead ;maintain a &onsistent understanding o! the unity o! all e3perien&e< B !he (etaph"sics of (odern )perience 1(1C. Deloria is Gui&k to a&knowledge, howe1er, the possibility o! religious arti&ulation between the ;2a1age< and the 2ettler when he points out that within the Western s&heme o! knowledge there are ;some things that ha1e utmost importan&e< !or 6ati1e peoples, but they &an only be as&ertained by what appears to be a symptomati&, rather than a dire&t
#0,
reading o! ;their system o! belie!s, their myths, or their so&ial and politi&al organi=ations< B!he (etaph"sics of (odern )istence 1(#C. 2till, Western metaphysi&s, whether se&ular or religious, is not imbued with what, !or Deloria, is the most &ommon !eature o! indigenous awareness o! the world, ;the !eeling or belie! that the uni1erse is energi=ed by a per1ading power< B!(E( 1(#C.
+his &ommon awareness o! a per1asi1e power is a &onstituent element o! ;2a1age< so1ereignty though its mani!est &ontent elaborates di!!erent &eremonial !orms and is known by di!!erent names a&ross 6ati1e manitou in 6orth meri&a' mana in >awai:i, &aken, orenda, or
meri&a B1(#C. +hese names pro1ide tribal members with the
&on&eptual !ramework !or meditation and prayer with respe&t to widely distributed powers in the uni1erse, the ;inherent energy< the ;!ield o! !or&e< &apable o! produ&ing e3traordinary e!!e&ts B!(E( 1(0C. +he barrenness o! Western metaphysi&s, as opposed to the plenitude o! the indigenous spirituality, lies not only in !ormer:s need to atomi=e the natural world into realms, but also in its desire to master, rather than e3perien&e, what it en&ounters in that world. )ontrary to the &laims o! Western metaphysi&s, this need to atomi=e and desire to master deadens, rather than sharpens, awareness o! the uni1erse' L+Mhe obser1ations and e3perien&es o! primiti1e peoples was so a&ute that they were able to re&ogni=e a basi& phenomenon o! the natural religiously rather than s&ienti!i&ally. !he" felt po&er but did not measure it. +oday we measure power, are unable to !eel it e3&ept on e3tremely rare o&&asions. We &on&lude that energy !orms the basi& &onstituent o! the uni1erse through e3perimentation. For primiti1e peoples, on the other hand, the
#0.
presence of energ" and po&er is the starting point of their anal"ses and understanding of the natural &orld, it is their cornerstone for further e)ploration. B!(E( 1(0C @ower?!or e3ample, &aken, orenda, manitou, or mana?also has spe&i!i& resonan&e within the way indigenous people imagine and stru&ture go1ernan&e Btribal so&ietyC. &and In delineating ;2a1age< ontology through the element o! land, indigenous s&holars emphasi=e that a relationship BaC to the land in general and BbC to the land whi&h any gi1en tribe inhabited at the time o! &onta&t, is a relationship &onstituent o! ontology. /ost writers are also Gui&k to draw a distin&tion between their relationship to the land and that o! the 2ettler. In so doing, land be&omes a pi1otal element in a semioti&s o! ;2a1age< loss and 2ettler gain' We are all land-based people$who are attuned to the rhythms o! our homelands in a way that assumes both prote&tion o!, and an intimate belonging to, our an&estral pla&es$ LBut we areM surrounded by other, more power!ul nations that$want our land and resour&es$L+his is anM ongoing &olonial relationship. B+rask 10#-100C ;2a1age< so1ereignty Gua land is distinguished !rom 2ettlerism in the way in whi&h it imagines dominion and use. Indigenous dominion is &hara&teri=ed by the idea o! ;stewardship< rather than the idea o! ownership' Indigenous philosophies are premised on the belie! that the earth was &reated by a power e3ternal to human beings, who ha1e a responsibility to a&t as stewardsE sin&e humans had no hand in making the earth, they ha1e
#0-
no right to ;possess< it or dispose o! it as they see !it?possession o! land by man is unnatural and un"ust. +he stewardship prin&iple, re!le&ting a spiritual &onne&tion with land established by the )reator, gi1es human beings spe&ial responsibilities within the areas they o&&upy as indigenous peoples, linking them in a ;natural< way to their territories. B l!red ,4-,1C 2tewardship impa&ts upon use in that the land?what Western metaphysi&s re!ers to as ;nature<?is 1iewed as sour&e rather than resour&e. +his not only gestures to the unethi&al spiritual and politi&al &hara&ter o! the &apitalist pro!it moti1e but also posits the idea o! ;resour&e de1elopment< and industriali=ation as paradigms o! dominion and use whi&h are irre&on&ilable with indigenism:s paradigm o! dominion and use. It not only marks a &on!li&t between indigenism and the heinous and e3ploiti1e desires o! &apitalism, but also between indigenism and the eman&ipatory and re1olutionary desires o! a /ar3ist proletarian di&tatorship. Ward )hur&hill illustrates the split between Indians and /ar3ists regarding ;&on&lusions to be drawn !rom analyses o! what is wrong with the &apitalist pro&essE with a 1ision o! an alternati1e so&iety$the redistribution o! pro&eeds a&&ruing !rom a systemati& rape o! the earth is, at best, an irrele1an&y !or$Indians< B (ar)ism and #ati$e Americans 1-(C. +hroughout the meta-&ommentaries o! ;2a1age< ontology the point is made that 6ati1e people share and wat&h o1er the land in &on&ert with other &reatures that inhabit it. 2ettlerism:s stru&tural imposition on the indigenous system o! relationality Bone in whi&h all inhabitants o! the land are the Indian:s ;relations<C is tantamount to the dismantling o! indigenous sub"e&ti1ity. +his dismantling o! sub"e&ti1ity, )hur&h and others point out, &annot be repaired by a /ar3ist re1olution B!ound, !or e3ample, in 6egri
#07
and >ardt:s idea o! ;time redeemed< or the &ommons restoredCE !or su&h a re1olution reinstates neither ;stewardship< nor animateHinanimate kinship relations ba&k to the paradigm o! dominion and use.l3ii +he 2ettler:s ontologi&al degradation in the !orm o! &apitalism, and hisHher eman&ipation in the !orm o! &ommunism, portends the beginning and the &ontinuation, respe&ti1ely, o! Indian land dispossession?a dispossession !ar more pro!ound than material lar&eny' ; bandonment o! their land base is not an option !or 6ati1e meri&ans, either in !a&t or in theory. +he result would simply be Rauto-geno&ide:< B)hur&hill, (ar)ism and #ati$e Americans 170C. ;2a1age< so1ereignty:s notions o! stewardship and sour&e are presented as ethi&al alternati1es to 2ettler so1ereignty:s notions o! dominan&e and resour&e. Deloria, +rask, l!red, and )hur&hill:s &ounterpoint to /ar3ists and 2ettler progressi1es is two!old. First, &i1il so&iety &annot be&ome ethi&al simply by ad"usting its paradigm o! resour&e a&&umulation and distributionE instead, the entire ensemble o! Guestions whi&h orient the >uman in relation to the natural world ha1e to be ;indigeni=ed.< +his also means?as )hur&hill, +rask, and 2ilko, but not Deloria and l!red, are Gui&k to point out?the
indigenous sub"e&t, and not the 2ettler4 is the Guintessential re1olutionary sub"e&tposition. +he indigenous sub"e&t, and not the proletariat, is the sine 2ua non o! re1olutionary sub"e&ti1ity be&ause the semioti&s o! loss whi&h positions the indigenous Bdispossession o! a &ulturally and spiritually spe&i!i& land base wherein all &reatures were their relations and o! whi&h they were stewardsC is an essential modality o! dispossession. Dispossession o! labor power, at the site o! the wage relation, is an important but ultimately inessential !orm o! dispossession. 6ot only is it inessential but it takes pla&e
#%4
within an a priori unethi&al ontologi&al !ormation' 2ettlers and &i1il so&iety. +his is a s&hemati=ation o! the di!!eren&e between a 1ital aspe&t o! ;2a1age< so1ereignty and 2ettler so1ereignty. )hur&hill puts a !iner point on it by suggesting that not only is the proletariat not the essential pla&eholder !or the re1olutionary sub"e&t, but the proletariat:s struggle to obliterate the wage relation and demo&rati=e ownership o! the means o! produ&tion Bo! whi&h land is a primary &omponentC are at best inadeGuate, and at worst unethi&al, in &omparison to a struggle to re-indigeni=ing the land. L+Mhe potential !or oppositional a&tion &entering upon tangibles su&h as landbase rather than abstra&ts on the order o! ;&lass interest<$should be starkly e1ident. )on&omitantly, the threat to the stability o! the status Guo should be readily apparent. whole body o! anti-&olonial theory should
spring to the mind o! any well-read le!tist and ser1e to unders&ore this LpointMl3iii$)onsider that e1ery in&h o! stolen ground re&o1ered$by 6ati1e meri&ans &omes dire&tly !rom the imperial integrit" o! the 8.2.
itsel!. By any de!inition, the mere potential !or e1en a partial dissolution o! the 8.2. landbase should be a high priority &onsideration !or an"one &on&erned with destabili=ing the status Guo. B (ar)ism and #ati$e Americans 177-#4#C In this passage )hur&hill is not simply asserting a ta&ti&al distin&tion between /ar3ist politi&os and organi=ations like I/ Bthe meri&an Indian /o1ementC. Dather, his
e3amination o! the /ar3ist answer to the Guestion What is to be done> &ritiGues the Guestion itsel! at a paradigmati& le1el, while o!!ering an alternati1e, a paradigmati& shi!t predi&ated on Indigenism. In short, )hur&hill &laims that i! 2ettler re1olutionaries shi!t
#%1
the spatial paradigm o! /ar3ism !rom the wageHlabor ne3us Bwhere surplus 1alue is e3tra&ted on Krams&ian !a&tory !loor or !rom within the 6egrian libidinal ;&ommons<C to the landHspirit ne3us Bthe domain where all ob"e&ts are related to ea&h other as sub"e&ts and where sour&e &annot be denigrated as resour&eC then the De1olution would possess an essential, rather than merely an important, ensemble o! Guestions?Guestions o! 6ati1e power Bmana, &aken, manitou, or orendaC rather than 2ettler hegemony Bin!luen&e, leadership, and &onsentC.l3i1 +his shi!t !rom the wageHlabor ne3us to the landHspirit ne3us, )hur&hill:s assertion implies, would make the /o1ement a better and more ethi&al !ighting ma&hine, and, most importantly, pro1ide the 2ettler with the ontologi&al integrity sHhe &ould ne1er a&hie1e through the ma&hinations o! hegemony. Sovereignt( and the structure of antagonisms +he meditations on ;2a1age< ontology whi&h are weighted hea1ily toward the modality o! so1ereignty reproduce a net&ork of connections, transfers, and displacements?arti&ulations?between themsel1es and meditations on 2ettler ontology. I am not suggesting that the content o! /ar3ism, or e1en )hristianity and psy&hoanalysis, !or that matter Bmeditations !oundational to the range o! ethi&al Guestions one &an &on&eptuali=e within &i1il so&ietyC, &an be re&on&iled with the &ontent o! indigenous religion, land &athe3is, and go1ernan&e. +rask, Deloria, )hur&hill, and 2ilko persuade me when they argue that /ar3, Freud, and Jesus ha1e lost BusurpedFC the road map to +urtle Island. +he notion o! trium1irate arti&ulation B&onne&tions, trans!ers, and displa&ementsC is borrowed !rom @eter /iller and 6ikolas Dose:s arti&le ;*n +herapeuti& @sy&hoanalyti&al 53pertise 8nder uthority'
d1an&ed Liberalism.< /iller and Dose re"e&t the
#%#
trend in s&holarly writing about psy&hoanalysis that attempts to e3plain the dis&ourse ;by lo&ating its origins in general so&ial and &ultural trans!ormations.< +heir strategy o! analysis di!!ers !rom dominant trends in s&holarship in that they are ;concern@edA &ith therapeutics as a form of authorit".< +his means that their analysis !o&uses on the rhetori&al strategies through whi&h the dis&ourse o! psy&hoanalysis Bin an histori&al milieu o! ad1an&ed liberalismC be&omes authoritati1e. +heir analysis is not animated by the Guestion ;Rwhy: therapeuti&s< but by the Guestion ;how therapeuti&s< B01C. 2imilarly, we ha1e asked oursel1es ho&, rhetori&ally, the 2ettlerH/aster:s grammar o! e3ploitation and alienation !un&tions' in what way is this grammar authoritati1e in dis&ourses as disparate as !eminism, /ar3ism, and Western aestheti&sFl31 We asked oursel1es why there is no arti&ulation between the 2la1e:s grammar o! su!!ering and the 2ettlerH/aster:s grammar o! su!!ering' &hat pre$ents them from being simultaneousl" authoritati$e> 6ow, we !ind oursel1es !a&ed with so1ereignty as a modality o! the ;2a1age:s< grammar o! su!!ering, with the network through whi&h its authority !un&tions, and with the possibility or impossibility o! its arti&ulation with the 2ettler andHor the 2la1e. Deloria, )hur&hill, and others insist upon the in&ompatibility o! both /ar3ist and psy&hoanalyti& utopianism as pro"e&ts o! eman&ipation !or 6ati1e people. )hur&hill goes so !ar as to say that ;/ar3ism L&onstitutesM as great a threat to nati1e so1ereignty and sel!-determination as &apitalism< BSince +redator Came ,C. In addition, there seems to be a radi&al disarti&ulation between the 2ettler:s and the ;2a1age:s< topographies o! the soul' the se&ular mediations and pro&esses through whi&h a psy&hoanalyst ;pun&tuates< BLa&anC the analysand:s empty spee&h, and thereby guides the analysand to a non-egoi& relationship with hisHher &ontemporaries Bthe attainment o! !ull spee&hC, are apparently
#%0
dumbstru&k when &on!ronted by the mediations and pro&esses through whi&h the medi&ine manHwoman heals the tribal member and thereby re-harmoni=es himHher with the uni1erse and all its relations. Nine Deloria links this besetting hobble o!
psy&hoanalysis:s healing power to the bankrupt ethi&s o! )hristianity' L+Mhe original L)hristianM per&eption o! reality be&omes trans!ormed o1er a period o! time into philosophies and theologies whi&h purport to gi1e a logi&al and analyti&al e3planation o! ultimate reality Li.e., Freudian psy&hoanalysisM. +hese e3planations, o! &ourse, ha1e eliminated the human emotions and intuiti1e insights o! the original e3perien&e and in their pla&e ha1e substituted a systemati& rendering o! human knowledge &on&erning the natural world. B!he (etaph"sics of (odern )istence 1(1C >ere, Deloria glosses Leslie 2ilko:s assertion that 5uropeans are spiritual orphans. ;+he an&estors had &alled 5uropeans the orphan people and had noted that as with orphans taken in by sel!ish and &oldhearted people, !ew 5uropeans had remained whole. +hey !ailed to re&ogni=e the earth as their mother< B2ilko !he Almanac of the 3ead #(-C. +he disturbing result o! this abandonment is the 5uropean$ $di1isions o! the natural world into spiritual and material, eternal and ephemeral, this-worldly and other-worldly, and absolute spa&e and time dimensions$@rimiti1e people do not di!!erentiate their world o! e3perien&e into two realms that oppose or &omplement ea&h other. +hey$ maintain a &onsistent understanding o! the unity o! all e3perien&e. Dather than seeking underlying &auses or substan&es, primiti1es report the nature and intensity o! their e3perien&e. )arl Jung &lari!ied this approa&h to
#%%
e3perien&e when he wrote that Rthanks to our onesided emphasis on so&alled natural &auses, we ha1e to di!!erentiate what is sub"e&ti1e and psy&hi& !rom what is ob"e&ti1e and Rnatural.: For primiti1e man, on the &ontrary, the psy&hi& and the ob"e&ti1e &oales&e in the e3ternal world.< B!he (etaph"sics of (odern )istence 1(1C Deloria and others thus make it &lear that the network o! &onne&tions, trans!ers, and displa&ements whi&h authori=e and arti&ulate 2ettler ontology and the so1ereignty modality o! ;2a1age< ontology is not a net&ork of rela"s bet&een the content of their respecti$e rhetoric, !or they do not map the soul with same 1ision o! spatial and temporal &artographies. >ow, then, is the arti&ulation sutured i! not by the &ontent o! their 1isionsF Why is it that the struggle between one hal! o! ;2a1age< ontology Bso1ereigntyC and the &omplete ontologi&al !rame o! re!eren&e o! the 2ettlerH/aster Be3ploitation and alienationC cannot be &hara&teri=ed as an antagonismF Why, instead, must it be thought o! as a &on!li&tF >ow &an we name this rubri& o! arti&ulation between these two mortal enemiesF What the 2ettler and the ;2a1age< share is a capacit" for time and space coherence. t e1ery s&ale?the soul, the body, the group, the land, and the uni1erse?
they &an both pra&ti&e &artography and though at e$er" scale their maps are radicall" incompatible, their respecti$e map/ness is ne$er in 2uestion . +his &apa&ity !or &artographi& &oheren&e is the thing itself, that whi&h se&ures sub"e&ti1ity !or both the 2ettler and the ;2a1age< and arti&ulates them to one another in a network o! &onne&tions, trans!ers, and displa&ements. +he shared &apa&ity !or &artographi& &oheren&e rat&hets the &hara&ter o! the 2ettlerH;2a1age< struggle do&n&ards !rom an antagonism to a &on!li&t.
#%(
In other words, the 2ettlerH;2a1age< struggle su&&umbs to the &onstraints o! analogy, &aptured by the simile ;like<' like the &ar in 6ra2, like the +alestinian struggle, like &omen4s liberation, and so on. t best, the ;like< makes the 2ettlerH;2a1age< struggle t worst, the simile grants the
legible within the dis&ourse o! post&olonial theory.
2ettlerH;2a1age< struggle the tepid legibility o! 1arious "unior partner struggles &ithin &i1il so&iety. *! &ourse, the ;2a1age< ontologi&al modality o! geno&ide rat&hets the &hara&ter o! the 2ettlerH;2a1age< struggle upwards !rom a &on!li&t to an antagonism and thus o1erwhelms the &onstraints o! analogy. 2uddenly, the struggle between the 2ettler and the ;2a1age< is ;like< nothing at all, whi&h is to say it be&omes ;like< the struggle between the /aster and the 2la1e. 2uddenly, the network o! &onne&tions, trans!ers, and displa&ements between the ;2a1age:s< semioti&s o! loss and the 2ettler:s semioti&s o! gain is o1erwhelmed?&rowded out?by a network o! &onne&tions, trans!ers, and displa&ements between a geno&ided thing and a !ungible and a&&umulated thing. 8n!ortunately, ontologi&al meditations in whi&h 6ati1e meri&an theorists muse upon
geno&ide as an ontologi&al modality are !ound, !or the most part, in the work o! )hur&hill and, to a lesser e3tent, 2ilko. Without more work on this arti&ulation, there &an be no hope o! theori=ing the partial ob"e&t status o! the ;2a1age< in &on"un&tion with the absolute ob"e&t status o! the 2la1e. I! 6ati1e meri&an theori=ation embra&ed its stru&tural non-presen&e then one
&ould begin to look !or an arti&ulation between their ob"e&t status and that o! the 2la1e. +he diagnosti& payo!! o! this would be mani!est in a !urther and more de&isi1e &rowding out o! any ethi&al pretense the ontologists o! White &i1il so&iety &ould &laim Bha1ing lost
#%,
their Indigenous interlo&utors, they would only ha1e the power o! their empty rhetori& and their gunsC and there is no telling what kinds o! un!lin&hing re1olutionary prognosti&ations &ould result o1er the years. For this to happen, a hand!ul o! 6ati1e meri&an theorists must "oin that hand!ul o! Bla&k theorists and dialogue in the empty spa&e and temporal stillness o! absolute dereli&tion. What, we might ask, inhibits this analyti& and politi&al dream o! a ;2a1age<H2la1e en&ounterF Is it a matter o! the 6ati1e theorist:s need to preser1e the &onstituent elements o! so1ereignty, or is there su&h a thing as ;2a1age< negrophobia?are the two relatedF Skins is a !ilm whose ontologi&al authori1ation struggles in uneasy tension between the monumentali=ing imaginary o! so1ereignty and the absolute dereli&tion o! geno&ide?between the authority o! Dudy 9ellow Lodge and /ogie 9ellow Lodge, respe&ti1ely. +his tension is an3ious and brittle, ill at ease with its &ompeting authori=ations. +his an3iety is mani!est in the !a&t that the modality o! geno&ide enters the !ilm through the ba&kdoor, so to speak?by way o! Kraham Kreene:s per!orman&e, and his re-writing o! the dialogueE and by way o! the !ormal, rather than narrati1e, &inemati& strategies. In other words, the !ilm kno&s, unconsciousl", /ogie:s geno&ided body as the Guintessen&e o! ;2a1age< ontology, but the narrati1e only recogni1es, consciousl", Dudy:s so1ereign body as the Guintessen&e o! ;2a1age< ontology. s stated earlier, only a small number o! 6ati1e meri&an ontologi&al
meditations are gi1en o1er to geno&ideE most meditations on the grammar o! ;2a1age< su!!ering !o&us on so1ereignty and its semioti&s o! loss. Furthermore, the small ar&hi1e through whi&h geno&ide is re!le&ted upon as an ontologi&al modality?and not simply re&orded as e3perien&e?is one in whi&h two names are prominent' Leslie /armon 2ilko
#%.
and Ward )hur&hill. +hough the works o! 2ilko and )hur&hill o!ten meditate on so1ereignty through the same semioti&s o! loss !ound in +rask, l!red, and Deloria, their
prose and analysis o!ten grapple with an ensemble o! Guestions &entral to e3termination. 2ilko:s method o! &on1eyan&e and argumentati1e strategy is poeti&, narrati1e, asso&iati1e, and impressionisti&E whereas )hur&hill:s method o! &on1eyan&e is marked by a strong, highly rhetori&al prose style and e1identiary argument strategiesE his books sometimes ha1e almost as many pages o! !ootnotes as they do pages o! prose. In ;)on&erning Niolen&e,< Fanon splits an important hair between stru&tural position and politi&al dis&ourse when he writes that nati1es ;do not lay a &laim to the truthE they do not sa" that they represent the truth, !or they are the truth< BWretched*%7C. For Fanon, this ontologi&al truth makes ;morality Li.e. politi&al
a&tionHdis&ourseHaestheti&sM 1ery &on&reteE it is to silen&e the settler:s de!ian&e, to break his !launting 1iolen&e?in a word, to put him out o! the pi&ture< B%%C. I intend to pro&eed in su&h a way as to trouble Fanon:s assertion o! nati1e ontology when the 82 ;2a1age< is the nati1e in Guestion. For the bi!ur&ation o! ;2a1age< ontology o!ten works, &inemati&ally and within the ontologi&al meditations and politi&al &ommon sense under &onsideration here, to put the 2ettler back into the pi&ture Bmakes herHhim present on s&reenC, and works, howe1er unwittingly, to de!er inde!initely an ethi&al en&ounter between the ;2a1age< and the 2la1e. In this regard, +aiaiake l!red:s +eace, +o&er, Righteousness: An 6ndigenous
(anifesto is an interesting e3&eption whi&h presents us with a semioti&s o! so1ereignty that should not be labeled ;so1ereignty< sin&e it attempts to disturb, rather than suture, tou&hstones o! &ohesion between the ;2a1age< and the 2ettler. l!red goes so !ar as to
#%-
assert that so1ereignty is an inappropriate &on&ept !or indigenism be&ause the notion o! an Indian ;state< is an o3ymoron. +raditionally, indigenous go1ernan&e elaborates no absolute authority, &oer&i1e en!or&ement o! de&isions, hierar&hy, or separate ruling elite B(,C. 2o1ereignty, !or l!red, is an e3&lusionary &on&ept rooted in ad1ersarial and
&oer&i1e Western notions o! power B(7C. >is book stages an intra-mural &on1ersation between a &ross-se&tion o! 6ati1e thinkers. In it, he presents his own work and also in1ites 6ati1e s&holars B!rom student in anthropology, to udra 2impson, a #7 year-old Ianien:kehaka graduate tsenhaienton, an international spokesperson or the
Ianien:kehaka people, part o! the IroGuois )on!edera&y, to well-known authorities on ontology su&h as Nine Deloria, Jr.C to muse with him on the ways in whi&h the Indigenous position is imagined. +o udra 2impson he puts the Guestion o! so1ereignty dire&tly, by asking her i!
there is a di!!eren&e between so1ereignty and the 6ati1e &on&ept o! ;nationhood.< >er response is worth Guoting at length. +he &on&epts are Guite di!!erent. I !ind it hard to isolate, de!ine, and then generali=e what a ;6ati1e< &on&ept o! nationhood would be without it sounding &ontri1ed. +his is a tired point' we are di!!erent people, di!!erent nations, and would ha1e di!!erent ideas about what nationhood is and what it means to us. +he 2e&helt &on&eption or 6orthern )ree &on&eption will &ertainly depart !rom /ohawk ideas about who we are. 5a&h people will ha1e a term in their own language that will mean ;us.< I think that is what our &on&ept o! nationhood is.
#%7
/y opinion is that ;/ohawk< and ;nationhood< are inseparable. Both are simply about being. Being is who you are, and a sense o! who you are is arri1ed at through your relationships with other people?your people. 2o who you are is tied with what we are' nation. 6ow, so1ereignty?the authority to e3er&ise power o1er li!e, a!!airs, territory?this is not inherited. It is not part o! being, the way our !orm o! nationhood is. It has to be &on!erred, or granted?it:s a thing that &an be gi1en and thus &an be taken away. It:s &learly a !oreign &on&ept, be&ause it o&&urs through an e3er&ise o! power?power o1er another. B,(-,,C Skins presents us with a parado3, mani!est in its simultaneous embra&e o! indigenous being in intra-tribal B&osmologi&al, inanimate, and non-humanC relations and institutionality Bthe logi& o! poli&ingC deployed through rugged indi1idualism BDudy:s persona' tallE broad shoulderedE burdened with isolated rather than &ommunal, angstC. Kranted, it is not altogether &lear that the !ilm:s intentions are to &ondone openly Dudy:s 1igilantism Bone &ould argue that the narrati1e &ondemns it "ust as easily as one &ould argue that it merely &ondemns its e3&essesC. But it is &lear that the !ilm imagines the loss o! what l!red and 2impson &all &ommunal, or tribal,
;being,< as an ethi&al dilemma to be struggled o1er, not by the tribe or &ommunal entity, but by one manE a man whose authority has been ;&on!erred, or granted,< by the logi& o! poli&ing, ;the authority to e3er&ise power o1er li!e, a!!airs, territory'<
#(4
+his is not to say that the 1aluing o! so1ereignty, o! ha1ing &ontrol o1er territory has not been indigeni=ed. We:1e used it in a rhetori&al and politi&al way time and again. But I think there is a di!!eren&e between the being o! who we are?/ohawk?and the de!ense me&hanisms that we ha1e to adopt in the neo&olonial &onte3t?so1ereignty. B,(-,,C >ere 2impson suggests that the Dudy-phenomenon, whi&h appears in ;2a1age< &inema, politi&al tra&ts, and ontologi&al meditations, may be a &ompensatory gesture, a !orm o! strategi& essentialism geared to help the 6ati1e meri&an antagonist o1er the immediate
hump o! whate1er &on!li&t sHhe is pressed into at the moment. I belie1e that e3ploration o! the libidinal e&onomy?that is, the un&ons&ious re!le3es, sele&tions, and &ombinations dete&ted in &inema?render her e3planation too generous and thus in need o! !urther elaboration. It is important to note that l!red and 2impson are 6ati1e )anadians. +rue, they
are both /ohawk and part o! the IroGuois )on!edera&y, whi&h spans a&ross the 2outheastern and 6ortheastern borders o! )anada and the 82, respe&ti1ely. But l!red
writes as though he is in &on!li&t primarily with )anadian 2ettlerism. >is book &on&reti=es his stru&tural &laims, politi&ally and ane&dotally, by way o! )anadian 1. Indigenous &on!li&ts. +his does not put l!red:s assumpti1e logi&, or the basis o! his
&laims, at 1arian&e with those o! indigenous thinkers in the 8.2., su&h as >awaiian s&holarHa&ti1ist >aunani-Iay +rask, or Lakota s&holarHa&ti1ist Nine Deloria, Jr. Bsee l!red ,,-,7C. I submit, howe1er, that the di!!eren&e between his and 2impson:s de&onstru&ti1e pro&li1ity as regards the idea o! ;2a1age< so1ereignty, and the intensity
#(1
with whi&h it is in1ested by 8.2. s&holarHa&ti1ists, stems !rom a &ombination o! politi&alHmaterial as well as libidinal !a&tors. +o begin with, )anada is a 1ast &ounty with 0,-(#,444 sGuare miles to the 8nited 2tates o! meri&a:s 0,,1(,#11 sGuare miles. 9et )anada has only thirty-three million
people, 0,044,444 o! whom are indigenous. +his &ompares to the 82 :s #--,0,7,444 inhabitants o! whom %,,40,444 are indigenous. In other words, ten per&ent o! )anadians are indigenous whereas only 1.,W o! meri&ans are indigenous. +his has impa&ted the
so&ial reality pro!oundly' 6ati1e people in )anada ha1e 1arious !orms o! go1ernmental autonomy and their own tele1ision &hannel. 2e&ondly, though Whites in )anada &an know Whiteness in &ontradistin&tion to 6ati1e )anadian geno&ide, the number and !reGuen&y o! geno&idal &ampaigns ne1er approa&hed the s&ale that they did "ust south o! the )anadian border. *n the other hand, none o! this a&&ounts !or the !a&t that >aunani-Iay +rask:s ontologi&al meditations are &harged with the same un!lin&hing politi&al rhetori& as that !ound in the work o! Ward )hur&hill, a )herokee whose people were massa&red on the +rail o! +earsE or Nine Deloria, Jr., a Lakota whose people were massa&red at Wounded Inee in 1-74, and atta&ked there again, as part o! a reign o! terror on @ine Didge in the 17.4sE or Leslie 2ilko, a Laguna whose reser1ation is known as the single most radioa&ti1ely &ontaminated area in 6orth B)hur&hill, 177.' 01#C. +rask is a >awaiian. meri&a outside o! nu&lear bomb test sites s su&h, her people:s 1i&timi=ation at the l!red and 6ati1e )anadians more
hands o! the 8.2. geno&idal pra&ti&es mirrors that o!
than it does indigenous people trapped within the %- &ontiguous 2tates?de&imated, as they were, !rom nineteen million to !our point one million. In other words, one &an look
#(#
to the empiri&ism o! material Bta&tileC &onditions and say 6ati1e )anadians are ten per&ent o! a national population in a land so 1ast most it is largely uninhabited. +hus, the hydrauli&s o! 2ettler repression need not be as dera&inating as those in a 2ettler so&iety with roughly the same amount o! territory but with roughly eight times as many 2ettlers. gain, in the 8nited 2tates, the ;2a1age< eGuals 1.,W o! the population and the 2ettler eGuals -4.,W. 2in&e &onta&t, geno&ide has re1ersed the ;2a1age< to 2ettler ratio with nearly per!e&t symmetry. >erein lies the /ani&heism o! the 2ettlerH;2a1age< antagonism, a /ani&heism mani!est !ar more emphati&ally in meri&a than in )anada. In the 82, the symbiosis between the material produ&tion o! li1ing =ones Bs&aled upward !rom White bodies to &i1il so&ietyC and dead =ones Bs&aled upward !rom Ded !lesh to the Deser1ationC is so per1asi1e that one need not belong to a spe&i!i& tribe whi&h has dire&tly e3perien&ed the e1ents o! geno&ide in order !or one:s own indigenism to be underwritten by the histori&al trauma o! geno&ide. BLike ;2a1age< ontologists !rom >awaii or )anada, 2aidiya >artman makes a similar &ase with respe&t to the 2la1e' 2he argues, e3pli&itly, that the spatial &ondition o! &hattel sla1ery is not bound by the borders o! the plantation, but also territoriali=es the world o! Bla&ks in the north. nd she argues, impli&itly, that the temporal &ondition o! &hattel sla1ery did not end in 1-,( but !ollowed generations o! Bla&ks one hundred and !i!ty years into the !uture LScenes of Sub5ection* #(M.C +rask:s >awaiian people:s histori&al relationship to geno&ide Bin terms o! s&ale, intensity, and durationC is &loser to )anada than it is to the 82. 2till, >awaiians &ame to know themsel1es as belonging to a group o! people whose ontology was predi&ated on geno&ide?regardless o! the !a&t that they did not e3perien&e geno&ide in the manner o!
#(0
the Lakota, the )herokee, or the Laguna. In addition, the /ani&heism between the /aster and the 2la1e Bbetween e3ploited bodies and a&&umulated !leshC added to the intensity o! the /ani&heism between the 2ettler and the ;2a1age.< l31i +he /asterH2la1e antagonism put !urther libidinal pressure on the so&ial stru&ture o! relations with whi&h those indigenous to >awaii had to &ontend psy&hi&ally and politi&ally. +he un!lin&hing analysis, politi&s o! re!usal, and a&erbi& method o! &on1eyan&e whi&h takes no prisoners in the work o! >awaiian thinkers like >aunani-Iay +rask, and whi&h is not to be !ound in the work o! 6ati1e )anadians like +aiaiake l!red, is not a re!le&tion o! di!!ering
ontologi&al stru&tures but rather o! 1ariant so&ial intensities. +o put a !iner point on it' i!, as I ha1e argued, the /asterH2la1e dynami& is an ontologi&al, and not simply an histori&al, &ondition, then )anada &annot be said to be ;!ree< o! that dynami& simply be&ause there are no plantations in )anada. +he stru&ture o! )anadian antagonisms BDed, White, and Bla&kC is isomorphi& with the stru&ture o! antagonisms elsewhere in the hemisphere. But the )anadian sociali1ation of that structure has ;allowed< Bla&ks and some 6ati1e meri&ans to
&onsider )anada as a sa!e ha1en !rom the ;e3&esses< o! the 8.2. l31ii +his may a&&ount !or +aiaiake l!red and udra 2impson:s &asual de&onstru&tion o! so1ereignty 1ersus its
rei!i&ation be"ond the sort o! strategi& essentialism Bwhat 2impson &alls indigeni1ed so$ereignt"C in the works o! +rask, Deloria, )hur&hill and others south?and westA?o! the )anadian border. >owe1er, +rask:s ontologi&al meditations share, with 2ilk and )hur&hill, an un!lin&hing hatred !or the 8nited 2tates o! meri&a, a hatred
un&hara&teristi& in the te3tual attitude o! +aiaiake l!red:s dis&ussion o! )anada.
#(%
2e&ondly, and most importantly, +rask, )hur&hill, Deloria?and, to a lesser e3tent, 2ilko?ha1e an ossi!ied and possessi1e relationship to the idea o! &olonialism whi&h l!red and 2impson:s more rela3ed and &ontemplati1e writing is able to
de&onstru&t. *ddly enough, it is the admittedly limited su&&ess o! their struggles with the )anadian go1ernment, dri1en by the logi& o! post&olonialism Be3tensi1e sel!-go1erned territories inside o! )anada, a national tele1ision station, Doyal )ommissions dedi&ated to negotiating e3panded so1ereigntyC whi&h has, o1er time, gi1en )anadian First @eoples the spa&e to be &riti&al o! and li1e in a de&onstru&ti1e relationship to that 1ery logi&. 2impson says, ;+he 1aluing o! so1ereignty, o! ha1ing &ontrol o1er territory, has$ been indigeni=ed< BGuoted in l!red 1777' ,,C. It is her way o! answering the Guestion o! whether ;&ontrol o1er territory< is or is not an element &onstituent o! ;2a1age< ontology. But rather than answer the Guestion, I belie1e that l!red and 2impson:s dialogue has "ust begun to pose it. Skins takes up this Guestion more substantially, and so do the meta&ommentators on ;2a1age< ontology south o! the )anadian border. +here are o! &ourse politi&al and spiritual di!!eren&es between the &osmology o! the ;2a1age< and the &osmology o! the 2ettler. +he Guestion be!ore us, howe1er, is i! those di!!eren&es are essential, as 2impson and others seem to argue, or are they important, as I would suggest, when one &onsiders them not only through the way in whi&h 2ettlerH ;2a1age< relationality is imagined, but through the way in whi&h ;2a1age<H2la1e relationality is BunCimagined. I do so not by o!!ering e1iden&e whi&h &ontradi&ts that whi&h 2impson, l!red, Deloria and others press into ser1i&e o! their
arguments regarding the essential di1ision between 2ettler and ;2a1age,< but by demonstrating how the antagonistic disarticulation whi&h seems to o&&ur between the
#((
2ettler and the ;2a1age< is re&omposed as a conflictual articulation in the presen&e o! the 2la1e. +his &laim will be taken up in the remaining )hapters o! @art III, in a &lose reading o! the !ilm itsel!.
#(,
Chapter Seven %+cess )ack
We are maintained ali$e at all primaril" as a matter of utilit"* and then onl" in a form considered acceptable to them. Ward )hur&hill, A 'ittle (atter of 0enocide
+oward the end o! Skins, we !ind /ogie 9ellow Lodge BKraham KreeneC home !rom the hospital. >is !a&e has been burned "ust shy o! re&ognition. +he &amera tra&ks him as he walks !rom the so!a to the kit&hen table and ba&k again to the so!a, where Dudy 9ellow Lodge B5ri& 2&hweigC, his younger brother, will tell him that it was he, Dudy, who burned his !a&e and body to the third degree. When one &onsiders the plot points and storyline o! the !ilm, what is remarkable about this s&ene is how /ogie, rather than Dudy, interpellates the spe&tator. In !a&t, it would be sa!e to say that /ogie interpellates spe&tator identi!i&ation in e1ery s&ene in whi&h the two brothers appear together as grown men. +his is remarkable !or two reasons. +o begin with, both the s&ript and the &onte3tuali=ing dis&ourse that &ir&ulates around the !ilm Bdire&tor:s &ommentary, a&tor:s &ommentary, on-line and print media !ilm re1iews, as well as the poster art o! the lobby &ard and the DND &o1erC !orm a &onsensus that Skins is Dudy:s story. Dudy, and not /ogie, is the !ilm:s protagonist. Dudy &ares !or his people, the largely indigent Lakota o! the @ine Didge Indian Deser1ation in 2outh Dakota, and !or his brother, ;a one-time !ootball hero and de&orated Nietnam 1et, now ra1aged by al&oholism and broken dreams,< the best way he knows
#(.
how' through a ;1igilante &rusade to &lean up their sGualid surroundings< BKardnerC. 2e&ondly, Dudy 9ellow Lodge:s bodily &oordinates are represented as being inta&t and uns&arred Bthe antithesis o! /ogie:s body ra1aged by Nietnam, al&oholism, and arson at homeC, &oded with the kind o! mas&uline 1irility and rugged indi1idualism !ound most o!ten in 2ettlerH/aster &inema, !rom White so&ially engaged !ilms like (onster4s Ball and John 2ayles:s 'one Star to aggrandi=ing and unapologeti& Westerns like John Ford:s Stagecoach. +his is &elebrated by the intentionality o! the s&ript. 51en )hris 5yre &omments on how pleased he is, as a dire&tor, with 5ri& 2&hweig:s mas&uline &harisma' 5ri& has su&h presen&e. >e:s a handsome man. >e !eels like he has a wealth o! e3perien&e in his demeanor. >e:s a great a&tor. I lo1e working with him and I know that there are se1eral other roles that I would lo1e to do with him "ust be&ause he su&h great presen&e. >e:s si3 !oot two or three LandM a good weight here Lin SkinsM. B;Dire&tor:s )ommentary<C /ogie, on the other hand, is a mi3ture o! red dust and ruin. /ogie is the !ilm:s embodiment o! a lost soul who does not signi!y so1ereign plenitudeE opting, that is, ;!or the non-ego o1er the ego, the threatening outside o1er the &oherent inside, and death o1er li!e< B2il1erman -,C. Dudy, by way o! &ontrast, epitomi=es egoi& monumentali=ation o! &ultural, politi&al, and se3ual so1ereignty. In the &ase o! Ia"a 2il1erman:s BWhiteC male, su&h monumentali=ed positions mani!est themsel1es within the un&ons&ious through a ;binding< o! the ;paternal imago< through whi&h the sub"e&t &an re&ogni=e himsel! B,0C. White mas&ulinity, then, is se&ured by way o! repetiti1e and ;gradual rea!!irmation and re&onstitution o! the dominant !i&tion< whi&h o&&urs ;at the le1el o! a wide range o! te3tural pra&ti&es, !rom >ollywood &inema, to ad1ertisements !or kit&hen applian&es, to
#(-
Dior:s ;6ew Look< B,%C. 2he ad1o&ates the ;ruination o! this dominant !i&tion through te3tual en&ounters with the death dri1e, that ;the typi&al male sub"e&t, like his !emale &ounterpart, might learn to li1e with la&k< B,(C. +his o!ten happens, she reminds us, a!ter &i1il so&iety has waged war Be.g., World War II and NietnamC B(0-,(C. But /ogie has en&ountered a 1iolen&e too 1ast and timeless !or the nomen&lature o! war to signi!yE he embodies something e3tra-te3tual and hen&e more emphati& than the kind o! ruination o! mas&ulinity and &orporeal la&k whi&h 2il1erman and other White !eminists ha1e o!!ered as that whi&h disarti&ulates the &onsolidation o! the White male ego. /ogie 9ellow Lodge:s body is not simply a body o! phalli& la&k, in other wordsE he has not simply been ;!emini=ed< by the !ilm:s ad"e&ti1al strategies and by his &hara&ter:s &ounterpoint to Dudy?whi&h is the modus operandi o! !ilm noir $i1. White women to White men. Dather his body is an ontologi&al pla&eholder !or geno&ide. In this way the stakes o! ;2a1age< ethi&s are rat&heted upward beyond the dilemmas o! &i1il so&iety:s internal conflict between men and womenE upward to the dilemmas o! the antagonism between 2ettler and ;2a1age.< But within the body o! the ;2a1age< this upward rat&het is ne1er &omplete or absolute. +his is be&ause Dudy and his &orporeal &oheren&e, his so1ereign integrity, are always waiting in the wings. It is important to remind oursel1es that /ogie is probably as mu&h a &reation o! a&tor Kraham Kreene:s on-lo&ation inter1entions as he is o! the o!!i&ial s&ript. Kreene Bwhom more than one re1iewer has attempted to &hara&teri=e as what &an only be des&ribed as the Indian 1ersion o! the stereotypi&al ;angry Bla&k man<C told dire&tor )hris 5yre, ;I hope you know, I made your mo1ie !or you< B;Dire&tor:s )ommentary<C.l31iii I take this in the spirit that 5yre took itE not as ridi&ule or as an
#(7
aestheti& put-down, but as a "oke between ;skins< whi&h indi&ates mutual appre&iation' on the one hand, Kreene:s appre&iation o! 5yre !or pro1iding him with a !ilm that allowed him to &ommuni&ate dimensions o! 6ati1e meri&an pathos and antagonism
whi&h !ew other Indian a&tors has been allowed to &ommuni&ate in !ull-length !eature !ilms distributed in the 8nited 2tates o! meri&a. Kreen re!le&ted, ;I ha1en:t been able to stret&h as an a&tor !or a long time and L)hris 5yre:s SkinsM is a really tough nut to &hewE I:m pulling a lot o! mus&les with /ogie< BKardnerC' on the other hand, 5yre:s appre&iation o! Kreene, mani!est in 5yre be&oming a ;pliable< dire&torE pliable to the point o! allowing Kreene to re-write, edit, and impro1ise /ogie:s lines B5yreE KardnerC. But my &laim abo1e?that when Dudy and /ogie appear on s&reen together the spe&tator is ;hailed< by the ethi&al dilemmas, the ensemble o! Guestions, elaborated by /ogie rather than those elaborated by Dudy?is based less on the &ooperati1e synergy between 5yre and Kreene, or on the humor and intensity whi&h Kreene:s *s&ar-&aliber a&ting brought to the pro"e&t.l3i3 Dather, I belie1e there are two other, essential, 1ariables at work here, one ontologi&al and the other aestheti& or e3periential.l33 With respe&t to the ontologi&al 1ariable, I maintain that when Dudy and /ogie are on s&reen together the so&ial, e)periential narrati1e o! &olonialism is o1erwhelmed by the ontologi&al BantiCnarrati1e o! geno&ide. But /ogie, whi&h is to say the per!orman&e o! Kraham Kreene, does not do all this work by himsel!E in !a&t, he may labor in a small way when one re!le&ts upon how the aestheti& !ormalism o! Skins o!ten breaks ranks &ith its putati$e allegiance to narrati$e Bi.e., breaks with &lassi&al &inema:s rules reGuiring the subordination o! sound and image to storyC. 2u&h ontologi&al disturban&e o! the
#,4
narrati1e:s so1ereign imperati1es o&&urs spatially within &inemati& strategies that in&lude, but are neither limited by nor wedded to, Kraham Kreene:s la&oni& per!orman&e. +his ontologi&al disturban&e o! so1ereign &oheren&e also o&&urs temporally. !ter
he tor&hes the *ld )hie! liGuor store, Dudy meets with Dr. Fit=gerald Bplayed by 6ati1e )anadian a&tor +ina IeeperC to inGuire about /ogie:s burn in"uries. +he hubris o! this inGuiry lies in the !a&t that Dudy belie1es that he has &aused /ogie harm through one o! his hyper-so1ereign a&ts?his 1igilantism?gone awry. In other words, Dudy, like the narrati1e itsel!, is so absorbed by and &athe&ted to the 1iolen&e o! coherent intentions, the ensemble o! Guestions s&a!!olded by the grammar o! &ultural loss, that he is blindsided by the gratuitous 1iolen&e o! in&oherent geno&ide' Dr. Fit=gerald' /ogie will get o1er the burns but something else has &ome up. When we did the blood work we !ound that he had ele1ated le1els o! ma&ro&ytes and spur &ells. 2o we de&ided to do a biopsy. Dudy, I:m a!raid that /ogie:s got psoriasis o! the li1er. Dudy' >ow badF Dr. Fit=gerald' It:s terminal. Dudy' What i! he Guit drinkingF LDr. Fit=gerald shakes her head.M What about a li1er transplantF Dr. Fit=gerald' Dudy, I:m a!raid that potential transplant patients don:t in&lude pra&ti&ing al&oholi&s. nd besides his li1er problems, his stoma&h
is thoroughly ul&erated. >e:s borderline diabeti&. nd his kidneys are only !un&tioning at !i!ty-per&ent. Dudy' What am I gonna to do nowF
#,1
Dr. Fit=gerald' >elp him say his pea&e, Dudy. I:m really sorry, but that:s all you &an do. t this point in the !ilm it be&omes &lear to us that the topography o! /ogie 9ellow Lodge:s body is the pla&e where ;1e&tors o! death< B)hur&hill, A 'ittle (atter of 0enocideC meet. >is body is the hub o! these 1e&tors o! death. s su&h, ;terminal< takes
on a double meaning. It is the spa&e o! death, a place where multiple deaths meet, unnaming the named pla&e, de&omposing it as dead, unrepresentable space. nd it is a
time o! death, that is, the destru&tion o! temporality. /ogie 9ellow Lodge is not only terminal but he was terminal prior to his burns, a time and spa&e o! geno&ide long be!ore Dudy set !ire to the liGuor store?!i1e hundred years be!ore, to be e3a&t. +he e3&hange between Dudy and Dr. Fit=gerald &at&hes the hubris o! Dudy:s so1ereign agen&y o!! guard. 51en i! the s&ript does not intend this pain!ul &omeuppan&e, the !ilm:s spe&tator e3perien&es the in!ormation that Dr. Fit=gerald imparts to Dudy like a pun&tuation mark at the end o! a senten&e' what has gone be!ore begins to make sense, albeit in a less than &ons&ious !ashion. It suddenly be&omes &lear why /ogie:s power o! spe&tator interpellation is greater than Dudy:s when the two are on s&reen together. /ogie is the ;li1ing< embodiment o! death, where as Dudy is the li1ing embodiment o! &ulture. +he authenti&ity o! &ulture Bi.e., so1ereigntyC is always &ontestedE whereas death is beyond &ontestation !or it is beyond the symboli&. When /ogie appears on s&reen, we must turn and look away. 6o one wants to die, or, more pre&isely, be ;hailed< by this body o! bits and pie&es o! death. 6onetheless we are &ompelled and ri1eted to his e1ery word and gesture, !i3ed by /ogie:s authority, an authority deri1ed !rom the uni1ersality o! his authenti&ity. nd /ogie:s uni1ersal
#,#
authenti&ity is not !ounded on the statement, We all ha1e our &ultures, but rather on the statement, We will all be dead. /ogie 9ellow Lodge is one o! two &reatures in the Western >emisphere Bthe ;2a1age< and the 2la1eC !or whom death is the meaning o! li!e. /any generations be!ore /ogie was a were burn 1i&tim he was a 1i&tim o! gratuitous 1iolen&e, 1iolen&e beyond the s&ope o! symbolism and its powers o! &omprehension$ L Mt Wounded Inee$three hundred and !i!ty-odd unarmed terri!ied immobili=ed Lakota were rained with >ot&hkiss guns by a re&onstituted .th )al1ary and blown to pie&es. +hey were &hasing &hildren three miles up snow-!illed ra1ines in order to ha&k them apart with sabers and hat&hets at the endE and then dragged them ba&k to the &on&entration point Lwhere they wereM &are!ully &ounted and dumped them into a mass gra1e. B)hur&hill' Book +our 2pee&h July 01, #44%C $1iolen&e too immense !or so1ereignty:s imaginary o! &ultural restoration, the &inemati& labor whi&h Dudy:s &hara&ter is &alled upon to per!orm. 6ot only is /ogie:s &ondition always already terminal, but the 1iolen&e that pre&ipitates his &ondition e)ceeds and anticipates any indi1iduated, representable, or nameable 1iolen&e su&h as, in this &ase, Dudy:s a&t o! arson. Keno&ide is not a name !or 1iolen&e in the way that ;arson< isE geno&ide is a linguisti& pla&eholder &onnoting that 1iolen&e whi&h outstrips the power o! &onnotation. +o represent it we ha1e to dismantle it, pretend that we &an identi!y its &omponent parts, !or&e a name into its hole? ma&ro&ytes, spur &ells, kidneys at hal!-throttle, a thoroughly ul&erated stoma&h, Wounded Inee, 2and )reek?and make it what it is not, the way one !ills the tu&ked slee1e o! a one-armed boy. But these !illers, these phantom limbs o! &onnotation, &an only be
#,0
imagined separately, and as su&h they take on the ruse o! items that s&ien&e, lo1e, aestheti&s, or "usti&e?some !orm o! symboli& inter1ention?&an attend to and set right. +hey be&ome treatable, mu&h like the massa&re at Wounded Inee were it not !or the !a&t that to &omprehend Wounded Inee, three hundred-plus men, women, and &hildren in a snow-!illed ra1ine, one must &omprehend those three hundred syn&hroni&ally o1er three thousand miles Bthe !orty-eight &ontiguous 2tatesC and dia&hroni&ally o1er !i1e hundred years. >ere, madness sets in and the promises o! symboli& inter1ention turn to dust. We are returned to the time and spa&e o! no time and spa&e, the ;terminal.< /ogie 9ellow Lodge is a re!usal o! su&h symboli& assistan&eE he laughs, sardoni&ally, in the !a&e o! its bad !aith. Dudy 9ellow Lodge, on the other hand, is a pla&eholder !or a kind o! disa1owal that belie1es the ;2a1age< body, home, andHor ;nation,< should be imagined, more appropriately, through a &luster o! representable and nameable losses' a burned body, a stolen and o&&upied territory, assault on &ultural supports Bsu&h as language and spiritual &ustomsC. +his is the pro"e&t o! ;2a1age< so1ereignty. grammar o! su!!ering elaborated
by the &onstituent elements o! anthropologi&al &oheren&e Bi.e., language, body, home, territoryC grants the ;2a1age:s< su!!ering and hisHher attendant ethi&al dilemmas the power o! analogy. +he power o! analogy subseGuently &onstru&ts the ;2a1age< as >uman, but only up to the point o! geno&ide. nalogy positions himHher in dis&ursi1e pro3imity to the 2ettler. +his, as argued in )hapter 1, is the essen&e &on!li&tual harmony between the ;2a1age< and the 2ettler. Dudy goes through the motionsE the lines, mo1ements and moti1ations o! his &hara&ter
#,%
are meant to ;argue< a litany o! &ausal, rational, and symboli& e3planations !or /ogie:s burns' B1.C White mer&hants in White&lay, 65 engage in hyper-e3ploitation o! 6ati1e meri&ans by selling !our million &ans o! beer a year to @ine Didge residents. B#.C +he 8.2. go1ernment has a long history o! &ollusion with su&h mer&hants' dire&tly, by &orralling Indians into Deser1ationsE !ollowed by ;indire&t< &ollusion whi&h legislates the Deser1ation as ;dry,< making the nearest White towns ;oases< o! al&ohol. B0.C Dudy witnesses the way su&h e3ploitation mani!ests itsel! in sub"e&ti1e alienation and in the outright &oloni=ation o! his people. +hus, he inter1enes with !or&e, arson, against a tangible time and spa&e &oordinate o! that e3ploitation, a White&lay, 6ebraska store. >e makes a &oherent response BarsonC to &oherent oppression B&oloni=ationC. )learly, i! Dudy 9ellow Lodge were a @alestinian, or an IraGi, the !ilm:s !idelity to e3ploitation, and to the priority o! so1ereign loss o1er and abo1e Keno&idal death, would be both &orre&t and ontologi&ally e3hausti1e. >ere, howe1er, in the &ase o! the ;2a1age,< while the !or&e o! Dudy:s !i3ation on e3ploitation moti1ates him to destroy the liGuor store, it simultaneously &athedrali=es that ensemble o! Guestions elaborated by so1ereignty:s semioti&s o! loss and as su&h widens, rather than narrows, the &hasm between so1ereignty and geno&ide. Dudy:s ethi&al dilemmas and their attendant !or&e Barson and, more broadly, 1igilantismC a&t in &on&ert as a &rowding-out s&enario o! the !ilm:s ability to embra&e and be authori=ed by geno&ide and all its mad antagonism.
#,(
+his imbues Dudy Band the narrati1e more broadlyC with the hubris o! !aith in his own Bso1ereignC agen&y, his sense that he had it within his power to kill another Indian. Dudy approa&hes another Indian, Dr. Fit=gerald, as though he is genuinely the &ause o! /ogie:s in"uries. /ore pointedly, he assumes that /ogie 9ellow Lodge was already ali1e and therefore could indeed be killed, that within /ogie 9ellow Lodge resides a li!e !or&e that &an be threatened with loss. For this to be the &ase, howe1er, one:s ontologi&al apparatus would ha1e to be o1erdetermined by so1ereignty and not geno&ide. I am not &alling Dudy 9ellow Lodge Bor the !ilm itsel!, !or that matterC menda&ious . What is being noted, howe1er, is the manner and !reGuen&y Ba !reGuen&y approa&hing something like 77WC with whi&h ;2a1age< dis&ourse notes geno&ide as an ontologi&al &onstituent, and then pro&eeds to treat it as a past andHor passing ;e1ent.< What is more, the hubris o! so1ereignty and its rhetori&al work, whi&h &rowds out a more emphati& ethi&al dimension, pro1ide Dudy himsel! with a spe&ial kind o! alibi. 2o1ereignty allows Dudy an alibi !or his own geno&ided bodyE be&ause only a li$ing sub5ect, and not a geno&ided ob"e&t, &ould be &harged with the task o! !irst registering, and then redeeming, a nation:s &oheren&e. +he !ilm:s narrati1e, in its allegian&e to and in its elaboration o! Dudy 9ellow Lodge, labors to redeem Brestore, res&ue, manage, andHor &onstrainC the rigor mortis o! geno&ide through the bene1olen&e o! so1ereignty. +his is the !ilm:s intended pro"e&t. t one point in the dire&tor:s &ommentary, )hris 5yre talks about how /ogie 9ellow Lodge is a burden on Dudy. >e is not suggesting that Dudy "ettison /ogie. Dather he tells the 1iewer, ;We LIndiansM all ha1e a /ogie in our !amilies.< +his bit o! in!ormation the dire&tor gi1es us in the spirit o! a lament. >e implies that the duty o!
#,,
!ilms like his, and the duty o! people like Dudy, is to sa1e the /ogie:s physi&ally and redeem them psy&hi&ally. 6owhere in this lament do we hear the &orollary' that the Dudys o! this world should gi1e themsel1es o1er to the organi&ity o! /ogie and be redeemed. 5yre does not lament Dudy as a so&ial metaphor, nor see his kind as a material blight on indigenism. >e doesn:t say, ;We all ha1e a &op, a poli&y wonk, or a sell-out to White &i1il so&iety, someone like Dudy, in our !amilies.< Dudy:s plenitude is not thought o! as a liability, but /ogie:s la&k is. In his statement, )hris 5yre both a&knowledges and disa1ows geno&ide as that whi&h positions him Band the &hara&ters o! SkinsC ontologi&ally. *nly the li1ing &an struggle through a semioti&s o! loss. Dudy:s !i3ation, or rather the !i3ation embodied in Dudy and in the !or&e o! his a&tions, pro1ides him with a per!e&t alibiE it pla&es him somewhere, anywhere, other than at the s&ene o! the geno&ide. +he !ilm maintains its sanity, its will!ul and dubious &oheren&e, by s&ripting Dudy as being somehow ali1e. +his is one e!!e&t, howe1er unintentional, o! so1ereignty:s representational labor as an element o! ;2a1age< ontology. nd it speaks to the liminality o! the ;2a1age< position within the
stru&ture o! 8.2. antagonisms. We &an think this liminality o! the ;2a1age< position?its suspension between a &on!li&t and an antagonism?through Skins4 !ormal and narrati1e arti&ulations at three sites o! territoriali=ation and deterritoriali=ation' B1C +he politi&alHmaterial territoriali=ation o! 2ettlerH/aster &i1il so&iety, s&aled downward !rom the monument o! /t. Dushmore, to the town o! White )lay, 65 Bpopulation #4C, to the 2ettlerH/aster:s &i1i& embodiment' the sian meri&an
+N news an&horwoman, the White !ather and son liGuor store owners in White
#,.
)lay, the lo&al FBI agent, and White Bill )linton who appears in the !ilm, by way o! do&umentary outtakes, as the @resident o! the 8nited 2tates. B#C +he libidinal territoriali=ation o! ;2a1age< so1ereignty, s&aled downward !rom the sa&red Bla&k >illsE to the @ine Didge Deser1ation:s poli&e station, gas stations, and shopping mallE to Dudy 9ellow Lodge:s modest but imma&ulate homeE to the sweat lodgeE to the so1ereign ;2a1age< body itsel!' the /edi&ine /an, the Indian &ops, the 6ati1e meri&an do&tor. >ere I am attenti1e to the libidinal, rather than
the material, &oheren&e o! these e3amples o! so1ereign territoriali=ation brought to li!e by the !ilm, be&ause the &oheren&e o! their politi&al materiality hangs in the balan&e o! 2ettlerH/aster &i1il so&iety and its murderous whimsy. B0C +he politi&alHmaterial as &ell as libidinal deterritoriali=ation o! ;2a1age< geno&ide, s&aled downward !rom the !ilm:s aerial establishing shots o! @ine Didge:s desolate grid o! housing tra&ksE to the no-pla&e spa&e o! &urbsides, ba&k walls o! buildings and the like where inebriated Indians drink, stagger, !all, and dieE to the interior o! /ogie:s sha&k and its mise-en-s&ene o! ruinE to the geno&ided ;2a1age< body itsel!' the teenage murder 1i&tim, )orky Ded +ail B9ellow @ony @ettiboneC, ki&ked to death in an abandoned sha&k, the al&oholi&s waiting outside gas stations and liGuor stores?waiting !or spare &hange, /ogie himsel! with third degree burns as the least o! his worries. Like most 6ati1e meri&an politi&al &ommon sense and meta-&ommentaries on
;2a1age< ontology, the narrati1e preo&&upations o! )hris 5yre:s Skins are attenti1e to the &on!li&t between the politi&alHmaterial territoriali=ation o! White &i1il so&iety and the libidinal territoriali=ation o! Ded so1ereignty. /ost o! the !ilm:s narrati1e strategies are
#,-
pressed into ser1i&e o! this &on!li&t. But the film4s narrati$e 7its script and the $arious director and cast commentaries found in the 3:34s Special %eatures section8 is not nearl" as committed to engaging the antagonism bet&een the political=material territoriali1ation of White ci$il societ", on the one hand, and the combined political=material deterritoriali1ation of ,Sa$age- genocide, on the other. Fortunately, howe1er, the !ilm:s !ormal &inemati& strategies break in on the &onser1ati1e and &onser1ing intentions o! so1ereign &oheren&e intended by the narrati1e and the 1ision o! the dire&tor. In other words, geno&ide as an ontologi&al grammar o! su!!ering is !ormally immanent throughout the !ilm, so mu&h so that so1ereignty:s grammar o! su!!ering Brei!ied and politi&i=ed &ultural tou&hstonesC &annot always &ontain nor surmount them.
#,7
Chapter .ight The *leasures of *arit&
;6ndeed, appl"ing*standards of Gpa" back4 $is/H/$is American 6ndians*&ould re2uire a lethal reduction in the U.S. population*of bet&een IJ and II percentWard )hur&hill, En the ;ustice of Roosting Chickens
+here is theoreti&al work to be done on the plenitude o! White Bas well as
sian
and LatinoC sub"e&ti1ity from behind the lens o! Ded geno&ide. Skins attempts this theori=ation by asking, >ow is the banality o! 2ettler ontology stru&tured by the gratuitousness o! ;2a1age< geno&ideFl33i I ha1e suggested that ;grassroots Indians< like /ogie 9ellow Lodge embody this lens, an ensemble o! Guestions through whi&h that work &ould be done. +his is illustrated in a seGuen&e that begins, not with /ogie, but with a medium &lose-up o! Dudy 9ellow Lodge sitting on his so!a, burning sage. 53tradiegeti& sa&red 6ati1e meri&an musi& !ades and &horuses o! Indian 1oi&e !ill the s&reen
as the &amera slowly =ooms in on Dudy seated on his so!a burning sage and making his o!!ering. We are interpellated by a sense that Dudy:s o!!erings, while they may not &ure the turmoil around and within him, are at least a beginning. Furthermore, they alert the spe&tator to the intentionality o! the s&ript' Dudy is the main &hara&ter and, as su&h, he is the one authori=ed by the ensemble o! Guestions regarding so1ereignty:s pro"e&t o! &ultural restoration. From here we &ut to an e3terior, medium &lose up o! a young sian meri&an
an&horwoman BJenny )hengC beginning a broad&ast with mi&rophone in hand. +he poor
#.4
resolution o! the image?its wa1iness and grainy Guality?tells us we are seeing the image twi&e mediated. In other words, the &onstru&tedness o! the image is brought to our attention, in that the suddenly impo1erished Guality o! both sound and image make it &lear to us that we are seeing the image o! a tele1ision s&reen as our primary per&eption and the image o! an sian meri&an an&horwoman as our se&ondary per&eption. +his is
important be&ause, as a !ormal, non-narrati1e, &inemati& strategy, it allows Skins one o! its rare antagonisti& moments as the !ilm turns the news media, one o! 2ettler &i1il so&iety:s primary apparati o! enun&iation, into an ob"e&t o! the ;2a1age< ga=e. B+his is similar to the kind o! disturban&e )hris 5yre was able to wreak upon 2ettler &i1il so&iety through his in1ersion o! auto-mobility Lthe &arM in Smoke Signals.C +he media, along with hegemony?the Krams&ian glue o! &i1il so&iety?is thus dethroned !rom its status as a &onduit o! knowledge. +he Guestion then be&omes, +hrough whose eyes is this de&onstru&ti1e &ritiGue taking pla&e, Dudy:s or /ogie:sF In other words, what ethi&al dilemma, geno&ide or so1ereignty, do the !ormal strategies want us to embra&eE what positionality are we maneu1ered into assumingF I belie1e that the !ormal strategies o! this shot and the subseGuent mo1ements o! the seGuen&e are in ser1i&e to /ogie:s ethi&al dilemmas o! geno&ide, but as the seGuen&e progresses, the narrati1e usurps /ogie:s authority by way o! Dudy:s ethi&s o! &ultural restoration, so1ereignty. s we &ut !rom the !lat, graininess o! the tele1ision s&reen &lose up, to a so!t, ri&hly te3tured !ilm image Ba wide shot o! the sian meri&an an&horwomanC, and then
back to the tele1ision graininess, the an&horwoman tells us that ;this is the !irst in a three
#.1
part series on the *glala 2iou3. +onight:s sub"e&t' the multimillion-dollar liGuor business generated in this small town o! White&lay, 6ebraska.< +he &ut !rom the medium &lose up o! the an&horwoman on the tele1ision s&reen, to a wide shot o! the same s&ene Bthis time on !ilmC indi&ates the ga=e through whi&h this de&onstru&ti1e a&t is taking pla&e. /ogie 9ellow Lodge is seated on the por&h o! the liGuor store with his &hin resting on the railing. >e stares at the an&horwoman and the &ameraman, unimpressed. +he &utting ba&k and !orth between the grainy, mediated image o! the tele1ision and the ;true< image o! !ilm disrupts the spe&tator:s &ontra&t o! suspended disbelie! that narrati1e !ilm &alls upon us to make with the &inemati& apparatus. +here is no guarantee, howe1er, that this &inemati& strategy will disrupt the spe&tator:s ;!aith< in the power o! hegemonyE in other words, it does not automati&ally dethrone the media as enun&iator o!, nor its methods o! &on1eyan&e as essential to, the ma&hinations o! ontology. When I suggest that, !or the spe&tator, hegemony as a !orm o! relational glue is essential to the ma&hinations o! human ontology, I am not &ontradi&ting &ontemporary /ar3ists: obser1ations about the withering away o! &i1il so&iety and the diminishment o! hegemony:s hereto!ore-essential role in the !ormation o! human ontologi&al relations.l33ii +here is some disagreement among White ontologists as to whether the 2ettler has passed the Krams&ian moment or not. 2il1erman, !or e3ample, in (ale Sub5ecti$it" at the (argins, transposes Krams&i:s notion o! hegemony !rom that whi&h operates on the le1el o! pre&ons&ious interest to that whi&h operates on the le1el o! un&ons&ious desire. It is still nonetheless an essential glue o! human B2ettlerC ontology. Whether hegemony is the glue B2il1ermanC or &as the glue B>ardt and 6egriC is not a s&ore I am trying to settle. /y point is that in this ;2a1age< !ilm we rea&h a point in
#.#
whi&h the ;2a1age< ga=e murders not hegemony:s past or its present, but its &laim to an essential status. +his murderous de&onstru&tion is se&ured through the wat&h!ul eyes o! /ogie 9ellow Lodge as he stares at the apparatus o! enun&iation. It is important to note that, in this seGuen&e, &i1il so&iety is dealt a blow by the ;2a1age< in his geno&ided embodiment. +he same i&ono&lasti& rupture might not ha1e been a&hie1ed by the ;2a1age< in this so1ereign embodiment B!or e3ample, i! the setting was a &hur&h, or a 6ati1e &ommunity &enter, or a BI poli&e station?Dudy:s !a1ored haunts?instead o! a liGuor storeC, and i! we &ut between the grainy +N image and Rud" ga=ing at the an&horwoman and the &ameraman. Were Dudy the inde3 o! the ga=e, the &inemati& strategies would &onnote a &ritiGue o! media practice Ba &onstellation o! &on&erns bandied about, primarily, by White progressi1es su&h as /i&hael /oore and my KoodmanC. But here, through /ogie:s
eyes, the strategies &oales&e in a more &omprehensi1e, e3istential &ondemnation o! &i1il so&iety itsel!. *ur eyes are drawn to /ogie:s eyes. 8nlike the other Indians who mill about the liGuor store, he holds a &igarette, not a drink. +hough his ga=e &annot be named de!initi1ely, the words hard, sarcastic, unimpressed, sardonic, or e1en bored would &ertainly trump words like &ompassionate, &urious, or empatheti&. +he an&horwoman tells us that the town o! White&lay?whi&h sells !our million bottles o! liGuor a year to reser1ation Indians BDire&tor:s )ommentaryC?has a ;population o! only twenty people. 2ome a&&use these White liGuor store owners o! being bloodsu&kers who make a li1ing o!! o! Indian misery.< s she speaks, we e3perien&e a
montage o! do&umentary !ootage' Indians &arrying &rates o! beer out o! liGuor storesE into3i&ated Indians drinking in the ba&k seat o! a s&rap metal &arE Indians drinking while
#.0
seated on the dusty ground in !ront o! a liGuor storeE Indians lying !a&e down at night on the pa1ement with beams !rom a patrol &ar lighting upon their bodies. +hen &omes a sound byte o! a young 6ati1e meri&an woman saying, ;+hey all drinkE they all do drugs be&ause it:s hard to li1e down here in @ine Didge. +here:s "ust not anything here.< n&horwoman' ;Indians drinking beer and &heap wine. +his sad &li&hV is brought to stark reality e1ery Friday night, payday on the @ine Didge Indian reser1ation. L+heyM then !lood border towns like this one to buy al&ohol, whi&h is outlawed on the reser1ation.< /ore do&umentary !ootage !ollows in another montage o! broken li1es and destitution. +he &ollision and asso&iational montage o1erpower and &onsume the thin and rehearsed &ommentary through whi&h the an&horwoman tries to !rame the un!rameable. +hen we return ba&k to /ogie on the por&h, as though the entire montage o! li1ing deaths ha1e been shot through his eyes and pro"e&ted onto the sian meri&an an&horwoman,
her mi&rophone and wires, the White &ameraman, the Bimpli&itC &rew that supports them, and their do&umenting narrati1e and its attempt to gi1e the an&horwoman:s &ommentary meaning, authority, legitima&y, and, abo1e all, ethi&s. 8p to this point, the non-narrati1e &onstru&tion o! the seGuen&e has progressed by way o! a murderous "u3taposition between the images and editing te&hniGues deployed in ad"e&ti1al support o! /ogie:s sardoni& &ontempt !or human B2ettlerC ontology?and the anemi& language o! the an&horwoman:s narrati1e. +he tension bound up in the "u3taposition o! /ogie:s &ontempt and her deluded sense o! &apa&ity and ethi&s gathers intensity. But the !ilm, this seGuen&e, does not allow that intensity to spill o1er?!ormally or narrati1ely?into a BreCena&tment, or at least a&knowledgement, o! the murder that brought &i1il so&iety and the ;2a1age< together. Were it to do so, at this parti&ular
#.%
moment, gi1en this parti&ular seGuential &onstru&tion, it would do so on /ogie:s terms' on the terms o! the geno&ided ;2a1age.< nd this ;2a1age< !ilm is not entirely
&om!ortable with what the ;2a1age< has to say about geno&ide. Instead, we &ut abruptly ba&k !rom /ogie Bthe sound o! death stirring waterAC, in !ront o! the liGuor store, to the s&rubbed and well-kept e3terior o! Dudy:s home later that e1ening. +he abrupt and an3ious shi!t in lo&ation repositions the spe&tator !rom the madness o! geno&ide:s ensemble o! Guestions to the &omparati1e stability o! so1ereignty:s ensemble o! Guestions. It is a night shot and o1er the image o! his house we hear the sound e!!e&ts o! gun!ire, galloping horse hoo!s, and someone &alling !or ;a &ouple o! deputies.< We &ut to the home:s interior and witness Dudy seated on the so!a. *nly one lamp is lit, the room is dark, meditati1e and in1iting. +he lighting &odes o! this interior mise-en-s&ene augment the way the room:s &olors and lines ha1e been sele&ted and &ombined' we e3perien&e Dudy:s domesti&ity as a kind o! san&tuary. +he drapes behind him are so!t white and their &reases !all in lush, pleasing lines to !loor. 2pread end-to-end on the so!a where he sits is a handmade 6ati1e meri&an blanket with
e3Guisite shapes and designs, a tapestried hermeneuti&s that hails the 1iewer to &ulture:s ensemble o! &oordinating and o!ten therapeuti& tou&hstones o! &ohesion Bkinship, homeland, &ustom, languageC. Dudy is 1isibly tired a!ter another hard day o! poli&ing and !orty-!i1e minutes o! !ilm in whi&h Iktomi Ba tri&kster in the !orm o! a spider and a ro&kC has destabili=ed his spiritual balan&e. bsentmindedly, he points his remote and &hannel sur!s until he hits sian meri&an an&horwoman' ; nd you, sir, what would you
upon the 1oi&e o! the
suggest the go1ernment do to impro1e the li1ing &onditions here on the re=F< Dather than
#.(
mat&h her 1oi&e with the &ontinuity o! her image, the &amera =ooms in, slowly, on Dudy. >e is sho&ked and angry by what he sees on the s&reen. +he shot &uts ba&k to his tele1ision set and the surrounding stereo &onsole. /ogie is the inter1iewee on the s&reen. /ogie' ;I:d like the Kreat White Father in Washington to send me a big woman. Big fat womanA 2o that when I sleep with her she:ll &o1er up all the &ra&ks in my sha&k and keep the wind !rom blowing through. >eyA 9ou wanna see me piss in my pantsF< In the midst o! /ogie:s response we hear the !ade-in o! sad, mourn!ul musi&E and the &amera &uts !rom /ogie e3pressing his demand !rom within his &on!inement, the small bo3 o! Dudy:s tele1ision, to Dudy e3pressing his anger, disappointment, and embarrassment at /ogie as spe&ta&le. What is key here is that the !ilm:s &inemati& strategies?!or e3ample, its mourn!ul musi&, the slow =oom in on Dudy:s !a&e, the s&reen-within-the-s&reen capture o! /ogie at the moment he utters his most intransigent demand, and the mise-en-s&ene:s pro3emi& and lighting &odes whi&h send up representational supports o! &ultural and domesti& legitima&y all around Dudy and thus mark him with so1ereign authority?all labor to &ontain and ameliorate the otherwise murderous gesture o! the geno&ided ;2a1age.< In this way, the murder that marks the meeting o! &i1il so&iety and the ;2a1age< can indeed be reenacted and ackno&ledged but onl" as a sad 5oke. 6ow, the =oom in on Dudy is slightly !aster, more deliberate. We see him with his head in his hand, as the s&reen grows darker. >egemony, reeling !rom the e3istential blow that /ogie:s s&rutiny wreaked upon it, is now on its way to re&o1ery. In the beginning o! the seGuen&e, the libidinally power!ul &inemati& strategies o! sound, image, and editing had been deployed in su&h a way as to derail the narrati1e o! &i1il so&iety, to rupture the thin and rehearsed
#.,
&ommentaries through whi&h the an&horwoman tries to !rame the un!rameable, &ommentaries !ounded on the belie! that a&&ess to in!ormation, &iti=en edu&ation, publi& dis&losure, andHor in1estigati1e "ournalism &an &hange the li1es e1en o! those who are only ;!atally ali1e< B/arriott 17C, Indians. In the beginning o! the seGuen&e, this aspe&t o! &i1il so&iety:s a3iomati& !aith is singed by the ga=e o! the ;2a1age<?!ound to be wholly inadeGuate to geno&ide:s grammar o! su!!ering. But then the seGuen&e is "erked?by way o! the abrupt &ut !rom D 9-5Q+5DI*D-+he *ld )hie!:s LiGuor store to 5N56I6K5Q+5DI*D-Dudy:s >ome?!rom geno&ide to so1ereignty. is res&ued by the other modality o! ;2a1age< ontology. +he geno&ided ob"e&t:s desire !or the obliteration o! &i1il so&iety writ large is &aptured and in&ar&erated, not b" Settler ci$il societ"<the Asian anchor&oman and the White cameraman are not selected, b" the film, to perform this labor<but b" the super/ ego of the so$ereign sub5ect. +his is a !orm o! intra-Indian &ontainment, sel!-go1ernan&e. s a result, the !ilm:s politi&al allegian&e to the pro"e&t o! antagonisti& identity !ormation, that is, to /ogie:s un!lin&hing demand Ba big !at White woman to &o1er the holes in his sha&kC is diminished and dismantled by Dudy:s pro"e&t o! &ultural, territorial, and genealogi&al restoration and integrity. 2o1ereign integrity, we are instru&ted, must be &alled upon i! !or no other reason than to stop-gap what appears as madness and in&oheren&e, whi&h is to say, a &oheren&e too pure to ponder. +he problem with this !ormulation is that the so1ereign gesture:s aspirations o! ;integrity< are reali=ed by se1ering itsel! Band thus distra&ting the spe&tatorC !rom /ogie:s embra&e o! 6ati1e peoples: geno&idal ontology. +he so1ereign ;2a1age:s< &oer&ed repositioning o! the geno&ided ;2a1age< means that the dead Indian &annot rti&ulation with the 2ettler
#..
assume his desire !rom within the terra nullius where he is positioned, but must instead a&&ommodate the stru&tural ad"ustment that the li1ing Indian insists upon. +he s&ene ends with Dudy !a&ing the bathroom mirror, &o1ering his !a&e with shoe polishE then at the garage !et&hing a &anister o! petrolE now in his 1an enroute to tor&h the White )lay liGuor store. But this ending o! one seGuen&e and segue into another, while attempting to signi!y determination and dire&t a&tion, is in e!!e&t a &inemati& disa1owal, a mani!estation o! the !ilm:s unwillingness to !ollow through on its e3ploration o! murder as an idiom o! power that stru&tures the relation between White skins and Ded skins. I! Dudy:s sense o! post&olonial angst has limited e3planatory 1alue when &on!ronted with the idiom o! power that truly di1ides the reser1ation and &i1il so&iety, di1ides the dead and the li1ing, how might this idiom be best e3plainedF
Well o1er twenty thousand Westerns and !rontier !ilms ha1e been shot and released sin&e the dawn o! &inema. l33iii 51en though they may only appear in a small per&entage o! the !ilms and !or a parsimonious number o! minutes, 6ati1e meri&ans are
&entral to the libidinal e&onomy o! the entire genre. +he Western:s &inemati& imaginary &asts the ;2a1age< as a ;&lear and probable< danger lurking "ust beyond the 2ettler:s &learing. +he &learing, then, is imagined by the Western as a sa!e spa&e whose sa!ety is under &onstant, i! sometimes unspoken threat !rom ;2a1ages< who inhabit the ;!rontier< or who, typi&ally at the beginning o! a !ilm, ha1e ;"umped the reser1ation< !or some ine3pli&able reason. Clearing, in the 2ettlerH;2a1age< relation, has two grammati&al stru&tures, one as a noun and the other as a 1erb. But the Western a1ows only clearing:s labor as a noun. Westerns &all upon us to bow our heads re1erently, to gi1e this noun a
#.-
proper name and re!er to it !ondly, the way )hristians ga1e the &hild a proper name and &alled it ;the Little Baby Jesus.< 2imilarly, the Western interpellates us with su&h re1eren&e to the clearing, whose proper name might be the 'ittle Bab" Ci$il Societ", a genu!le&tion bestowed upon the &learing by, !or e3ample, Stagecoach and other !ilms by John Ford. But prior to the &learing:s !ragile in!an&y, that is, be!ore its &inemati& lega&y as a newborn pla&e-name, it labored not across the land as a noun but upon the body o! the ;2a1age< as a 1erb. +he Western, howe1er, only speaks to an imaginary o! the &learing as a noun, while disa1owing the &learing:s ontologi&al signi!i&an&e as a 1erb' &i1il so&iety:s essential status as an e!!e&t !or geno&ide. What would happen to the libidinal e&onomy o! &i1il so&iety i!, o1er the &ourse o! one hundred years, it had been sub"e&ted to twenty thousand &inemati& mirrors, !ilms about itsel! in whi&h it was &ast not as an in!ant &artography o! budding demo&rati& dilemmas, but as a murderous pro"e&tion, a "uggernaut !or e3terminationF Ki1en the &entrality o! the White &hild, the in!ant, to the Western:s &inemati& soli&itation o! !aith in the ethi&s o! Little Baby )i1il 2o&iety, how shattered might that !aith be&ome i! were the !ilms to re1eal that the newborn babe su&kled Indian blood instead o! White breast milkF l33i1 +he sinews o! &i1il institutionality &ould not sustain themsel1es libidinally under su&h &onditions. nd &i1il so&iety would lose its mid- to
late-twentieth &entury elasti&ity. +here would be, !or e3ample, no so&ial spa&e !or the White &ultural progressi1e who re1els in 6ati1e meri&an lore, studies Indian pla&e-
names, or otherwise deri1es pleasure and an enhan&ed sense o! purpose !rom hisHher respe&t !or Indian &ulture?"ust as there would be no so&ial spa&e !or the White person
#.7
who romanti&i=es the history o! the pioneering West while negle&ting the geno&ide that &lears the spa&e !or this history. B+hese two personas are not so !ar apart.C nyone who
was White and did not speak, so&ially and libidinally, in what would be a hyper-arti&ulate and thoroughly sel!-&ons&ious anti-Indian !as&ism would !ind himHhersel! unable to broker relations with other members o! &i1il so&iety, !or the ruse o! so&ial, se3ual, and politi&al hybridity whi&h Whiteness manages to &on1in&e itsel! o!, would be&ome untenable at best, treasonous at worse. *ne &ould not, !or e3ample, be in fa$or of 6ati1e meri&an sweat lodge &eremonies, !ishing or gaming rights and be, simultaneously, enfranchised &ithin ci$il societ". 2u&h post&olonial andHor demo&rati& Guestions would be&ome structurall" impossible' one would either be among the li1ing or among the dead ?but not, as is assumed today, both. )inema &omes into e3isten&e during the 1-74s, at pre&isely that moment when Little Baby )i1il 2o&iety was being weaned !rom its sel!-image as a murderous pro"e&tion and establishing itsel! as a site where the leadership o! ideas BhegemonyC repla&es dire&t relations o! !or&eE a pla&e where a robust politi&al, se3ual, and so&ial hybridity &ountera&ts &rude /ani&heism negotiations o! 1iolen&e. 5arly &inema is on the &usp o! that that attempt. moment when the ;we< o! White sub"e&ti1ity is mo1ing !rom
;we are murderers< toward ;we are &iti=ens.< What is important !or our in1estigation is the &entrality o! ;2a1age< ontology and the institutionality o! &inema to the rhetoric, rather than the a&tual history, o! this transition Bwhere, as I ha1e indi&ated ;transition< is merely a euphemism !or disa1owalC. In 1-7%, !ewer than !our years a!ter the .th )al1ary had massa&red more than three-hundred Lakota, ostensibly !or persisting in per!orming the Khost Dan&e, a
#-4
;&eremony whi&h in&luded &alling upon an&estors to help &lear the land o! white in1aders< B2imon ,C, +homas 5dison s&reened his produ&tion o! Siou) 0host 3ance in the 5dison )ompany:s !irst kinetos&ope parlor. +he !ilm was twenty se&onds long and !eatured men and boys, beaded and bare-&hested, dan&ing around in !ront o! a ;stark bla&k ba&kdrop &ommon to all early !ilms shot in 5dison:s one-room studio in West *range, 6ew Jersey< B2imon ,C. *n this ma&abre, ironi&, and !ate!ul day in 2eptember o! 1-7%, se1eral *glala and Brule 2iou3 were brought to the 5dison )ompany kinetos&ope parlor where Siou) 0host 3ance was s&reened !or them. +hey were part o! a group o! ;nearly a hundred 2iou3 sur1i1ors o! Wounded Inee LwhoM had been re&ruited by William F. RBu!!alo Bill: )ody !or his Wild West show !or a season a!ter 1-74$ L+Mwenty-three o! Lthem wereM designated Rprisoners o! war: Lby the 8nited 2tates Ko1ernmentM< B2imon #7. !n. #C. +his symbiosis linked Wounded Inee to publi& spe&ta&le BBu!!alo Bill:s tra1eling showC and publi& spe&ta&le to &inemaE between geno&ide and &olle&ti1e pleasures &onstituti1e o! the membership in, and the &oheren&e o!, &i1il so&iety was this symbiosis unabashedly a1owed in 1-7%. >eadlines in the #e& ?ork .erald read ;Ded /an gain )onGuered'< party o! Indians in !ull war paint in1aded the 5dison laboratory at West *range yesterday and !a&ed un!lin&hingly the unerring rapid !ire o! the kinetograph. It was indeed a memorable engagement, no less so than the battle o! Wounded Inee, still !resh in the minds o! the warriors. It was probably more e!!e&ti1e in demonstrating to the red men the power and suprema&y o! the white man, for sa$ager" and the most ad$anced science stood face to face, and there &as an absolute triumph for one &ithout the spilling of a single drop of blood. B2imon ,-. emphasis mineC
#-1
+he .erald a&knowledges that Wounded Inee is ;still !resh in the minds o! the warriors,< whi&h means that it is also still !resh in the minds o! Whites whose sense o! belonging is &onstituted 1is-S-1is their status as spe&tators o! )ody:s rodeos and 5dison:s &inema e3hibitions, and as readers o! the daily newspapers. +his ;still !resh in the minds< !ragment is symptomati& o! &i1il so&iety:s late-17 th, early #4th &entury &apa&ity to appre&iate the a&ute pro3imity between the tranGuility in their )learing?5dison:s !irst kinetos&ope parlor?and the blood soaked horror of their )learing?the massa&re at Wounded Inee three and one hal! years be!ore 5dison:s s&reening. But the .erald:s a1owal o! clearing as a 1erb is &orrupted by symptoms o! what, o1er the ne3t one hundred years, will be&ome &omprehensi1e disa1owals o! clearing4s 1erb status. +he .erald re!ers to Wounded Inee as a ;battle,< insinuating something akin to the mutual e3&hange o! gun!ire or the e3tra&tion o! &asualties on both sides instead o! geno&ide. It does, howe1er, raise the spe&ter o! geno&ide in its opening senten&e' ;Indians in !ull war paint in1aded the 5dison laboratory.< >ere, the un&ons&ious language o! the prose has spoken in good !aith' essential to the 2ettlerH;2a1age< relation is the repetition o! a s&ene where a &i1il site is indeed set upon by a militari=ed !or&e. But the conscious language o! the prose has spoken in bad !aith, by suggesting that in this essential relation the ;2a1age< is militari=ed B;Indians in1aded in !ull war paint<C while the 2ettler is &i1ili=ed B;the 5dison laboratory at West *range<C. +he rhetori&al labor o! the arti&le thus pro&eeds to mo1e !rom the sublime to the absurd as it attempts to insinuate the geno&ided ob"e&t into &i1il so&iety as &i1il sub"e&t Bthat is a sub"e&t o! dis&ourse and interlo&utionC by suggesting that any gi1en aspe&t o! &i1il so&iety:s hegemoni& apparatus Bbe it the persuasi1e power o! s&ien&e and te&hnology or the interpellati1e power o! &inemati&
#-#
sound and imageC is up to the task o! subordinating the ;2a1age.< In other words, the .erald would ha1e us belie1e that the ;2a1age,< like the White woman or the immigrant, o&&upies a subordinate position &ithin &i1il so&iety, and it would ha1e us belie! this while simultaneously making no distin&tion between the ontologi&al moment when the ;2a1age< is geno&ided and the ontologi&al moment when he ;2a1age< is so1ereign. It draws upon the dead geno&ided ob"e&t by gesturing to Wounded Inee, but adorns this &orpse in the a&&outrement o! a li1ing sub"e&t with ;!ull war paint.< +his &ross-dressing, I maintain, bene!its the 2ettler, not the ;2a1age.< We know that the symboli& power o! the wage relation stru&tures the relationship between the proletariat and the boss and that, !urthermore, 1iolen&e is &ontingent upon the proletariat:s spatial andHor temporal resistan&e to that relation. +his is how the >uman su!!ers. But the 1iolen&e o! Wounded Inee has no stru&tural &ontingen&y. It is not &ontingent upon resistan&e to the dera&ination o! spatiality?what 6egri and >ardt re!er to as the &ommons: slide into the dead =one o! &apital?nor is it &ontingent upon resistan&e to &apital:s dera&ination o! temporality?what >ardt &alls the loss o! li1ing time and the imposition o! ;prison time.< For the ;2a1age,< geno&ide is not &ontingent upon resistan&e. When, in 1-7%, the 6ew 9ork .erald makes a link between a demonstration o! White superiority Bthe arti&le:s re!eren&e to !ilm and s&ien&e as apparati o! hegemony &oupled with its in!eren&e that hegemony itsel! is the web o! so&ial relations and the !or&e o! so&ial &hangeC and the subordination o! the ;2a1age< B)ody:s twenty-three official ;prisoners o! war< and his se1enty-se1en capti$e geno&ide sur1i1ors who &ame to s&reen the !ilmC, it begins to lay the groundwork !or the &oming one hundred years, !or the
#-0
rhetori&al strategies o! the #4th &entury whi&h will work to disa1ow the stru&turing power o! gratuitous 1iolen&e by attempting to bring the ;2a1age< into the pur1iew o! hegemony. +he ;absolute triumph< whi&h allowed ;sa1agery and the most ad1an&ed s&ien&e< to stand !a&e to !a&e in 5dison:s !irst kinetos&ope parlor ;without the spilling o! a single drop o! blood< was not, &ontrary to the .erald:s delusional &laim, &ontingent upon &on!li&t that &an be rendered symboli&ally. +he Guote has all the trappings o! &ogniti1e dissonan&e. *ne moment it speaks o! Wounded Inee, geno&ide, and notes it as being essential. +he ne3t moment it diminishes its essential status by des&ribing it as a ;battle.< Finally, the arti&le notes its desire to be rid o! Wounded Inee' that is to be rid o! geno&ide as a modality that stru&tures the ontology o! the ;2a1age.< Why this sudden urge at the end o! the Guotation and at the end o! the 17th &enturyF I! the 1arious apparati o! hegemony Bthe news media, the &inema, et&.C were to name geno&ide as that whi&h positions the ;2a1age< ontologi&ally, then it would ha1e to name the way in whi&h geno&ide positions the 2ettler ontologi&ally as well. +hirty-nine years prior to 5dison:s s&reening o! Siou) 0host 3ance, &i1il so&iety did not &onsider itsel! to be balan&ing on the &usp o! su&h a dilemma. It a&knowledged, indeed re1eled, in the stru&tural ne&essity o! itsel! as a murderous pro"e&tion upon the body o! the ;2a1age.< In 1-(0, 2an Fran&is&o:s 3ail" Alta California e3plained ;how in&oming
ngloameri&ans were handling their RIndian Guestion:' Rpeople are$ready to kni!e them, shoot them, or ino&ulate them with smallpo3? and all ha$e been done.:< By 1-,4, e3termination o! Indians was a &oast-to-&oast &ommonpla&e pra&ti&e. It was ;so &ommonpla&e that it was no longer a military spe&ialty. Dather it had been adopted as a method o! Rpest &ontrol: by a1erage &i1ilians.< +he 2an Fran&is&o Bulletin o! 1-,4
#-%
des&ribed it as a &ons&ious strategy to ;Re!!e&t the ultimate e3termination o! the ra&e by disease:< BGtd in )hur&hill A 'ittle (atter of 0enocide 1(-C. nd in 1-71, within a year
o! the Wounded Inee massa&re and less than three years prior to the 6ew 9ork .erald:s pushHpull o! rhetori&al tension between genu!le&ting to geno&ide and genu!le&ting to hegemony as that whi&h stru&tures the relation between the 2ettler and the ;2a1age<$ L. Frank Baum !amed ;gentle< author o! !he Wi1ard of E1 and writer o! the Aberdeen Saturda" +ioneer &alled !or the army to ;!inish< the "ob and e3terminate all remaining 6ndians. ;+he nobility o! the Dedskin is e3tinguished$+he whites, by law o! &onGuest, by "usti&e o! &i1ili=ation, are masters o! the meri&an &ontinent and the best sa!ety o! the !rontier
settlements will be se&ured by the total annihilation o! the !ew remaining Indians. Why not annihilationF +heir glory has !led, their spirit broken, their manhood e!!a&edE better that they should die than li1e as the miserable wret&hes that they are.< BPuoted in )hur&hill A 'ittle (atter of 0enocide #%%-#(C In no more than three short years, !rom 1-71-1-7%, the press, as e3emplary o! the enun&iatory apparatus o! &i1il so&iety, began its transition !rom an open assumption o! &i1i& desire, ;why not annihilation$.e3terminate all remaining Indians< Bthe berdeen
Saturda" +ioneerC, to a monumentali=ation o! hegemony, ;an absolute triumph !or L&i1il so&ietyM without the spilling o! a single drop o! blood< Bthe 6ew 9ork .eraldC. What is o! note in all o! this is the !a&t that &inema, 5dison:s Siou) 0host 3ance, is pi1otal to this &on"un&tural re&omposition o! &i1il so&iety:s sel!-presentation. )inema is 1ital to an imaginary whi&h seeks to widen, e3ponentially, the distan&e between &i1il so&iety:s
#-(
grammati&al stru&ture and the a&tual words it is willing to use to des&ribe itsel!?the 1ast distan&e between &learing as noun and &learing as 1erb. +his is a ne&essary re&omposition, or more pre&isely disa1owal, !or it allows the human sub"e&t o! &i1il so&iety?the sian meri&an an&horwoman and the White &ameraman upon whom
/ogie:s sardoni& ga=e is !i3ed?to &onsole themsel1es with the illusion that the stru&ture o! the relation between themsel1es and the ;2a1age< is !orged by the !or&e o! hegemony and not the !or&e o! geno&ide. gain, one hundred years a!ter the 6ew 9ork .erald4s tilt
!rom geno&ide toward hegemony, at the other end o! the #4th &entury, White radi&als: and progressi1es: !aith that su&h generi& prin&iples and pra&ti&es as a&&ess to institutionality, !ull dis&losure, !airness and a&&ura&y in reporting are pi1otal to meditation on, and mediation !or, so&ial &hange has ne1er been stronger. +he surgi&al ga=e o! /ogie 9ellow Lodge shreds this !aith in the essential nature o! hegemony into thin strips o! ridi&ule. >egemony remains essential to the idiom o! power between, !or e3ample, the sian
meri&an an&horwoman and the White &ameramanEl331 and the !ilm, through /ogie and the !ormalism that a&&rues to him, understands thisE but this understanding is akin to an insult' ;2end me a big woman. !at womanA< nd through the ga=e, /ogie will not
allow the spe&tator the &ultural sola&e o! mapping hegemony, as an idiom o! power onto the 2ettler BhumanCH;2a1age< relation?until, that is, Dudy:s presen&e reasserts itsel! and makes amends. +oday the 82 is no longer sel!-&ons&iously !as&isti& but instead sel!-&ons&iously demo&rati&. )learing is &ompletely disa1owed as a 1erb. Instead, clearing as a noun makes itsel! known through the narrati1e o! so1ereign gain, &i1il so&iety and its e3ternal threat Bthe ;2a1age<C. +he imaginary o! ;2a1age< positionality more o!ten than not
#-,
arti&ulates BdialoguesC with this 2ettler imaginary. In other words, the ;2a1age< narrati1e o! so1ereignty BDudy:s plot points in the !ilmC is dialogi& with the 2ettler narrati1e o! so1ereignty Bthe Western:s genu!le&tion to Little Baby )i1il 2o&ietyC. +he narrati1es are disparate at the le1el o! mani!est &ontent, but dependent rhetori&ally upon the same semioti&s o! gain and loss. +hus, e1en the ;2a1age:s< semioti&s o! so1ereign loss !orti!ies and e3tends the interlo&utory li!e o! the 2ettler:s disa1owal o! clearing as a 1erb. Ironi&ally, they work hand-in-hand to &rowd out the ensemble o! Guestions, and thus the ethi&al dilemmas, o! geno&ide:s ontologi&al imperati1es. semioti&s o! loss &annot be re&on&iled with a semioti&s o! geno&ide Bpro1ided geno&ide &ould e1en be apprehended through a semioti&s, and there is no e1iden&e that it &anC be&ause semioti&s implies the possibility o! narrati1eE and narrati1e implies the possibility o! both a sub"e&t o! spee&h and a speaking sub"e&t. Keno&ide, howe1er, has no speaking sub"e&tE as su&h it has no narrati1e. 6t can onl" be apprehended b" &a" of a narrati$e about something that it is not ?su&h as so1ereignty. B+his is why a number o! Jewish holo&aust !ilms end up?or begin?in Israel' the impossible semioti&s o! geno&ide must be &ompensated !or by way o! a gesture o! &oheren&e, e1en i! that &oheren&e distra&ts the spe&tator !rom the topi& at hand.C 6o single !ilm &ould represent the &learing o! a hemisphere. nd no hemisphere, let alone a &ountry, &ould maintain egoi&
&onsolidation o! its psy&hi& &oordinates under the weight o! the number and kind o! !ilms that it would take to e1en attempt to represent the &learing as a 1erb. +hough it is pre&isely the impossible ;narrati1e< o! geno&ide that positions the ;2a1age,< ensembles o! Guestions that could elaborate more or less &oherent ethi&al dilemmas regarding geno&ide?e1en i! a &oherent stor" o! geno&ide &ould not be told?are o!ten managed,
#-.
&onstrained, marginali=ed, are disa1owed within politi&al dis&ourse, meta-&ommentaries on ontology, and the &inema o! 6ati1e meri&ans. Skins: simultaneous elaboration o! and uneasiness with /ogie 9ellow Lodge is emblemati& o! how this management, &onstraint, marginali=ation, and disa1owal are rendered &inemati&ally. /ogie:s surrealist demand, ;send me a big$!at woman $LtoM &o1er up all the &ra&ks in my sha&k,< goes to the heart o! the matter. Ded !lesh &an only be restored, ethi&ally, through the destru&tion o! White bodies, be&ause the &orporeality o! the indigenous has been &onsumed by and gone into the making o! the 2ettler:s &orporeality. /ogie wants what he has lostE not "ust his labor power, not 5ust his language or land, but the raw material o! his !lesh. nd, like most ;grassroots Indians,< he knows pre&isely
where it went?into the 2ettler:s ;body<?and thus he knows pre&isely !rom where to repossess it. +hough /ogie:s sha&k is small, we know !rom earlier s&enes that it has at least two rooms. +here!ore, to stret&h a White woman a&ross its interior, window-to-window, wall-to-wall, &orner-to-&orner, and then stret&h her a&ross the door, would be to re&on!igure her body into grotesGue and unre&ogni=able dimensions. +here are serious doubts as to whether a White woman, e1en as large a White woman as /ogie 9ellow Lodge is demanding !rom the @resident, ;the Kreat White Father in Washington,< would sur1i1e su&h an ordeal. Imagine su&h a demand being made, su&h wallpapering taking pla&e, en mass, on a s&ale whi&h e1en /ogie:s inebriated imagination has not yet grasped. LKeneral ndrew Ja&ksonM instru&ted his troops to &ut the noses o! the
&orpses so that no one would be able to &hallenge the body &ount. +hey
#--
had bushel baskets !ull o! noses that they brought ba&k. +his Lpra&ti&eM got him ele&ted @resident. L>eM &ampaigned on the basis that he had ne1er met a re&al&itrant Indian that he had not killed and ne1er killed an Indian that he had not s&alped and that anybody who wanted to Guestion the 1alidity o! what he was saying was in1ited to tea in his parlor that e1ening so he &ould display the s&alps and pro1e his point. L>eM rode with a saddle bridle made out o! the skin o! an opposing Indian leader. +his is the @resident o! the 8nited 2tates. B)hur&hill' Book +our 2pee&h July 01, #44%C *ne begins to see how wallpapering or insulating one:s room not with ;bushel baskets< o! White !emale skin but with e1en one White woman is simply out o! the Guestion. /ogie:s demand, then, is laughed o!!?managed, &onstrained, marginali=ed?by the s&ript. ;>ey, ya wanna see me piss in my pantsF< are the words he is made to utter ne3t. Words portrayed as the surreal ruminations o! an Indian who has rea&hed the end o! his inebriated tether, and not as the wisdom o! a man who &ould lead his people. +he !ilm is ner1ous in the !a&e o! /ogie:s demand not be&ause o! its absurdity but be&ause o! its authority. But /ogie is demanding no more o! the Kreat White Father, no more o! &i1il so&iety, than he has already gi1en. In !a&t, he is demanding less. >is surrealism indi&ates a Gualitati1ely similar ontologi&al relationship between the Ded and the White as e3ists between the Bla&k and the White. +he /iddle @assage turns, !or e3ample, shanti spatial and temporal &apa&ity into spatial and temporal
in&apa&ity?a body into !lesh. +his pro&ess begins as early as the 1#44s !or the 2la1e. l331i By the 1(04s, /odernity is more sel!-&ons&ious o! its &oordinates, and Whiteness begins its ontologi&al &onsolidation and negati1e knowledge o! itsel! by turning Bpart o!C the
#-7
=te& body, !or e3ample, into Indian !lesh BJudy 73is8%orming the American Canon -1C. In this moment the White body &ompletes itsel! and pro&eeds to lay the groundwork !or the intra-2ettler ensemble o! Guestions !oundational to its ethi&al dilemmas Bi.e., /ar3ism, !eminism, psy&hoanalysisC. In the !inal analysis, 2ettler ontology is guaranteed by way o! a negati1e knowledge o! what it is not, rather than by way o! its positi1e &laims o! what it is. *ntologi&al Whiteness is se&ured not through its &ultural, e&onomi&, or gendered identitiesE but by the !a&t that it &annot be known BpositionedC by geno&ide Bor by &&umulation and FungibilityC. +his negati1e knowledge has its pleasures$ L8nlike Ja&kson:s army o! the early 17th &entury, the 1,th &entury Dut&hM didn:t take the noses and they didn:t take the s&alps. +hey took whole heads be&ause they wanted to identi!y the !a&t that they had eradi&ated the entire leadership o! the opposition. +hey brought the heads ba&k to the &entral sGuare in 6ew msterdam Lnow /anhattanM where the &iti=enry
began to &elebrate. +hey turned it into a sport. @eople who had parti&ipated in the e3pedition had themsel1es a "olly game o! ki&k ball using the heads and the &iti=enry sat around and &heered$B)hur&hill .H01H4%C $has a sense o! a!!ilial in&lusion and !ilial longe1ity$ LIn 1-,%, the 0rd Degiment o! the 8.2. )al1aryM returned to Den1er L)oloradoM with their trophies Lthe 1aginas o! 6ati1e meri&an women
stapled to the !ront o! their hatsM and held a triumphal parade. L+heyM pro&eeded down Larimore 2treet$and the good &iti=enry stood up and
#74
&heered wildly...L+Mhe Rock" (ountain #e&s Ldes&ribed it asM ;an unparalleled !eat o! martial prowess that would li1e !ore1er in the annals o! the history and nobility o! the ra&e.< B.H01H4%C $has a &apa&ity !or territorial integrity$ 2&alp bounties$were o!!i&ially &laimed bounties that were pla&ed on Indians in e1ery ante&edent &olony in the 5astern 2eaboard?Fren&h, 5nglish, and 2panish. I don:t know about the Dut&h. +hey killed all the Indians around be!ore they had the &han&e to need a bounty. But !rom the ante&edent &olonies this law trans!erred to e1ery state and territory in !orty-eight &ontiguous states. B.H01H4%C $that is, it has the &apa&ity to trans!orm )learing !rom a 1erb into )learing as a noun$ 51ery Lstate in the unionM pla&ed a bounty on Indians, any Indians, all Indians. LFor e3ample in theM @ennsyl1ania &olony in the 1.%4s, the bounty LwasM !orty pounds sterling !or proo! o! death o! an adult male Indian. +hat proo! o! death being in the !orm o! a s&alp or a bloody red skin$@roo! o! death in that !orm got the bearer o! the proo! !orty pounds sterling. Forty pounds sterling in the 1.%4s was eGui1alent to the annual wage o! your a1erage !armer. +his is big business. +wenty pounds sterling would be paid !or proo! o! death in the same !orm o! an adult !emale. +en pounds sterling !or proo! o! death o! a &hild, a &hild being de!ined as human being o! either se3 under ten years o! age down to and, yes, in&luding the !etus$In +e3as this law was not res&inded until 1--., LwhenM the debate in the +e3as legislature &on&luded that there was no
#71
reason to &ontinue be&ause there was no long su!!i&ient numbers o! li1ing Indians in the entire state o! +e3as to warrant the &ontinuation o! it. It had a&&omplished its purpose. B.H01H4%C $and "ust like that, Little Baby )i1il 2o&iety was walking on its own two !eet. +o Krown-up )i1il 2o&iety B/ogie:s ;Kreat White Father in Washington<C /ogie 9ellow Lodge submits his own ;personal< geno&ide reparations bill. bill that
a&&ounts !or the per!e&t symmetry through whi&h Whiteness has !ormed a bod" B!rom the genitals to the body politi&C out o! ;2a1age< !lesh. +he symmetry:s per!e&tion be&omes &lear when one reali=es that today:s 1.,W-to--4.,W, ;2a1age<-to-2ettler ratio is a pure in1ersion o! the si3teenth &entury:s ;2a1age< to 2ettler ratio. l331ii ;2end me a big woman. !at womanA 2o that when I sleep with her she:ll &o1er up all the &ra&ks in my sha&k and stop the wind !rom blowing through< is a demand so ethi&ally pure that the !ilm !inds it unbearable and, as su&h, is unable BunwillingFC to let /ogie state it without irony. nd
yet, /ogie:s outbursts like this?;outbursts< be&ause they are generally in!reGuent and &ontained by pity or humor?are the !ew moments when the !ilm engages the ethi&al dilemmas o! the 2ettlerH;2a1age< antagonism Bgeno&ide and its impossible semioti&sC instead o! the ethi&al dilemmas o! the 2ettlerH;2a1age< &on!li&t Bso1ereignty and its semioti&s o! lossC. gain, it is not that /ogie:s demand is absurd and unethi&al, but rather that it is a demand so pure in its ethi&ality that it threatens the Guotidian prohibitions whi&h, in /odernity, &onstrain ethi&s. +he demand is !ar too ethi&al !or the !ilm to embra&e and elaborate at the le1el o! narrati1e. It is a demand that must be poli&ed by so1ereign powers. 53ploring Skins4 &inemati& strategies re1eals this &ontainment as an e!!ort to
#7#
manage the spe&tator:s interpellation by the dilemmas o! /ogie:s ruination and by they demand that ushers !orth !rom his ;!lesh.< /ogie:s surrealism seeks to &ull power dire&tly !rom the sub"e&ti1ity o! the 2ettler, what Ward )hur&hill &alls the ;imperial integrity o! the 82 itsel!uman li!e dire&tly !rom the imperial integrity o! the 82, espe&ially when we think that imperial integrity through the banality o! White bodies Bin other words, through the ;inno&en&e< o! today:s &iti=enC, is indi&ati1e o! the kind o! un!lin&hing paradigmati& analyses whi&h allowed Ward )hur&hill to embra&e the 7H11 atta&k on the World +rade )enter within !orty-eight hours o! its o&&urren&e, a moment in time when 2ettler /ar3ists and 2ettler progressi1es either suddenly be&ame mute, or stumbled o1er their own tongues in hal!-hearted attempts to simultaneously &ondemn the atta&k and e3plain its politi&al and histori&al rationale. )hur&hill:s embra&e o! the e1ent is not synonymous with either &elebration or &ondemnation. It goes without saying that )hur&hill also re!used to be interpellated by the pageantry o! mourning that !ollowed in the wake o! 7-1-1. But 2ettler radi&als and progressi1es assailed him !or meditating on the atta&k !rom within the Guestions o! the geno&ided ;2a1age,< rather than !rom within an ensemble o! Guestions allied with 2ettler:s grammar o! su!!ering, e3ploitation and alienation. @eople on the Le!t tried to shame )hur&hill !or embra&ing in&oherent terror Bsui&ide bombersC instead o! morally and politi&ally san&tioned re1olutionary a&tion Blike the Yapatistas or the 2andanistasC. *thers &hided him !or ad1o&ating 1iolen&e in any !orm. /any said that now is not the time !or a s&athing &ritiGueE ;our< nation is in mourning. nd there were those who wagged their !inger and reminded him that there
#70
were members o! the working &lass Bnot "ust poli&e agents and in1estment bankersC who died in the +win +owers. +hese nay-sayers all made their arguments at the le1el o! e3perien&e, and )hur&hill, rather handily, answered them at the le1el as well. But I am neither interested in his interlo&utors: &hiding nor in his response. +he Le!t:s atta&k on )hur&hill:s embra&e o! the 7-1-1 atta&ks is important not !or the so&ial issues it raises, the m"riad of things it claims it is concerned about, but rather !or the grammar o! su!!ering shared a&ross the board, those building blo&ks through whi&h loss is &on&eptuali=edin su&h a way that makes it impossible !or the ;2a1age< to !un&tion, grammati&ally, as their paradigm o! su!!ering, and e1en less as its paradigmati& agent !or &hange. >ad )hur&hill:s interlo&utors been more honest, they would ha1e used !ewer words?not draped their re"oinders with the 1eil o! issues !rom the realm o! e3perien&e Bi.e., ta&ti&sC ?and said, Guite simply, ;We will not be led by the R2a1ageE: death is not an element &onstituent o! our ontology.< 8nlike the narrati1e and &inemati& strategies o! Skins, )hur&hill:s meditation on 7-1-1 embra&es, rather than &ontains, /ogie 9ellow Lodge:s demand. )hur&hill:s work is authori1ed by /ogie 9ellow Lodge:s grammar o! su!!ering whi&h, inter alia, !ore&loses upon )hur&hill:s passing "udgment on the tactical ethi&s o! either the atta&k on the World +rade )enter or, !or that matter, /ogie:s atta&k on the body o! White !emininity. )hur&hill a&&epts this !ore&losure and works o!! o! it. >e does not !eel &onstrained by it but !inds it enabling o! a Guality o! re!le&tion that would be otherwise in&on&ei1able' +here &an be no de!ensible suggestion that those who atta&ked the @entagon and the W+) on 7-1-1 were seeking to get e1en with the 8.2.
#7%
2till less is there a basis !or &laims that they ;started< something, or that the 8.2. has anything to get e$en with them !or. Puite the &ontrary. For the atta&kers to ha1e arguably ;e1ened the s&ore< !or IraGi:s dead &hildren alone, it would ha1e been ne&essary !or them to ha1e killed a hundred times the number o! meri&ans who a&tually died. +his in itsel!, howe1er
would ha1e allowed them to attain parity in terms o! real numbers. +he 8.2. population is about !i!teen times the si=e o! IraG:s. >en&e, !or the atta&kers to ha1e a&hie1ed a proportionally eGui1alent impa&t, it would ha1e been ne&essary that they kill some ..( million meri&ans. BEn the
;ustice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Conse2uences of U.S. 6mperial Arrogance and Criminalit" 1%C )hur&hill re!le&ts upon the e$ent o! 7-1-1 in su&h a way as to make it impossible to talk about it as an e$ent. +his is a marker o! the philosophi&al brillian&e and rhetori&al de3terity !oundational to )hur&hill:s thirty-odd books, arti&les, and re&orded spee&hes. +his de3terity allows the work to be &on1ersant with the a&tual details and ;!a&ts< o! the e1ent Bas presented and &athedrali=ed by White &i1il so&ietyC. 9et instead o! be&oming mired in the bog o! &on&erns whi&h makes the e1ent as ;e1ent< Bdetails and &ommon sense ethi&sC )hur&hill "ettisons &ommon sense and presses the details into ser1i&e o! an ensemble o! Guestions animated by the ethi&al dilemmas o! ;2a1age,< and not 2ettler, ontology. >e &an do this on behal! o! those who are not e1en 6ati1e meri&ans Bin this
passage, IraGisC be&ause he pro1ides them with the ;2a1age< as a lens through whi&h they &an do ethnographi& and politi&al work on the Settler as specimen. In other words, in his &hapter on 7-1-1, his argument is made in su&h a way that, to be interpellated, the reader
#7(
must ad"ust the logi& o! hisHher politi&al e3perien&e to !it the logi& o! ;2a1age< geno&idal ontology?and not 1i&e 1ersa. +he reader must be subordinated to, and in&orporated by, Dedness, or else the reader will e3perien&e the pie&e in the same way that the 1iewer is meant to e)perience /ogie 9ellow Lodge' as a s&andal, as a problem in need o! !i3ing. )hur&hill &ontinues to subordinate the ;!a&ts< o! 7-1-1 to an ethi&al e3amination o! 2ettlerism by reminding the reader that the 8.2. is ;!i!teen times the si=e< o! IraG, there!ore 7-1-1 would ha1e had to ha1e had a death toll o! ;..( million meri&ans< in
order to ha1e ;a&hie1ed a proportionately eGui1alent impa&t< B1%C. In the 1ery ne3t paragraph, )hur&hill &orre&ts himsel! and insists that ..( million is the number o! meri&an children the atta&kers would ha1e had to ha1e killed in order to a&hie1e parity. +his is !ollowed by a list o! e1en more &orre&tions, in whi&h )hur&hill re&al&ulates the meaning o! parity based solely on the 8.2.:s dera&ination o! IraG sin&e 1774 B!urther down the &orre&ti1es will lead him to the ;2a1age< and to the 2la1eC. +rue parity would result in ..( million dead meri&an &hildren, 1( million dead meri&an adults, the
obliteration o! ;sewage, water sanitation and ele&tri&al plants, !ood produ&tionHstorage &apa&ity, hospitals, pharma&euti&al produ&tion !a&ilities, &ommuni&ation &enters and mu&h more.< +he e!!e&ts o! whi&h would mean not "ust mass death but ;a sur1i1ing population wra&ked by malnutrition an endemi& disease< B1%C. ;Indeed, applying su&h standards o! Rpay ba&k: 1is-S-1is meri&an Indians alone would reGuire a lethal redu&tion in the 8.2. population$o! between 7, and 77 per&ent< B1(C. 2uddenly, /ogie 9ellow Lodge:s demand !or parity B5ust one big fat White &oman to co$er up the cracks in his shackC sounds downright generous. /ogie is demanding one 2ettler, a !ar &ry !rom demanding parity !or ontologi&al death. Were he to demand parity the 8.2. ;would run
#7,
out o! people long be!ore it ran out o! &ompensatory obligation< B)hur&hill Roosting Chickens 1%-1(C.
#7.
Chapter 1ine ,Sa(age- 'egro#ho$ia
s stated in )hapter (, the small &orpus o! 6ati1e
meri&an !eature !ilms in
e3isten&e makes an assertion that White suprema&y, the press o! &i1il so&iety, &onstitutes the greatest threat to the pro"e&t o! a restored so1ereign ontologyE but it also makes an emotional argument that Bla&kness also &onstitutes a threat to this restorati1e pro"e&t. +his is disturbing be&ause i!, ultimately, ;2a1age< so&ial and &ultural &oheren&e rests on ethi&al dilemmas whi&h are animated by anti-Bla&k an3iety?6egrophobia?then it would imply that politi&al solidarity between the ;2a1age< and the 2ettler would make more sense than between the ;2a1age< and the 2la1e. >en&e, the isolation o! the 2la1e would not be sealed by an interest-based politi&al &oalition between the 2ettler and the ;2a1age< B!or the interests o! +urtle Island:s restoration and the longe1ity o! the !i!ty states are inimi&alC, nor by the shared positi1ities o! so1ereign rubri&s B!or mana, &aken, and orenda are in&ompatible with hegemonyC, but sealed by a &ommon imaginary as to what &onstitutes a threat to being itsel!. Lea1ing the !ragility o! a ;2a1age<H2la1e politi&al allian&e aside !or the moment Bnot be&ause it is irrele1ant, but be&ause it is beyond the largely stru&tural and des&ripti1e analyti& !ramework o! this bookC I will address the !ollowing Guestion' is anti-Bla&k an3iety &onstituti1e o! the way ;2a1age< &inema imagines so1ereignty, and i! so, whyF Skins, in keeping with the esprit de corps o! the ;2a1age< !ilmography to whi&h it belongs, imagines Bla&kness as a !or&e that threatens the so&ial and &ultural &oheren&e o! ;2a1age< so1ereignty. Skins operates through a myriad o! strategies whi&h demonstrate
#7-
its !idelity to the same pro"e&t o! so1ereign restoration that is brought to li!e in the work o! ontologists like Deloria, 2ilko, l!red, )hur&hill and +rask' Dudy:s Guest to a1enge
himsel!, his !amily, and his &ulture. But the !ilm, in its ;argument< as regards what e3a&tly puts this pro"e&t in peril, makes an emotional, i! not intelle&tual, &laim that what needs to be a1enged is not so mu&h the 1iolen&e o! White 2ettler suprema&y, but rather the Bper&ei1edC intrusion o! Bla&k ;style.<l331iii In Skins:s oeu1re, the &inemati& imaginary o! the most li!e-threatening &onstellation o! en&roa&hments to 6ati1e meri&an
so1ereignty Be.g., language, kinship stru&ture, modes o! address, and &ultural memoryC are deployed by what is &ommonly thought o! as Bla&k urban &ulture Brap musi&, handshakes, 1estmentary &odes, diale&t, and disrespe&t !or eldersC. +he FBI, the banal !reedoms o! e1eryday White li!e Be.g., White !amily li!e in the town o! White&lay, 6ebraskaC, andHor the logi& o! poli&ing Bpatrols, sur1eillan&e, detentionC &arry neither the intelle&tual nor emotional weight?nor are they meditated on with the same intensity?as Bla&k urban ;style.< Bla&k ;style,< or Bla&k youth ;&ulture,< seems to !orm the most emotionally &harged &onstellation o! threats to 6ati1e meri&an so1ereignty. n3iety
regarding the 1iolent e!!e&ts o! Bla&kness on the ontologi&al stru&ture o! Ded so1ereignty bloom to su&h grandiose proportions that they &rowd out the !ilm:s &apa&ity to be properly an3ious about the 1iolent e!!e&ts o! latter- and present-day agents o! geno&ide? despite the fact that portions of the script, the narrati$e of conscious reflection, seem to kno& the true source of the $iolence. What are the methods o! this disa1owal and why is it so emphati&F In the ;Dire&tor:s )ommentary,< )hris 5yre des&ribes a post-s&reening P & session where a member o! the audien&e ob"e&ted to the !ilm:s use o! the word ;nigger<.
#77
5arlier in the )ommentary he e3pressed his irritation with people whom he des&ribes as &omplaining that the !ilm is not ;@).< ;I:1e always been ba!!led by the whole politi&al &orre&tness thing$.It:s ne1er about ra&e. It:s about po1erty and oppression$.+his is not a politi&ally &orre&t !ilm.< 6ow, as the word ;nigger< is being spoken on s&reen, he reiterates his irritation by re&ounting the story o! yet another displeased 1iewer. In the s&ene in Guestion, Dudy has gone to the reser1ation hospital in his &apa&ity as BI poli&e o!!i&er to take the statements o! the two teenagers whose knees he broke
with a baseball bat in his &apa&ity as 1igilante. +he boys &on!ess to the murder o! )orky Ded +ail B9ellow @ony @ettiboneC, a wholesome &he&kout &lerk who works at the reser1ation shopping mall and whom Dudy and the !ilm seem to like, in &ontradistin&tion to the attitude we are ;hailed< to assume toward his murderers. Bla&k Lodge Boy' Look, we already done &on!essed. What the hell else you wantF Dudy' I want to know who did your knees. /r. Kreen 2hoe La&es' Look, all I know is he was tall, man. )ra=y, &ra=ier Ran hell man. 8gliest, like, ugliest dude I e1er saw, man. >e had, like, mud on his !a&e LDudy had &o1ered his !a&e with shoe polish and a bla&k nylon sto&kingME like, part nigger and hosapa guy. I dunno, I ain:t ne1er seen him around the re=.< Dudy' What:s your nameF /r. Kreen 2hoe La&es' +eddy 9ellow Lodge but we:re not relatedE my !amily:s !rom o1er in )heyenne Di1er. Dudy' >mm, that:s where my !amily:s !rom.
044
/r. Kreen 2hoe La&es' 9ou want a medal or whatF +here is a &urious "u3taposition here o! Bla&k urban ;style,< the word ;nigger,< and /r. Kreen 2hoe La&es: rebu!! o! Dudy:s suggestion that they might be related. It is as though the !ilm &odes the young man demoni&ally with Bla&kness, then it suggests a &ra&k in this &ode by ha1ing one o! them use the word ;nigger< in a way that marks his e3ili& marginality to Bla&kness, then it re1erberates back to its demoni=ing strategy by ha1ing the young man show nothing in the way o! &ultural appre&iation at the prospe&t o! meeting a new relation B;9ou want a medal or whatF<C. +his seals the taint o! Bla&kness o1er our attitude toward the &hara&ter. )hris 5yre tells us' nd here we ha1e +okala and /i&hael again. +his was a really !unny s&ene, reall" funn" scene. /i&hael says, hosapa there. >osapa means bla&k. 2omebody said to me, Rtake the word nigger out:. nd LI saidM it:s a re!le&tion o! the &hara&ters. I mean this is not a politi&ally &orre&t !ilm. It:s not intended to be. nd, I was again ba!!led by Lsomeone else:sM &omment to take that word out. It o!!ended them. nd, I thought to mysel!, well, nd that:s s Dudy stands in !ront o! their hospital beds,
you know what o!!ends me is the po1erty and the oppression.
why we:re making the mo1ie?is to demonstrate, is to illustrate some o! that. 8m, so, I kind o! !eel like those issues miss the point to a &ertain degree. 51erybody:s entitled to their opinions but I kind o! am a little taken ba&k by LpeopleM not seeing the whole. BDire&tor:s )ommentaryC )hris 5yre:s two interlo&utors may ha1e been Bla&k and may ha1e truly been o!!ended by the use o! the word ;nigger.< +his is reasonable. But )hris:s 5yre:s ;right< to ha1e
041
&hara&ters in his !ilm use the word ;nigger< is also reasonable. In keeping with the intelle&tual and politi&al proto&ol o! this book, I ha1e no interest in ad"udi&ating 5yre:s being &ha!ed by the &onstraints o! politi&al &orre&tness nor the interlo&utor:s dis&om!ort with the use o! the word ;nigger'< the !ilm could be politi&ally &orre&t Bwhate1er 5yre thinks that meansC and ha1e &hara&ters using the word ;nigger< without "eopardi=ing that ;&orre&tness.< What interests me here is )hris 5yre and Dudy 9ellow Lodge:s an3iety in the !a&e o! the two young men:s relationship to Bla&kness. )hris and Dudy are anthropomorphi& pla&eholders !or the &inemati& apparatus and the diegesis, respe&ti1ely. When 5yre begins his &ommentary on the hospital s&ene in whi&h the word ;nigger< is used, by saying ;+his was a really !unny s&ene, reall" funn" scene,< knowing that in the ne3t breath he will ha1e to a&knowledge that Bla&k people do not !ind it !unny at all, he betrays an an3iety about the relationship between Bla&ks and Indians !or whi&h ;healthy disagreement< o1er the proper pla&ement o! ;nigger< only s&rat&hes the sur!a&e. I! the proper, or improper, pla&ement o! this word was all that was at stake, in other words, i! the interlo&utors: ;take it out,< or )hris:s ;this is not a politi&ally &orre&t !ilm,< &ould a&tually e3plain the dispute, that is i! they were not statements symptomati& o! a stru&tural di1ide, then 5yre:s un&ons&ious would ha1e allowed him to simply re-state the in&idents, along with his re"oinder. *r he might ha1e been able to skip it altogether and let the word ;nigger< passE &on&entrating instead on something banal like the thespian training o! 2pears and )li!!ord. Instead, he pre!a&ed his remarks by in!orming the 1iewer that what you are about to witness is ;!unny$ reall" !unny.< good "oke gets a good
laugh without any introdu&tion or a &on&lusion' ;I kind o! am a little taken ba&k by LpeopleM not seeing the whole,< as i! to say, 6 told "ou it &as a 5oke, no& here4s the 5oke,
04#
and here4s &h" nobod" laughs. Dather than &ontest the truth o! either 5yre:s or his interlo&utors: de&larations, we should ask oursel1es' why does a ;nigger< "oke need bra&ketsF +he !ilm:s displeasure with and an3iety surrounding these two young men &annot be o1eremphasi=ed. It is a displeasure and an3iety that has been building o1er the &ourse o! the !ilm long be!ore we see them in their hospital beds with their knees busted. 5arly on in the !ilm, we meet one o! them by way only o! his green phosphores&ent shoela&es whi&h are !ilmed near the body o! )orky Ded +ail. Dudy answers a &all regarding a disturban&e at an abandoned home where teenagers ha1e been known to hang out and get high. When he arri1es, he !inds the bloodied body o! the wholesome )orky, to whom we were introdu&ed when the !ilm was more light-hearted. )orky:s &hara&ter &an be seen as one o! the bits o! ad"e&ti1al &onnotation that a&&rue to Dudy and, in so doing, pro1ide a pie&e o! the ongoing representational support !or so1ereignty. Like Dudy, )orky holds down a "ob. Like Dudy, )orky is good natured and so!t-spoken. )orky:s a!!e&tion !or Dudy is Gualitati1ely similar to >erbie:s B/ogie:s son:sC a!!e&tion !or Dudy?signi!ying a !ilial stru&ture o! !eeling Bkinship and, more broadly, relationalityC, i! not respe&t !or the law and order. nd, most important !or the pro&ess o! spe&tator interpellation, Rud" likes Cork". I! Dudy:s ethi&al dilemmas are indeed the !ilm:s intended dilemmas, then who he has a!!e&tion !or and who he disdains matters immensely. +hen there are the bits o! ad"e&ti1al &onnotation that do not a&&rue to )orky Ded +ail, !ragments that &luster around /r. Kreen 2hoe La&es and Bla&k Lodge Boy' Bla&k urban diale&t, the 1estmentary &odes o! urban Bla&k youth, aggressi1e body language and
040
posturing, and rap lyri&s with hip-hop beats. Be&ause )orky was gi1en the !ilm:s seal o! appro1al in li!e, the spe&tator is &alled to mourn him in death. What emotion does the !ilm pro1ide us with !or the knee&aps o! the )orky Ded +ail:s peersF s Dudy shines his !lashlight around the perimeter o! )orky:s body, two !igures run down the stairs and through the room. +hey s&urry out the window. >e grabs one o! them. +hey s&u!!le. In the darkness, we see what Dudy sees' the green shoela&es. +he sneaker with green shoela&es ki&ks Dudy in the &hest. +he assailant tumbles out o! the window and runs a&ross the !ield !or the !orest. While in hot pursuit Dudy trips and lands, head!irst, on a ro&k Ba ro&k that, a medi&ine man will later tell him, may be Iktomi, this time not in the !orm o! a spiderC. While he is un&ons&ious, Dudy:s head begins to !ill with 1isions. +hese 1isions are sele&ted and &ombined !rom the montage o! images we witnessed as the !ilm opened and the &redits rolled' photographs o! nineteenth &entury &hie!s, the Wounded Inee o&&upation o! the 17.4s, and Leonard @eltier being e3tradited !rom )anada to the 8nited 2tates. Later in the !ilm, Dudy is eating inside the !ood &ourt o! a +e3a&o gas station on the reser1ation. >is dinner and pea&e o! mind are repeatedly disturbed by the anti&s o! /r. Kreen 2hoe La&es and Bla&k Lodge Boy who are seated se1eral tables behind him. +hey are talking loudly, like Bla&k youth as portrayed in popular &ulture, and in &omplete &ontrast to the Guiet, respe&t!ul, and pleasant tones o! )orky or Dudy:s nephew >erbie. Dudy grows in&reasingly annoyed. We are not sure whether it is the !a&t that their 1oi&es !ill the room, whether it is sound o! the rap lyri&s and the hip-hop beats emanating !rom their boom bo3, whether it is the un&anny mimi&ry o! their spee&h &aden&es, their tone,
04%
andHor their pronun&iation o! words like shit?sheet, or mother!u&ker?muthafucka, whi&h &ataly=es his ire the most. )hris 5yre:s 1oi&e o1er &ommentary during this s&ene shares Dudy:s an3iety, i! not irritation, toward these two young men. 5yre begins by introdu&ing them as a&tors? that is using their real names and not the names o! their &hara&ters' ;+his is /i&hael 2pears, LwithM the number eighty-two shirt Land green shoela&esM and his sideki&k +okala )li!!ord.< +heir musi& is so loud that none o! the patrons &an en"oy their meal, but all o! them appear too intimidated to say anything. It is my &ontention that during this s&ene 5yre:s sound person swit&hed !rom a unidire&tional mi&rophone to a multidire&tional mi&rophone. +his has the e!!e&t o! letting the hip-hop beats and rap lyri&s o! the young men:s: boom bo3 o1erpower whate1er dialogue is o&&urring between them. *ne sees them a&ting ;Bla&k< and one knows !rom their grunting 1oi&es and aggressi1e body language that they are talking ;Bla&k< but one must wat&h the s&ene se1eral times in order to as&ertain whether or not their ;Bla&k< 1oi&es and ;Bla&k< mannerisms ha1e &ulminated in anything resembling a ;Bla&k< sub"e&t matter?or any sub"e&t at all !or that matter. 8pon replaying the s&ene one &an hear that yes, in point o! !a&t, they are talking about what the popular imagination ;knows< Bla&k people talk about?whi&h is nothing at all. *ne tells the other to get up and get some &igarettes. +he other tells the other ;I ain:t getting: up to get shit.< +he other then responds ba&k to the other ;stop a&ting like a bit&h,< at whi&h point the other says ba&k to the other ;who you &allin: a bit&h, I ain:t no bit&h.< +hen the other laughs and says to the other ;ooo, did I hurt your !eelingsF< Be!ore you know it these two !riends are on their !eet engaged in a !ull-blown !ist!ight. 2omeone who wat&hes this s&ene in a theater would ha1e &omprehended none o! this. But, a!ter
04(
wat&hing the s&ene se1eral times, under the more pristine and in!initely less pleasurable &onditions o! resear&h and &lose reading, one &an only &ome to the same &on&lusion that the audio te&hni&ian &ame to as sHhe drowned this dialogue in rap lyri&s and hip-hop beats' it does not matter what Bla&k people say be&ause Bla&k people ha$e nothing to say. What does matter, howe1er, so the logi& &ontinues, is the &orrosi1e e!!e&t that this sedu&ti1e and highly styli=ed ;nothing< has on the so1ereign ;something< o! indigenism. Dap lyri&s, diale&t, and Bla&k male body language ha1e pulled these two young men into a pit o! absolute dereli&tion and &ultural abandonment. +here is a tra"e&tory, so the !ilm &um &autionary tale would ha1e it, !rom the &orrosi1e e!!e&ts o! this abandonment to the death o! )orky Ded +ail?a ;good< Indian. Bla&kness &auses 2kins to murder 2kins. Bla&kness is at the heart o! 6ati1e meri&an auto-geno&ide. +he only time when Dudy shows any genuine anger at a personi!i&ation o! White &i1il so&iety is when the resident FBI agent makes a &a1alier &omment that )orky probably hung out with the ;wrong< &rowd. Dudy is so in&ensed by the &omment that his superior, the 6ati1e meri&an &hie! o! poli&e, gi1es him a restraining look as i! to say'
remember, Dudy, this guy is the real poli&e. Dudy hisses at the FBI agent that )orky Ded +ail did not hang out with the wrong &rowd, to whi&h the agent responds, again &a1alierly, ;Well, he did on&e.< +he narrati1e has not positioned Dudy and the FBI agent to be at loggerheads around an issue more stru&turally &riti&al than the spe&ter o! Bla&k stylisti& imposition and its &orrosi1e properties with respe&t to 6ati1e meri&an youth.
For e3ample, they &ould ha1e had a ni&e little s&u!!le o1er some &omment the s&ript might ha1e had the agent make about Leonard @eltier and the FBI:s role in the Jumping Bull in&identE or they might ha1e gone to blows o1er territorial &onstraints whi&h the FBI
04,
agent:s &onstant presen&e imposes on Indian &ops who are "ust trying to do their "obsE or they &ould !ight, not o1er the stylisti& imposition o! Bla&kness, but o1er the truly deadly &ultural imposition o! White &i1il so&iety, to name but a !ew episodi& e!!e&ts o! the ;2a1age<H2ettler antagonism that are not taken up. Instead, the angst o! geno&ide and &olonialism undergoes the most bi=arre !orm o! &ondensation and displa&ement' the FBI agent makes the mistake o! &alling a ;good< Indian a ;Bla&k< Indian and suddenly another ;good< Indian is ready to !ight. +rue, the !ilm is not happy about the presen&e o! the FBI, but there is a dearth o! &inemati& animus in the !a&e o! this o&&upation when &ompared to the haunting spe&ter o! Bla&kness. 6ow, in the +e3a&o !ood ar&ade, two ;bad< Indians are !ighting o1er the things Bla&k youth presumably !ight o1er' who is a bit&h and who is not, who will buy &igarettes and who will not. Dudy turns !rom his meal in anger, rises, walks down the isle, grabs both young men and throws them apart, e!!e&ti1ely breaking up the !ight. /r. Kreen 2hoe La&es mouths o!! to Dudy and then slowly and, we are led to understand, wisely ba&ks o!! as Dudy approa&hes. We are treated to a medium shot o! Dudy as he walks towards the &amera, getting larger and &loser, the image o! his anger at ha1ing re&ogni=ed the shoela&es rising to o1erpower the beats o! the boom bo3. +hen, something mira&ulous happens' the two young men, ha1ing "ust !lown at ea&h other with mutual barbarism, start laughing and "okingE they speak to ea&h other? but, again, it is di!!i&ult to !igure out what is being said?they rise, shake hands like soul brothers, strut out into the sunlight with their boom bo3 blaring, and dri1e away. gain,
s&reening the s&ene se1eral times, one is able to dis&ern that one suggests to the other that they both go get some drugs andHor al&ohol and then go somewhere and get high. +o
04.
whi&h the other said ba&k to the other, ; hm down wid dat shitA< +hat e1ening, they sit in !ront o! a &amp!ire on the outskirts o! the re=. +hey are high, drunk, and e3hilarated. Bla&k Lodge Boy takes a swig o! al&ohol and says, ; hma let all deese !aggot-ass !ools know what:s upA 6ot to be !u&kin: around wid me an: ma money.< +his e3plains why they murdered )orky Ded +ail. Dudy is hiding behind a grassy knoll in ba&k o! them. >e &rawls ba&k to his tru&k, bla&kens his !a&e with shoe polish, pulls a nylon sto&king o1er his head and !a&e, and returns Btaking ad1antage o! their inebriated stuporC to destroy their legs with a baseball bat. ;>ere:s Dudy as he goes o1er the top and be&omes Iktomi,< 5yre tells us in the &ommentary. ;>e:s the tri&kster. But really he:s "ust a man who:s tired o!?he:s a 1igilante. >e:s taken the law into his own hands now.< +he dire&tor:s &ommentary steps in to emphasi=e what the !ilm makes abundantly &lear' our empathy is to be dire&ted toward Dudy and not /r. Kreen 2hoe La&es or Bla&k Lodge Boy. s the !ilm would ha1e it, what is pain!ul about this s&ene is not the physi&al terror o! ha1ing one:s knee&aps destroyed or the psy&hologi&al terror o! being set upon when one is into3i&ated, but Rud"4s burden of Weltschmer1, his melanchol" o$er the fragile state of indigenous so$ereignt". +wo things are at play here, two symptomati& gestures whi&h suture spe&tator identi!i&ation with Dudy and not with the two young men. *ne is the legitimation o! Dudy by &ollapsing the i&onography o! so1ereignty onto him, both diegeti&ally, and, as we ha1e dis&ussed, e3tra-diegeti&ally, 5yre:s )ommentary whi&h gi1es him ;tri&kster,< that is, spiritual status Bhowe1er troubled and &on!li&ted that status might be--!or it must be remembered that hegemony is at its strongest when it has the power to ask the Guestions, not when it imposes the answersC. 2e&ondly, the two young
04-
men, prior to their ;e3e&ution,< were su!!i&iently ;tarred< with the always already o! &riminality, Bla&kness. 5arlier in the seGuen&e, as they strutted out o! the +e3a&o station, )hris 5yre:s 1oi&e-o1er grows in&reasingly emphati&. ;+hey both speak Lakota,< he tells us, ;both 1ery knowledgeable.< We must be made aware that Bla&kness has subsumed the &hara&ters not the a&tors. ;Deal good young men,< he &ontinues, ;they know their histories and know their &ulture and their past.< We know !rom +aiaiake l!red,
>aunani-Iay +rask, Leslie 2ilko, and others that the tou&hstones o! &ohesion whi&h underwrite the idea o! pri1ate property and the system o! &apitalism are deadly poisons to the prin&iples that underwrite indigenous 1alues o! land stewardship, o! gi1ing one:s most pre&ious belongings away to others, o! use-1alue in &ontradistin&tion to surplus 1alue. nd yet, when )orky Ded +ail appears on s&reen as a &he&kout &lerk behind a &ash register in a huge department store, 5yre is surprisingly !ree o! an3iety. >e is not &ompelled to reassure us that 9ellow @ony @ettibone Bthe a&tor who plays )orkyC is not, in real li!e, in danger o! be&oming a &apitalist s&umbag, despite the !a&t that the &hara&ter @ettibone plays handles money, assumes the posture and body language o! a good employee, and e1en speaks like a retail a!i&ionado, "oking with the &ustomers that they might !ind shopping a pleasant e3perien&e and thereby return to the s&ene o! what /ar3 and 2ilko, Deloria, +rask, and )hur&hill all &all a ;&rime<?the s&ene o! pro!it e3tra&tion. 5yre &hooses not to assuage our !ears by saying something like' off screen, 9ellow @ony @ettibone is a ;real good young< man who speaks Lakota, is ;1ery knowledgeable< and knows his history, his &ulture, and his past. 6or does Dudy:s tZte-S-tZte with the FBI agent suggest that, on screen, )orky Ded +ail is a s&andalous e3ample o! 6ati1e youth
047
straying !rom the 1alues o! indigenous so1ereignty. )orky Ded +ail, Dudy in!orms the FBI agent, ;was a good kidA<
In the stru&ture o! antagonisms, ontology &omes with its ledger' on one side, li!e, on the other side, death. But the ;2a1age< e3ists liminally on this ledger. 8nlike 2ilko and Deloria, who meditate on the ledger analyti&ally, )hris 5yre and Dudy 9ellow Lodge:s understanding o! it is aestheti& and intuiti1e, respe&ti1ely. *n one side o! the ledger, there are the ta3onomies o! history and &ulture?time and spa&e &apa&ity. *n the other side o! the ledger, there is Bla&kness?time and spa&e in&apa&ity. 2o dera&inated are the time and spa&e &apa&ities o! Bla&kness that Bla&k ;style< Bthe per!orman&es or masks pro"e&ted onto deathC need not be represented as &oherent. In Skins, the audio and 1isual strategies o! the !ilm gi1e a wink and a nod to the spe&tator, as i! to say' We all kno& ho& Blacks are, talking loud and sa"ing nothing 7so there is no need for a unidirectional microphone8D one minute sober, the ne)t minute high, no& happ", no& sad, one minute friends, the ne)t minute enemies, like animals &ith no relations 7so there is no needed for narration8. gain, it is important to understand that two Indians who are, o!!-s&reen, well 1ersed in their &ulture and history ha1e agreed to wear the world:s most &orrosi1e 1estments so that they might &ollaborate with the &inemati& apparatus o! ;2a1age< &inema in telling this &autionary tale. We know !rom the work o! ;2a1age< ontologists that, sin&e @redator &ame, the !oundation o! ;2a1age< so1ereignty has been !ragile. But how does so1ereignty:s rhetori&al stru&ture authori=e an aestheti& through whi&h ;2a1age< &inema &an dream the spe&ter o! Bla&k ;style< as being more deadly than
014
&apital and the poli&eF +his Guestion has two &omponents, one is histori&al and the other is philosophi&al.
In her analysis o! 17th &entury tourist guide books !or 1isitors to the 82 )apitol, 2usan 2&he&kel shows how the imaginati1e labor per!ormed by the re&urring ;insisten&e o! the Indian< !orti!ied and e3tended the interlo&utory li!e o! the 8nited 2tates and &ast ;Rthe &iti=en: as audien&e and a&tor in an ongoing national drama< B1#7C' +he history o! &onta&t between 5uro- meri&ans and Indians is a dominant theme o! the )apitol:s &ommemorati1e artwork. +he appeal o! this sub"e&t$ Lis thatM it allows a young nation to lo&ate its origins in a Brelati1elyC distant past. Benedi&t nderson:s argument that the idea o! the nation is imagined to be rooted in time immemorial and to e3tend into the immeasurable !uture is parti&ularly apt in &onne&tion with the )apitol, where the past and !uture meet to &reate its meaning as symbol and nation B1#7C. +his arti&ulation o! imaginati1e labor Ba drama o! 1alue in whi&h two nations meet and make war' one winning, the other losingE one emerging on the world stage, the other 1anishing e3&ept as ghostsC is rendered through a network o! &onne&tions, trans!ers, and displa&ements between ;2a1age< and 2ettler anthropologi&al tou&hstones o! &ohesion. +he guide books make the ;2a1age<H2ettler struggle legible to the 17 th &entury tourist by presenting that struggle as a &on!li&t between &ompeting &ultural and politi&al systems, but not as a matter o! geno&ide.
011 by demonstrating how
2&he&kel
illustrates
this
semioti&
&oheren&e
anthropologi&al tou&hstones o! &ohesion !ind their &orresponden&es in the arti&ulation o! words and &on&epts like council house 1s. the Capitol, council of elders 1s. #ational 'egislature, and 6ndian nation 1s. American nation' Jonathan 5lliot:s 1-04 guidebook begins by linking the rise o! the 8nited 2tates with the history o! Indian de&line. s 5lliot in!orms the reader, the
)apitol is built upon the same land ;where &oun&ils were held among 1arious tribes.< >e goes on to dire&t the reader:s response to this !a&t' ;+he &oin&iden&e o! the lo&ation o! the 6ational Legislature, so near the s&ite Lsi&M o! the &oun&il house o! an Indian 6ation, &annot !ail to e3&ite interesting re!le&tions in the mind o! an intelligent reader.< +hus, 5lliot presents a 1ision o! one nation superseding another, with Indians &onseGuently remo1ed !rom the land where the )apitol now 1isibly stands and !rom history e3&ept inso!ar as they !orm the !oundation o! the rising meri&an nation. B1#7-04C Dandall Dobinson:s !he 3ebt: What America E&es to Blacks begins by attempting to !ind similar arti&ulations between /aster and 2la1e within the same &ultural ob"e&ts that hold 2usan 2&he&kel:s attention, the )apitol, its guidebooks, and its artwork. But unlike the ;2a1age,< whose !igure proli!erates in these ob"e&ts, the 2la1e is strikingly absent ;in the !res&oes, the !rie=es, the oil paintings, the &omposite art< B0C, though sHhe is as materiall" !oundational to the )apitol:s e3isten&e as the ;2a1age.< In the !irst stage o! the )apitol:s &onstru&tion B1.70 to 1-4#C, the go1ernment paid the o&ners o! one hundred sla1es !i1e dollars per month. Dobinson tells us that sla1es also
01#
did mu&h o! the work ;in implementing @ierre-)harles L:5n!ant:s grand design !or the whole o! the Distri&t o! )olumbia< BIbidC. For e3ample, they &leared ;a broad swath o! !orest between the sites< o! what would be&ome the )apitol building and the White >ouse. +he 1isitor guidebooks upon whi&h Dobinson re!le&ts are o! the late #4 th &entury B!he 0reatest Solemn 3ignit" and Uncle Sam4s Architect: Builders of the CapitolC. In other words, unlike Jonathan 5lliot:s guidebook, these guidebooks are post-)i1il War, post-Jubilee, post-De&onstru&tion, post-)i1il Dights, post-the period o! three hundred plus Bla&k riots per year in the 17,4s, and e1en post-Bla&k @ower. +hese books are written with the bene!it o! one hundred years o! Bla&k histori&al uprising and intelle&tual re!le&tion on that uprising?whereas 5lliot:s 1-04 guidebook only had the >aitian De1olution, >arriet +ubman, and 6at +urner:s rebellion to re!le&t upon. 9et ;neither book mentioned anything about the use o! sla1e labor< B0C. Dis&ouraged by the absen&e o! the !igure o! the 2la1e in the )apitol:s !res&oes, the !rie=es, the oil paintings, the &omposite art, and written literature, Dobinson sear&hes !or the arti&ulation o! the 2la1e in the oral ;literature< o! a present-day 2ettlerH/aster' a telephone inter1iew he &ondu&ts with William o!!i&e. llen tells him that during the )i1il War$ $sla1es dislo&ated in the turmoil gra1itated to 8nion soldiers, who o!ten brought them to Washington to be put to work on Lthe third phase o! the )apitol:s &onstru&tion?the se&ond phase ha1ing o&&urred a!ter Britain burned it to the ground in 1-1#M. William llen &alled them ;spoils o! llen o! the r&hite&t o! the )apitol
war< and ;&ontraband sla1es.< When I asked him about the term
010
;&ontraband sla1es,< he grew Guiet as i! Guestioning !or the !irst time the purpose o! my general inGuiry about the use o! bla&k sla1e labor. B%-(C t the site where 2&he&kel unearths an plethora o! arti&ulations predi&ated on 1iolen&e? the &onGuest and geno&ide o! Indians?Dobinson !inds a 1oid o! arti&ulations also predi&ated on 1iolen&e' though not the 1iolen&e o! &onGuest and geno&ide, but rather the 1iolen&e o! a&&umulation and !ungibility. +here is a similarity between the pla&e Bla&kness o&&upies in the pri1ate and Guotidian imaginary o! the )apitol ar&hite&t William llen and the pla&e it o&&upies in
the imaginary o! )hris 5yre:s Skins. For both the ar&hite&t and the !ilm, Bla&kness is ;a 1i&arious, dis!iguring, "oy!ul pleasure, passionately enabling as well as substituti1ely dead< B/arriott 17C. +hough the un&ons&ious o! both llen and Skins e3perien&e the
ob"e&t status?the !ungibility?o! Bla&kness, they e3perien&e it di!!erently. For llen, the 1i&ariousness is emphasi=edE !or Skins, it is the "oy!ulness o! the pleasure?hip-hop esprit de corps?whi&h ultimately dis!igures Bthe death o! )orky Ded +ailC. But !or both the !ilm and the ar&hite&t, it is Bla&kness that !a&ilitates the &apa&ity to &ontemplate egoi& monumentali=ation. Dandall Dobinson, hyper-aware o! and hypersensiti1e to his own ob"e&t status, his own !ungibility, is disturbed not by the truth o! his own dead onti&s Bhis book is testament to o1er si3ty years o! li1ing with, and su!!ering through, non-beingC, but by the !a&t that it does not disturb llen the )apitol ar&hite&t. llen, !or his part, is
disturbed by Dobinson:s disturban&e. But the rea&tion o! Skins to the ;2a1age< knowledge o! Bla&k !ungibility is o! a di!!erent order than llen:s. Skins is not disturbed by the prospe&t o! Bla&k rage Bor, in this &ase, Dandall Dobinson:s subdued annoyan&eC, but by the horri!ying possibility that Bla&k !ungibility
01%
might somehow rub o!! o! the 2la1e and sti&k to the ;2a1age.< +he philosophi&al an3iety o! Skins is all too aware that, through the /iddle @assage, !ri&an &ulture be&ame Bla&k
;style,< and is both a !orm o! ;&ontraband< as well as one o! &i1il so&iety:s many ;spoils o! war.< +he ob"e&t status o! Bla&kness means that it &an be pla&ed and displa&ed with limitless !reGuen&y and a&ross untold territories, by whoe1er so &hooses and, most importantly, there is nothing real Bla&k people &an do to either &he&k or dire&t this pro&ess. Both "a== and hip-hop ha1e be&ome known in the same way that Bla&k bodies are known' as !or&es ;liberated< !rom time and spa&e, belonging nowhere and to no one, simply there !or the taking. nyone &an say ;nigger< be&ause anyone &an be a
;nigger.<l33i3 What a nightmare indeed, reads the &aution o! Skins, should the !ragile &oheren&e o! indigenous so1ereignty !all prey to su&h hopeless and totali=ing dera&ination. ;2imple enough one has only not to be a nigger< BBlack Skin, White (asks 11(C Whereas the knowledge o! Bla&k !ungibility !olds easily into llen:s
B2ettlerH/asterC re!le&tions, the same knowledge o! the ob"e&t status o! Bla&ks threatens to pull the ;2a1age< perilously &lose to hisHher own ob"e&t status, that is, to the geno&ide modality o! hisHher ontology. But rather than surrender to this en&ounter with the ob"e&t status o! Bla&kness and !orm a ontologi&al legion o! the dead, a rather &urious &ondensation and displa&ement o&&urs. *ne pattern o! this &ondensation and displa&ement is to be !ound in the way ;2a1age< ontologi&al meditations are o!ten built around the relationship between ;2a1age< and 2ettler anthropologi&al similarities and di!!eren&es'
01( mish land o&&upation
1. Nine Deloria:s sear&h !or &ommon ground between
prin&iples and 6ati1e meri&an land stewardship prin&iples. #. Leslie 2ilko:s aestheti& meditation on the philosophi&al &on1ergen&es and di1ergen&es between 6ati1e redistribution.l333 0. Nine Deloria:s &elebration o! the &entrality o! language and kinship stru&ture !or both indigenous people and Jews. %. Deloria:s belie! in an essential bond between indigenous spiritual healing and Jungian psy&hoanalysis. +he histori&al ante&edents !or ;2a1age< ontology:s pri1ileging o! this parti&ular pattern o! &ondensation and displa&ement Bwhat I am suggesting is, in part at least, a metonymi& "ourney in !light !rom the harsh onti&s o! geno&ideC are mirrored in the 2ettler:s meditations on hisHher own so&ial and philosophi&al reality. 2usan 2&he&kel demonstrates this in her illustration o! &iti=enship:s i&onographi& dependen&y on the !igure o! the Indian, and Deloria !inds analyti& dependen&y on indigenous &osmologi&al prin&iples within Jungian psy&hoanalysis. /y point, on&e again, is that when !a&ed with the sub"e&ti1e 1oid o! Bla&k !ungibility, the 2ettlerH/aster, in both o! hisHher ontologi&al modalities Be3ploitation and alienationC, and the ;2a1age,< in hisHher 2o1eriegn modality, are &on!ronted with something that appears to be a &ultural Bi.e., histori&al and anthropologi&alC being, but is in !a&t a pure distillation o! the politi&al. nd their analyti& meri&an and /ar3ist prin&iples o! "usti&e and
apparati, their respe&ti1e onti&s, are sho&ked by su&h an unmediated en&ounter, reGuiring their rhetori&al gestures to either disa1ow the en&ounter or displa&e its parti&ulars onto an ensemble o! &ultural &onsiderations. 53amples o! this in&lude Deloria and 2ilko:s mo1es,
01,
as noted abo1e, and )hris 5yre:s emphati& prognosis on the &ultural health o! /i&hael 2pears and +okala )li!!ord. +he se&ond pattern o! this &ondensation and displa&ement also takes the !orm o! a hysteri&al symptom?spee&h that speaks away !rom the trauma at hand. But here, unlike the radi&al displa&ement onto so1ereignty, the hysteri&al spee&h is in !a&t imbri&ated in Bla&kness. It is imbri&ated in Bla&kness, howe1er, in su&h a way as to speak e3tensi1ely about 2la1es and about ;2a1ages< but as this spee&h grows in si=e, s&ope, and duration, the te3t loses more and more o! its e3planatory power regarding both the onti&s o! the 2la1e and the stru&tural relation between the ;2a1age< and the 2la1e. Leslie 2ilko:s Almanac of the 3ead and Nine Deloria:s 0od is Red are both e3amples o! this progressi1e thinning o! e3planatory power. )hris 5yre, !or e3ample, tells us that he is ba!!led by the politi&ally &orre&t reGuest to ;take the word nigger out.< In lieu o! working o!! both the demand and his own ba!!lement, he goes on to suggest that the real issue is ;po1erty and oppression<?as though the genealogy o! the word ;nigger< is somehow tangential to po1erty and oppression. Leslie 2ilko takes )hris 5yre:s hysteri&al symptom and de1elops it narrati1ely. For 2ilko, the !ungible status o! Bla&ks?the Bla&k body as a pure distillation o! the politi&al?presents her with a ;&ultural< s&andal too blinding to be looked dire&tly, mu&h less embra&ed on its own terms. >er more meditati1e response Bmore meditati1e be&ause it un!olds o1er se1en hundred si3ty one pages o! prose rather than ninety minutes o! &elluloidC is similar to 5yre:s Skins. Like the dire&tor and his !ilm, 2ilko displa&es the potential !or a good !aith en&ounter between the ob"e&t status o! the ;2a1age< and the ob"e&t status o! the 2la1e onto a series o! philosophi&al de&larations whi&h subordinate
01.
ra&e to &lass. It must be emphasi=ed that her no1el, mu&h like 5yre:s !ilm and his dire&tor:s &ommentary, !eels the need to make this mo1e strongly and with passionE and !urthermore, this &ompulsion only rears its head when the te3t stages an en&ounter in whi&h the Bla&k is an interlo&utor. +he same &ompulsion is not mani!est when the no1el stages ;2a1age<-to-;2a1age< en&ounters, or ;2a1age<-to-2ettler en&ounters. When ngelita, the indigenous &olonel in the rmy o! Justi&e and Dedistribution, struggles to e3plain to )omrade Bartolomeo, a White /ar3ist, why ;Indians &ouldn:t &are less about international /ar3ismE all they wanted was to retake their land !rom the white man,< or when 2terling reminis&es on his li!elong banishment !rom Laguna @ueblo by the elders Ban intra-;2a1age< &on!li&tC, 2ilko is not &ompelled to dis&ipline the dream world o! the !i&tion by reminding us that it is not about ra&e but rather about po1erty and oppression. )uriously enough, these en&ounters e1in&e what &an only be des&ribed as a philosophi&al about-!a&e' ngelita is deployed by 2ilko against /ar3ism:s ethi&al
dilemmas that writer and &hara&ter might demonstrate how puny and inadeGuate the Guestion o! &lass is to indigenous dilemmas o! land restoration. nd while 2terling is sent into the !i&tional world by 2ilko !or a 1ariety o! &omple3 reasons &entral to the so1ereign dilemma o! &ultural restoration, one thing is &ertain' he is not deployed a&ross se1en hundred pages to &on1in&e the reader that it is all about &lass. Why then, must the Bla&k be brought to heelF Almanac of the 3ead is not &ontent to simply ignore that modality o! the ;2a1age< whi&h is most analogous to the 2la1eE nor is it &ontent to merely displa&e the dilemma o! the ob"e&t status o! the 2la1e onto the ethi&al dilemma o! &lass. In addition to these two strategies o! erasure, 2ilko is determined to make the Black o$er in the image o! indigenism. +his is a gratuitous gesture that e1en Skins does not attempt.
01-
+he main &hara&ters in Almanac of the 3ead !un&tion as pla&eholders !or the 1arious ethi&al dilemmas imposed upon the so&ius by the stru&ture o! modernity:s &on!li&ts and antagonisms elaborated by )onta&t. +his &ould be said o! Skins as well, as I ha1e made a &ase !or /ogie as the embodied ethi&s o! geno&ide and Dudy as the embodied ethi&s o! so1ereignty. +he di!!eren&e between Skins and Almanac of the 3ead is that 5yre:s &inemati& &on1ersation between &ompeting and &on1erging ethi&al dilemmas is staged in&identally and in!reGuently, whereas 2ilko:s is staged deliberately and e3tensi1ely. s a philosophi&al tome, Almanac of the 3ead:s pla&e in the ar&hi1e o! ;2a1age< ontologi&al meditations has been se&ured both genealogi&ally and paradigmati&ally. 6ati1e s&holars and a&ti1ists &on&ur that 2ilko:s work is authori=ed genealogi&ally ;in that it draws hea1ily on Laguna @ueblo myth and lore and thus has signi!i&an&e separate !rom Western tradition< B2&hweninger (#C. >er aestheti& and philosophi&al rearti&ulation o! Laguna @ueblo tradition is what authori=es her work at the mi&ro- or tribal-le1el. +he genealogi&al authori=ation o! her work at the ma&ro-le1el o! the Indian writ-large stems !rom its !idelity to Deloria:s ensemble o! Guestions' ;Deloria:s works o! the late 17,4s and on into the 17.4s are part o! the support system, the established pre&onditions o! 2ilko:s aestheti& rendering o! indigenous 1alues in Almanac of the 3ead< B+eale 1,(C. Almanac of the 3ead:s pla&e in the ar&hi1e o! ;2a1age< ontologi&al meditations has been se&ured paradigmati&ally in that her work is relentless in its stri1ing !or an antagonisti& stan&e toward both the material reality o! 6orth meri&a, as well as toward
the ideas, the ethi&al dilemmas o! Western &i1il so&iety, e.g. /ar3ism and &apitalism. +hrough e3tended politi&al dialogues between &hara&ters, long histori&al and
017
philosophi&al third person digressions, and !ree-!loating internal monologues, Almanac of the 3ead presents its un&ompromising thesis that se3ual, en1ironmental, and politi&al relations in 6orth meri&a are either poisonous or dead. +he no1el gathers steam o1er
se1en hundred pages, preparing and arming the IndiansE its lone Bla&k, )lintonE and its smattering o! pro1isionally redeemable Whites to "oin ranks with the indigenous rmy o! Justi&e and Dedistribution that will mar&h !rom )hiapas to +u&son and, e1entually, a&ross all o! 6orth meri&a. 2terling and ngelita ad1an&e a&ross the no1el bearing their grammar o! su!!ering and that grammar o! su!!ering:s in&ompatibility with the 2ettler:s grammar o! su!!ering. 2terling is banished !rom his reser1ation be&ause he !a&ilitated the a&&ess o! a >ollywood !ilm &rew to a sa&red site, though the 1ery same elders who banished him also ;allowed< 8nited 2tates &orporate mining interests onto the reser1ation to mine uranium and, &onseGuently, &ontaminate the minds and bodies o! the inhabitants. +he people and pla&es 2terling meets during his wandering e3ile, as well as his internal monologues, &ataly=ed by his reminis&en&es, gi1e 2ilko the opportunity !or e3tensi1e re!le&tion regarding the spiritual impa&t o! Laguna @ueblo myth and lore on a &oloni=ed peopleE and on the intraindigenous tensions that arise when &ra&ks and !issures o&&ur in the &redibility o! those &harged with sa!ekeeping these traditions and those &harged with &ontinuing them. ngelita:s struggle !or her own &redibility within the rmy o! Justi&e and Dedistribution
and among the indigenous peoples o! southern /e3i&o pro1ides 2ilko with the opportunity to &ritiGue /ar3ism through an indigenous lens and thereby show how its se&ular e3&esses Be.g. industriali=ationC are isomorphi& with the religious e3&esses o! )hristianity. 2ilko:s argument?by way o! ngelita:s struggles with Bartolomeo and her
0#4
dialogues with her people and the elders?is that, at a &ertain le1el o! abstra&tion, both the eman&ipatory logi& o! /ar3ism and the &onser1ati1e logi& o! )hristianity are unethi&al when &on!ronted with the eman&ipatory logi& o! indigenism be&ause they are built upon the suprema&y o! a monolithi& entity' either the >uman being B/ar3ismC or the one Kod B)hristianityC. +he kind o! hea1y li!ting whi&h 2ilko reGuires o! &hara&ters like ngelita and
2terling Bwho &arry the ethi&al dilemmas o! ;2a1age< ontologyC and &hara&ters like Bartolomeo, Dambo Doy, and 2eese Bwho &arry the ethi&al dilemmas o! 2ettler ontologyC is rare in meri&an !i&tion. But 2ilko is determined to narrati1i=e the stru&ture o!
antagonisms, rather than simply tell the story o! &on!li&ts. +he !or&e and sel!-&ons&ious intentionality o! her pro"e&ts, there!ore, makes her dubious rendering o! her main Bla&k &hara&ter e1en more &urious and problemati& than )hris 5yre:s super!i&ial rendering o! a more 1i&arious Bla&kness. When she deploys )linton, the struggle is no longer philosophi&al, &on&rete, or politi&al with respe&t to his Bla&kness. Instead, his struggle is impressionisti&, metaphori&, and 1ague. 8ltimately, 2ilko re&reates him as someone on the road to spiritual and &ultural redemption, through the rubric of so$ereignt". )linton, the Bla&k, is the only main &hara&ter who does not &ome to this ambitious no1el with his own philosophi&al endowments, his own treasure &hest o! intelle&tual &apital. >e is an intelle&tual magpie' he !eeds o!! o! the traditions o! othersE more pre&isely, through repeated gestures o! noblesse oblige, 2ilko allows the 6ati1e meri&ans and one o! the
Whites?those who are philosophi&ally endowed?to spoon-!eed )linton. Like the !ragments o! ;Bla&kness< whi&h make their way into Skins, )linton pro1ides Almanac of
0#1
the 3ead with a 1i&arious pleasure, passionately enabling, though )linton himsel! is substituti1ely dead' )linton was the Bla&k 1eteran with one !oot, but he wore the best, the top o! the line, the best kind o! prostheti& !oot you &ould buy. )linton had to wear his !ull Kreen Beret uni!orm e1ery day$.)linton:s shrine held the kni!e, or the blade o! a kni!e and what remained o! a handle, a skeletal pie&e o! metal. )linton had kept the blade ra=or-sharpE he had &arried the kni!e in &ombat be&ause it hat ne1er !ailed him in the dangerous alleys and streets at home. )linton:s people?women and men alike?all &arried kni1es. B%4%E %1#-10C )linton &omes to us as a body in bits and pie&es. @sy&hoanalysis tea&hes us that, in the un&ons&ious, !ear o! the e3perien&ing one:s body in bits and pie&es Bthe traumas that impinge upon the psy&he as a soldier enters battle and !or long periods o! time a!ter sHhe has le!t the warC, has e1en more o! a de&onstru&ti1e impa&t on the ego and its &apa&ity to monumentali=e the personal pronoun ;I< than the !ear o! death itsel!. For 2ilko and 5yre a Bla&k body in bits and pie&es B)lintonC and disembodied bits and pie&es o! ;Bla&kness< Brap, diale&t, et&.C produ&e a &ommon sense o! impending doom !or their ontologi&al 1ision and aestheti&s' the !ragmentation o! their so1ereign presen&e. And the" ha$e no other &a" to reflect on Blackness, due to their procli$it" for culture o$er death. Bla&k amputee ad1an&es a&ross the no1el bearing what 2ilko imagines to be his people:s grammar o! su!!ering. But there are se1eral problems here. +o begin with, )linton seems to ha1e no relation to his people. We hardly e1er meet them. 8nlike with ngelita and her people and elders in )hiapas or 2terling and the elders o! Laguna
0##
@ueblo, we are not pri1y to any substanti1e Bs&ene-generatedC intera&tion between )linton:s Bla&k body in bits and pie&es and a &olle&ti1e body o! Bla&ks. 2ilko, as third person narrator, tells us what we need to know about them' ;)linton:s people?women and men alike?all &arried kni1es< B%10C. +his is one o! many instan&es in whi&h we !ind 2ilko:s ontologi&al imaginary to be in &on!li&t with her ontologi&al pre&ons&ious. >er pre&ons&ious logi& ;understands< that )linton:s politi&ally, &ulturally, and physi&ally amputated &ondition is predi&ated on the /iddle @assage and sla1ery B%11-%1(, %#.-%#-, and .%,C. But her un&ons&ious imaginary repeatedly re1eals itsel! to be more !ear!ul o! Bla&ks B;)lintons people all &arried kni1es<C than o! the Destroyers B5uropeansC. +he &ondensation and displa&ement that o&&urs here imposes upon the imaginary a sense that the amputated &ondition o! Bla&k li!e is in !a&t produ&ed by Bla&k people, regardless o! what we know, intelle&tually, about sla1ery. Furthermore, not only does Bla&kness deterritoriali=e its own, but it also looms large as that bundle o! barbari& energies that &an deterritoriali=e the entire so&ius. ;)linton had to get ba&k to the big &ities. >e had to try to rea&h the bla&k war 1ets be!ore they got misled by !anati&s or e3tremists s&reaming RBla&k onlyA !ri&a onlyA: be&ause )linton had reali=ed the truth' millions o! bla&k
Indians were s&attered throughout the meri&as< B.%#C. +he last &lause o! the pre&eding Guotation is important, be&ause it is symptomati& o! both 2ilko and 5yre:s inability to BaC meditate on Bla&kness:s grammar o! su!!ering and BbC meditate on how the ethi&al dilemmas o! that grammar o! su!!ering are in&ompatible with the world:s grammar?despite the !a&t that 2ilko, at least, demonstrates how the 1iolen&e o! Bla&k sla1ery and the 1iolen&e o! Ded geno&ide are both !oundational to the produ&tion o! the Western >emisphere. +he last &lause o! the
0#0
Guotation abo1e is symptomati& o! these two !ailings and reminds us o! a narrati1e strategy used in &on"un&tion with the &hara&teri=ation o! )linton' the no1el:s &onstant third person tutoring o! )linton, its admonishing o! him to learn, respe&t, and prote&t indigenism !rom the s&ourge o! Bla&kness B%1%-%#0, .%1-.%,C. +he oeu1re o! Almanac &annot, howe1er, imagine that Blackness should be studied, respe&ted, and prote&ted by or !rom the ra1ages o! an"thing, mu&h less indigenism. re!usal to be authori=ed by the
2la1e is an e!!e&t o! the 6egrophobia that the ;2a1age< shares with the 2ettlerH/aster. 2ilko:s Almanac of the 3ead, unlike 5yre:s Skins, appro1es o! mass politi&al 1iolen&e Be.g. ngelita:s rmy o! Justi&e and Dedistribution, and the armies o! homeless
people in +u&sonC, rather than the 1iolen&e o! the poli&e. For this, she is to be &ommended. >owe1er, mu&h like 5yre:s Skins and mu&h like the politi&al, so&ial, and aestheti& imaginary o! nearly e1ery other dis&ursi1e gesture in the 8nited 2tates, 2ilko is sho&ked by the spe&ter o! mass Bla&k 1iolen&e. +his is be&ause Bla&k 1iolen&e is the 1iolen&e o! a people !or whom loss &annot be named. Like /ogie 9ellow Lodge:s embodied geno&ide, the Bla&k &annot name the loss but sHhe knows where the loss is lo&ated' in the hide o! whoe1er is ali1eE in the body o! the sub"e&t. But, as witnessed abo1e, /ogie 9ellow Lodge:s 1iolent gesture was handily &onstrained by the ethi&s o! his own so1ereign ontologi&al status. +he editing, lighting, and &amera work to in&ar&erate /ogie within Dudy:s !ield o! 1ision at the moment he makes his un!lin&hing demand and thus rearti&ulate his demand as "oke or an embarrassment. Bla&k 1iolen&e, as either gesture, demand, mobili=ation, or simply desire, &annot be &onstrained by any ethi&s internal to Bla&kness' there is no BinternalC sub"e&ti1e status through whi&h any >umanist ethi& &an make an appeal. Bla&k 1iolen&e, then, threatens not simply to take
0#%
land away !rom the &apitalists or to take the 1ision o! land redistribution away !rom the /ar3istsE it threatens to take li!e away !rom e1eryone. s philosophi&ally un!lin&hing as
Leslie 2ilko &laims to be, she is ultimately !ar too &oalition-minded and !ar too sel!preser1ation-minded to re!le&t un!lin&hingly upon the ethi&s o! Bla&kness, mu&h less the 1iolent mani!estation o! those ethi&s. )hris 5yre is only a !ilmmaker, a storyteller who sometimes lu&ks upon philosophyE but 2ilko is a philosopher who is able to tell stories. +here!ore, unlike 5yre, she &annot a!!ord to dismiss the ;nigger< "oke Bwhi&h we &an now see is no "oke at all, but the world:s most 1e3ing dilemmaC with su&h !limsy bra&kets as ;people like that miss the point$Land are not seeingM the whole,< be&ause she has &harged hersel! with e3plaining stru&tural relations. 6or &an she dismiss a ;nigger< "oke with ;this is !unny, reall" !unny,< be&ause humor is not an enduring proto&ol o! her tome. 5yre and Skins attempt to bra&ket the ;nigger< "oke that the 1iewer might !eel sa!e enough to laugh. For 2ilko, the bra&kets need to be&ome stone walls' she must dire&tly ;engage ;Bla&kness, in order to !irst trans!orm it, then to redeem it, and, !inally, to render it stru&turally ad"usted' L*Mne whole bran&h Lo! )linton:s !amilyM in +ennessee had been married to Indians, ; meri&an Indian.< ;6ati1e meri&ans.< nd not "ust any kind o! Indian either. )linton had not got o1er the sho&k and wonder o! it. >e and the rest o! his !amily had been dire&t des&endants o! wealthy, sla1eowning )herokee Indians$. +he bran&h o! the !amily that was Indian always bragged they were the first bla&k Indians. B%1%-%1-C 8nable, or unwilling, to embra&e Bla&kness as an embodied distillation o! pure politi&al !or&e, 2ilko dresses )linton up like an Indian. 2he ad"usts him, stru&turally, so that she
0#(
might in&orporate Bla&kness in a way that )hris 5yre:s high-handedness had no interest in doing. 6eedless to say, we are meant to !eel grate!ul !or this gesture. +he largess o! her prose would indi&ate that we are to &onsider this gesture an a&t o! redemption bestowed on )linton:s Bla&k 1oid. 2ilko &an now pass )linton:s politi&al a&tions o!! as some sort o! Bla&k politi&al agen&y elaborated by Bla&k ethi&al dilemmas. We are !a&ed, howe1er, with not simply the menda&ity through whi&h 2ilko has !irst erased and then re-written the !igure o! Bla&kness, but with the !a&t that her rather &ommon and typi&al an3iety regarding the !igure o! Bla&kness has short-&ir&uited her ability to meditate on the mass o! Bla&kness. >ere she does, in !a&t, be&ome as &a1alier as 5yre. 2ilko has only the time and the energy to redeem one Bla&k. +hat Bla&k must then go out and redeem the rest? alas, e1en an ontologist &annot do it all. But ;)linton wasn:t going to waste time with the whiners and &omplainers who had made wine or dope their religion, or the Jesus "unkies, who had made religion their drug< B.%#C. In other words, like the no1el, )linton was not going to ;waste< time with ordinary Bla&k peopleE e1en though ngelita ;wastes< pages
upon pages with ordinary IndiansE and Dambo Doy and the third-person narrati1e o! the no1el ;waste< a tremendous amount o! time and ink on ordinary White people. +he >opi had gi1en )linton a book that the >opi said might shine some more light on the bla&k Indians$. )linton knew ra&ism had made people a!raid to talk about their 6ati1e meri&an an&estors but the bla&k Indians would know in their hearts who they were when they heard )linton talk about the spirits$. )linton had promised the Bare!oot >opi he would spread the word among the brothers and sisters in the &ities. B.%#-.%.C
0#,
)linton is the spanner in the works o! Leslie 2ilko:s analyti& apparatus. >er &an1as is presented with the enormity o! Bla&k loss, &oupled with the impossibility o! putting that loss into words. Dather than write about the terror B!ear without reason or originC that Bla&kness both e3perien&es in the world and promises to return to the world, her prose style and &on&eptual &apa&ity abandon the poeti& erudition with whi&h it deployed the likes o! ngelita and slips into solipsisti& euphemism. In this way, she makes )linton ngelita:s rmy o! Justi&e and Dedistribution and a&&omplishes, as an
ready to "oin
ontologist, what )hris 5yre &ould not a&&omplish as an artist. 2he makes the Bla&k sa!e !or so1ereignty and res&ues so1ereignty !rom the Bla&k.
0#.
Part IV: !onster"s Ball
0#-
Chapter Ten A Crisis in the Commons
!he commons is the incarnation, the production, and the liberation of the multitude. ntonio 6egri and /i&hael >ardt, mpire
Can there be a ,communit"- of niggers, as opposed to a ,bunch- or a ,collection-> Ronald ;ud", ,En the Kuestion of #igga Authenticit"D
.xiled from the "rama of Value /y thesis with respe&t to the stru&ture o! 8.2. antagonisms posits 1iolen&e as an idiom o! power whi&h marks the triangulated relationality o! /odernity BDed, White, and Bla&kC as the broad institutional e!!e&t o! the Western >emisphere and most perni&ious e3pression o! that institutionality, the 8nited 2tates o! meri&a. /y &laim, building on
the e3planatory power o! the !ro-@essimists, is that 1iolen&e is at the heart o! this idiom o! power. Niolen&e determines the essential &ontours o! 2ettlerH;2a1age< and /asterH2la1e relations. +his notion o! 1iolen&e as a positioning matri3 weakens the hereto!ore &onsensual post-stru&turalist notions o! !ilm studies, !eminism, and 6egri and >ardt:s post-industrial /ar3ism, all o! whi&h assume symboli& negotiation Bdis&ourseC to be the essen&e o! the matri3 that positions sub"e&ts. +he thesis seeks to mark !ilm studies, !eminism, psy&hoanalysis, and /ar3ism as White, and to de-essentiali=e the su!!ering whi&h animates them, humiliating them in the !a&e o! the 2la1e and that part o! the ;2a1age< positioned, ontologi&ally, by geno&ide as opposed to so1ereignty.
0#7
In the pre&eding &hapters there has been little dis&ussion o! 1iolent ;e1ents< Bsa1e a brie! dis&ussion o! geno&ide endured by 6ati1e meri&ans and ways in whi&h the
&ar&eral &ontinuum o! Bla&k li!e morphs and shape-shi!ts through legislationC. +his is be&ause the 1iolen&e that is &onstituti1e o! the idiom o! power that positions one 8.2. antagonist as 2ettlerH/aster, another as 2la1e, and still another as ;2a1age< should not be redu&ed to its spe&ta&le. It is not an e1ent but rather a matri) of elaboration upon &hich temporal and spatial capacit" is possible for the Settler=(asterD is both possible and impossible for the ,Sa$ageD- and is absolutel" derelict for the Sla$e. *ne &an no more ;show< the matri3 o! 1iolen&e that positions the 2la1e than one &an ;show< psy&hoanalysis:s matri3 o! language, the large ob"e&t , the 2ymboli& *rder that
&astrates the infans and brings BpositionsC himHher into sub"e&ti1ity, that is, into a world o! ;&ontemporaries.< t the time o! this writing, e1en the most radi&al and o1ertly politi&al gestures in !ilm studies ha1e as yet to engage >ardt and 6egri:s theories o! politi&al e&onomy and its re&omposed sub"e&t, ;the multitude.< But this short&oming is one whi&h plays out /aster-to-/aster, 2ettler-to-2ettler' it is an intra-human dis&ussion inessential to the 2la1e:s ethi&al dilemmas &ataly=ed by a&&umulation and !ungibility. B+he 2la1e,
howe1er, is o!ten brought into the dis&ussion not in an e!!ort to ad1an&e the analysis but rather in an e!!ort to a1oid embarrassment.C 2till engaging either the assumpti1e logi& o! Fou&auldian dis&iplinary regimes Bi.e., Ialpana 2eshadri-)rooks, @atri&e @etroC or Krams&ian hegemony Bi.e., 2tuart >all, /ary nn Doane, 2tephen >eath, and early Ia"a 2il1ermanC, !ilm studies has either a minimalist agenda as regards the &inema:s so&ially trans!ormati1e potential Bthat is, it is animated by notions o! hybridity and &hange &ithin
004
the intersti&es o! &i1il so&ietyC, or it is hope!ul !or a realignment o! &inemati& pra&ti&e whose &ounter-hegemoni& elements Guali!y as &ultural a&&ompaniment !or ma"or so&ial and politi&al &hange. ll this is to say that !ilm studies has yet to be&ome underwritten by an ensemble o! 6egrian Guestions as regards the status o! the spe&tator and the &inemati& diegesis in a world where now Be1enC Whites are positioned more and more by what appears to >ardt and 6egri as gratuitous 1iolen&e and less and less by what had appeared to Krams&i and Fou&ault as &ontingent 1iolen&e. But as poles apart as 6egrian /ar3ism and !ilm studies may be, what binds 6egri and >ardt:s un!lin&hing paradigmati& analysis to the most un!lin&hing interpreti1e !ilm theory is a largely unspoken and unsubstantiated notion that all sentient beings Beuphemisti&ally re!erred to as ;humans<?or bona !ide sub"e&tsC possess the &apa&ity to &ontest 1alue in some kind o! drama?in other words, ;!aith< in the notion that all people ha1e the &apa&ity !or history and anthropology, the power to trans!orm time and spa&e. +he drama o! 1alue, then, is underwritten by the inspiration o! the personal pronoun ;we.< It is this inspiration that my e!!orts throughout this book ha1e attempted to de&onstru&t and humiliate. +he inspiration o! ;we,< to use a term !rom !ilm theory, is a !orm o! suture. It papers o1er any &ontemplation o! 1iolen&e as a stru&turing matri3?and weds us to the notion o! 1iolen&e as a &ontingent e1ent. nd the inspiration o! ;we< also
per!orms a suture between !ields o! study and politi&al moti1ations as seemingly !ar apart as 6egrian /ar3ism and Krams&ianHLa&anian !ilm studiesE sutures them together by way o! two basi& assumptions' B1C that all people ha1e bodies and B#C that all people &ontest dramas o! 1alue. +hus, /ar3ism and !ilm theory operate like poli&e a&tions' they poli&e
001
our ability to &ontemplate how the 2la1e is not a lesser 1alued entity on a pole o! higher 1alued entities but is instead e3iled !rom the drama o! 1alue. &knowledgments o! this e3ile are to be !ound, not in White meta-&ommentary and not in White !ilm theory but, oddly enough, in White !ilms themsel1es. (onster4s Ball is a !ilm that attempts to share the inspiration o! /ar3ism and White !ilm theory:s ;we< but !inds itsel! di1ided on the matter. It &annot be inspired by the assumpti1e ;we< o! its s&reenplay, that is, its most &ons&ious narrati1e strategies, be&ause at key moments its images and soundtra&k a&t &ontrapuntally to the s&reenplay. +he ne3t three &hapters are predi&ated on a &laim that whereas the s&reenplay labors ideologi&ally in support o! a notion that e3ploitation and alienation Bthe >uman:s grammar o! su!!eringC e3plain the essential antagonism o! the paradigm, strategies o! &inemati& !orm Bas well as the irruption o! &onte3tual elements into the !ilm:s produ&tion labor ideologi&ally in support o! a notion that a&&umulation and !ungibility Bthe 2la1e:s grammar o! su!!eringC e3plain the essential antagonism o! the paradigm Band, through this e3planation, render e3ploitation and alienation the tou&hstones o! a &on!li&tC. (onster4s Ball:s &inemati& !orm dismantles the politi&al &ommon sense that s&a!!olds the !ilm:s ethi&al dilemmas and the narrati1e:s argument that Bla&ks, like Whites, are ;among the disparate entities< !or whi&h 1alue is an arbiter BBarrett 10C. For 6egri and >ardt these disparate entities !a&e o!! as proletarian and &apitalist, !or White !ilm theory the range o! entities spans gayHstraight, manHwoman, post&olonialHempire, and more. In all o! these &ombinations, 1alue, as ;an arbitrator among disparate entities$ labors to naturali=e its $er" process of arbitration to the point o! sublimation and !etishi=ation< BBarrett 1#C.
00#
For /ar3ists, this sublimation and !etishi=ation is lo&ated in ;the &ommodity Lwhi&hM marks itsel! as unitary and sel!-in1ol1ed. It masks the so&ial relations to whi&h it is ine1itably tied and that it eGually reda&ts< BBarrett 10C. For !ilm theory and White &inema Bi.e. the politi&al &ommon sense o! a s&reenplay:s ethi&al dilemmas andHor a White dire&tor:s auteurial intentionC su&h as (onster4s Ball, the phallus B2il1erman, DoaneC, the !rame B>eathC, or Whiteness itsel! BDyerE or Forster:s auteurial intentionC are the points o! representational &oheren&e through whi&h 1alue ;marks itsel! as unitary and sel!-in1ol1ed.< Like the &ommodity-!orm, the phallus, the !rame, and Whiteness Bas imagined rigorously by s&holars o! Whiteness and super!i&ially by the s&reenplay o! (onster4s BallC all mask the so&ial relations to whi&h they are tied and whi&h they also reda&t. But we need to be mind!ul o! two things at on&eE !irst, the ways in whi&h this masking and reda&tion o&&ur' the &ommodity-!orm:s reda&tion o! e3ploited labor-power, the phallus:s masking o! the BWhiteC male:s &astration by the 2ymboli& *rder, the !rame and the 1oi&e-o1er:s alibi !or the &inemati& apparatus, and the ra&ial labor that Whiteness depends on !or its unra&iali=ed ;normality<E and se&ondly, whereas su&h masking and reda&tion are essential to the grammar o! su!!ering o!, respe&ti1ely, the worker, the woman, the spe&tator, and the post-&olonial, they are inessential to the grammar o! su!!ering o! the 2la1e. Nalue, Lindon Barrett asserts through his reading o! 2pi1ak:s 6n Ether Worlds, is not only a representation that masks and reda&ts so&ial relations. By opening the lid on 1alue in its !etishi=ed !orm as money Ba ;seemingly unitary phenomenon<C one sees that money is not only a representation but a di!!erential' Nalue-/oney-)apital B10C. >e &on&ludes that'
000
It is this di!!erential nature that 1alue most su&&ess!ully se&rets when it most !ully seems itsel!. +he phenomenon o! 1alue?like its parti&ular instantiations in politi&al e&onomy' the &ommodity, &apitalist ideology, money?is most !ully e)posed in terms o! a&knowledging its o&&luded di!!erential e&onomy, the circuit of displacement, substitution, and signification that 1alue is always struggling to mask by means o! a hypostasi=ed ;!orm.< In short, the ideal re!erent and &on!irmation !or 1alue are the !orms it is in the pro&ess o! seeking to substantiate. B5mphasis mine, 10C /y argument with the passage abo1e has little to do with the &ontent o! Barrett:s &laims. )ertainly, 1alue is both the masking o! so&ial relations as well as the masking o! its own ;&ir&uit o! displa&ement, substitution, and signi!i&ation.< But theories Bi.e., /ar3ism, !eminism, and !ilm theoryC whi&h unpa&k the hypostasi=ed ;!orm< whi&h 1alue takes, as it masks both its di!!erential and so&ial relations, e3perien&e the humiliation o! their e3planatory power when &on!ronted with the Bla&k. For the Bla&k has no so&ial relationBsC to be either masked or unmasked?not, that is, in a stru&tural sense. 2o&ial relations depend on 1arious pretenses to the &ontraryE there!ore, what gets masked is the matri3 o! 1iolen&e that makes Bla&k relationality an o3ymoron. +o relate, so&ially, one must enter a so&ial drama:s mise/en/scCne with spatial and temporal &oheren&e?in other words, with human &apa&ity. +he 2la1e is not so mu&h the antithesis o! human &apa&ity Bthat might imply a diale&ti& potential in the 2la1e:s en&ounter with the worldC as sHhe is the absen&e o! human &apa&ity.
00%
>a1ing re&apped the general pro"e&t, we &an begin to &losely e3amine 2ettlerH/aster &inema, a &inema elaborated by an ensemble o! Guestions that arise out o! an e3planatory rubri& predi&ated on e3ploitation and alienationE a &inema in whi&h the protagonistBsC who shoulders a !ilm:s ethi&al dilemmas is an e3ploited and alienated >uman. +he ape3 o! >umanness is Whiteness BDyerC. +here!ore, so&ially engaged &inema o! whi&h the dire&tor is White and whose standard bearer o! ethi&al dilemmas is also White will be the !o&al point o! our in1estigation. 5nter (onster4s Ball
1egri and ,ardt "ancing at the !onster"s Ball 2onny Krotowski B>eath LedgerC is ha1ing his portrait drawn. Lawren&e /usgro1e B2ean )ombsH@. DiddyC appears to be drawing itE but /usgro1e is really writing to his wi!e Leti&ia. +his portrait, the one he is drawing now o! 2onny?2onny who sits and waits on the other side o! /usgro1e:s death row &ell?together with the one he will draw o! another guard, 2onny:s !ather >ank BBilly Bob +horntonC, is a letter Leti&ia B>alle BerryC will not read until the end o! the !ilm when it is time to kill >ank. +hese portraits will take the pla&e o! Lawren&e /usgro1e:s last phone &all. him by the warden:s pro3ies, the !ather and son Krotowski. 2et in Keorgia but shot in Louisiana Ba &ontinuity glit&h !or anyone who has spent an impressionable amount o! time in the 2outhC, (onster4s Ball is the tale o! >ank Krotowski, a ra&ist prison guard who works with his son 2onny. Both >ank and 2onny li1e at home with >ank:s !ather Bu&k B@eter BoyleC who is also a template 2outhern ra&ist. In !a&t, the only Krotowskis who may not ha1e been bigots are Bu&k and >ank:s wi1es, both o! whom are dead and both o! whom are the re&ipients o! posthumous &all denied
00(
derision !rom their sur1i1ing husbands. 2onny, who is shown to be partial to Bla&ks, &ommits sui&ide on the day a!ter /usgro1e is e3e&uted. 2oon a!ter 2onny:s death, >ank, now on the road to Damas&us, &ommits Bu&k to a retirement home. Damas&us, o! &ourse, is his lo1e a!!air with Leti&ia, who is Bla&k, and his slow but steady a&&eptan&e o! ra&ial harmony. >ank learns that he is the e3e&utioner o! Leti&ia:s husband early in the !ilm but Leti&ia does not learn this until the !ilm:s !inal seGuen&e when her husband:s letter Bthe portraits he drew "ust be!ore he was e3e&utedC !inally arri1es. +he e3e&ution seGuen&e illustrates the e!!e&t o! lost historiography and lost &artography as a &risis in the &ommons, what ntonio 6egri an /i&hael >ardt ha1e
theori=ed as &apital:s subsumption o! the entire so&ius' the world as prison, the prison as world. 2u&h subsumption has &hanged the dynami&s o! proletarian relationality almost to the point o! obliterating proletarian history, !ore&losing upon its !uture, and sGuee=ing out the proletariat:s last a&re o! the &ommons?that pat&h o! autonomous greenery where one &an map a =one o! respite relati1ely !ree !rom the eGuation 2H1 [ ). In (onster4s Ball this =one o! respite !rom &apitalist &oer&ion has been dera&inated by prison modalities at almost e1ery le1el o! &i1il so&iety, all the way down to the s&ale o! domesti&ity. +he absen&e o! White women in >ank:s household, along with the tombstones o! >ank:s wi!e and his mother in the ba&kyard, lea1e the home wide open to the ra1ages o! politi&al so&iety and all its !or&e. l333i It is a symptom o! >ardt and 6egri:s warning that &i1il so&iety is withering away B>ardt 177(C. s a result o! the home Bdomesti&
&artographyC ha1ing been deterritoriali=ed by the absen&e o! White !emininity and by the in1asion o! the prison:s &oer&i1e modalities o! 1iolen&e Bthe home as yet another lost =one o! proletarian respiteC, >ank:s body is marked as the primary site in the !ilm where
00,
the drama o! 1alue is staged and &ontested. White !emininity only enters the homoso&ial o! world o! three generations o! prison guards through 2onny and >ank:s brie! en&ounters with the same prostitute and through Bu&k:s de!amatory re&olle&tions o! >ank:s wi!e and his mother BBu&k:s wi!eC, ;weak< !igures who ;!ailed< them both. )oer&ion, rather than &onsent, o1erdetermines the ar& o! the three men:s !ilial en&ounters' !ist!ights instead o! middle-&lass !amily !euds, armed assaults, and a li1ing room sui&ide by way o! a re1ol1er. +he e3e&ution seGuen&e o! !he (onster4s Ball is the only seGuen&e in the entire !ilm that brings together >ank, 2onny, Lawren&e, Leti&ia, and +yrell B)oron"i )alhounC, the /usgro1es: son together, in the same ten minutes. It is a seGuen&e that takes pla&e less than thirty minutes into the !ilm. I! it does not prepare us emotionally !or three ne&essary deaths BLawren&e /usgro1e, 2onny Krotowski, and +yrell /usgro1eC, it at least !oreshadows these deaths and hints at their ne&essity to the narrati1e, that is, to dire&tor /ar& Forster:s thesis on interra&ial lo1e and redemption. *n his death walk, 2onny and 2onny:s !ather >ank !lank Lawren&e /usgro1e. Lawren&e:s head has been sha1ed and the o1er all 1estmentary &ode o! the mise/en/scCne ?Lawren&e in a thin white t-shirt, with !aded "eans with one pants leg &ut o!!, wearing women:s house slippers, !lanked and !ollowed by the &risp uni!orms o! the prison industrial &omple3?&oupled with the &ontinued use o! high angle &amera shots, mark Lawren&e /usgro1e with diminished and, ultimately, !atal agen&y. But it bears repeating that Lawren&e /usgro1e is not (onster4s Ball4s intended protagonistE >ank Krotowski is. t this point in the seGuen&e a 1oi&e-o1er breaks in on the death walk. ;It is ordered
and ad"udged that the "udgment pronoun&ed and set !orth in this order, senten&ing the
00.
de!endant to death in a manner and by the authorities as pro1ided by statute, shall be e3e&uted at this time.< s a generi& strategy o! &inemati& !orm, 1oi&e-o1ers are &ommonly used in tele1ision &ommer&ials. For e3ample, a White housewi!e or ;woman-on-the-go< has "ust dramati=ed her endorsement o! a produ&t. +hen, as the &amera lingers on the !inal bit o! her per!orman&e, a disembodied White male 1oi&e with the same lilt and enthusiasm she had !or the produ&t, but with a !irm authority whi&h she, supposedly, would not be &apable o!, re-endorses the produ&t !rom his e3tra-diegeti&, god-like position o! &ommand and &ontrol. B2il1erman, !he Acoustic (irror %--%7, (1-(%C Whether the 1oi&e-o1er in (onster4s Ball is diegeti& or e3tra-diegeti& is a Guestion I will take up presently. ssuming !or the moment that it could be a diegeti&
1oi&e Bassuming that this was Forster:s intentionC, then what be&omes striking about this sli&e o! the death walk is the asyn&hroni& nature o! the 1oi&e-o1erE that is, its status as sound ;whi&h belongs to the world o! the image tra&k, but whi&h has a dislo&ated temporal relationship to the image tra&k< BWayne 1-%C. s 2onny, >ank, and two other
guards es&ort Lawren&e /usgro1e on his death walk, this 1oi&e-o1er announ&es /usgro1e:s guilt and senten&es him to death' ;It is ordered and ad"udged that the "udgment pronoun&ed and set !orth in this order, senten&ing the de!endant to death in a manner and by the authorities as pro1ided by statute, shall be e3e&uted at this time.< What is so disorienting about the 1oi&e-o1er is that one assumes that it &onstitutes ;the past in relation to the image< B1-%C, that it is the 1oi&e o! the "udge who has &ondemned /usgro1e to die. But be&ause the !ilm starts in media res we &annot be sure whether this asyn&hroni& diegeti& sound ;is moti1ated by the sub"e&ti1e, psy&hologi&al
00-
world o! LtheM &hara&ters, as part o! their story spa&e, or whether it e3ists as a narrator:s &omment on the &hara&ters LLawren&e, 2onny and >ankM andHor the world they o&&upy< B1-%C?whi&h would make it asyn&hroni& and e3tra-diegeti&. +he un&ertainty with respe&t to the spa&e whi&h moti1ates the 1oi&e-o1er lea1es open the possibility that it &an indeed be thought o! as both asyn&hroni& and e3tra-diegeti&. +his would ;liberate< the 1oi&e o! the "udge !rom a spatial !i3' thus the sour&e o! his 1oi&e would not be in the world o! the !ilm, and the authority would be neither bound to, nor threatened by, the world o! the !ilm. It would mean that not only &an the &hara&ters not hear the 1oi&e-o1er Bhen&e its asyn&hroni&ityC, but also that they ha1e ne$er heard it, ;!or it does not belong to their world but is dire&ted at the audien&e alone.< We know that ;non-diegeti& dialogue$in !i&tion !ilm is unusual$be&ause o! the tenden&y to absorb e1erything into the narrati1e !low$ LBMy de!inition, non diegeti& sound stands outside the narrati1ised image< B1-,C. nd Forster himsel! is on re&ord as saying that &inemati& sound must be s&he and 2pen&er:s musi&al
subordinated to narrati1e. >e suggested that the beauty o!
s&ore lay in the !a&t that it did not draw attention to itsel! B Anatom" of a SceneC. But is it possible that in this parti&ular seGuen&e, sound, in the !orm o! this brie! but disturbing 1oi&e-o1er, has not been subordinated to the narrati1eE that it is not only liberated !rom narrati1e but returns to poli&e and in&ar&erate the diegesis and the auteur:s intentionsF Is some outside !or&e e3erting pressure on the story?a !or&e that subdues the diegesisF 2o subdued by &inemati& !orm is (onster4s Ball storyline in this seGuen&e that it seems as though the !ilm is a&ting under some dire&tional imperati1es other than Forster:s. +here are pro!ound impli&ations !or the &ommons when the 1oi&e o! the law is a !or&e e3ternal to the !rame.
007
In this death walk, a White male 1oi&e-o1er Bwith the same authority but minus the lilt o! se3ist &ommer&ialsC gi1es us the !inal word, as it were. But nether >ank nor 2onny nor the kind White guard with so!t !at hands, nor Lawren&e /usgro1e !or that matter, ha1e endorsed these pro&eedings. +he high angle shotsE the sa&red, minimalist musi& s&oreE and the somber, almost grie1ing, e3pression on e1eryone:s !a&es mark them all as 1i&tims o! this up&oming e3e&ution, relu&tant parti&ipants to a manE &oer&ed and diminished by its ne&essary rituals, &apable B!or the guardsC o! bene!iting !rom this e3e&ution not by way o! a ;1i&tims-rights< or ;&rime-!ree so&iety< dis&ourse whi&h permeates so mu&h o! the Dight:s death penalty arguments, but bene!iting, i! at all, Band i! bene!iting is the right wordC through as&endan&e to a trans&endental a!terli!e &artography. It is a sad and spiritual death walk through whi&h they su!!er "ust as mu&h as Lawren&e' here, in this death walk, White and Bla&k are &rushed together under the an1il o! &inemati& !orm. >ank seems to su!!er as mu&h, i! not more, than the &ondemned, and he is neither ad1ertising nor promoting this su!!ering. >is !igure seems to be neither emboldened nor repaired by the death that is about to o&&urE rather, he endures it in anti&ipation Bso the musi& would suggestC o! spiritual redemption. +here!ore, the 1oi&eo1er !un&tions as the pronoun&ement o! a senten&e !or both Lawren&e and >ank Band 2onny and the other guardsC, with one small &a1eat' Lawren&e will be redeemed Bto the e3tent that redemption &an be imagined !or Lawren&eE his redemption seems strangely immaterialC when he is e3e&utedE whereas &hanging his ways will redeem >ank. nd so
the words ;It is ordered and ad"udged that the "udgment pronoun&ed and set !orth in this order, senten&ing the de!endant to death in a manner and by the authorities as pro1ided by statute' shall be e3e&uted at this time< intensi!y the hydrauli&s o! su!!ering whi&h >ank
0%4
will spend the rest o! the !ilm trying to es&ape and whi&h 2onny will only be relie1ed o! by &ommitting sui&ide. +he senten&e o! death is sel!-re!erential, !or it need not spe&i!y &ho ordered and ad"udged it?the state, or ;the people< o! KeorgiaF?and it is under no obligation to name either the de!endant, the manner o! death, the &rime and its &hara&ter, the authorities, or the date and time o! death. It is as though these spe&i!i&ations are not only as e3tra-diegeti& and asyn&hroni& to the death walk as the 1oi&e-o1er itsel!, but appear to be also timeless, generi&, and ubiGuitous, pla&ing them beyond the limits o! &i1il so&ietyE that is, beyond the populist and demo&rati& inter1entions o! both its minions and its representati1esE lo&ked, as they are, in the witness room o! the death &hamber. +he 1oi&e-o1er alerts us to the immanen&e o! the 2tate:s &ommand and &ontrol. +he disembodied 1oi&e and the &ir&uitous logi& o! the senten&e mark yet another symptom o! the post-industrial withering away o! &i1il so&iety. L+Mhe demo&rati& andHor dis&iplinary institutions o! &i1il so&iety, the &hannels o! so&ial mediation, as a parti&ular !orm o! the organi=ation o! so&ial labor, ha1e de&lined and been displa&ed !rom the &enter o! the s&ene. 6ot the 2tate Lthe prison, the death &hamber, the 1iolen&eM, but &i1il so&iety Lthe home, the &ommons, the ma&hinations o! hegemony and its attendant institutionalityM has withered away... L+Mhe so&ial &onditions ne&essary !or &i1il so&iety no longer e3ist. B-4C$+he so&iety we are li1ing in today is more properly understood as a post&i1il so&iety. Bl333ii#.C +he 1oi&e-o1er:s sel!-re!erential "usti!i&ation !or 1iolen&e, and the &a1alier way in whi&h the !ormal strategies o! the e3e&ution seGuen&e, and so mu&h o! the !ilm, imagine
0%1
no need !or the state to display itsel! ethi&ally !or idea o! ;"usti&e< to emanate !rom the image tra&k Bbe it the robed spe&ta&le o! a "udge, or the &ommon, &i1il, spe&ta&le o! a "uryC, mark &inema:s late #4th &entury and early #1st &entury embra&e o! post&i1il so&iety:s ethi&al dilemmas and its arti&ulation o! &ertain ontologi&al tou&hstones o! &ohesion, namely, politi&al e&onomy:s &risis o! spa&e and temporality' a &risis o! the &ommons. But (onster4s Ball pushes the en1elope o! this proletarian &risis more deliberately than do meta-&ommentaries on the proletarian themsel1es. +he !ilm:s !ormal &inemati& strategies?here the disembodied 1oi&e-o1er?suggest that state power, whi&h is to say state 1iolen&e, e3ists in e3&ess e1en to the embodied authority o! the prison guards and their uni!orms. Lawren&e /usgro1e is about to be e3e&uted, but it is 2onny and >ank:s death walk to whi&h the !ilm:s !ormal strategies &athe&t us most. It is the horri!i& trauma o! &i1il so&iety, not simply the trauma o! its withering away, as >ardt and 6egri would ha1e it, but o! their nightmare in !ull bloom, that interpellates our an3iety. We are engrossed in the drama that positions White men at the site o! a double la&k. l333iii We are not engrossed in or interpellated by the an3iety o! Lawren&e /usgro1e, who is not only su!!ering 1ia the grammar o! post&i1il so&iety but who is also about to stop breathing. >is dilemmas seem reasonable, banal, and unremarkable. +he double la&k then is &oded White' the 1oi&e-o1er not only lords its disembodied 1iolen&e and authority o1er 2onny and >ank but, by way o! intelle&tual montage, the &ross-&ut to the witness room, o1er a di1erse ensemble o! &i1il so&iety:s institutional representati1es. In this the montage &uts between one death-walk and another death-walk' !rom 2onny and >ank to the press, the &lergy, the ele&ted representati1eE those pla&e-holders o! the ;intelle&tual !un&tion< BKrams&i (-1%, 0---074C !ormerly
0%#
emblemati&?in a Krams&ian milieu o! &i1il so&iety?o! a 1ibrant &ommons and a &ontested institutionality that stood in &artographi& distin&tion Band sometimes re1olutionary oppositionC to the &ommandH&ontrolH1iolent modalities o! the state whi&h Krams&i &alled ;politi&al so&iety< Bpoli&e, prison, armyC. >ere in the &ross-&utting montage !rom an omnipotent state ;1oi&e,< the organi=ers o! hegemony are being herded into the death &hamber:s witness room by the same disembodied authority to whi&h they now, in 6egri and >ardt:s post&i1il dispensation, ha1e as little a&&ess to and as little agen&y in the !a&e o!, as >ank and 2onny Krotowski, two lowly proletariats. )apital has in&ar&erated the worker together with hisHher organi=ers o!, and &apa&ity !or, hegemoni& struggle, those ;pro&esses Lor that institutionalityM$1ariously &on&ei1ed as edu&ation, training, or dis&iplineardt, Withering$ %4CE in&ar&erated them in the
&ommandH&ontrol &artography o! its sel!-re!erential 1iolen&eE and &urtailed the possibility o! ;a&ti1e engagement with so&ial !or&es$within the &onte3t o! institutions. What has &ome to an end$in post&i1il so&iety$Lare theM !un&tions o! mediation or edu&ation and the institutions that ga1e them !orm< B%4C. ;+he 2tate today has mo1ed beyond >egel and his diale&ti&, not limiting but per!e&ting state rule< B%1C. I! the pri1ate and Guotidian o! &i1il so&iety has been deterritoriali=ed by the !or&e o! 1iolen&e Bthe home subsumed by the prisonC, so too has the publi&ly a&knowledged o! &i1il so&iety, the &ommons, been deterritoriali=ed. In&ar&erated in the witness room behind the glass o! the e3e&ution &hamber, without the &apa&ity o! spee&h, the symboli& representati1es o! &i1il so&iety, assembled to obser1e /usgro1e:s death, are literally in no position to a&t as either a &he&k on, or balan&e against, the e3tra-diegeti& 1oi&e-o1er whi&h we hear while wat&hing /usgro1e and &ompany on his death walk. +he 1oi&e-
0%0
o1er:s &ir&uitous BilClogi& signi!ies a 1irtual thumbing o! the nose at the authority o! &i1il so&iety:s symboli& representati1es and, there!ore, at any so&ially trans!ormati1e optimism whi&h had, in eras gone by, a&&rued to those representati1es and their institutions within &i1il so&iety.l333i1 +hat optimism &an be tra&ed histori&ally !rom Krams&i:s writings on a hegemoni& War o! @osition in !he +rison #otebooks, to war-time labor solidarity in the 8.2. and a&ross the globe, to the euphoria o! post-&olonial struggles in the (4s, ,4s, and .4s, and up through the ,4sH.4s 6ew Le!t demands Bin @aris, London, and the 8.2.C !or &i1il so&iety:s e3pansion and the intensi!i&ation o! its promise o! a&&ess. When one &onsiders so&ially engaged White &inema o! the ,4sH.4s, espe&ially the spate o! !i&tion !ilms produ&ed in the wake o! the )hi&ago )on1ention B17,-C, the Weathermen:s Days o! Dage B17,7C, and the post-Ient 2tate national student strike B17.4C, one sees how &inema o! that period would lose all meaning without its !aith in the power o! a publi& 1oi&e as the lin&hpin o! so&ial trans!ormation.l3331 But there e3ists today no su&h optimism, no su&h so&ially trans!ormati1e publi& 1oi&e, and no grand illusions regarding so&ial trans!ormation that a !ilm like (onster4s Ball, whi&h engages a phenomenon as 1ast and so&ial as the prison industrial &omple3, might embra&e. )i1il so&iety as a publi& play and display o! struggle and dis&ontent, so ali1e in the sea o! people surrounding /ario 2a1io at 8) Berkeley, in the publi& dis&ourse surrounding the @entagon @apers, in the rage a!ter Ient 2tate, and in the publi& indignation o1er Watergate, is lost on (onster4s Ball in general and on >ank Krotowski in parti&ular. /y point is this' so&ially engaged White &inema &an no longer arti&ulate &i1il so&iety:s 1ast and &olle&ti1e ethi&al dilemmas. >ank Krotowski:s ethi&al dilemmas seem to ha1e !allen !rom the status o! publi& agent to that o! the prisonerE his prototypi&al
0%%
dilemmas on&e animated by the Guestion, Where are we goingF Bin !ilms like (edium Cool 17.4 and Coming .ome 17.-C ha1e been &rowded out by a more urgent hydrauli&s o! Guestions like, >ow do we break outF For &inema, the power to pose the GuestionBsC is withering away be&ause, as 6egri and >ardt ha1e made so &lear, &i1il so&iety is withering away. Despite this nadir o! arti&ulation and arti&ulateness, (onster4s Ball ;knows< something more than dire&tor /ar& Forster, White !eminism and !ilm theory, and 6egri and >ardt. What (onster4s Ball ;knows,< in spite o! dire&torial intentionality and in spite o! 6egri and >ardt:s te3tual repressionHdisa1owal, is that this deba&le B&i1il so&iety withering down past the s&ale o! domesti&ityC &an be neither imagined, thought, nor stagedE it &annot be made &oherent without the Bla&k. +he &oheren&e o! a White grammar o! su!!ering, e1en the spatial and temporal dera&ination o! a hereto!ore robust &i1il &artography Bwhether the s&ene o! a domesti& &ommons or the s&ene o! a publi& &ommonsC, &annot narrate its own de1astation without &alling upon the Family +hanatosE that is, without de1ouring the !lesh o! Leti&ia, Lawren&e, and +yrell. +his is true e1en as the !ilm rat&hets the ethi&al dilemmas o! &i1il so&iety down a not&h belo& domesti&ity, to the s&ale o! the body. gain, throughout (onster4s Ball, &i1il so&iety:s autonomous &artography, its liberated =one, is mu&h smaller, more pri1ate and Guotidian than it has e1er been in the history o! so&ially engaged White &inema. In !a&t, the map has been redu&ed to the oral =one o! the mouth through whi&h >ank is only ;!ree< to su&k &ho&olate i&e &ream with a white plasti& spoon, or, inter&hangeably, to su&k Leti&ia:s 1agina under white &otton sheets. +he map has been redu&ed to the o&ular =one o! the eyes through whi&h >ank ga=es as he meti&ulously paints the letter ;L-e-t-i-&i-a< on what he tells her is ;our< sign abo1e ;our< gas station. )i1il so&iety, i! it &an be
0%(
!ound at all in what 6egri and >ardt &all a post-industrial world, no longer !lourishes and assembles in the publi& spa&es whi&h hegemony had on&e territoriali=ed as dis&ursi1e Bi.e., the street, the stump, the union hall, the sGuare, the homeC, but rather !inds itsel! under permanent lo&kdown, deterritoriali=ed by &ommand, &oer&ion, and !or&e Bas though lost somewhere in Kuantanamo, awaiting trialC. 2u&h is the !ate o! &i1il so&iety:s organi=ers o! hegemony, lo&ked as they are inside the prison, in the witness room o! the death &hamber. +he only temporal &apa&ity le!t to the worker is not to be !ound in a li1ing heritage o! wild&at strikes, publi& spee&hes in the sGuare, &ons&iousness raising meetings and the like, but in the simple memory o! last night:s pleasures' the taste o! &ho&olate i&e &ream, the 1ision o! a &o!!ee-&olored woman:s body, the ga=e upon the large bla&k !ont that spells her name, the tou&h Band tasteC o! &unnilingus, and the memory o! penetration between her legs. +hat whi&h &an still be mapped with &i1il so&iety:s &artographi& integrity and remembered in its historiographi& integrity no longer e3ists Bhas no guaranteed &oheren&eC at the s&ale o! domesti&ity, but rather has been redu&ed to the s&ale o! &orporeal integrity. In point o! !a&t, the s&enario is e1en bleaker, !or in 6egri and >ardt:s post-industrial world, the body, in its rei!ied !orm as ;gender< and ;ra&e,< &an no longer be thought o! as a liberated =one, though it is still a &ontested =one. l3331i In a so&ius that has withered away and be&ome a prison, the last &oordinate o! spatial and temporal &apa&ity, the last san&tuary o! &i1il so&iety?in that it remains Bor &an still be imagined asC a &oherent 1e&tor o! ;&i1il< spa&e and time?is the body. nd this is something
(onster4s Ball is well aware o!. >ank Krotowski:s "ob site and his home are those spa&es o! work and domesti&ity where &ontingent 1iolen&e is no longer guaranteed, so &omplete
0%,
is their post-industrial dera&ination that they ha1e be&ome 1ulnerable to gratuitous 1iolen&eE his bod", howe1er, is another matter all together. >ere &oheren&e and optimism &an be maintained. +he body, then, o! >ank Krotowski pro1ides both radi&al !eminism and !ilm theory BButler, 2eshadri-)rooks, 2il1erman, and Doane et al.C and i&ono&lasti& /ar3ism B6egri and >ardtC with a terrain where their assumpti1e logi& &an still !ind resonan&e. +he resonan&e, howe1er, is !ound neither in the !orm o! an ideologi&al, methodologi&al, aestheti& Bnor, !or that matter, &ons&iousC suture between them. It is a rhetori&al resonan&e Bsymptomati& o! a stru&tural kinshipC through whi&h all o! these dis&ourses know that e1en in the &risis o! a post-industrial world they still ha1e something &oherent to hold on to. >ow, e3a&tly, do they know what they know gi1en the disparate nature o! their dis&oursesF >ow does one know that though the &ommons may no longer e3ist, there are still bodies in the worldF I maintain that this knowledge o! bodies, howe1er peripheral and un&ons&ious, is sustained through the presen&e o! !lesh. Both radi&alH!eminist !ilm theory and un!lin&hing /ar3ism are rigorous and &orre&t' the body is still a &ontested terrain?>ank Krotowski is &inemati& ;proo!< o! their rigor and insight. But what are Leti&ia, Lawren&e, and +yrell /usgro1e proo! o!F +o put it more &rudely, why must >ank Krotowski map, remember, &ontest, and re&ompose his body by !eeding on Bla&k !leshF In short, the !ilm:s ethi&al dilemmas Binterra&ial lo1e, the burgeoning o! the prison industrial &omple3, &apital punishment, the generati1e &rises in !iliation, and the ennui o! White mas&ulinity in the #1 st &enturyC reGuire, !or their &oheren&e and animation, the repetition o! ne&rophili& a&ts' i&e &ream &onsumption, &unnilingus, sign ga=ing, body ga=ing, strip sear&hing, head sha1ing, ele&tro&ution?death. +hrough the !igure o! >ank, (onster4s Ball positions the spe&tator
0%.
both ;LaMs photographer and &annibal< B/arriott 0%C. >ere ;s&opophilia and negrophobia &ome together< B04C so that the flesh of the Black might sustain and re5u$enate the bod" of the proletarian. But were the Bla&k to treat the &inemati& image ;as a mirror Bas a point o! identi!i&ationC< sHhe would that !ind herHhis ;!a&e is missing, displa&ed by a hea1ily loaded ra&ial i&on or !igurehead,< &onne&ted only ;to a history o! drawn-out abasement< B04C. ; s the sign of polluting infection\< Leti&ia, Lawren&e, and +yrell' &an be ripped open and &onsumed?that is, !ramed by the eye, taken into the mouth be&ause, in essen&e, they represent the pla&e where the shame and nausea produ&ed by e3&reta be&omes 1isible$ s reeking tombs in the publi& li!e o! &ulture, LtheyM &an be &annibalised, shredded and torn open be&ause, like the li1ing dead, they are imagined as 1i&ious and parasiti&, insatiably !eeding o! the li1es o! their li1ing, white hosts. B%4C We &an e3tend Da1id /arriott:s obser1ations by stating that the White parasitism whi&h de1ours Bla&k !lesh, e1en as it imagines and li1es in dread o! Bla&k aggression, is the so&ial per!orman&e o! a stru&tural 1iolen&e whi&h allows Whites to be entities &apable o! &ontesting this or that drama o! 1alue. But to say that the !lesh o! Leti&ia Bor >alle BerryC, Lawren&e Bor 2ean )ombsC, and +yrell Bor )oron"i )alhounC are essential to the White body:s drama o! 1alue does not mean that this trio, this Family +hanatos, is also among the disparate entities that contest this drama. It means, Guite simply, that three pie&es o! dead meat &an start and sustain a story. +his parasiti& ne&essity re1eals itsel! through the &ontrapuntal gestures o! the !ilm:s &inemati& !orm, gestures a&&umulated and sustained pro!oundly against the imposition o! dialogue during the e3e&ution seGuen&e. What I am suggesting is that the
0%-
editing strategies o! the e3e&ution seGuen&e allow the stru&ture o! 8.2. antagonisms, the impossibility o! positional relations between /aster and 2la1e, to break in on the !ilm e1en though the narrati1e strategies be!ore and a!ter this seGuen&e ;argue< tena&iously, i! not an3iously, in !a1or o! the possibility o! su&h relations, an argument underwritten by the ubiGuitous inspiration o! the personal pronoun ;we,< and by a uni1ersali=ing mise/en/ scCne in whi&h disparate entities are staged in dramas o! 1alue. Like weeds this inspiration &hokes the terrain o! Western &ultural and politi&al &ommon sense. It is an inspiration that underwrites dis&ourses as !ar a!ield as !ilm re1iews in newspapers and maga=ines, !ilm theory, s&reenplays, and White meta&ommentaries on the grammar o! su!!ering. t e1ery s&ale o! nearly e1ery genre o! so&ial meditation on 1alue and its drama, the personal pronoun ;we< assumes a !etishi=ed and hypothesi=ed 1alue !orm. 2imply put, humankind is taken as a gi1en. Its rei!i&ation as a rhetori&al &ommodity goes something like this' +hrough symboli& inter1entions all people are &apable, ha1e the capacit", o! trans!ormation and re&omposition. +his &hangepower, this sub"e&ti1e trans!ormation and re&omposition, happens o1er time and a&ross spa&e. ;We,< then, registers in &ultural dis&ourse, albeit super!i&ially, as in ;we< all ha1e a language, ;we< all ha1e &ustoms, ;we< all &an dream o! home, ;we< all ha1e !amilies, ;we< all ha1e a heritage, ;we< all ha1e a pla&e o! origin. +he inspiration o! ;we< is a humani=ing inspiration. It wel&omes all to the !amily o! BwoCman e3&ept the Family +hanatos. From (onster4s Ball itsel!, to its re1iews, to White !ilm theory and ontologi&al meditations o! 6egri and >ardt, the te3tual attitudes, as regards this ;uni1ersal< &apa&ity, and its hypostasi=ed 1alue-!orm ;we,< are as disparate as the !orm and &ontent o! the
0%7
1arious dis&ourses themsel1es. For e3ample, the s&reenplay o! (onster4s Ball is wildly delusional about the pro"e&t o! ra&ial redemption and the prospe&t o! re&on&iliation. White !ilm theory, on the other hand, spans !rom its politi&al optimism o! the 17.4s and 17-4s to an ar&hi1e o! the 1774s and early #1st &entury that &an only be &hara&teri=ed as a kind o! politi&al re!ra&tion. +he .4s and -4s was a period in whi&h White !ilm theory sought more than to merely understand &inema but also &hange ;our< re&epti1ity to it and inspire a demand !or alternati1e &inemati& pra&ti&es. In an e!!ort to gi1e some shape to the period:s !ilm theory ar&hi1e, /ary nn Doane draws our attention to ;the intense
methodologi&al &ons&iousness o! !ilm and literary theory in Lthe .4s and -4sM. +his hyper-awareness o! position and method was an e!!e&t o! the stru&turalist, semioti&, and poststru&turalist mo1ements whi&h generated the most e3&iting and intelle&tually radi&al &ultural work o! this period< BDoane %C. White !ilm theory:s politi&al re!ra&tion o! the last !i!teen years all but sidelined the 17.4sH-4s ;awareness o! position and method< and its desire to radi&ally &hange the material and ideologi&al &onstru&tion o! &ulture. Dather than holding !ilm theory as though it were a neo-/ar3ist, materialist historiographi&, or radi&al !eminist weapon, White !ilm theory:s politi&al mandate splintered in so many dire&tions as to no longer resemble a mandate. +he BWhiteC !emale spe&tator, on&e the sine 2ua non o! a sub1ersi1e sub"e&t position, &ame to be &onsidered ;a &ategory now e3hausted or super&eded$and !eminist !ilm theory L&ame to beM seen as tiresome and repetiti1e< B@etro 7.C. Dather than try to &oales&e around, be assimilated by, or attempt to a&&ompany ma&ro-so&ial dreams o! stru&tural disturban&e, White !ilm theory sin&e the 1774s broke itsel! down into bite-si=ed desires and embarked upon re!le&tions o! &inema whi&h tried to ;a&&ount !or Lwhat its
0(4
pra&titioners thought to beM a more !le3ible and e3pansi1e understanding< o! the sub"e&t o! spee&h within the diegesis, ;as well as issues o! ra&e and gender in Lthe institutionality o!M &inema< B@etro 1%-C. Despite my weakness !or ;position and method< o1er identity and play, my point, as regards the 2la1e and White !ilm theory, is not one whi&h !inds an ;ally< in the politi&al ambitions o! psy&hoanalyti& and materialist !ilm theory !eminists o! the 17.4sH-4s, o1er and abo1e the politi&al re!ra&tion o! postmodern !ilm, who lo&ate &inema within what they belie1e to be a more &omple3 matri3 o! &ontending identities, impulses, 1oi&es, and sensibilities. +he milestones along that thirty-year road o! transition, !rom the two-!isted modernism o! White !ilm theory:s inter1entionist agenda to its re&ent rein1igoration?or ennui, depending on one:s perspe&ti1e?are important enough to ha1e been well do&umented.l3331ii Important as these di!!eren&es are, howe1er, they maintain between them an un&anny solidarity in relation to the ;estate o! sla1ery< B2pillersC. +hat solidarity is e1iden&ed by the !a&t that the sla1e remains unthought, !ore&losed by the inspiration o! ;we.< +he 2la1e is assumed to ha1e been liberated and now is assumed to !un&tion like any other disparate entity in the drama o! 1alue. +he assumpti1e logi& o! this multi!a&eted, super!i&ial, and &ommonsense deployment o! ;we< is itsel! supported by a more rigorous and ontologi&al pair o! assumptions, regardless o! the !a&t that its &ommon sense andHor aestheti& adherents &annot arti&ulate su&h assumptions. +he assumptions &an be summed up by this statement' ,&e- are all imbued &ith spatial and temporal capacit" . +hus, the ground =ero o! &ommunal inspiration Bassumptions shared by the narrati1e strategies o! (onster4s Ball, lo&al !ilm re1iews, White !ilm theory, and /ar3ist meditations on the grammar o! su!!eringC is a kind o! faith in the sub"e&t:s ability to, in the !irst ontological
0(1
instan&e, possess spatial and temporal &apa&ity, and, in the se&ond e)periential instan&e, shape andHor &ontest &artographi& and historiographi& &oheren&e Bi.e., to be present anthropologi&ally and histori&allyE to be a &ultural beingC. But it is bad faith. For it is this more rigorous and ontologi&al pair o! supports that the Bla&k destroys or, more a&&urately, that the Bla&k ;gi1es< hisHher !lesh to. White !ilm, in rare moments o! narrati1e e3ile or negle&t, may be the only kind o! White dis&ourse that destroys Bunintentionally but nonetheless empathi&allyC its own pair o! ontologi&al supports. *! &ourse, i! White &inema:s destru&tion o! the logi& o! ;we< was not in some way pleasurableE that is to say, i! the &inematography:s destru&tion o! &i1i& a&&ess did not simultaneously !eed the un&ons&ious and guilty pleasures deri1ed !rom beating, mutilating, murdering, &aressing, or eating the Bla&k, then White &inema would not be able to !un&tion as a &ultural a&&ompaniment to the ethi&al dilemmas o! White su!!ering ?its tra"e&tory o! sub1ersion would rea&h a point o! no returnE it &ould be useless to ci$il societ" and become, ipso !a&to, Black cinema. It might ultimately betray its own dilemmas, namely e3ploitation and alienation, and arti&ulate the ensemble o! Guestions &ataly=ed by a&&umulation and !ungibility. *ur dis&ussion o! Ant&one %isher and Bush (ama e3plained why su&h a tra"e&tory is rarely sustained !or the length o! a single !ilm, e$en &hen Blacks control the le$el of enunciation, the cinematic apparatus E !urthermore, in those rare instan&es when it seems that a &omplete !ilm can be dubbed Bla&k Bthat is, shown to a&&ompany the ethi&al dilemmas o! the 2la1e !rom beginning to endC, su&h !ilms were generally produ&ed in a period when the 2la1e had burned down mu&h o! urban meri&a B17,.-17.1C or when underground &ells o! groups like the Bla&k rmy openly targeted poli&e B17.1-17-1C. Ki1en these &onstraints and
Liberation
0(#
&onditions !or being able to think !ilm as Bla&k, to think !ilm as sub1ersi1e, my pro"e&t is not one to &athedrali=e the politi&al wisdom o! (onster4s Ball but rather to remark on its ;telling< moments.
6ow, Lawren&e /usgro1e writes his last letter to Leti&ia. >e sits on his death row bed, sket&hing !irst 2onny and then >ank. +he e3e&ution seGuen&e lasts eight to ten minutes and breaks with the more established patterns o! the !ilm:s !ormal &inemati& &on1entions. +o begin with, through a series o! rapid &uts and the !oregrounding o! its otherwise unders&ored soundtra&k BIoehlerC, this parti&ular seGuen&e pro1es itsel! to be as 1oid o! dialogue as the in!amous se3 s&ene between >ank and Leti&ia. gain, it is also the only moment in (onster4s Ball when 2onny, >ank, Leti&ia, Lawren&e, and +yrell are all brought together !or a sustained period o! time. During the e3e&ution seGuen&e, the ;disparate entities< BBarrett 10C o! this unlikely &olle&ti1e are not brought into relation with one another by way o! narrati1e Bor dialogueC, or e1en a shared mise/en/scCne, but by way o! &ross-&utting at the beginning o! the seGuen&e Bbetween the prison where /usgro1e prepares to die and the home where Leti&ia and +yrell wait in 1ain !or his &allC and by intelle&tual and emotional montage toward the end o! the seGuen&e Ba!ter his death walk when the images &ollide ba&k and !orth among /usgro1e, ;his< &hair, the representati1es o! &i1il so&iety wat&hing him !rom their &hairs, and the apparatus o! death being pushed and pulledC. +hough the &uts between home and prison are pa&ed more swi!tly than the &uts in other parts o! the !ilm, in the beginning o! the seGuen&e they are not swi!t enough to suppress the dialogue. 2eated on the so!a, Leti&ia and +yrell are &aptured by the &amera:s
0(0
high angle shot, a shot &onnotati1e o! diminished agen&y with bodies either disempowered or on the brink o! impending mishap BWayne 7.C. Leti&ia dis&o1ers &ho&olate on +yrell:s lip and !lies into a rage. 2he drags him into his bedroom and 1erbally and physi&ally degrades him. 2he berates him !or being !at and tells him that the &haoti& and disastrous spe&ta&le that is his bedroom &ame about ;R)ause a !at little piggy li1es in this roomA< Later in the !ilm, a!ter both Lawren&e and +yrell ha1e been killed, the narrati1e &an pro&eed toward interra&ial se3 and so&ial redemption !rom whi&h the optimism o! its so&ially trans!ormati1e agenda deri1es so mu&h pride and pleasure. s&reenwriter /ilos s
ddi&a put it' ;+he story doesn:t work i! the &hild doesn:t die$.LWe
wereM adamant about the boy had Lsi&M to die. We tried to &hange it to make the boy li1e, but it wasn:t working$.+he story we wrote be&omes pointless i! the &hild doesn:t die< BCast and Cre& 6nter$ie&s and Commentar" b" (arc %orster and Academ" A&ard/ #ominated Writers (ilo Addica and Will RokosC. In other words, ;not only is Leti&ia:s husband e3e&uted, but her son must also die as the pre&ondition !or her new li!e with her husband:s e3e&utioner. #440' 171C. +o wit, Leti&ia is beating +yrell against a mise/en/scCne o! &haos, the bedroom o! ;a !at little piggy,< and Lawren&e is sket&hing portraits against the mise/en/scCne o! death row. +he !ilm establishes +yrell as !at' e3panding, dirty, and disorgani=edE a &ontagion, the burden o! disease upon Leti&ia. >ere the e!!e&t o! the narrati1e together with the image tra&k establishes +yrell as bla&k, dirty, a threat without boundaries, a bla&k plague in waiting. )ontrary to the politi&al and so&ial &laims o! Forster and the s&reenwriters ddi&a and Dokos, there is not a parallel between the ethi&al dilemmas o! the Krotowski nd the death reGuirement is rendered as a roman&eartman
0(%
household and those o! Leti&ia:s home. It is true that the narrati1e insists upon the parallelism o! 2onny and +yrell:s deaths, as i! to say both !amilies must e3perien&e the death o! the son, a death in the !amily, in order !or the parents to reali=e a !orbidden but "oyous union and the promise o! a new world But 2onny disturbs >ank intelle&tually. 2onny:s attitude toward the prison is ambiguous and it is that ambiguity whi&h threatens the &oheren&e o! >ank:s own institutional &ommitment. 2onny:s relationship to Bla&ks, to Bla&k &hildren at least, threatens >ank:s idea o! his pla&e in the world. 2onny dies but his ensemble o! Guestions, the ethi&al dilemmas posed by his re"e&tion o! the prison, his liaison with Bla&k kids, and his sui&ide, li1e on and be&ome hegemoni&. 2onny is o!!ered, by the !ilm, as a moral &hallenge to >ank and, by e3tension, to the rigidity o! 2outhern &i1il so&iety. +yrell, on the other hand, is not beaten and berated !or the threat he poses to Leti&ia:s ideas. @art o! the reason !or this is that the !ilm intuits what >ank:s !ather tells Leti&ia, to her !a&e, that she is a ;nigger.< nd as su&h, she &annot be imagined,
&inemati&ally, as ha1ing ideas to be &hallenged. +rue, Leti&ia is ;our< nigger Bthe spe&tator:s niggerC, whereas +yrell is "ust ;a< nigger. 2he is ;our< nigger in the sense that to ;mulattaHos< a&&rues a &ertain pride o! pla&e in &i1il so&iety. But that pride o! pla&e does not trans!orm the ;mullataHo< into one o! &i1il so&iety:s addressees, nor into one o! its organi=ers o! hegemony. In addition, and more to Forster:s narrati1e &on&eit o! parallelism, the arti&ulateness and &apa&ity !or ideas, &on1i&tions, thoughts, or e1en &omple3 !eelings a&&rue to +yrell e1en less than they do to Leti&ia. >is waddling !rom room to room, his &onstant whee=ing, his 1ora&ious and indis&riminate appetite, and his room, suggesti1e o! a site in need o! Guarantine, &onnote neither moral superiority nor
0((
progressi1e intelle&tualism. +yrell is o!!ered, by the !ilm, as a bodily threat to Leti&ia and, by e3tension, to the world. 2onny:s is the spe&ter o! a sub"e&t that Guestions and hauntsE +yrell:s is the spe&ter o! a phobi& ob"e&t. +he !ilm:s &inemati& un&ons&ious is well aware o! this s&hism between the li1ing and the dead, !or whereas both sons die, only one o! them is treated to a !uneral s&ene, and it is not +yrell. Leti&ia pushes +yrell onto the s&ale, he weighs one hundred eighty pounds, she elbows him in the stoma&h, he sGueals, doubles o1er, !alls to the bed, sobbing. 6ow, she holds him and talks to him, &onsolingly. ;)ome on,< she says, ;let:s go wait !or your Daddy to &all.< *n&e Leti&ia:s tirade against +yrell is o1er, the !ilm &uts ba&k to death row and the e3e&ution seGuen&e starts to mo1e at a more rapid pa&e, in that ;&inemati& &oheren&e and plentitude emerge through multiple &uts and negations< B2il1erman, 17-0' #4(C and the spa&e o! the !rame be&omes more and more &laustrophobi&. In other words, the hydrauli&s o! this &risp and swi!t editing e3ert a &rowding out pressure on the use o! dialogue as a narrati1e strategy. Dire&tor /ar& Forster:s &redo, that musi& Band, impli&itly, other !ormal elements o! &inemaC should always remain subordinate to the narrati1e BAnatom" of a SceneC is grossly negle&ted during the e3e&ution seGuen&e. +he e!!e&t o! what I am &alling narrati1e negle&t is important here !or it hobbles the !ilm:s ability to easily "ettison a ;guilt &omple3< BFanon, BSW(' 1..C whi&h White &inema o!ten manages to "ettison. s a result, the !ilm &an be ;written< by an otherwise
impermissible knowledge. ;+here is !irst o! all a sadisti& aggression toward the bla&k man, !ollowed by a guilt &omple3 be&ause o! the san&tion against su&h beha1ior by the demo&rati& &ulture o! the &ountry in Guestion< B1..C. +his ;sadisti& aggression,< Fanon in!orms us, is stru&tural, in that without it Whites &ould not be positioned as Whites l3331iiiE
0(,
but the ;san&tion against su&h beha1ior< by a ;demo&rati& &ulture< turns this stru&tural 1iolen&e into an impermissible knowledge?at least at the le1el o! a !ilm:s narrati1e intentions. +his impermissible knowledge is knowledge o! the ne&essity o! ne&rophilia in the maintenan&e o! &i1il so&iety and !or White ontologi&al &oheren&e. But the narrati1e throughout most !ilms, in&luding (onster4s Ball, represses it. +he &laim being made here is that what the e3e&ution seGuen&e ;knows< about White ontology Bits sustenan&e o! ;sadisti& aggression<C is also repressed by /ar3ist meta-&ommentaries on the grammar o! su!!ering B6egri and >ardtC and by !ilm theory.
+he &ut !rom +yrell:s bedroom is to a brie! shot o! the witness room. It is empty. It is separated !rom the empty ele&tri& &hair by a huge glass window. Be!ore the 1iewer be&omes unbearably an3ious about the Guestion, From what position is the shot being obser1edF, the shotHre1erse shot te&hniGue ki&ks in and the &amera pans the death &hamber and its ele&tri& &hair. +his panning shot &omes to rest on a mi&rophone plugged into a modest a&ousti& &onsole near the ele&tri& &hair. In this shot the witness room remains unpopulated. We &ut ba&k to Lawren&e /usgro1e ha1ing his head sha1ed by a pair o! white hands with !ingers !at as bratwursts. +hese white hands are so!tly, and ;&lassi&ally,< lit in what is known as a ;three-point system &onsisting o! a primary light Bthe keyC, gi1ing general illumination o! the !igure, a se&ond, so!ter light Bthe fillC, eliminating some o! the shadows &reated by the key$ and backlighting, whi&h ser1es to keep the !igure separate !rom the ba&kground as well as &reating...the rim and halo e!!e&ts o! heroi& and glamour lighting< BDyer, White -.C. +he three-point lighting system, by whi&h Forster:s &inematography illuminates these large white hands, is most &ommonly
0(.
used to ;&onstru&t the &hara&teristi& glow o! white women< B-.C in &inema. +he blending o! three points o! light imbues the White woman with a so!t, uni!ied look whi&h suggests ;she inhabits$a spa&e o! trans&enden&e< B--C. )uriously enough, howe1er, both Lawren&e /usgro1e, the official condemned, and the guards who are sha1ing his head Bnot only !ree agents in relation to /usgro1e, but agents o! the state:s repressi1e apparatusC are positioned together as diminished, &aptured agen&y, !i3ed as it were by the !ilm:s high &amera angles and sa&red musi&al s&ore. Ki1en this &ommon lo&ation, and gi1en /usgro1e:s &entrality to the ritual, why is it that his bla&k !a&e is not gra&ed with the three-point blend o! trans&endent light, whereas the hands o! his &aptor areF Di&hard Dyer reminds us that in most !ilms the &hara&teristi& glow o! White women is typi&ally &ontrasted against the ;dark mas&uline desire< o! the White male lead. >e goes on to say that, histori&ally, ;under the pressure o! war propaganda< this dark mas&uline desire ;would also ha1e been !elt as ra&ially other< BDyer -.C. (onster4s Ball:s trans&endent lighting o! white hands in &ontrast with the banal lighting o! the bla&k !a&e, on the one hand, &oupled with the immanen&e o! the sa&red musi& and the way in whi&h all o! the !igures are &aptured by the high angle shot, on the other hand, are symptomati& o! the way in whi&h shared e3perien&es in the realm o! the so&ial are not necessaril" inde3i&al o! shared positions in the realm o! the stru&tural. +here is a &risis in the &ommons, a so&ial reality whi&h Bla&k Lawren&e /usgro1e e)periences together with White prison guards' prison and the death penalty diminish the li1es o! guards, inmates, and &i1il so&iety:s organi=ers o! hegemony Bthe people who will be seated in the witness roomC. s /i&hael >ardt writes' ;my li!e too is stru&tured
through dis&iplinary regimes< B;@rison +ime< ,,C. +he prison:s walls ha1e be&ome a
0(-
phenomenon permeating the pri1ate and Guotidian o! the so&ius ;separating us !rom our desires, isolating us !rom &onta&t, prohibiting en&ounters, seemLingM to make lo1e impossible< B.4C. 2ubseGuently, ;LtMhe se3ual depri1ation that is one o! the &enter-pie&es o! the prison regime is only indi&ati1e o! a more general depri1ation o! a!!e&t.< >ardt argues that e1eryone in this post-industrial milieu, inmate, guard, organi=er o! hegemony ? in short, the entire &ommons?su!!ers a &ommon ;e3ile !rom a!!e&t< B.4C. +he &ommon &apture o! bodies by the high &amera angles BLeti&ia and +yrell on the &ou&h waiting !or Lawren&e to &allE Lawren&e and his &aptors in the &ell and on the death walkC attests to this ;general depri1ation o! a!!e&t< and to e1eryone:s su!!ering the social e)perience o! ;prison time.< But the three-point blend o! light that dei!ies the white hands sha1ing a bla&k head, gi$en its almost e)clusi$e histor" as an accompaniment to White femininit", is symptomati& o! a stru&tural antagonism rarely a&knowledged so&ially. /i&hael >ardt is wrong to assume that the ;general depri1ation o! a!!e&t,< e3perien&ed by e1eryone, has a so&ial and an ontologi&al impa&t, and that it positions e1eryone as a member o! the e3ploited and alienated multitude simply be&ause it makes e1eryone feel a!!e&ti1ely depri1ed. Within an ontologi&al relation, Lawren&e /usgro1e Band Leti&ia and +yrellC e3ists ;under the pressure o! war< BDyer -.C in his stru&tural, as opposed to so&ial, relation to >ank Krotowski and the organi=ers o! &i1il so&iety:s hegemony. But the stru&tural 1iolen&e o! this war has no dis&ernable so&ial dis&ourse, no o!!i&ial ;propaganda< o! ;sadisti& aggression< BFanon 1..C. *1er the past !i1e hundred years, >ank Krotowski Band his &olleagues: so!t white handsC has officiall" de&lared war on 6ati1e meri&ans, on the ruling &lass, on /e3i&o B1-0-C, 2pain, Nietnam, Kermany,
0(7
!ghanistan, and IraG, to name but a !ewE but he has ne1er de&lared war on the Bla&ks. >ow &ould heF Who are theyF Where is the Bla&k terrainF nd yet$ +he ritual &ontinues as the so!t wooly tu!ts o! /usgro1e:s hair !all gently to the !loor. 6ow the shot &uts to another pair o! &ompassionate white hands whi&h holds a pair o! s&issors and is &utting one leg o! his trousers o!! at the knee. +he same hands then sha1e his leg !rom the ankle up to the knee. +his head and leg sha1ing shows not only &ompassion and re1erent &onsideration !or the &ondemned but also !or the te&hnology o! death itsel!' now, with the hair remo1ed and the &lothing &ut away, the ele&tri&ity &an &ondu&t itsel! !rom head to toe with greater ease and burn the ne&essary organs without simultaneously burning unne&essary hair. +he sa&red mass-like religiosity o! the musi&al s&ore marks these garment and body sha1ing shots with a kind o! trans&endent spirituality in!initely more sublime than the trans&enden&e o! the large but so!t and gentle white hands, were those hands to be abandoned to their own soundless image. nd yet, again, as the shot &ommen&es, what is
most striking about it is not the musi&al a&&ompaniment Bthat be&omes apparent in a rather delayed wayC but the mark o! the &ondemned whi&h all o! the !igures?(usgro$e as &ell as his captors?are !or&ed, by the high angle shot, to bear. ntonio 6egri and
/i&hael >ardt would !ind sola&e here, !or it &on!irms their thesis that &i1il so&iety is withering away !or e1eryone Bregardless o! ra&eC, and that !or the past thirty years o! post-industrial death e1eryone:s li1es, whether Bla&k or White, ha1e been subsumed by the temporality o! prison time. Inmates li1e prison as an e3ile !rom li!e, or rather, !rom the time o! li1ing$.+he weight o! destiny, the !ate imposed by the so1ereign power
0,4
o! prison time seems to ha1e pushed them out o! their bodies, out o! e3isten&e altogether$. +hose who are !ree$might imagine their own !reedom de!ined and rein!or&ed in opposition to prison time. When you get &lose to prison, howe1er, you reali=e that it is not really a site o! e3&lusion, separate !rom so&iety, but rather a !o&al point, the site o! the highest &on&entration o! a logi& o! power that is generally di!!used throughout the world. @rison is our so&iety in its most reali=ed !orm$/y li!e too is stru&tured through dis&iplinary regimes, my days mo1e on with a me&hani&al repetiti1eness?work, &ommute, t1, sleep. I do not ha1e the same physi&al dis&om!ort or the se3ual depri1ation, but e1en without the walls and bars my li!e ends up being strangely similar$. I li1e prison time in our !ree so&iety, e3iled !rom li1ing. B;@rison +ime< ,(-,.C /i&hael >ardt might blan&h at my suggestion that his meditations on the lost time and spa&e o! proletarian ontology are predi&ated on the same rhetori&al s&a!!olding as /ar& Forster:s fau) ra&ial politi&s. 6onetheless, there is ;a stunning mutuality< B2pillers 01,C between what (onster4s Ball intends and what /i&hael >ardt assumes. +he s&reenplay o! (onster4s Ball o!!ers >ank Krotowski:s de1astated li!e as &inemati& proo! that ;when you get &lose to prison$you reali=e that it is not really a sight o! e3&lusion'< the &lose-up shots o! >ank:s !a&e, as he walks with Lawren&e to the ele&tri& &hair, !astens his arms to the arms o! the &hair, and tightens the s&rews that !asten the wires to the skull &ap on /usgro1e:s head, are images o! pain, o! humane relu&tan&e &lashing with the super-ego o! senseless duty' his is the !a&e o! e3ploitation and alienation unto death. then he pulls the swit&h. nd
0,1
@rison, >ardt writes, ;is not really a site o! e3&lusion separate !rom so&iety, but rather$the site o! the highest &on&entration o! a logi& o! power that is generally di!!used throughout the world.< +his di!!usion throughout the world not only imposes prison time on the homoso&ial domesti&ity o! the Krotowski home, but it also puts an otherwise 1ibrant and demo&rati& &i1il so&iety on permanent lo&kdown. +he only moment in the !ilm when &i1il so&iety:s organi=ers o! hegemony are !eatured o&&urs during this e3e&ution seGuen&e, as the s&ene &uts !rom the sa&red religiosity o! /usgro1e being sha1ed to a mid-le1el shot o! a White !emale prison guard standing in a short narrow hallway as though wedged there. 2he stands ne3t to the door. 2he holds a &lipboard and &he&ks the se&urity tags o! 1arious people who represent institutions o! &i1il so&iety Be.g., the press, the &lergyC. *ne by one she admits them into the witness room where they remain spee&hless behind the glass !or the remainder o! the s&ene. s /ar& Forster and /i&hael >ardt would ha1e it, all o! &i1il so&iety li1es ;prison time in our !ree so&ietyardt ,.C. 51eryone is e3iled !rom the time o! li!e. nd so, regardless o! how >ardt:s re1olutionary /ar3ism may disappro1e o! Forster:s liberal humanism, they share a set o! stru&tural assumptions that grants them ontologi&al &oheren&e' Krotowski, like >ardt:s proletariat, has been ;e3iled !rom li1ing.< 6ot only does he su!!er !rom the grammar o! &apitalism:s basi& modalities o! e3ploitation?the intensi!i&ation o! work and the e3tra&tion o! surplus 1alue?but he endures the hyperalienation o! prison time. +he stru&ture o! their des&ripti1e gestures is the same' e3ploitation and alienation, by way o! &apitalist e3ploitation, intensi!ied by &ar&eral temporality imposed upon the proletariat within the last thirty years o! globali=ation. Both the !ilm and the meta-&ommentary assert ;that prison time lies at the heart o! our
0,#
so&ial order, and that its destru&tion is the &ondition !or any re1olutionardt ,%C? whether indi1iduated B(onster4s BallC or &olle&ti1e B/ar3ismC. In short, both the !ilm and the ontologi&al meditation see the prison as ;the paradigm !or punishment,< a punishment whi&h &onsists o! ;the loss o! LaM most pre&ious asset< whi&h both Forster and >ardt belie1e ;we< all ;possess eGually' time B,%C. 2ubseGuently, their pres&ripti1e gestures also &orrespond, in that !or both Forster and >ardt the politi&s o! so&ial and ontologi&al, respe&ti1ely, inter1ention turn on the idea o! redemption. >ank Krotowski must be so&ially redeemed and the proletariat must be ontologi&ally redeemed. @ut another way, the time o! li!e must be redeemed !rom the time o! prison. In (onster4s Ball, li1ing time is redeemed !rom prison time by the power o! lo1e, the liberal humanist ;e1ent,< rendered aestheti&ally through the &hara&ter ar&' the 2outhern ra&ist:s re!usal o! hate and his sel!-abandonment to the amorous embra&e o! the *ther. lso enabled by the power o! the amorous, /i&hael >ardt:s li1ing time is
redeemed !rom prison time through the ;e1ent< o! re1olutionary lo1e, ontologi&ally rendered through ;the &ontinuous mo1ement o! &onstituent power< B;@rison +ime< .-C mani!est in >ardt:s pres&ription to embra&e and transpose Jean Kenet:s ;pro"e&t< o! ;saintliness.< In mpire 6egri and >ardt ground this notion o! a &ommon, &onstituent
power in their belie! that the post-industrial ;abstra&t and trans&endental< e1olution o! pri1ate property &oin&ides with the re-&omposition o! the proletariat into a global, ;more radi&al and pro!ound &ommonality than has e1er been e3perien&ed in the history o! &apitalism< B mpire 040C. +hey &all this re-&omposed, radi&al and pro!ound &ommonality, whi&h has been elaborated in the last twenty to thirty years o! &apitalist e3ploitation and alienation, ;the multitude.<
0,0
Just as 5mpire in the spe&ta&le o! its !or&e &ontinually determines systemi& re&ompositions, so too new !igures o! resistan&e are &omposed through the seGuen&es o! the e1ents o! struggle. +his is another !undamental &hara&teristi& o! the e3isten&e o! the multitude today, &ithin 5mpire and against 5mpire. 6ew !igures o! struggle and new sub"e&ti1ities are produ&ed in the &on"un&ture o! e1ents, in the uni1ersal nomadism Lhere 6egri and >ardt are re!erring to the e3ponential rise in near-re!ugee status o! so many +hird World people during globali=ationM, in the general mi3ture and mis&egenation o! indi1iduals and populations, and in the te&hnologi&al metamorphoses o! the imperial biopoliti&al ma&hine$ L+he multitudeM e3press, nourish, and de1elop positi1ely their own &onstituent pro"e&tsE they work toward the liberation o! li1ing labor, &reating &onstellations o! power!ul singularities$+he multitude is the real produ&ti1e !or&e o! our so&ial world, whereas 5mpire is a mere apparatus o! &apture that li1es only o!! the 1itality o! the multitude?as /ar3 would say, a 1ampire regime o! a&&umulated dead labor that sur1i1es only by su&king o!! the blood o! the li1ing. B mpire ,1-,#C nd on the terrain o! 5mpire Ba terrain on whi&h pri1ate property is more and more abstra&t and trans&endental, a terrain o! &ommuni&ati1e and intera&ti1e produ&tionC ;a new notion o! LtheM R&ommons: will ha1e to emergeardt, ;a new spe&ies o! politi&al a&ti1ist has been born< o! the multitude, ;parado3i&al< in its ;idealism< in that its'
0,%
realisti& &ourse o! a&tion today is to demand what is seemingly impossible, that is, something new. L+he &onstituent pro"e&ts o! the multitudeM do not pro1ide a pra&ti&al blueprint !or how to sol1e problems, and we should not e3pe&t that o! them. +hey seek rather to trans!orm the publi& agenda by &reating politi&al desires !or a better !uture$*ne o! the most remarkable &hara&teristi&s o! these mo1ements is their di1ersity' trade unionists together with e&ologist together with priests and )ommunists. +hese mo1ements e1oke the openness?toward new kinds o! e3&hange and new ideas$ B>ardt, ;+he 6ew Fa&es in Kenoa Want a Di!!erent Future.< #e& ?ork !imes. Wednesday, July #(, #441.C +he emergen&e o! a new notion o! the &ommons, a trans!ormed ;politi&al agenda< by way o! the &reation o! ;politi&al desires or a better !uture,< is 6egri and >ardt:s dream !or the trans!ormation o! &apitalist &artography' the redemption o! prison spa&e. It goes hand in hand with >ardt:s spe&i!i& dream !or new ;&ommon names< B040C by way o! Kenet:s saintly pro"e&t !or the redemption o! prison time?his ;simple a!!irmation$ LthatM we still do not know what bodies &an do< B.0C. For >ardt, Kenet:s ;di1inity< lies in his' re1ealing our &ommon power to &onstitute reality, to &onstitute being. +he power o! &reation, the power to &ause our own e3isten&e, is di1ine$ I! we re&ogni=e what is &ommon to Lthe prisoner:sM body and our own, i! we dis&o1er the way Lthe prisoner:sM body agrees with our own and how our bodies together &ompose a new body Lthe multitude re-&omposed !rom the workerM, we &an oursel1es &ause that "oy!ul en&ounter to return Lhen&e the eman&ipatory ;e1ent<M. B;@rison +ime< .0C
0,(
For both Forster:s indi1idual and >ardt:s multitude?both subsumed by prison time?the ;e1ent< or ;en&ounter< in whi&h time is re-deemed is ine3tri&ably bound in the sub"e&t:s &apa&ity to be trans!ormed, so&ially BForsterC and ontologi&ally B>ardtC, by abandoning sub"e&ti1ity to what in the words o! Kenet is ;Rone long mating, burdened and &ompli&ated by a hea1y, strange, eroti& &eremonial:$ B!he !hief4s ;ournal, 14C< B.%C. nd lo1e is the dri1ing !or&e in this &onstitution Lo! a new body, the multitudeM. +he organi=ation o! "oy!ul en&ounters is the in&rease in our power, our power to a&t and power to e3ist$ +his eternal return to the "oy!ul en&ounter is a &onstitution o! being, not in the sense that it !i3es an immobile identity B!ar !rom itC, but rather in that it de!ines a mo1ement, a be&oming, a tra"e&tory o! en&ounters, always open and un!oreseeable, &ontinuously sus&eptible to the inter1ention o! the new e1ents. +he return o! the "oy!ul en&ounter is the !irst thread !rom whi&h we will wea1e an alternati1e &onstituent time. B.0-.%C Lest the stru&tural &orrelation between >ank:s sus&eptibility ;to the inter1ention o! the new e1ents< Bhis liaison with Leti&iaC and that same sus&eptibility o! the multitude, !ound in >ardt and 6egri:s work, be read as an agreement between (onster4s Ball and /ar3ism at the le1el o! the so&ial, we should bear in mind >ardt and 6egri:s &ontrariness when &on!ronted with the politi&s o! indi1iduated liberation. ;R*utside o! a materialist, &olle&ti1e, and dynami& &on&eption o! time it is impossible to &on&ei1e o! re1olution: B6egri, (acchina tempo. /ilan' Feltrinelli' 17-#' #(0C< B.4CE whi&h is to say, the so&ial e!!e&t o! Forster:s amorous interra&ial dream &annot ha1e a stru&tural impa&t on >ank Krotowski in his &apa&ity as a member o! the multitude. +hus, !or >ardt, (onster4s
0,,
Ball:s so&ial politi&s would be weak at best, rea&tionary at worst. I would agree with >ardt, but it is my task here to add that the stru&tural impa&t o! .ardt and #egri4s amorous dream shakes not one pillar on the sla1e estate and in !a&t strengthens, along with Forster:s dream, the sla1e estate:s !oundation. (onster4s Ball does, howe1er, pose the Guestion o! redemption both in terms o! >ank:s indi1iduated amorous e1ent, his liaison with Leti&ia, and in terms o! >ardt:s &onstituent B&olle&ti1eC re1olutionary e1ent, the problems posed by both the image o! &i1il so&iety:s organi=ers o! hegemony trapped behind the glass o! the death &hamber:s witness room and by the gathering o! guards su!!ering on death row. What is essential, howe1er, is that the po&er to pose the 2uestion is dependent and parasiti& on Bla&k presen&e, while simultaneously, the Bla&k is barred !rom the Guestions raised. From the organi=ers o! hegemony lo&ked behind the glass o! the witness room, we then &ut ba&k to Lawren&e, the guards, and the preparatory rituals. +he opening shot here is &ropped in su&h a way that an asephali&, or headless, White guard appears. >e is helping the &ondemned on with his diaper. Like the high angle shot toward the beginning o! this montage, the asephali& sub"e&ti1ity o! the prison guard positions him in su&h a way that he shares, with Lawren&e /usgro1e, not the !ate o! physi&al death, but the !ate o! so&ial death. It is as i! they are positioned, both White guard and Bla&k inmate, by ;a !atal way o! being ali1e< B/arriott 1(C. +he e3e&ution seGuen&e, through a swi!t su&&ession o! &ompilation shots Bshots spli&ed together to gi1e a Gui&k impression o! the pla&e where the rituals o! sha1ing and diapering take pla&eC &ross-&uts Leti&ia and +yrell at home and Lawren&e, >ank, and 2onny and the sket&hing Lawren&e has drawnE then ba&k and !orth among the sa&red
0,.
shearing, the witness room, the hallway, the in&ar&eration o! &i1il so&iety:s assemblage, and the ele&tri& &hair itsel!. It mo1es us through the death walk during whi&h 2onny 1omits, doubles o1er, and so takes himsel! out o! the pro&eedingsE all the way to the e3e&ution itsel! and the !inal &ut whi&h brings us ba&k to the /usgro1e residen&e where Leti&ia is now alone, brushing her teeth Bthe image o! her !a&e split in two between a normal medi&ine &abinet mirror and a magni!ying mirror that e3tends out !rom the wallC. *n the !a&e o! it, the argument o! the seGuen&e appears to be in tandem with the ontologi&al assumpti1e logi& that I ha1e suggested, shared by both the aestheti& gestures o! White &inema and meta-&ommentaries on proletarian ontology. In other words, (onster4s Ball, through the intentionality o! its s&reenplay, seeks agreement with the assumpti1e logi& o! 6egri, >ardt, !ilm theory, and the plethora o! &riti&al attention the !ilm re&ei1ed in lo&al newspapers and maga=inesE its narrati1e suggests that, though the e3perien&e o! su!!ering 1aries !rom person to person Bsome !olks get e3e&uted while others grow morose at the thought o! e3e&utionC, the grammar o! su!!ering is uni1ersal be&ause a &ar&eral modality now permeates the &ommons. s /i&hael >ardt would ha1e
it' ;/y li!e too is stru&tured through dis&iplinary regimes$. I li1e prison time in our !ree so&iety, e3iled !rom li1ing< B;@rison +ime< ,.C. gain, a&&ompanying those dis&ourses whi&h assume a uni1ersal grammar o! su!!ering BWhite !ilm, meta-&ommentaries on ontology, !ilm theory, and !ilm re1iewsC is a prescripti$e politi&al &ommon sense 1ested in shared &on1i&tions regarding the so&ially trans!ormati1e power o! symboli& a&tion, a notion that the e!!e&ts o! symboli& a&tion &an ha1e the impa&t o! a stru&tural inter1ention power!ul enough to liberate the sub"e&t positionally. t the end o! this so&ially trans!ormati1e tra"e&tory, the sub"e&t is
0,-
re&omposed B2il1erman (ale Sub5ecti$it"* #,%-#.4E 6egri & >ardt ,1C and redeemed B>ardt ;@rison +ime< ,.E Forster Cast and 3irector 6nter$ie&sC?in a word, liberated.
)ho Too$ the %orm
ut of Trans5form7ative0
gain, throughout the history o! !ilm theory, alternati1e &inema has been held out as the e3emplar o! the so&ially trans!ormati1e tra"e&tory alluded to abo1e. For e3ample, the assumpti1e logi& undergirding the descripti$e gestures o! mu&h o! Ia"a 2il1erman:s work has ;&hallenged the phalli& identi!i&ation upon whi&h mas&ulinity depends by insisting upon the la&k at the heart o! all sub"e&ti1ity, and by isolating histori&al trauma as a !or&e &apable o! unbinding the &oheren&e o! the male ego, and e3posing the abyss that it &on&eals< B177#, 1#1C. >ere, as I argued in )hapter #, alienation is posited not as a negati1e modality, but simply as that whi&h happens when the infans be&omes a sub"e&t Byour money or your li!e, as La&an would sayC. ;La&k,< as it were, ;at the heart o! all sub"e&ti1ity< is marked by the sub"e&t:s being gi1en o1er to the 2ymboli& *rder and !ore1er more being barred !rom a&&ess to the Deal, until sHhe dies. 53ploitation, in this instan&e, is mani!est in what, !or 2il1erman, would amount to >ardt:s ;prison time,< a temporality in&ar&erated by the ;phalli&$. &oheren&e o! the male ego< whi&h is mani!est most emphati&ally !or 2il1erman in the hegemony o! >ollywood &inema, and !or >ardt in the subsumption o! &i1il so&iety by the post-industrial &ommand modalities o! &apitalism. 2ubtending 2il1erman:s des&ripti1e logi& one !inds a prescripti$e gesture?her &ontribution to a large ensemble o! so&ially trans!ormati1e tra"e&tories?namely, alternati1e &inema' &elluloid as a time and spa&e 1e&tor that &an appro3imate ;histori&al trauma Land here the 1erb ;appro3imate< is essential, !or 2il1erman makes &lear in her
0,7
opening &hapters her non-1iolent intentions toward White menM as a !or&e &apable o! unbinding the &oheren&e o! the male ego, and e3posing the abyss that it &on&eals.< 2il1erman lo&ates her politi&al optimism !or a so&ially trans!ormati1e aestheti&s in the &ounter-&inema o! Fassbinder. 2he applauds' Fassbinder:s radi&al re!usal to affirm, his repudiation o! positi1ity in any shape or !orm$.. LhMis a1ersion to the !i&tions whi&h make psy&hi& and so&ial e3isten&e tolerable$.What happens within Fassbinder:s &inema is that both the ga=e and the images whi&h promote identity remain irredu&ibly e3terior, stubbornly remo1ed !rom the sub"e&t who depends upon them !or its e3perien&e o! ;sel!.< $.L2Mub"e&ti1ity is &onseGuently shown to depend upon a 1isual agen&y whi&h remains insistently outside. B1#,-1#.C +his pres&ripti1e gesture !rom !ilm theory e&hoes >ardt:s ontologi&ally-based pres&ription !or the multitude to re1eal its ;&ommon power to &onstitute reality, to &onstitute being< B;@rison +ime< .0C by opening itsel!, &olle&ti1ely, to the ;un!oreseeable$inter1ention o! the new e1ents< B.%C through whi&h the body o! the nominally !ree &an be re&omposed in "oyous union with the body o! the barred. 2il1erman:s &inemati& ;1isual agen&y whi&h remains insistently outside< B1#1C the ;phalli&$&oheren&e o! the male ego< B1#1C?her Fassbinder-esGue pres&ription !or abandoning the sel! to the abyss o! sub"e&ti1ity?is an aestheti& pres&ription predi&ated on the same ethi&al dilemmas, the same grammar o! su!!ering, as (onster4s Ball:s so&ial pres&ription and 6egriH>ardt:s ontologi&al pres&ription.
0.4
In passing, it is worth pointing out that the 2il1erman Guotation also illustrates how !ilm theory is per&hed liminally between the e3planatory power o! ontologi&al meditations and the inter1entionist rhetori& o! politi&al mani!esto. White !ilm theory:s &on!iden&e in the e3planatory power o! La&anian psy&hoanalysis and Krams&ian Guestions o! hegemony make the s&a!!olding o! its rhetori&al stru&ture read at one moment like a meta-&ommentary on the stru&ture o! ontology, while its desire to o!!er !ilm as a weapon !or so&ial &hange make it read at another moment like the rhetori& o! politi&al dis&ourse, a politi&al &ommon sense shared e1en by the assumpti1e logi& o! most Bla&k !ilm theory and by the sentiments o! Bla&k &hara&ters on s&reen, su&h as Lawren&e /usgro1e, when he ins&ribes himsel! will!ully, i! not !oolishly, into the 2ymboli& *rder as a ;man< and a ;bad< one at thatE and by Leti&ia /usgro1e and >alle Berry when they ins&ribe themsel1es into the 2ymboli& *rder as ;women< and ;mothers.< White !ilm, /ar3ist meta-&ommentaries on ontology, !ilm theory, and !ilm re1iews, as well as the delusions o! >alle Berry and Lawren&e and Leti&ia /usgro1e, are stru&tured by the ontologi&al ne&essity o! Whiteness Bmore pre&isely, by >umansC be&ause they either take !or granted Bin the &ase o! politi&al dis&ourse, !ilm re1iews, and !ilm theoryC or insist upon Bin the &ase o! ontologi&al meta-&ommentariesC the a prioriness o! the sub"e&t:s &apa&ity to be alienated andHor e3ploited. +he form o! this &apa&ity is temporal, in the sense that a sub"e&t:s heritage, hisHher historiography andHor genealogi&al kinship stru&ture, stripped o! its parti&ular a&&outrement, amounts to that ;most pre&ious asset that all LsupposedlyM possess eGually' timeardt, 177.' ,%C. +he !orm o! this &apa&ity is also spatial. In other words, it is a &ontestation o1er, a &omposition and re-
0.1
&omposition o!, &artography that &an &ohere as determinate place in a way that endless spa&e is not. +emporal &apa&ity Bthe heritage o! historiographyC permits one to think ;time &an be redeemed.< For time to be re-deem-able, time must ha1e been, at some histori&al moment, deemed. But the most &oherent temporality e1er deemed as Bla&k-time is the ;moment< o! no time at all on the map o! no-pla&e at all' the ship hold o! the /iddle @assage. +he &apa&ity !or temporal redemption?the bare-bones ability to make &oherent the 1aguest notion o! redeemable temporality?is a basi& assumption whi&h the s&reenplay o! (onster4s Ball shares with the oeu1re o! >ardt and 6egri:s meditations. But the Bla&k has no &apa&ity to analogi=e the loss o! Bla&k time with the multitude:s B>ank:sC loss o! &ommons timeE nor is there a spatial analogy between the &ommons, whether a publi& assembly, a domesti& s&ene, or the body, on one hand, or the hold o! a sla1e ship, on the other. *ne &annot think loss and redemption through Bla&kness, as one &an think them through the proletarian multitude or the !emale body, be&ause Bla&kness re&alls nothing prior to that 1ery de1astation that de!ines it BJudyC. What, then, is the signi!i&an&e o! >ank:s redemption o! time and spa&e in relation to Lawren&e, Leti&ia, and +yrellF *ntologi&al &apa&ity eGuals time marked by the power o! chronolog", and spa&e marked by the power o! place. &hronology and a pla&e where
a drama of $alue &an &ohere and ins&ribe sub"e&ti1ity at multiple s&ales &ir&ums&ribed by the ma&ro-mo1ement o! &lass re&omposition and the attendant re-territoriali=ing o! so&ial &artography, by the body, all the way down to s&ales &ir&ums&ribed by the mi&romo1ement o! &elluloid &artography and the borders o! the &inemati& !rame?what 2tephen >eath &alls ;narrati1e spa&e<?and the power o! that !rame to &ompose and
0.#
re&ompose, position and re-position, sub"e&ts through the sele&tion and &ombination o! presen&e and absen&e' In !a&t, the composition will organi=e the !rame in !un&tion o! the human !igures in their a&tionsE what enters &inema is a logic of mo$ement and it is this logi& that &entres the !rame. Frame spa&e, in other words, is &onstru&ted as narrati1e spa&e. It is narrati1e signi!i&an&e that at any moment sets the spa&e o! the !rame to be !ollowed and ;read,< and that determines the de1elopment o! the !ilmi& &ues in their &ontributions to the de!inition o! spa&e !rame$@SApace becomes place<narrati$e as the taking place of film$What is &ru&ial is the &on1ersion o! seen into s&ene, the holding signi!ier on signi!ied' the !rame, &omposed, &entred, narrated, is the point o! that &on1ersion. B>eath, Kuestions of Cinema 17-1' 0,-0.. 5mphasis mine.C Whereas Ia"a 2il1erman lo&ates the so&ially trans!ormati1e power o! alternati1e &inema in its content/oriented ability to re-&ompose and re-position the sub"e&t by de&onstru&ting the idiopathi& identity predi&ated on phalli& &oheren&e o! the BWhiteC male ego and re&omposing it at the heteropathi& site o! maso&hism, 2tephen >eath lo&ates the so&ially trans!ormati1e power o! &inema in the !rame:s formall"/oriented ability to &ompose and re-&ompose the human !igure in ;a logi& o! mo1ement'< the !rame:s ;&on1ersion o! seen into s&ene.< /y point is not to suggest a &ontradi&tion between 2il1erman:s psy&hoanalyti& inter1entions as regards the so&ially trans!ormati1e power o! &inema and >eath:s te&hni&al attention to the trans!ormati1e power o! the &elluloid &an1as. +here may in !a&t be disagreement between these two tenden&ies with respe&t to whi&h aestheti&
0.0
gestures do or do not &onstitute a tra"e&tory o! eman&ipatory &inema. What is to be noted here is the di!!erent s&ales and terrains, !rom the image o! the body and the un&ons&ious o! the sub"e&t, on the one hand, to a sGuare o! &elluloid and its mo1ement a&ross a beam o! light, on the other hand, through whi&h !ilm theory is able to suture internal solidarity around its uni1ersally, almost piously, held assumption that all sentient beings are positioned in spa&e by way o! pla&e, and &an re!eren&e time by way o! the ;e1ent.< Like the re&onstru&ti1e Bso&ially trans!ormati1eC gesture o! La&an:s ;!ull spee&h,< the politi&s o! heteropathi& &inema is none other than a narrati$e instan&e o! Whiteness. nd the !rame, in its internal assemblage?what is known as mise/en/scCne?and in its e3ternal mo1ement?the shot?is none other than a formal instan&e o! Whiteness. +hese re&onstru&ti1e gestures are grounded in what 6egri:s meta-&ommentary on proletarian ontology and >eath:s meditations on the !rame &all ;&omposition.< )omposition is an e!!e&t o! the temporal and the spatial, a ;logi& o! mo1ement< that ;&entres the !rame< and ;&onstru&ts it as a narrati1e spa&e< B0,C. )omposition is the e!!e&t o! a &apa&ity to stamp spa&e and time with &oheren&e, to both assert and be hailed by a ;logi& o! mo1ement< whi&h &an &ompose ;e1ent!ul< &hronology out o! endless time, and by a logi& o! &artography whi&h &an &ompose determinate pla&e out o! nameless spa&e. In this way, >eath in!orms us, the seen is &on1erted into s&ene, and narrati1e &an literally take BpossessC pla&e. But &an the Bla&k be !ramed i! the Bla&k, by de!inition, has no &apa&ity to take pla&eF >ow &an &omposition ;organi=e the !rame in !un&tion o! the human !igures< who ha1e no humanityF In point o! !a&t, the &ompositional e!!e&ts o! >eath:s &inemati& !rame are not a1ailable to the Bla&k unless the Bla&k has been structurall" ad5usted within the !rame, made to appear as ;man,< ;woman,< ;proletarian,< ;&hild,<
0.%
;gay,< or ;straight,< et&. 2u&h a stru&tural ad"ustment makes the Bla&k ;palatable< BFanon, BSW( 1..C and allows !or hisHher &inemati& ;&on1ersion L!romM seen into s&eneeath 0.C. lienation and e3ploitation depend on temporal and spatial &oheren&e, ;logi&s o! mo1ement,< as >eath indi&ated. +he &inemati& !rame is one site in whi&h these elements are ;&omposed< ontologi&ally. +he !rame, then, is not "ust a sGuared spa&e on a thin strip o! &elluloid, but a 1ital "un&tion o! time and spa&e, one o! the smallest, but by no means insigni!i&ant, o! &i1il so&iety:s s&ales. We &ould "ust as well pull ba&k !rom our &lose-up o! the !rame to a long shot o! the !rame:s doubleE s&ale upwards, that is, to &i1il so&iety. Just as the !rame is bound by the &apa&ity !or spatial and temporal &oheren&e?logi&s o! mo1ement &oupled with logi&s o! &artography?so too is &i1il so&iety bound. gain, the
e!!e&t o! this binding is &omposition. ;)omposition will organi=e the !rame Land &i1il so&ietyM in !un&tion o! the human !igures in their a&tions< B0,C. In the !rame, the human image is &omposed and re-&omposed. In &i1il so&iety the human sub"e&t is &omposed and re-&omposed?!rom !a&tory worker to global multitude in the spa&e o! thirty years, or !rom idiopathi& sub"e&t to heteropathi& sub"e&t in the spa&e o! thirty se&onds. +he meta-&ommentaries on the ontology o! the proletariat share an essential ;imaginati1e labor< B2e3tonC with the labor o! >eath and 2il1erman et al.:s !ilm theory. +he re-&omposition o! the proletariat, then, is dependent on a spatial and temporal dynamism in whi&h the terrain o! e3ploitation is !irst the !a&tory Bearly essays in Re$olution Retrie$edC, then the so&ius at large Bessays in the same 1olume on the ;so&ial worker< as well as (ar) Be"ond (ar)C, and then both the so&ius and the globe are subsumed by &apital in a wasteland o! &ommand, what >ardt and 6egri &all empire
0.(
B mpireC. Despite the tragi& and spiraling downward progression o! a ;story< in whi&h &apital and its subsuming tenden&ies spread their tendrils e1erywhere, the ;story< is still a storyE whi&h is to say, >ardt and 6egri:s terrain o! proletarian re-&omposition, like >eath:s &inemati& !rame, &oheres through the &apa&ity o! narrati1e spa&e. Imbri&ated in this re-&omposed &artography are &hanges in the ;story< itsel!, new a&ts staged and per!ormed by the ;drama o! 1alue< B6egriC >en&e, the re-&omposition o! the proletariat is malleable enough to in&lude the phenomenon o! White 2uprema&yE the hydrauli&s o! work intensi!i&ation, se3ual orientation and gender oppressionE the tragedies o! ethni& &leansing and population displa&ementE and so on B"ust as the analysand was malleable !or La&an and his !eminist &ommentators, i.e. 2il1ermanC. Ki1en this state o! a!!airs, the meta-&ommentators on ontology in the realm o! politi&al e&onomy do not deny the !ran&hise o! dispossession to Bla&ks, be&ause !or them the e3perien&e o! the Bla&k:s ;story< may di!!er !rom the !a&tory worker:s story at the le1el o! a&&outrement, but nonetheless shares e3ploitation as an essential grammar o! su!!ering. +his politi&al demo&ra&y o! the dispossessed, imagined in the &at&hall egalitarianism o! >ardt and 6egri:s ;multitude,< a&hie1es a kind o! !ormal demo&ra&y in >eath:s gloss on the !rame' ;&omposition will organi=e the !rame in !un&tion o! the human !igures in their a&tions< B0,C. nd it a&hie1es a kind o! so&ial and aestheti&
demo&ra&y in the &inemati& !rame as !ilm' Lawren&e /usgro1e, >ank and 2onny Krotowski, and the portly and a!!e&tionate guard are assembled together, democraticall", as working sti!!s Bpun intendedC, !ramed &inemati&ally, and there!ore so&ially, by the &oer&ion o! the high angle shot, e&&lesiasti& imperati1es o! ritual sa&ri!i&e, spiritual
0.,
trans&enden&e mani!est in the mass-like musi&al s&ore, and &laustrophobi& mise/en/scCne o! in&ar&eration. +hey are in ;it< together. But there is a glit&h whi&h >ardt and 6egri:s demo&rati&ally dispossessed, the multitude and its &onstituent power, and >eath:s demo&rati& !ormalism, the !rame and its &ompositional power, &annot a&&ount !or. It is a problem o! stru&ture and positionE whi&h is to say a problem o! ontology. I!, as Donald Judy has pointed out, the 6egro, the Bla&k as /odernity:s &reation, ;is an interdi&tion o! the !ri&an, a &ensorship to be inarti&ulate, to not &ompel, to ha$e no capacit" to mo$e,
to be &ithout effect, &ithout agenc", &ithout thought < B73is8%orming -7C, then the !rame B&inemaC and the multitude:s &apa&ity to mo1e, to be &ith effect, with agen&y, and with thought, stand in stru&tural opposition to the 6egro, the Bla&k. I! this is the &ase, then the Bla&k is neither protagonist nor antagonist in 6egri:s ;drama o! 1alue< and, in addition, the Bla&k has no sub"e&ti1e presen&e in >eath:s ;!rame'< in other words, the Bla&k &an be pla&ed on !ilm but &annot be positioned &ithin the !rame. Like the sla1es obser1ing the debate between the =te&s and the +homists, the Bla&k bears witness to a spa&e and time
she &annot enter' the spa&e and time o! the world. gain, !or the Bla&k, ;e3ile !rom a!!e&t,< the subsumption o! li1ing time by prison time B>ardt .4C o&&urs in the /iddle @assage. It is merely re/enacted on the au&tion blo&k, along the sla1e &o!!le, !rom the lyn&hing tree, within the prison, on the re&ei1ing end o! a hail o! bullets, or, in the &inema, pro"e&ted onto the s&reen. +he &apa&ity to redeem time and spa&e is !ore&losed to the Bla&k be&ause redemption reGuires a ;heritage< B@atterson (C o! temporality and spatiality, rather than a past o! boundless time and indeterminate spa&e. lso, a ;general depri1ation o! a!!e&tardt .4C &annot be
&al&ulated by the Bla&k. +emporally, the Bla&k would ha1e to be able to say when
0..
Bla&kness and the depri1ation o! a!!e&t &ere not &oterminous. *nto this !i1e hundred year obliteration o! sub"e&ti1ity it would be di!!i&ult, i! not obs&ene, to try to gra!t a narrati1e whi&h imagines, !rom the Bla&k position, the essen&e o! ;ontologi&al maladyardt ,7C as an ;e3ile !rom a!!e&tardt .4C. Lawren&e, Leti&ia, and +yrell /usgro1e are beyond those e3iled !rom a!!e&tE they ha1e been e3iled, de 5ure, !rom the drama o! 1alue. +hey are not part o! >ardt and 6egri:s e1er-widening demo&ra&y o! dispossession marked by the e1er-e3panding re-&omposition o! &lass. +his does not mean that they stand in no relation to the re-&omposition o! &lass nor, !or that matter, the dynami&s o! the !rame:s &omposition Bits narrati1e taking o! pla&eC. *n the &ontrary, they are essential to both. nd (onster4s Ball?mu&h, I would imagine, to the &hagrin o! Forster:s liberal
humanist intentions?illustrates why when /usgro1e:s head is sha1ed and he begins his death walk.
0.-
Chapter .leven .alf/White .ealing
0ender is the repeated st"li1ation of the bod", a set of repeated acts &ithin a highl" rigid regulator" frame that congeal o$er time to produce the appearance of substance, of a natural sort of being. Judith Butler.l+++i+
!he cargo of a ship might not be regarded as elements of the domestic, e$en though the $essel that carries the cargo is sometimes romanticall" personified as ,she.>ortense 2pillers. Black, White, and in Color
Caucasian Vertigo In the last s&ene o! (onster4s Ball, >ank and Leti&ia go out to the ba&k steps o! >ank:s house. s they emerge we see them as two tiny !igures in a long shot that pla&es
the &amera, and the spe&tator, at the !ar end o! the ba&kyard. +hree large, darkly lit tombstones &onsumed the !oreground s&reen-right. We know that these are the gra1es o! 2onny Krotowski and two White women, >ank:s wi!eH2onny:s mother, and >ank:s motherH2onny:s grandmother. 2till in the ba&kground, >ank and Leti&ia &lose the door and sit on the small ba&k steps. +he &amera pans down and pulls ba&k a little !urther. +his is signi!i&ant be&ause until now the image has been &ropped so as to se1er the base o! the three tombstones. 6ow, as the ground upon whi&h the tombstones stand is re1ealed, we
0.7
see that there is a so!t dark mound o! toiled earth in !ront o! the stone &losest to the spe&tator. It is the gra1e o! 2onny KrotowskiE too !resh !or grass to ha1e grown o1er it. We &ut to a medium shot o! >ank and Leti&ia sitting on the steps. 2he is still da=ed !rom the e3perien&e o! !inding Lawren&e /usgro1e:s sket&hing o! >ank and 2onny in 2onny:s room' Lawren&e:s letter has !inally arri1ed. Its impa&t is still breaking in on her?though something has mitigated the rage she !elt while waiting !or >ank to return with the &ho&olate i&e &ream. +his rage was !elt at the site o! the 2poken 2ub"e&t as well. I !irst saw this !ilm in a Berkeley theater where se1eral o! the spe&tators were Bla&k. +he whole theater held its breath during the parallel editing between Leti&ia !inding the Lawren&e:s sket&hings o! >ank and 2onny in the 2onny:s bedroom and >ank:s buying &ho&olate i&e &ream, dri1ing a&ross town to ;our< gas station to look at the sign, and now, dri1ing home. Leti&ia:s hands shake as she looks at the drawings and reali=es that not only has this man put her husband to death but he has been sleeping with her all along knowing what she is only now !inding out. 2he !alls onto 2onny:s bed and beats it 1iolently. @resently, >ank &omes in and mu&ks about in the kit&hen. 2he walks through the threshold, da=ed and perhaps a little &ra=ed. t that moment a Bla&k person in the
theater said, ; w shit, she:s got a gun.< +he 2poken 2ub"e&t Bthe spe&tatorC intuited or, more pre&isely, was hailed by the modality o! murder that &onstitutes the /asterH2la1e relation to mani!est, and e3pe&ted that modality to mani!est itsel!, narrati1ely. 2o did the writers and the dire&tor, the 2peaking 2ub"e&ts o! the apparatus. While wat&hing this s&ene Will Dokos &omments +his was the best ending that we e1er &ame up with?that you L/ar& ForsterM !inally got to shoot. But originally, this ending here, she &omes
0-4
down and she shoots him through the i&e &ream and the bullet goes into him and the blood dissol1es with the i&e &ream as it &omes out o! him an he ends up &alling 711. 2he runs out. 2torms out and you hear the door slam and he smashes through this, this s&reen door grabs the phone and &alls the poli&e and says that he a&&identally shot himsel!. LthatM he would take the !all. )onsiderably more elaborate than ;aw shit, she:s got a gun< but in the same spirit nonetheless. Dokos' But thisA LLeti&ia and >ank are now &oming onto the por&h to eat i&e &ream and the tombstones are in the !oreground o! the !rameM this is the?this is the oneA Forster' +hat:s why I &ut the arms o! her o!! in the shot, so that we don:t see what she has in her hands. ddi&a' I know a lot o! people &ommented to me that they thought she was going to shoot him. BCommentar" b" (arc %orster and Academ" A&ard/#ominated Writers (ilo Addica and Will Rokos.8 2eated on the steps, >ank hands Leti&ia a white plasti& spoon. 2he takes it absentmindedly. 2lowly she turns to her le!t, in his dire&tion. But instead o! seeing him, her eyes land on an image in the depth o! !ield beyond him. For two or three beats we are made to wat&h Leti&ia as her eyes !o&us on the images beyond >ank, as her e3pression mani!ests re&ognition. t this moment, we &ut !rom Leti&ia:s !a&e sighting the image to nd he did so
the image itsel!. +his time it is the tombstones whi&h are &omposed at the end o! a long shot. We see them !rom the !ront, !rom her perspe&ti1e, as opposed to seeing them !rom
0-1
the ba&k and side, in shadow, when they !irst appeared in this s&ene. +he lighting !alling on them is radiantE they glow bright and white in the night. In the !oreground o! this shot is another !amiliar image, the pillars o! a small stru&ture that may ha1e been an old bunkhouse. Leaning upon one o! the pillars is a lone wagon wheel !rom a &o1ered wagon, a stage&oa&h, or a buggy. +he light !rom the tombstones rea&hes all the way to the por&h o! this small house, ba&klighting the pillars and the wagon wheel, illuminating the &lay pots on the por&h, lending its spirituality and trans&enden&e to a &lassi&al meri&an miseen-s&ene. We &ut ba&k to a tight shot o! >ank Bout o! !o&us and se1ered by the right border o! the !rameC and Leti&ia Bin !o&us and &entered in the !rameC. >er look is still trans!i3ed by the tombstones and light. >er eyes don:t mo1e but her lips begin to part and her e3pression re!le&ts a Guiet epiphany' 2he has seen what we !irst saw when she was "ust a tiny !igure at the end o! a long shot' but she has e3perien&ed it in !ull illumination. wa1e o! re&ognition passes slowly o1er her !a&e' she is not the only one who has lost !amily members to the insipient 1iolen&e o! the prison industrial &omple3, not the only one whose li!e has been subsumed by the dead temporality o! prison time. 2lowly she turns away !rom the gra1es and looks straight ahead. !he e)ecutioner, m" lo$er, has suffered as much as 6 ha$e. (a"be more: for not onl" has he lost his life to the dead temporalit" of prison time, he has lost three lo$ed ones to its structural $iolence and 6 ha$e lost onl" t&o. +his &ompassionate &al&ulus?or simple subtra&tion?&ontinues to set in. >ank:s !a&e now &omes into !o&us. Leti&ia:s !a&e is blurred and se1ered by the le!t border o! the !rame. >ank:s !a&e an&hors the &enter o! the !rame. +he musi& intensi!ies' ; huge grouping o!$a&ousti& instruments that ha1e been treated using
long$re1erbs and long e&hoes< rising, slowly and steadily, sharing the moment with the
0-#
two o! them as though it were a third &hara&ter. 3& >ank turns to her and !eeds her a spoon!ul o! &ho&olate i&e &ream. Leti&ia sa"s nothing, but her !a&ial e3pression is a !ar more pro!ound and loGua&ious &ommuniGuV than any dialogue &ould render. 2he takes the i&e &ream into her mouth, slowly. +hen, on&e more, her eyes look past him, to the tombstones Bthough we are not treated to this image againCE and again she looks at >ank, knowingly, &ompassionately, and with lo1e. >ank' I went by our station on the way home. I like the sign. >e takes a spoon!ul o! i&e &ream !or himsel!. Leti&ia begins to look up to the hea1ens. >ank' I think we:re going to be alright. We &ut to a medium !rontal shot o! the two o! them on the por&h. nd here the
&inematography makes a &urious lighting ad"ustment. In this seGuen&e, as the !ilm makes its last statement on lo1e and redemption, redemption through lo1e, the three-point blend o! light te&hniGue has !lu&tuated between >ank and Leti&ia, gra&ed them both intermittently. +he &lose up o! Leti&ia:s !a&e has been bathed in this light at those moments when she looks at the tombstonesE as her !a&e rea&hes its pinna&le o! re&ognition and mutualityE as she looks at himE and when she begins to look up to hea1en. >e has been gra&ed with this lighting as he s&oops the i&e &ream preparing to !eed her. But now that the medium shot has !ramed them together and in !o&us Bshe looks all the way up to the stars, smiling, as though thanking godC, a signi!i&ant shadow !alls o1er Leti&ia. I! >ank, howe1er, were lit any more emphati&ally, we would ha1e &ause to spe&ulate as to the presen&e o! a phosphores&ent gene in Billy Bob +hornton:s !amily tree.
0-0
5arlier, when re!le&ting on the lighting strategies o! Lawren&e /usgro1e:s head sha1ing ritual, we asked the Guestion' Ki1en Lawren&e:s and the guard:s &ommon lo&ation Bthe &artography o! in&ar&eration and their &ommon subsumption by prison timeC and gi1en 'a&rence4s &entrality to the ritual Ba!ter all he is the one who will die and the !ilm meditates on &i1il so&iety and the dis&ontent o! the &ommons at se$eral different scales?!rom the body o! the guardHproletariat to the in&ar&eration o! hegemony behind the glass o! the witness room?by staging this ritualistic e)ecutionC, why is his bla&k !a&e not gra&ed with the three-point blend o! trans&endent light, whereas the white hands o! his &aptor wereF >ere, the Guestion rears its head againE and at no less a &ru&ial plot point in the s&ript' the end o! the !ilm, when prison time is redeemed through lo1e. I! we think ba&k to /i&hael >ardt:s pro"e&t o! di1ine &onstitution inspired by Kenet, then we reali=e that in the last moments o! the !ilm it is Leti&ia:s ;saintly< ;sel!abandonment< to ;a tra"e&tory o! en&ounters, always open and un!oreseeable, &ontinuously sus&eptible to the inter1ention o! the new e1entsardt, ;@rison +ime<' .0-.%C, whi&h se&ures >ank:s personal redemption and, more importantly, hails the spe&tator to a so&ial dream in whi&h prison time is redeemed as the time o! the li1ing. >er rapid transition !rom homi&idal rage upon !irst ;re&ei1ing< Lawren&e:s ;letter,< to embra&ing a dream !or new ;&ommon names< B mpire 040C, is essential to (onster4s Ball:s dream !or a new notion o! the &ommons, !or new politi&al desires, and !or a better !uture. nd yet, the &lassi&al and uni!ied three-point blend o! light whi&h most o!ten
bestows saintliness on White women and lo&ates them in ;a spa&e o! trans&enden&e< BDyer --C, has been, in the last shots o! the !ilm, the moments when the e3tra-diegeti& musi& o1ertakes the !rame, bestowed upon >ank and denied to Leti&ia. In &losing, the
0-%
&amera &omes in !rom behind them, pulls up to the sky, and holds on the stars. Doll &redits. From 1iewing (onster4s Ball one would think that two eGually determined people &ould trans&end the stru&tural prohibition whi&h !ore&loses upon sub"e&t-to-ob"e&t re&ognition and !ind true lo1e. But su&h mutual resistan&e, su&h sub"e&ti1e re&ognition, between >ank and Leti&ia, reGuires the death o! her Bla&k husband and her Bla&k son. *ntologi&ally speaking, both >ank and Leti&ia must be positioned, stru&turally, at a pla&e where the same ensemble o! ethi&al dilemmas &an be shared by both o! them. For su&h ethi&al sharing to take pla&e, Leti&ia must be res&ued, &inemati&ally, !rom Bla&kness' on&e she is not a ;nigger< she and >ank &an struggle?so&iallyE re&on&ile?se3uallyE and lo1e?trans&endently. Whi&h is to say they &an be&ome legible, so1ereign, to one another.
0-(
5arlier, we said that whereas +yrell is simply ;a< nigger, Leti&ia is ;our< nigger in the sense that to the ;mulatta< a&&rues a &ertain pride o! pla&e in &i1il so&iety. We then went on to suggest that that pride o! pla&e does not trans!orm the ;mullata< into one o! &i1il so&iety:s addressees, nor into one o! its organi=ers o! hegemony. Finally, it was obser1ed that, whereas +yrell and Lawren&e:s deaths were momentous and spe&ta&ular, Leti&ia:s was the stu!! o! a slow bleed o1er the li!e o! the entire !ilm. slow bleed whi&h
is di!!i&ult to see. +he delirium o! &inema:s hallu&inations with respe&t to the ;mulatta,< imagines the ;mulatta< as a &orpse with a pulse. Whereas, in the &ase o! +yrell and Lawren&e, or the Bla&k !emale whi&h the presen&e o! the ;mulatta< implies, &inema sees only the so&ial death o! Bla&kness, its ;genealogi&al isolation< and, as we ha1e said, sees it in spe&ta&ular !ashion.
0-,
Leti&ia is narrati1ely ali1e and !ormally dead. >er so&ial relation to >ank does indeed ha1e a pulse, but her stru&tural relation to him is as dead as Lawren&e:s and +yrell:s. By >ank, o! &ourse, I mean something more than the &hara&ter who !alls in lo1e, lea1es the prison, opens up a gas station, and no longer threatens little Bla&k boys with his shotgun. In /onster:s Ball, >ank Krotowski is the bearer o! &i1il so&iety:s dis&ontentsE he stages its ethi&al dilemmas. 51eryone who is stru&turally ali1e in /onster:s Ball is ali1e be&ause their interlo&ution with >ank in some way struggles to either maintain the &omposition, or to &ataly=e a re&omposition, o! the ensemble o! Guestions that s&a!!old &i1il so&iety:s ethi&al dilemmasE whi&h is to say they are ali1e be&ause they intera&t with >ank as entities in dramas o! 1alue. +his would in&lude the Warden, 2onny, and >ank:s !ather Bu&k. +emporally and spatially, they embody the possibility !or stasis and &hange. s su&h they are a &ommunity rather than a bun&h or a
&olle&tion. But there are minor White &hara&ters that &an be in&luded here as well. 51en the White dead are essential to the drama o! ethi&al 1alue, and there!ore stru&turally ali1e in ways whi&h Lawren&e, +yrell, and the Bla&k neighbor boys and !ather &annot be. 6ote, !or e3ample, how >ank:s wi!e and mother maintain their status as interlo&utors e1en !rom beyond the gra1e. !ter >ank resigns !rom the prison he burns his uni!orm and goes inside to !a&e his !ather. >ank' I Guit the team. Bu&k' +hat was a mistake. >ank' I &an:t do it anymore. Bu&k' 9ou:re reminding me o! your mother. >ank' I guess that:s bad, right.
0-.
Bu&k' 9our mother wasn:t shit. +hat woman !ailed me. I got more pussy a!ter she killed hersel! than I did when she was li1ing as my wi!e. @oint is, she Guit on me. 9ou:re doing the same. What:s noteworthy here is the way >ank:s a&tions in1oke not only the &ounterhegemoni& dis&ourse o! the mother, but that o! 2onny as well' both 2onny and >ank:s mother struggled to !ind symboli& &on!irmation !or their su!!ering in the throes o! prison time. But the super-egoi& sinews o! patriar&hal dis&ourse o1erwhelmed them to the point where they &hose the immedia&y o! &orporeal death Bsui&ideC o1er the e3tended death senten&e o! prison time. But though they are physi&ally dead, they are stru&turally, ontologi&ally, ali1e be&ause their aborted attempts to &onstitute themsel1es as ;new !igures o! struggle and new sub"e&ti1ities< B mpire ,1C, actuall" contributed to, rather than impeded, ;the &ontinuous mo1ement o! &onstituent power< B;@rison +ime< .-C. +he White dead &ontinue to ha1e their sayE now there are !our people instead o! two in the roomE and a loose &olle&ti1ity begins to !orm a blo&' >ank, his mother, and 2onny, the slowly &ongealing ;multitude,< against the isolated, emas&ulated, and soon to be eliminated B>ank will pla&e Bu&k in a retirement homeC embodiment o! prison time. +he Whites, ea&h a&&ompanied by sometimes &omplementary, at other times &ompeting, ensembles o! Guestions mo1e up and down a 1erti&al pole o! ethi&al dilemmas. 51en the Warden, who was at the e3e&ution with >ank and 2onny, and Nera, the prostitute to whom >ank and 2onny say 1ery little, in their almost absolute banalit", are stru&turally ali1e in this essential way. >ank:s last en&ounter with Nera starts o!! as "ust another banal and &yni&al transa&tion o! respite !rom work and relie! o! se3ual tension. 2he &omes into the seedy motel room and, as is their &ustom, makes idle &hit
0--
&hat while taking o!! her &lothes an assuming the position with both palms on the desk. But this routine e1ent o! proletarian reprodu&tion is !ramed, lighted, and edited in su&h a way as to render it a pi1otal moment in ;the &ontinuous mo1ement o! &onstituent power<' right a!ter this s&ene the !ilm &uts to a montage leading to >ank:s ;showdown< with the Warden. Nera' L s >ank &omes up !rom behind her, pla&es his hands on her hips and prepares to mount her.M 2o how:s 2onnyF >ank' I &an:t do this tonight, Nera. Nera' 9ou sure, honF >ank' 6o, not tonight. L+hey both begin to pull their &lothes ba&k on.M I:m sorry. Nera' in:t no need to be sorry. Just do it some other time. >ank' L2itting on the edge o! bed, in shadow, his head hung low.M lright. 9ou &an keep that money. Nera' L@ulling on her shirt. 2he has had her ba&k to him the whole time and &ontinues not to look at him.M *h, I:m going to. L2he lea1es without looking around.M idioos. De1erse shot o! >ank still on the bed, his !a&e still draped in shadow. >e is breathing so!tly but hea1ily, trying to steady himsel!. From here we &ut to a long shot o! a !erry dri!ting a&ross the /ississippi Di1er. +he weather is dark and o1er&ast, mat&hing the mood that Nera:s ;2o, how:s 2onny< put >ank into in the last s&ene. +he long plat!orm o! the !erry is deserted. But at the bow we see a tiny ob"e&t. It is a single automobile. +he editing !rom this moment on seeks to disturb our time sense, but not too dramati&ally, in
0-7
that we &ut ba&k and !orth !rom medium &lose ups o! >ank dri1ing down a dusty road, to medium &lose ups o! >ank sitting inside the &ar while on the !erry dri!ting a&ross the /ississippi Bin these shots the &amera is positioned "ust outside the &ar and rain is &as&ading down the window, >ank is eating &ho&olate i&e &ream with a plasti& spoonC. +he images o! the montage &apturing >ank on the dusty road are interesting in their &omposition. +he &amera is positioned in the ba&kseat o! the &ar. We see the ba&k o! >ank:s head, the le!t side o! his !a&e, his hands on the steering wheel, the dash board and the depth o! !ield beyond the !ront window. But we also see his eyes in the rear1iew mirror. t one moment his eyes look right in the rear1iew mirror and we would be
!orgi1en !or thinking that >ank was looking ba&k at the &amera person or looking ba&k at us. t this moment, a long !latbed tru&k bearing almost !i!ty inmates, all standing, dri1es
a&ross our !ield o! 1ision on the road perpendi&ular to the one on whi&h we are tra1eling with >ank. >ank:s eyes narrow in the rear1iew window. >e turns le!t at the "un&tion and !ollows them. We &ut ba&k to the !erry, the &amera is in the !erry &ontrol room, in the !oreground o! the shot are the ba&k and shoulders o! the !erry operator in the tower abo1e the de&k. +his !rame gi1es us a long, high angle shot o! >ank:s lone &ar, below the &ontrol tower, at the end o! the !erry. We &ut to a medium &lose up o! the rain draped &ar windowE >ank has !inished his &up o! i&e &reamE aimlessly, he turns it about in his hand, he is &ontemplati1e and depressed. +he montage puts us ba&k on the dusty road with the !ields o! shoulder high sugar &ane. De&ked in blue and white prison uni!orms, the !orty odd men are now walking down a side road to the sugar &ane. +heir hoes rest long and high on their shoulders B&ruel substitutions !or ri!lesC. to the le!t o! their !ormation. White prison guard rides a horse
shotgun, not a hoe, rests long and high on his shoulder.
074
+he montage &ontinues ba&k and !orth between >ank:s &ar and the !erry and the 1ision !rom >ank:s &ar, on the dusty road. It pays no attention to the true &hronology o! sailing and dri1ing. It spli&es the images together in tandem with the long re1erbs and e&hoes o! the a&ousti& instruments that rise higher and higher in dramati& intensity as the montage progresses. +owards the end o! the montage, as we &ut !rom the end o! the !erry ride ba&k to the !ield o! prison workers and guards on horse ba&k, the musi&al intensity and its &aden&e are reminis&ent o! s&ores !rom Westerns at moments when the hero is emerging !rom an ethi&al dilemma and preparing Bdonning his hat, tightening his gun beltC !or a showdown. In one o! the images, the guard with the shotgun spurs his horse and !or some unknown reason, rides swi!tly a&a" !rom the !ormation o! prisoners he is &harged with guarding. +he &amera !ollows him and the rhythm and &aden&e o! the musi& mat&h his gallop. We !ollow him !or a moment and then, still propelled along with the in&reasing &aden&e o! the s&ore, we &ut to a !rontal shot o! >ank in his &ar, &igarette &len&hed between his teeth. +he !erry has do&ked and the >ank is dri1ing o!!. +he ne3t image o! this montage leans shamelessly, and without parody, on Guotations !rom the Western. door opens at the end o! long, antisepti& &orridor. +he sound o! the door opening has been enhan&ed by the te&hni&ian so that it snaps as loud as the rising musi&. >ank enters the hallway. +he &igarette is gone !rom his mouth. >e walks towards us. 6o, he literally swaggersE his palms held open toward his hips, his hands open and mo1ing !rom side to side as though he has a si3-gun on either hip, as though he is mo1ing toward us about to draw. +he !ollowing dialogue is layered o1er the musi& and the sound o! >ank:s boots striding a&ross the !loor. Warden' >a1e a seat >ank.
071
>ank' +hank you, sir. I appre&iate you seeing me. Warden' What brings you here, >ankF >ere the montage ends. We &ut to the Warden:s o!!i&e. +he Warden Bplayed by Will Dokos, one o! the s&reenwritersC sits tight !a&ed and upright in his high-ba&ked stu!!ed leather &hair. *n the other side o! his big mahogany desk, >ank leans ba&k in a smaller &hair with his le!t elbow propped up on the ba&k o! the &hair. >ank' L/o1ing his head slowly !rom side to side, as Kary )ooper might do when admonishing the unethi&al towns !olk o! .igh #oonM 2ir, I:m-a, resignin:. nd a, I wanted to &ome by and tell you personally, ya know. 6ow, the &on!rontational stan&e is re1ealed as ha1ing an additional dimension. With the ;ya know,< >ank begins to nod his head as though respe&t!ul o! the Warden:s pla&e and status in >ank:s own so&ial uni1erse. >ank is a little ner1ous. Warden' I appre&iate that, >ank. +hey are both silent and respe&t!ul !or one or two beats. +hey nod their heads a little. Warden' Why don:t we wait a !ew weeks be!ore we?a, submit the paper work. >ank' L6ow, the image no longer !rames them both. Instead we ha1e a medium &lose up o! >ank aloneM +hat wouldn:t do anybody any good to wait on that. I:1e got my mind made up. L>e nods his head, repeatedly, determinedly.M Warden' L>is !a&e sad, perhaps a little disappointed, not Guite resent!ul.M wright. We gonna miss you.
07#
>ank nods in re&ognition, but stops short o! saying 64m going to miss "4all too. >e rea&hes into his shirt po&ket. >ank' 8m, I brought my badge in. L@la&es it on the deskM Warden' Why don:t you keep itF >ank' I ain:t got no use !or it. +he &amera &uts ba&k and !orth between the two men, looking at ea&h otherE the sound o! kindling burning is layered o1er the image o! their !a&es. 2uddenly, we &ut to the &lose up o! a !ire o! small twigs. +hen, with a thudA, >ank:s prison uni!orm hits the !ire and the ;Department o! )orre&tions< emblem begins to burn. >ank walks ba&k to the house, away !rom the !ire, with the same .igh #oon swagger he had walking into the Warden:s o!!i&e. >e goes into the house to tell his !ather, ;I Guit the team.< When >ank dri1es out to see the Warden and tender his resignation, the .igh #oon tension in the en&ounter is interla&ed with an a!!e&tionate tenor indi&ati1e o! years, generations, o! unspoken re&ipro&ity. We understand that >ank is not simply Guitting a "obE he is tearing himsel! away !rom a so&ial !abri& o! a!!iliation whi&h, !or his entire li!e, has &alibrated his psy&hi& &oordinates in tandem with his patriar&hal !abri& o! !iliation. In !a&t, here !iliation and a!!iliation are wo1en together in a single !abri&. Intelle&tually, we might know the Warden as an organi=er o! prison time and its dis&ourse B keep the badgeD let4s &ait a fe& &eeks to submit the paper &ork C but a!!e&ti1ely we e3perien&e him as ;!amily.< s su&h, he is a sub"e&t o! re&ognition and mutual resistan&e with whom, and
through whom, >ank Band the spe&tator as she is re&omposed by a new &ommons o1er the length o! the !ilmC must struggle in this ;&ontinuous mo1ement o! &onstituent power.< Likewise, >ank:s last en&ounter with Nera, the White prostitute?in all its banality and
070
&old-&ash &yni&ism?is rendered, both !ormally and narrati1ely, pi1otal in this struggle o1er the ethi&s o! !iliation and a!!iliation' Nera:s ;2o, how:s 2onnyF< sparks >ank:s ;I &an:t to this tonight, NeraE< whi&h in turn pre&ipitates the "ourney o! montage?a&ross the ri1er, o1er the !ields, down the hallway, the showdown with the Warden, to the smoldering uni!orm, and !inally to &on!ront the !ather. ;I &an:t do it anymore,< as we ha1e seen, is not an isolated gesture, but a &olle&ti1e re!usal B>ank, dead 2onny, dead mother, Nera the prostitute, and we might add, >ank:s dead wi!eC against a &rumbling and unethi&al order BBu&k and the WardenC. >ank:s en&ounters with the Whites in (onster4s Ball &onsistently implies the &omposition and re&omposition o! &i1il so&iety:s ethi&al dilemmas' Will &e submit to ci$il societ"4s deterritoriali1ation b" the modalities of $iolence 7li$ing time subsumed b" prison time8, or &ill &e 5oin forces and constitute a ne& cartograph"> In other words, these en&ounters are &onstituted by ea&h sub"e&t:s potential !or both stasis and &hange. (onster4s Ball renders this spatial and temporal dynamism in a number o! ways' through image &omposition within the !rameE through editing?the way images o! Bla&k prison workers in the !ields &ross-&ut with the rain and the !erry, in the montage leading up to the Warden, !un&tion as the spe&ta&le !or >ank:s Band the spe&tator:sC pessimism and strengthens his resol1e on his way to resignE and through lighting?it is important to note that during his pi1otal en&ounters with Nera, the Warden, and his !ather, the lighting &hara&teristi& o! >ank:s !a&e !or the !irst !orty-!i1e minutes o! the !ilm begins to make a dramati& shi!t. 8p to this point the lighting on >ank:s !a&e has been harsh and garish' !or e3ample, when his portrait is being sket&hed in the moments be!ore Lawren&e:s e3e&ution, when he dis&harges the shotgun against the Bla&k neighbor boys, when he
07%
pun&hes 2onny in the prison bathroom !or 1omiting and !alling out o! !ormation on the death walk, or when he and 2onny argue at gunpoint "ust be!ore 2onny kills himsel!. 2o harsh and garish is the lighting that >ank o!ten appears haggard and ugly. But as he sits on the bed and Nera lea1es the room, though there is a shadow &ast o1er his !a&e, it is a so!t shadow !ormed by ba&klighting the right side o! his !a&e, whi&h has the added dimension o! produ&ing something akin to a halo along his hairline. By the time he is seated in !ront o! the Warden, and then seated beside his !ather, he has be&ome the re&ipient o! the three-point blend o! uni!ied light assuring, at this hal!-way point in the !ilm, his saintliness, his trans&enden&e, !inally a&hie1ed in the last s&ene o! the !ilm. In addition to the !ormal strategies o! editing, lighting, image, and sound, (onster4s Ball renders the dynamism o! sub"e&ti1e stasis and &hange through dialogue' >ank:s ideologi&al repartees with 2onny, Bu&k, and the Warden, and his last en&ounter with &yni&al Nera Bwho is re&omposed as a prostitute-with-a-heart-o!-gold when her un&ons&ious re1eals a !ilial bond with !ather and son that &annot be broken by the &ash transa&tionC. long this 1erti&ally integrated pole o! ethi&al dilemmas, Whites in
(onster4s Ball rise and !all as the !ilm deploys them in su&h a way as to !a&ilitate, or impede, >ank:s Band the spe&tator:sC desire to re&ompose and thereby liberate himsel!. I!, at the beginning o! the !ilm, we are shown a world in whi&h 2onny, the prostitute, and the two dead White women &an tender no hegemoni& &urren&y, then, by the time the lighting on >ank:s !a&e begins to turn, and a &ounter-hegemony:s ensemble o! Guestions starts to emerge, these three !igures, though they are dead and will not be ;seen< again, are &apable o! a&&ompanying >ank in his ethi&al as&ension. BIn this way e1en the ;unseen<
07(
o! Whiteness is &on1erted, re&omposed by the ;s&ene< o! 2tephen >eath:s &inemati& !rameC. Digor mortis is no obsta&le to the li1ing ontology o! Whiteness. +he di1ersity o! Whiteness is so pro!ound that there are no !i3ed, always-already, positions within it, no a priori &riminality, !or e3ample, and no permanent saintliness. 3&i 2patial and temporal &apa&ity is so immanent on the !ield o! Whiteness that the e!!e&ts and permutations o! its ensemble o! Guestions and the kinds o! White bodies that &an mobili=e this uni1erse o! &ombinations are seemingly in!inite as well' White prostitutes &an &ataly=e a 1-4 degree ethi&al re1ersal Bgi1en that prostitution is &inema:s role-o!&hoi&e !or Bla&k women, one would e3pe&t?i! Bla&ks and Whites were both stru&turally ali1e?these &atalyti& moments to pop up in e1ery other !ilmAC. 51en the White dead &an hold the White li1ing to a&&ount. We are dealing here with a stru&ture whose idiom o! power is auto-dida&ti& and auto-produ&ti1e' it generates its lessons, its ensemble o! Guestions and their attendant ethi&al dilemmas, and its institutional &apa&ity, internally, without re&ourse to bodies or Guestions beyond its own gene pool. What keeps it !rom repli&ating the tendentious de&line in geneti& health e3perien&ed when su&h in&estuous a&ti1ity takes pla&e in biology is the !a&t that it is not biologi&al. Whiteness has an in!inite ensemble o! signi!ied possibilities' +he in!inite possibilities themsel1es &annot be de!initi1ely namedE their dramas o! 1alue &annot be predi&ted with anything approa&hing pre&isionE nor &an the reprodu&tion o! these possibilities be threatened with mortality &an be&ause Whiteness:s internal mutation is limitless. But what &an be named, predi&ted, and put to death is the &oheren&e o! the ensemble as an ensemble. nd the same thing
that guarantees the ensemble:s &oheren&e is the thing that threatens its &oheren&e with destru&tion' the Bla&k.
07,
+he di1ersity o! Whiteness, its ;re&o1ery o! di!!eren&e in a hierar&hi&al and 1erti&al distribution o! being< B2pillers 01(C, depends on the ;laterality< B01(C o! Bla&kness to maintain its internal di1ersity. By ;laterality< 2pillers means that whereas Whiteness e3ists on a 1erti&al plane where the ;re&o1ery o! di!!eren&e< is not only guaranteed, but ethi&ally mandated, Bla&kness e3ists on a lateral plane where ;it LisM possible to rank human with animal< B01(C. In other words, the ta3onomy o! things would indeed be dismantled as a ta3onomy i! ;White person< was added to the listE but it would merely be e3panded i! ;Bla&k person< was added to the list. Blacks, broadly speaking, &onnote a ta3onomy o! things. s Donald Judy puts it, ;&an there be a R&ommunity: o!
niggers, as opposed to a Rbun&h: or a R&olle&tion:F< B177%C. ;In e!!e&t, the humanity o! the !ri&an personality is pla&ed in Guotation marks under$signs< B2pillers 01(C like &ommunity. >ank Krotowski is the protagonist o! (onster4s Ball !or two reasons beyond the !a&t that he is gi1en top billing' B1C White 1erti&ality, as per!orman&e, as a play o! signs, per!orms its ;re&o1ery o! di!!eren&e< in relation to his spiritual trans&enden&eE and B#C through Bla&k !olks: en&ounters with >ank, Bla&k laterality is positioned so as to secure paradigmati& &oheren&e o! that 1erti&al re&o1ery o! di!!eren&e' in short, Black lateralit" is positioned outside the drama of $alue in order to secure it . Dis&ursi1e pro&esses dating as !ar ba&k as sla1ery:s galley ;logs and bills o! lading and o! sales,< namely, ;the &ollapse o! human identity adopted to the needs o! &ommer&e and e&onomi& pro!it< B01%C, are rein1igorated and re&omposed in the narrati1e and !ormal strategies o! White so&ially engaged &inema su&h as (onster4s Ball. >ank:s en&ounters with Whites displa&e and
07.
rearrange the ethi&al 1erti&ality o! the &ommonsE but his en&ounters with Bla&ks are what pre1ent the ground o! the &ommons !rom Guaking. >e meets Whites as interlo&utors. >e meets Bla&ks as inert mass, di!!erentiated only by the spe&ta&le that their !lesh pla&es be!ore him?obstru&ti1e, tantali=ing, pleasurable, andHor stimuli to an3iety. +hese are not ethi&al en&ounters through whi&h both parties struggle !or re&ognition, a re&ognition underwritten by the same grammar o! su!!ering. Bla&k Lawren&e must be &almed and Guieted in his &ell, and then put to death. Bla&k boys !rom a&ross the way must be tamed with an errant shotgun blast. Bla&k boys: !ather must be !a&ed down. Bla&k +yrell must be dragged !rom the side o! the road and, when they rea&h the hospital, dragged onto a gurney?then Bla&k +yrell dies. +he world a&&ording to &apti1es and their &aptors strikes the imagination as a grid o! identities running at perpendi&ular angles to ea&h other' things in serial and lateral array, beings in hierar&hi&al and 1erti&al array. *n the serial grid, the &apti1e?&hattel property?is the eGui1alent o! inanimate and other things. B2pillers 01%C In other words, one &ould easily mo1e laterally along the ta3onomy o! animals and things and repla&e Bla&k Lawren&e, Bla&k Boys, Bla&k Boys: !ather, and Bla&k +yrell, with any number o! ob"e&ts without rupturing the ta3onomy:s smooth laterality' >orse must be &almed and Guieted and then put to death. Bull must be !a&ed down. @ossum must be dragged !rom the side o! the road. BKranted, the possum does not, generally speaking, warrant hospitali=ation and a gurney.C
,istorical Stillness
07-
Frant= Fanon and >ortense 2pillers approa&h the phenomenon o! the ;mulatta< !rom di!!erent 1antage points. +hey arri1e, howe1er, at &omplementary ontologi&al &on&lusions. Fanon is interested in the ;mulatta< as a psy&hi& entity, in how the neuroti& &omple3 o! ;hallu&inatory whitening< BBSW( 144C mani!ests itsel! in someone who is so&ially liminalE &onsidered to be neither Bla&k and nor White. +hough both 2pillers and Fanon agree that the ;mulatta< maintains the status o! a thing in her relation to human beings, !or our purposes, we will lean more on the methodologi&al insights o! 2pillers than Fanon when thinking the ;mulatta< and (onster4s Ball together. +he !ilm itsel! mandates this &hoi&e be&ause (onster4s Ball is not interested in either the un&ons&ious or &ons&ious register o! Leti&ia:s psy&hi& li!e, whereas the primary ob"e&ti1e o! Fanon:s &ommentary is to in1estigate the psy&hi& &ondition o! that person who has been &on1erted into the s&ene the o! ;mulatta< and who, in addition, sees hersel! through this &on1ersion. I! Fanon turns his attention to the identit", or rather identi!i&ations, o! hemispheri& antagonisms Gua the ;mulatta,< >ortense 2pillers turns her attention to the structure o! 8.2. Bhemispheri&C antagonisms Gua the ;mulatta.< 2pillers asks, what is the essen&e o! histori&al &on"un&tures when &i1il so&iety needs the ;mulattoHa< most and how does this workF ;+he mulatta mediates between dualities, whi&h would suggest that at least mimeti& mo1ement, imitating successful histori&al mo1ement, is up&ard\ along the 1erti&al s&ale o! being< B01,CE as opposed to ahistori&al mo1ement, sideways along the lateral s&ale o! stillness. In addition, 2pillers asserts, ;the RmulattoHa,: "ust as the Rnigger,: tells us little or nothing about the sub"e&t buried beneath the epithets, but Guite a great deal more &on&erning the psy&hi& and &ultural re!le3es that in1ent and in1oke them< B04#C. In other words, i! ;mulattoHa< is an epithet &onnoting, "ust like ;nigger,< the
077
temporal and spatial in&apa&ity o! Bla&kness, how is the mimesis o! White mo1ement mimi&ked by the ;mulattaHo<F >ow is it that the !igure o! Leti&ia &an e3perien&e ;the &on1ersion o! seen into s&eneeath' 0.C within the !rame o! (onster4s Ball, when su&h &on1ersion is impossible !or Lawren&e and +yrell and why does &i1il so&iety need her &on1ersionF 2piller:s a&&ount o! the ;mulatta<-!un&tion resists summary, but some o! its highpoints &an be e3tra&ted in order to outline its argument, and in order to illustrate its arti&ulation with (onster4s Ball. B1C +he ;mulattoHa< ;heals< a wound within &i1il so&iety. +he wound has what appears to be two separate la&eration marks, one se3ual, and the other politi&alE but 2pillers is able to demonstrate how they !orm one and the same s&ar. B#C +he se&ond point has to do with the intra-Bla&k &onseGuen&es o! &i1il so&iety:s produ&tion o! the ;mulattoHa.< 2pillers spends 044 plus pages re!le&ting upon how sla1ery, broadly speaking, and the /iddle @assage in parti&ular, destroy the prospe&t !or inter-ontologi&al relations between Bla&ks and the spe&ies modernity re!ers to as >umanity. But, !rom this obliteration o! time and spa&e, a signi!i&ant and pain!ully ironi& politi&al gain a&&rues to the Bla&kness. Bla&kness is 1ested with the potential !or un!lin&hing, un&ompromising, and &omprehensi1e politi&al mo1ement be&ause Bla&k sub"e&ts?i! they &an be &alled ;sub"e&ts<?ha1e the potential to a&t, politi&ally, through a &olle&ti1ity that has nothing to sal1age and nothing to lose. But when &i1il so&iety introdu&es the ;mulattoHa< into the mass o! Bla&kness, it produ&es a ;body< that appears to ha1e something to sal1age and lose in the midst o! !lesh and the latter:s ;absolute dereli&tion< BFanonC. >ere 2pillers ampli!ies and de1elops a point that Fanon hints at' that the ;mulattoHa< is
%44
neither sel!-naming as an indi1idual nor auto-&oloni=ing as a group, but is instead a ;a mythi&al or rei!ied property$a stage prop o! the literary,< B#.C introdu&ed without the &onsent o! the Bla&k masses and without the &onsent o! that Bla&k who is ;staged< as ;mulattoHa.< +his inter1ention bodes ill !or the insurgent potential o! Bla&kness, mani!est most dramati&ally in those moments when it seeks to assume the &omprehensi1e antagonism o! its stru&tural position. 2ubseGuent to the intrusion o! the middle term L;mulattoHa<M, or middle ground?!igurati1ely?between sub"ugated and dominant interests, public discourse gains essentiall", the ad$antages of a lie b" orchestrating otherness through degrees of difference . +he philosopher:s ;great &hain o! being< rami!ies now to dis&lose within meri&an !ri&anity itsel! literal
shades o! human 1alue so that the sub"e&t &ommunity refracts the oppressi$e mechanism "ust as &ertainly as the authoring !orms put them in pla&e. !his fatalistic motion*turns the potentiall" insurgent communit" furiousl" back on itself$ B5mphasis mine 010C 2piller:s obser1ation that Bla&kness B;the sub"e&t &ommunity<C &an re!ra&t the ;oppressi1e me&hanism< authored by &i1il so&iety is &hilling. >ere she has unpa&ked the un&ommon pain behind the pain!ully &ommon &ommon sense o! su&h terms as ;sel!hatred< or ;&olor-stru&k,< Bboth o! whi&h are o!ten used as a kind o! la=y shorthand !or Fanon:s &lini&al term, ;hallu&inatory whitening< BSW( 144C. /oreo1er, her stru&tural analysis o! ;mulattoHa<-Gua-!un&tion, not only unpa&ks this typi&al &ommon sense shorthand but re-routes its e3planatory genesis a&a" !rom ;the sub"e&t &ommunity,<
%41
Bla&ks, and ba&k to &i1il so&iety, Whites' ;publi& dis&ourse gains essentially, the ad1antages o! a lie by or&hestrating otherness through degrees o! di!!eren&e< B010C. +he lie that gets or&hestrated is none other than the egoi& monumentali=ation o! the phallus, implied in summary point B1C abo1e. gain, there is a se3ual, as well as a politi&al,
dimension to this egoi& monumentali=ation and phalli& aggrandi=ement ;or&hestrated< by &i1il so&iety B;publi& dis&ourse<C. 2pillers maintains, ;la&k o! mo1ement in the !ield o! signi!i&ation seems to be the origin o! RmulattoHa-ness:< B01(C. 2he goes on to say that &i1il so&iety pro"e&ts the ;mulatta< onto its s&reen o! dilemmas as a ;wedge between the world o! light and the step beyondE< the ;beyond,< o! &ourse, being Bla&kness, that ;undi!!erentiated, unarti&ulated mass o! mo1ing and mo1able things$. Between these dualities, the Rshadow: o! the RmulattoHa: is interposed.< B01(C +he ;mulattoHa:s< appearan&e is histori&ally moti1ated, but hisHher embodiment is histori&ally barren. +his is be&ause the ;mulattoHa:s< appearan&e is o1erdetermined !rom without. +he politi&al dimension o! &i1il so&iety:s egoi& monumentali=ation &alls upon the ;mulattoHa< as a ;stage prop< at those moments in the drama when the mise-en-s&ene is in need. ;+he RmulattoHa: appears, histori&ally, when !ri&an !emale and male personality be&ome hyphenated meri&an
politi&al entitiesE at the moment when they enter publi& and politi&al dis&ourse in the &odes o! sla1ery, the rise o! the !ugiti1e, the ad1ertisement o! the runaway manHwoman< B010C. pparently the ;runaway sla1e< was neither rare nor !orgotten. +he plenti!ulness o! ad1ertisements des&ribing the person o! the !ugiti1e?the model, we might suppose, !or the &ontemporary ; ll @oints Bulletin< o!
%4#
the Federal Bureau o! In1estigation and those mug shots that gra&e the otherwise uni!orm lo&al post o!!i&e?argue the absolute solidi!i&ation o! &apti1ity?the ma"or meri&an so&ial lands&ape, in my 1iew, !or two and
a hal! &enturies o! human hurt on the s&ene o! ;man:s last best hope.< B(4( !n. 1-C When Bla&k women and men push against the &oheren&e, the limits, o! politi&al e&onomy and libidinal e&onomy, &i1il so&iety !inds it in&reasingly di!!i&ult to re&on&ile the stru&tural ne&essity o! its gratuitous 1iolen&e and its mani!est rituals per!ormed on Bla&ks, on the one hand, with its ;publi& dis&ourse<?its monumentali=ing?o! its boundless di1ersity and its ethi&al posture. In the Guote abo1e, 2pillers gestures toward a signi!i&ant moment in modernity:s &onstru&tion o! Whiteness Gua &i1il so&iety, the period !rom 1-44 to the )i1il War. Furthermore, she marks the signi!i&an&e o! that period with re!eren&e to the time o! her own writing, the late 17-4sH1774sE whi&h we know holds a spe&ial signi!i&an&e !or 6egri and >ardt as well, that being the &rumbling o! national e&onomies and the solidi!i&ation o! post-industrial, or post&i1il, &i1il so&iety. +here is a parallelism between these two periods whi&h we are de1eloping elsewhere. 3&ii For now, su!!i&e to say that 2pillers:s parallel between the runaway sla1e ad1ertisement and the FBI @B, is inde3i&al o! two periods that are more than 144 years apart, but whose
e!!e&ts on Bla&ks and Whites e1in&e ;a stunning mutuality< B01,C. By the &lose o! the eighteenth &entury$LsMettlers began pouring into the new states o! Ientu&ky and +ennessee, where De1olutionary War 1eterans &ashed in on land grants. Keorgia, labama, /ississippi, and
e1entually Louisiana lured thousands onto their ri&h soils with a promise
%40
o! e3tra1agant !ortunes, all to be made in the wake o! sla1ery:s widening sphere$. )otton was not a &ash &rop in /aryland, but its plantations produ&ed one o! the most in1aluable &rops !or the southern antebellum market' sla1es. +he &hildren o! sla1es Gui&kly be&ame a 1ital &ommodity and sour&e o! in&ome !or &ash-poor planters o! the )hesapeake, and o! in&reasing signi!i&an&e to the prosperity o! the lower 2outh$. LDMuring the hal! &entury leading up to the )i1il War$appro3imately 14 per&ent o! adoles&ent sla1es in the upper 2outh were sold by ownersE another 14 per&ent were sold o!! in their twenties. 2la1e parents li1ed in ab"e&t terror o! separation !rom their &hildren$. By the 1-#4s /aryland newspapers were !illed with ad1ertisements seeking sla1es !or saleE sometimes as many as two hundred were sought at a time. B)linton --14C In Keorgia, labama, /ississippi, and Louisiana Bla&ks were deskilled Bi.e.,
turned !rom smithies and seamstresses into &otton pi&kersC and sub"e&ted to more intense and &ruel !orms o! &apti1ity and punishment than they had pre1iously known in the De1olutionary War period. ll in all more than one million Bla&k youth were uprooted meri&ans
and re-ensla1ed within a thirty-year period. In addition, three million 6ati1e
died in this period as they were massa&red and sent on deadly !or&ed mar&hes B+rail o! +earsC in an e!!ort to make them 1a&ate the land that the White working &lass Band its &o!!les o! sla1esC would inhabit !or small !amily !armsE and the Indians lost more than #0 million he&tares o! land to this dramati& e3pansion o! &i1il so&iety. In the 17-4s and 74s, another one million Bla&k youth were uprooted !rom their ;homes< and ;!amilies< and !ormally in&ar&erated in the prison industrial &omple3
%4%
B@.I.).C. +his !igure, translated !ra&tionally, &omes out to an in&ar&eration rate o! one in !our Bla&k youth. >owe1er, when one &onsiders that another !i1e million or so Bla&ks are &aptured by other !orms o! @.I.). modalities, probation, parole, hal!way houses, ele&troni& ankle bra&elets, et&. then the per&entage as&ends. +hat makes si3 million Bla&k people, primarily youth, who are somehow &aptured by the apparatus o! roundup euphemisti&ally re!erred to as the @rison Industrial )omple3. 6ow, i! ea&h o! those si3 million has, &onser1ati1ely, !our immediate !amily members, then there are twenty-!our million Bla&k meri&ans who are intimate with the late #4thHearly #1st &entury apparatus
o! roundup. In other words, ( in ., or roughly .4W o! all Bla&k people in meri&a are on intimate terms with this apparatus. What should be sho&king and the !oundation o! publi& out&ry is that the per&entage o! Bla&k people intimate, through lo&kdown or relations, with the @.I.). is signi!i&antly higher than the per&entage o! Bla&k people intimate in this way with 17th &entury sla1ery. But ethi&al dilemmas arising !rom su&h intima&y do not make up the !abri& o! ;publi& dis&ourse.< In this way, there is a stru&tural mimesis between ;the absolute solidi!i&ation o! &apti1ity< in the !irst hal! o! the 17 th &entury and the last hal! o! the #4th &entury. +here is a stru&tural mimesis between dramati& e3pansion o! &i1il so&iety in the !irst thirty years o! the 17th &entury, the Ja&ksonian mo1ement, and in the last twenty years o! the #4th &entury, the anti-globali=ation mo1ement. +he rotation o! that wheel whi&h renews the solidi!i&ation o! Bla&k &apti1ity B&apti1ity solidi!ied by the runaway sla1e ad or by the B@C, and the rotation o! that wheel whi&h renews the labor o! White
redemption Bspa&e and time redeemed either through the Ja&ksonian e3pansion o! &i1il &artography or through the 6egrian re&omposition o! the multitudeC are stunningly
%4(
&alibrated. +hese moments o! &alibration engender a need !or the ;mulattoHa< be&ause &i1il so&iety &annot &ome &lean as to how and why dramas o! White redemption reGuire, for the coherence<rather than the outcome<of the drama, the most brutal reena&tments o! 1iolen&e against Bla&k !lesh. +he &alibration o! these two wheels: rotation threatens to a!!e&t a politi&al rupture. +he ;mulattoHa< is a !igure ;who heals the rupture at LtheseM points o! wounding< B04-C. Whi&h does not mean that the ;mulattoHa< be&omes an interlo&utor when sHhe is made to administer the sal1e. @ut another way' +he !a&t o! in&ar&eration oo=es out o! e1ery pore o! (onster4s Ball, and Bla&kness:s synonymity with &ontainment is &on!irmed by the image tra&k as well. >owe1er, gi1en the !ilm:s own admission o! the !a&t o! in&ar&eration as the !a&t o! Bla&kness, the s&reenwriters &ould imagine no e3&hange between Bla&ks Bwhether ;mulatta< or ; !ri&an<C &ataly=ed by the ethi&al dilemmas o! a&&umulation and !ungibility. In (onster4s Ball, and in so many other White so&ially engaged !ilms where prison !igures as a main &hara&ter, where prison has a speaking role, prison is seen as Bla&k &apti1ity, but scene/ed as White su!!ering. n intra-Bla&k arti&ulation o! ethi&al dilemmas !inds no elaboration in the s&riptE nor does the s&ript appear to be too re!le&ti1e o!, too &on1ersant with, a Bla&k ensemble o! Guestions or a Bla&k grammar o! su!!ering, when Bla&ks are speaking to Whites' Leti&ia' L2eated on the &ou&h, speaking to >ankM +his here is my husband. >e went and got hissel! Rle&tri&uted o1er there in Ja&kson. *r$ Warden' L>olding a mike to Lawren&eM Do you ha1e any last wordsF Lawren&e' @ush da button.
%4,
+he politi&al dimension o! &i1il so&iety:s egoi& monumentali=ation &alls upon the ;mulattoHa< as a ;stage prop< at those moments in the drama when the mise-en-s&ene is in need. +here is the White, who is &onstru&ted as ;woman.< +here is the Bla&k, who is &onstru&ted as ;!emale.< ;Woman< is 1ested with the Gualities o! both 1irginity and motherhood' White women, then, are ;ladies$. whom gentlemen someday marry< B04.C. +he Bla&k, or !ri&an, is ;!emale<?and not ;woman<?be&ause she is &onstru&ted
through the grammar o! a&&umulation and !ungibility. +he sla1eo&ra&y, in a &hain o! metonymy !rom the /iddle @assage, names the !ri&an as ;!emale<' a ;&ondition o!
mindless !ertility.< +he prohibition against not only being able to &laim her own skin? hen&e the designation flesh, instead o! body?but against being able to &laim her own o!!spring, are what allow the 1ery perpetrators o! this gratuitous 1iolen&e, ;the authoring !orms LthatM put them in pla&e,< to name her !ertility as ;mindless.< In this way, Bla&k women are ;known< to be so hyperse3ual as to be, ultimately, ase3ual. But without the stru&ture o! gratuitous 1iolen&e, follo&ed b" the symboli& inter1ention o! naming the 1i&tim as ;mindless !ertility,< or ;!emale,< there would be no White woman in the imaginary o! the White male, and motherhood would lose &oheren&e as a so&ial &ategory. ;Dobbery< is the metaphor 2pillers uses to epitomi=e this &oheren&e' +he third &aste LBla&kH!emaleHsla1eM robs the !irst LWhiteHwomanH1irginM o! a putati1e &litoral and 1aginal pleasure, as the !irst purloins !rom the third a uterine !un&tionality. *nly the !irst &aste gains here the right to the rites and &laims o! motherhood, blind to its potential !emale pleasure and redu&ed, parado3i&ally, in the s&ale o! things to a trans&endent and opaGue Womanhood. B04.C
%4.
2pillers is &lear that though White ;women< and Bla&k ;!emales< are both named so, written, by the phalli& monumentali=ation o! &i1il so&iety:s pri1ate and publi& dis&ourse Brespe&ti1ely, the White male ego, on the one hand, and the reGuirements o! !amily, pri1ate property, and the state, on the other handC, this &ommon e3perien&e o! misre&ognition by way o! phalli& naming strategies, does not translate into a &ommon ontology, a &ommon grammar o! su!!ering. 2till, a!ter suggesting that &litoral and 1aginal pleasure ;are purloined< !rom White ;women< by Bla&k ;!emales,< she in!orms us that Bla&k ;!emales< are not &onstru&ted in su&h a way as to be able to keep, to hold onto, make something spe&ial and personal o!, that pleasure. +his is be&ause the site o! Bla&k !emininity is designated as being so hyperboli&ally se3ual as to not allow &litoral and 1aginal pleasure &oheren&e in time and spa&e' that whi&h goes by the shorthand se3uality. )i1il so&iety:s phalli& wound is a la&eration between, on the one hand, the open a&&ess to Bla&k women:s ;se3uality<?marked by their open 1ulnerability to the 1iolen&e o! the sla1eo&ra&y?a se3ual a&&ess so open that it spreads a&ross boundless spa&e and endless timeE a se3uality with no &oordinates, as su&h it &annot pro1ide the White male with the satis!a&tion o! a&&ess' there is no woman:s ;body,< thus there was no se3ual ;e1ent.< nd then, on the other hand, on the other side o! the phalli& wound:s la&eration,
there is the White ;woman,< the antithesis o! se3ual a&&ess so open it is meaninglessE White ;woman:s< se3uality is so meaning ful as to be ina&&essible, !orbidden Buntil marriageC. 8ltimately the uterine !un&tion must be preser1ed. ;L+Mhe !ri&an- meri&an
!emale$robbed o! the bene!its o! the Rreprodu&tion o! mother,: is, &onseGuently, the 1ery
%4nglo- meri&an
negation o! !emaleness that a&&rues as the pe&uliar property o!
woman$< B04(C +he uterine !un&tion is a 1e&tor o! spatial and temporal &apa&ity' 2pa&e, &ohered as pla&e' the womb. +ime, &ohered as e1ent' &hildbirth. s su&h, this &on1ersion
!rom seen into scene is what makes a White ;woman< both a ;woman< and WhiteE whi&h is to say, not a ;!emale< and not Bla&k. nd, by metonymi& e3tension, it makes a !amily
a !amily. In !a&t, the &oheren&e o! both pri1ate property and the state also depends on the White ;woman:s< sa!eguarding the uterine !un&tion B04.-047C. But the attendant ;sa&ri!i&e< o! se3ual pleasure whi&h this sa!eguarding reGuires Bthe aura o! 1irginity that must a&&ompany that &hronology whi&h predates the uterine !un&tionC is debilitating !or the egoi& monumentali=ation o! White mas&ulinity at the same time that it is enabling o! &i1il so&iety:s more &olle&ti1e institutions B!amily, property, stateC. +his is a point o! wounding whi&h the ;mulatta is &alled upon to heal. +he ;mulatta< is ;a site o! &ultural and politi&al maneu1er< between the White ;1irgin whom gentlemen someday married< and the Bla&k sla1e upon whom the White 1irgin rested and to whom she ;doubtless owed her 1irginity< B04.C. It would be sa!e to say that, when >alle Berry is made to appear on s&reen, she appears as a ;mulatta.< +his assumption &an be made on the basis o! how Berry appears as an aspe&t o! the &inemati& apparatus' that is by taking into &onsideration the star maga=ines: and entertainment news !as&ination with Berry:s White mother and her ;absent< Bla&k !ather. +he assumption &an also be made by e3amining the ;wedge< work Berry:s diegeti& !igure per!orms in !ilms where !ri&anHBla&k women are not merely
implied by her presen&e, but are present on s&reen with her. In Bull&orth, !or e3ample, it be&omes &lear within the !irst twenty minutes that, though Berry:s &hara&ter is one o!
%47
!emale trio whom 2enator Bullworth en&ounters in 2outh )entral, L. ., the two darker women are made to appear too loud, too ;&rude,< and too se3ually aggressi1e to stand any possibility o! emerging as 2enator Bullworth:s ;lo1e interest.< +his is not to suggest that her appearan&e is in any way announced as su&h, that the 1arious s&ripts in some way take up the politi&s o! bi-ra&ial identity, but that the &inemati& ;pose< she is &ompelled to strike implies, as its &ondition o! possibility, the presen&e o! !ri&an !emales?women
who Bin other !ilms, and in the world beyond the !ilmC are made to appear, when they are e1en allo&ed to appear, as Bla&k. ;8nlike the !ri&an !emale personality implied in her
presen&e, the Rmulatta: designates those notions o! !emaleness that would re-en!or&e the latter as an ob"e&t o! ga=ing?the dimensions o! the spe&ta&ular that$LareM 1irtually the uniGue property o! the RmulattoHa:<B2pillers 04-C. +his di!!eren&e between Bla&k !emale in&apa&ity and the ;mulatta:s< presumed &apa&ity is the sleight o! hand (onster4s Ball attempts to press into ser1i&e o! its so&ial dream. In short, without the ;mulatta,< albeit understated in &omparison to mid-&entury melodramas like 6mitation of 'ife BDouglas 2irk 17(7C, the inspiration o! ;we< upon whi&h redempti1e narrati1es rest would break apart. I!, as we ha1e said, Leti&ia:s ;mulatta< stillness eGuals the Bla&k stillness o! Lawren&e, +yrell, the two boys, and their !ather, how do we a&&ount !or her mo1ement, so&iallyE and how and why does (onster4s Ball, as an e3ample o! what 2pillers &alls ;publi& dis&ourse< B010C, gain the ;ad1antage o! a lie by or&hestrating otherness through degrees o! di!!eren&e< B010CF In other words, how does &i1il so&iety deploy this mo1ement to mask and disa1ow the antagonism between the 1erti&al and the lateralF
%14
Diegeti&ally, the ;mulattoHa< appears as a sub"e&t position imbued with the human &apa&ity o! temporal and spatial mo1ement whi&h is absent in the Bla&k. s a diegeti& and publi& dis&ourse stage prop, ;mulattas< &an be thought o! as ;the &ourtesans to whom LWhite menM went while on sabbati&als to the &ities< B04.C. ; llowing the male to ha1e his &ake and eat it too, or to re"oin the R!emale: with the Rwoman,: the mulatta has no name be&ause there is not a lo&us, or strategy, !or this 8nitarian prin&iple o! the eroti&< B04-C. 2pillers alerts us to the !a&t that the ;mulatta< is barred !rom &i1il so&iety, politicall", by her status as &hattel property$ ;L/Mulatto< originates etymologi&ally in notions o! ;sterile mule<$ Lwhi&hM is not a geneti&ally trans!erable trait. L+he psy&hogenesis o! ;mulattoHa< is not only a pie&e o! &hattel, but &hattel with no &apa&ity !or !iliation.M B011C $while at the same time she is ad1an&ed, libidinall", by her status as an arbiter o! &hi1alry. 2he' literally belongs to a &lass o! masters, who prote&t their property by way o! 1arious de1i&es that &luster in notions o! ;honor.< It would not do, !or instan&e, !or Lone White manM to &all another LWhite man:sM mistress a ;whore,< sin&e he, or any other, male &ommitting the fau) pas, would be R!or&ed to pur&hase that pri1ilege with some o! LhisM blood$B047C3&iii When Leti&ia pawns her wedding ring in order to buy >ank a ten-gallon &owboy hat, she meets >ank:s !ather, Bu&k, who lures her into a &on1ersation in whi&h he holds all the &ards' he is able to !ind out e1erything about her Bthat Lawren&e /usgro1e was her
%11
husband and that she and >ank are sleeping togetherC and not only is she unable to know anything about him but she is not wise to the &omplete signi!i&an&e o! his !ishing e3pedition. Finally, a!ter she has lit his &igarette and spoken kindly to him, he says, ;9ep, I had a taste !or the nigger "ui&e when I was >ank:s age. >e:s "es: like his Daddy.< Leti&ia storms out o! the house, and, in her !ury, e1en storms past >ank Bwho has "ust arri1ed in the yardC. +he ne3t s&ene is o! >ank &ommitting Bu&k to a retirement home, signing the papers, setting him up with, no less, a Bla&k roommate, and then lea1ing. Bu&k has &alled >ank:s mistress a ;whore< and thus paid !or it with his blood. 51entually, >ank and Leti&ia re&on&ile, she mo1es in with him and, as the diegesis intends in the last s&ene, ;the pea&e and order o! the world were restored in L 'eticia4sM happiness< B01,C. 2till, the &ontrasti1e work whi&h wedges the ;mulatta< as a ;shadow< between Bla&kness and Whiteness B01(C does not trans!orm Leti&ia !rom the ob"e&t status o! Bla&kness su!!i&iently enough to allow her to share >ank Krotowski:s ethi&al dilemmas' >ank and Leti&ia are elaborated, ontologi&ally, by the same grammar o! su!!ering simply be&ause Bu&k &alled >ank:s property ;property.< But the s&reenplay:s insisten&e to the &ontrary haunts our assertion. !ter all, (onster4s Ball is a lo1e story, and lo1e is enabled only by way o! mutual re&ognition. We ha1e said that su&h re&ognition is only possible when the parties that &on!ront ea&h other do so through ;&on!li&tual harmony< B!ound in the en&ounter between men and women, post-&olonials and the motherland:s sub"e&ts, and liminally, 2ettlers and ;2a1ages<C. &on!li&tual relation &an !ind its way to the
imaginati1e labor o! lo1e, !or the simple reason that re&ognition is already its &onstituti1e element. But !or an antagonisti& relation, the imaginati1e labor o! lo1e is a hallu&ination.
%1#
/urder, rather than re&ognition, is its &onstituti1e element.3&i1 What, generi&ally speaking, is the substan&e o! this ;mulatta< deliriumF !he fantas" of a corpse &ith a pulse. +hrough the inter&ourse o! dreaming, a dead ob"e&t is dreamed to li!eE dreamed o! as ali1e Bdreamed o! as lo1ed and in lo1eC within the relationshipE rather than seen as murdered b" the relationship. +he last lines o! the !ilm, ;I went by our station on the way home. I like our sign. I think we:re going to be alright,< lo&ate their inspiration not in the irre&on&ilable duality between beings and things but in the promise o! the personal pronoun ;we,< and suggest that whate1er problems the !uture may hold !or >ank and Leti&ia, they will be &i1il problems, problems in &ommon, and should 1iolen&e erupt !rom them, that 1iolen&e will be &ontingent?the outgrowth o! some ethi&al and symboli&ally &omprehended transgression. >ere, at the end, the !ilm would assure us that Leti&ia is somehow spe&ialE that she is not the stuff of things to die meaninglessly on the side o! a road, to be e3e&uted in silen&e, to be run o!! with a shotgun blast, or !a&ed down like a bull. But neither is she allowed to be illuminated by a three-point blend o! light, or positioned by way o! editing and &amera angle, as a human entity to whom the !ilm:s ethi&al dilemmas a&&rue, and !or whom 1alue !un&tions as an arbiter?e3&ept in moments when illuminating her !a&e trans&endentally is inde3i&al o! >ank:s, not her, re&omposition and redemption' in this way Leti&ia, unlike the Bla&k woman in &inema, takes on the propert" of light , while remaining, mu&h like the Bla&k woman in &inema, the Guintessen&e o! property.
)ontemporary !ilm re1iews debate whether or not (onster4s Ball su&&eeds in unmasking the so&ial relations whi&h the re1iewers assume the &ategory o! Whiteness to
%10
mask. +he debate itself is problemati& be&ause Whiteness as $alue/form is important but inessential.3&1 8nmasking Whiteness:s 1alue-!orm is essential to demysti!ying that whi&h inhibits the play o! identi!i&atory hybridityE but su&h work is inessential to an e3planation o! how Whites are positioned, structurall", as White in relation to Bla&k. It has so&ial but not ontologi&al e3planatory power. Ialpana 2eshadri-)rooks: 3esiring Whiteness: a 'acanian Anal"sis of Race labors rigorously to &ontradi&t my assessment by reading ;bla&k< and ;white< through the same intelle&tual proto&ols through whi&h Judith Butler reads gender, the ;unpa&king o! the &ategory o! women as sub"e&ts o! representation< B10(C. Butler ;&hallenges the notion o! gender as tendentious &ultural ins&ription upon the natural se3 o! the person. 2e3 is not to nature and the Rraw: as gender is to &ulture and the R&ooked,: LButlerM &ontends< B10(C. Like Butler, 2eshadri-)rooks belie1es that ;the assumption that gender identity !ollows !rom se3, whi&h in turn entails the stabili=ing o! desire as heterose3ual, is an e!!e&t o! power< B10,C. +o dri1e home her point, that she might support her own intelle&tual proto&ol in whi&h she does not ;!o&us on the way$ra&ial identity$is produ&ed by ideology?its in1estments and its regulations?but rather on the way identity is marked and thought< B10,-10.C, 2eshadri-)rooks Guotes Butler at length' Kender is the repeated st"li1ation of the bod", a set o! repeated a&ts within a highly rigid regulator" frame that congeal o$er time to produ&e the appearance of substance, o! a natural sort of being. politi&al genealogy
o! gender ontologies, i! it is su&&ess!ul, will de&onstru&t the substanti1e appearan&e o! gender into its &onstituti1e a&ts and lo&ate and a&&ount !or those a&ts within the &ompulsory !rames set by the 1arious !or&es that
%1%
poli&e the so&ial appearan&e o! gender. +o e3pose the &ontingent a&ts that &reate the appearan&e o! a naturalisti& ne&essity$is a task that now takes on the added burden o! showing how the 1ery notion o! the sub"e&t, intelligible only through its appearan&e as gendered, admits o! possibilities that ha1e been !or&ibly !ore&losed by the 1arious reifications o! gender that ha1e &onstituted its &ontingent ontologies BButler 1774' 00C. B2eshadri-)rooks 10,, emphasis mineC 2tyli=ation o! the bodyE a regulatory !rame &ongealing o1er timeE the appearan&e o! substan&eE a natural sort o! beingE rei!i&ation : gender as the arbiter between disparate entities' gender as a 1alue-!orm. 1alue !orm that masks and reda&ts. 2eshadri-
)rooks applauds Butler:s surgi&al strike be&ause it &an ;unmask the relations o! ne&essity< posited by power and show them to be ;purely &ontingent< B10,C. Borrowing Butler:s proto&ol !or her work on ra&e, 2eshadri-)rooks then asks, ;Is there any Rsense: to naming someone bla&k or whiteF< B10.CE whi&h is a rhetori&al way o! saying that ;LoMne:s &riti&al task$is to eliminate the modality o! ne&essity and install in its pla&e the &ontingen&y o! all relations< B10,C. But her transposition o! Butler:s proto&ols !rom the unmasking o! gendered relations to a pro"e&t o! unmasking Bla&kHWhite relations runs aground both in theory and in pra&ti&e. Let me sum up my ob"e&tions to this passage by starting at the end' there is no su&h narrati1e as a politi&al genealogy and there is no su&h entity as a ;genderLedM ontology< unless the sub"e&t under dis&ussion is not Bla&k. Furthermore, gender ontology is an o3ymoron whi&h is marked by analyti& impre&ision be&ause it &ollapses and &on!uses the so&ial and per!ormati1e with the stru&tural and positional. In other words, it
%1(
&ollapses and &on!uses the important with the essential. +hroughout this book I insist upon pressing the so&ial and per!ormati1e into analyti&-ser1i&e o! the stru&tural and positionalE not 1i&e-1ersaE and certainl" not back and forth on some plane of hori1ontal significance. I! the work o! !ro-@essimists like 2aidiya >artman &an be read not only as &ultural history but as ;allegorLiesM o! the present$narrati1eLsM !or the sla1e,artman #440C then their &olle&ti1e skepti&ism as regards the e3planatory power o! the analyses bound to the so&ial and per!ormati1e !un&tions as a spanner in the works to Butler:s ;politi&al genealogy o! gender ontologies.< >artman writes' It is impossible to &onsider, let alone imagine, the agen&y o! the per!ormati1e when the bla&k per!ormati1e is ine3tri&ably linked with the spe&ter o! &ontented sub"e&tion, the torturous display o! the &apti1e body, and the ra1ishing o! the body that is the &ondition o! the other:s pleasureF s well, how does one e3pli&ate the &onditions o! sla1e agen&y when the 1ery e3pression seems little more than an o3ymoron that restates the parado3 o! the ob"e&t status and pained sub"e&t &onstitution o! the ensla1edF >ow is it possible to think ;agen&y< when the sla1e:s 1ery &ondition o! being or so&ial e3isten&e is de!ined as a state o! determinate negationF In other words, what are the &onstituents o! agen&y when one:s so&ial &ondition is de!ined by negation and personhood re!igured in the !etishi=ed and !ungible terms o! the ob"e&t o! propertyF B Scenes of Sub5ection$(#C Butler suggests that ;a politi&al genealogy o! gender ontologies$will de&onstru&t the substanti1e appearan&e o! gender.< >ere she demonstrates the same Guality o!
%1,
optimism !or human liberation !ound in 6egri, >ardt, and Film 2tudies' put &rudely, but nonetheless to the point, she seems to be saying, ;!ree your mind and your ass will !ollow.< 8nmasking, !or Butler and 2eshadri-)rooks, ;the 1arious !or&es that poli&e the so&ial appearan&e o! gender< takes on the same eman&ipatory essen&e that the task o! unmasking the so&ial relations pressed into ser1i&e o! the &ommodity-!orm takes !or 6egri, >ardt, and Barrett. But >artman makes it &lear that there remains an essential di!!eren&e, a stru&tural irre&on&ilability, whi&h is to say an antagonism, between a positionality duped by ;the appearan&e o! a naturalisti& ne&essity< BButler in 2eshadri)rooksC and a ;&apti1e body$LwhoseM &ondition o! being$is de!ined as a state o! determinate negation and LwhoseM personhood s re!igured n the !etishi=ed and !ungible terms o! the ob"e&t o! propertyartmanC. nd this stru&tural antagonism between the
sub"e&t status o! the Body and the ob"e&t status o! the 2la1e hinges, ironi&ally, upon their polari=ed relationships to the per!ormati1e. For !eminists su&h as Butler and 2eshadri-)rooks, the per!ormati1e in1ol1es a destyli=ationHre-styli=ation o! the body?an unmasking and subseGuent re&on!iguring o! bodily rei!i&ation' namely, gender. >artman has no dire&t, Bla&k &ritiGue or re"e&tion o! !eminism:s de- re-styling per!orman&e Bwhether that per!orman&e be analyti& or aestheti&, whi&h I will dis&uss in relation to nudity and Whiteness, belowC. But her te3t maintains an unpersuaded and underwhelmed stan&e toward the e3planatory, mu&h less liberatory, power o! the per!ormati1e when asserted in &on"un&tion with the Bla&k. +his is be&ause it is impossible to di1or&e Bla&kness !rom &apti1ity, mutilation, and the pleasure o! nonBla&ks. Butler et al. assume a presen&e, masked and rei!iedE >artman assumes a negation, &apti1e and !ungible.
%1.
bo1e I suggested that 2eshadri-)rooks, by way o! Butler, &ontradi&ts my assessments. +his is impre&ise' in point o! !a&t, she is simply mute in the !a&e o! my assessments. gain, the drama o! 1alue that Butler imagines is one in whi&h gender
stands in as a rei!ied !orm that masks the hybridity o! bodies. +he body then, or rather disparate bodies, is a basi& always-already !or Butler, 2eshadri-)rooks, and most !eminism Bthis in&ludes the !eminism o! Film +heoryC. Kranted, though it appears in her assessment as the smallest s&ale o! &artographi& &oheren&e, it nonetheless appears as? and herein lies the rubA?a &apa&ity !or spatiality and temporality possessed uni1ersally by all. But surely Judith Butler, an Indian, must re&all that meri&an, i! not Ialpana 2eshadri-)rooks, an 5ast
!ri&ans went into the hold o! ships as bodies and emerged !rom
the holds o! those ships as ;!lesh< B2pillers #4,C. I$make a distin&tion$between ;body< and ;!lesh< and impose that distin&tion as the &entral one between &apti1e and liberated sub"e&tpositions. In that sense, be!ore the ;body< there is the ;!lesh,< that =ero degree o! so&ial &on&eptuali=ation that does not es&ape &on&ealment under the brush o! dis&ourse or the re!le3es o! i&onography. B2pillers #4,C For the body:s rei!i&ation o! gender to &onstitute an essential grammar o! su!!ering there must !irst be a body there. Feminism, /ar3ism, and Film 2tudies must pro1ide and a&&ount !or a corpus delicti, the &orpse o! a murder 1i&tim. *ne would think that true rigor demands some, howe1er short, nod to that histori&al pro&ess through whi&h Bla&k !lesh was re&omposed as a body be!ore one &an write about a uni1ersal template &alled ;the body< whi&h &an per!orm and &ontest gender in dramas o! 1alue. In other words, what ;e1ent< Bwhat &oheren&e o! timeC reinstated Bla&k &orporeal integrity Breinstated
%1-
&artographi& &oheren&eC so that philosophers and !ilm theorists Band /ar3ists, !ilmmakers, and White !eministsC &ould imagine Bla&kness as possessing the &apa&ity to be staged in dramas where bodily styli=ation is repeated?where 1alue rei!ies as genderF +his burden o! proo! is on the /aster, not the 2la1e. La&an, 2il1erman, 6egri, >ardt, Butler, >eath, and /ar& Forster et al. must make that &ase to Fanon, 2pillers, @atterson, >artman, /arriott, Judy, and /bembe. I$suggest that ;gendering< takes pla&e within the &on!ines o! the domesti&, an essential metaphor that then spreads its tenta&les !or male and !emale sub"e&ts o1er a wide ground o! human and so&ial purposes Lthat ground being &i1il so&ietyM. Domesti&ity appears to gain its power by way o! a &ommon origin o! &ultural !i&tions that are grounded in the spe&i!i&ity o! proper names, more e3a&tly, a patronymi&, whi&h, in turn, situates those sub"e&ts that it &o1ers in a parti&ular pla&e. )ontrarily, the &argo o! a ship might not be regarded as elements o! the domesti&, e1en though the 1essel that &arries the &argo is sometimes romanti&ally personi!ied as ;she.< +he human &argo o! a sla1e 1essel?in the e!!a&ement and remission o! !ri&an !amily and proper names?&ontra1enes notions o! the domesti&$ 8nder these &onditions, one is neither !emale, nor male, as both sub"e&ts are taken into a&&ount as 2uantities. B2pillers #1%-#1(C 8ntil one &an demonstrate how the &orporeal integrity o! the Bla&k has indeed been repaired, ;a politi&al genealogy o! gender ontologies< whi&h ;blowLsM apart the se3gender-desire ne3us$ Land thusM permits resigni!i&ation o! identity as &ontingen&y< B2eshadri-)rooks 10,C is a politi&al pro"e&t the 2la1e &an only laugh at, or weep at the
%17
thought o!. But whether weeping or laughing B!or the 2la1e:s &ounter-hegemoni& responses are o! no essential 1alue and ha1e no stru&tural impa&tC, the 2la1e is always sidelined by su&h ;resigni!i&ation o! LhumanM identity.< De-signi!i&ation o! an identity whi&h ne1er signi!ied?an identity 1oid o! semioti& play?is nothing to look !orward to. >ere, an un!orgi1able obs&enity is per!ormed twi&e o1er' !irst, through the typi&al White !eminist gesture that assumes all women Band menC ha1e bodies, ergo all bodies &ontest gender:s drama o! 1alueE and, se&ondly, by way o! the more re&ent, but no less &ommon, assertions that the analysis o! Bla&kHWhite ;relations< has a handy analog in the analysis o! gendered relations. Indeed, !or su&h intelle&tual proto&ols to transpose themsel1es !rom obs&enities to proto&ols truly meaning!ul to the 2la1e Bin other words, !or their e3planatory power to be essential and not merely importantC, the operati1e 1erbs, atta&hed to what Butler &alls ;the$!or&es that poli&e,< would ha1e to shi!t !rom ;masking< and ;reda&tion,< to ;murder.< ;Identity< may 1ery well be ;the in1estiture o! name, and the marking o! re!eren&e< B2eshadri-)rooks 10.C?and here is where the @ost)olonial sub"e&t and the White sub"e&t o! empire &an duke it out Bi!, in the pro&ess, they would lea1e us aloneAC?but Bla&kness marks, re!eren&es, names, and identifies a &orpse. nd a &orpse is not relational be&ause death is beyond representation, and relationality always o&&urs within representation. What is the ;it< beyond representation that Whiteness murdersF In other words, what ;e1iden&e< do we ha1e that the 1iolen&e that positions the 2la1e, is stru&turally di!!erent then the 1iolen&e inflicted upon the Worker, the Woman, the 2pe&tator, and the @ost-)olonialF gain, as was demonstrated in @art I, the murdered ;it< is &apa&ity par
e3&ellen&e, spatial and temporal &apa&ity. /ar3ism, Film +heory, and the politi&al
%#4
&ommon sense o! so&ially engaged White &inema think human &apa&ity as Butler and 2eshadri-)rooks do' as uni$ersal phenomena. But Bla&ks e3perien&e human &apa&ity as a homicidal phenomena. Fanon, Judy, /bembe, >artman, /arriott, @atterson, and 2pillers, ha1e ea&h, in their own way, shown us that the Bla&k lost the &oheren&e o! spa&e and time in the hold o! the /iddle @assage. +he philosophy o! Butler, the !ilm theory o! 2il1erman, Doane, and 2eshadri-)rooks, the /ar3ism o! 6egri and >ardt, the so&ial optimism or pessimism o! popular !ilm re1iews, and the auteurial intention o! dire&tor /ar& Forster, all lea1e the 2la1e unthought. +hey take as gi1en that the Bla&k has a&&ess to dramas o! 1alue. But ea&h disparate entity in any drama o! 1alue must possess not only spatiality B!or e1en a pat&h o! grass e3ists in spa&eC, but the power to labor on spa&e' the cartographic capacit" to make place?i! only at the s&ale o! the body. 5a&h disparate entity in any drama o! 1alue must possess not only temporality B!or e1en a pat&h o! grass begins-e3ists-and-is-no-moreC, but the power to labor o1er time' the historiographic capacit" to narrate ,e$ents-?i! only the ;e1ent< o! se3uality. +he terrain o! the body and the e1ent o! se3uality were murdered when the !ri&an be&ame a ;genealogi&al
isolate< B@atterson (C. +hus, the e)planator" po&er o! the theorists, !ilmmaker, and !ilm re1iewers &ited abo1e, at its 1ery best, is &apable o! thinking Bla&kness as identit" or as identificationE &on&eding, howe1er, as the more rigorous among them do, that ;bla&k and white do not say mu&h about identit", though they do establish group and personal identifications o! the sub"e&ts in1ol1ed< B2eshadri-)rooks 100C. But e1en this &on&ession gets us nowhere. t best, it is a red herring in1esting our attention in a semioti& t worst, it puts the &art be!ore the horseE
impossibility' that o! the 2la1e as signi!ier.
whi&h is to say that no /ar3ist theory o! so&ial &hange and proletarian re&omposition,
%#1
and no !eminist theory o! bodily resigni!i&ation, ha1e been able Bor &aredC to demonstrate how, when, and where Lin&oln !reed the sla1es. 9et, they remain, i! only by omission, stead!ast in their &on1i&tion that sla1ery was abolished. t moments, howe1er, the
sensory e3&ess o! &inema lets ordinary White !ilm say what e3traordinary White !olks won:t. Chapter T!elve !ake !e eel 0ood
!he stor" doesn4t &ork if the child doesn4t die. /ilos ddi&a, &o-s&reenwriter, (onster4s Ball
+hough little o! a s&holarly nature has been written about (onster4s Ball, its release prompted a torrent o! "ournalisti& ink. Ki1en the breadth o! so&ial issues the !ilm engages Binterra&ial se3, the burgeoning o! the prison industrial &omple3, &apital punishment, the generati1e &rises in !iliation, and the ennui o! White mas&ulinity in the #1st &enturyC and gi1en the !a&t that >alle Berry be&ame the se&ond Bla&k woman in history to win a Best &tress *s&ar !or her per!orman&e, no doubt two or three a&ademi&
arti&les are at this moment being written or slated !or publi&ation. +he wide spe&trum o! "ournalism about the !ilm spans !rom the ephemeral ;good !ilmHbad !ilm< impressionism o! lo&al newspaper:s mo1ie se&tion to more re!le&ti1e arti&les o! maga=ines and weekly tabloids su&h as Currenc" and !he :illage :oice. +aken broadly, these latter, less impressionisti&, more re!le&ti1e re1iews are leading indi&ators o! how issues will be !ramed and how &on&erns will be distributed on&e (onster4s Ball !inds its way into the
%##
"ournals o! !ilm studies. What the more engaged &ommentaries share with the short, pithy, newspaper pie&es is a pro&li1ity to pronoun&e the !ilm as ;good< or ;bad< not as good or bad entertainment Bthis is le!t to the lo&al newspaper:s mo1ie se&tionC but as so&ial art. +he headlines o! the lo&al newspaper re1iews indi&ate a &onsensus o! appro1al' ;@oeti&, Fragile RBall:< BIoehlerCE ;>ot and >ea1y< BKuthmanCE ; Berry< B/eyerCE ;@robing beauty o! a role !or
meri&an taboos' 2wiss dire&tor takes on ra&e in R/onster:s
Ball:< BKrahamC. 51en 6i&ole Ieeter:s re1iew in !ime maga=ine B1#H#.H41-1H0H4#C, one o! the !ew short pie&es whi&h lament the !ilm:s ;symboli& hea1y-handedness,< nonetheless &ontends that this ;might ha1e resulted in an oppressi1e !ilm had LForsterM not ba&ked o!! to !a&ilitate memorable lead per!orman&es< on the part o! >alle Berry and Billy Bob +hornton. +he enthusiasm o!, and kudos !rom, lo&al papers was almost too robust !or their &olumns to &ontain. Witness Dobert Ioehler:s genu!le&tion to +hornton:s portrayal o! >ank Krotowski' It:s a measure o! +hornton:s e3tra-ordinary subtle per!orman&e that the &hanges in >ank arri1e in barely per&eptible mo1ements. +here:s the sense, one that only &omes in the most e3&iting s&reen a&ting works, o! a thesp un&o1ering his &hara&ter:s layers in the moment it happens on &amera. B:ariet" February 17-#1, #441C nd to the !ilm:s a&ousti& minimalism Ioehler:s nod is "ust as appro1ing' ;In a year o! dread!ul o1ers&oring, s&he and 2pen&er:s synth and guitar unders&ore is in per!e&t moody tandem with the images.<
%#0
+here is widespread &onsensus among the newspaper arti&les that the raw se3 s&ene between Berry and +hornton is not a ra&ist pornotroping o! Bla&k !emale se3uality but a sensiti1e and poignant plot point whi&h elegantly !a&ilitates the mu&h-anti&ipated trans!ormation o! >ank Krotowski. BIn !a&t, the Guestion o! ra&ist pornotroping only arose, as !ar as I am aware, not in print but in a radio dis&ussionHdebate between se1eral Bla&k !ilm &riti&s and s&holars on 3emocrac" #o& on the morning a!ter the *s&ars.C s we as&end out o! the &ommonpla&e into the rare, that is, !rom lo&al newspaper re1iews to maga=ine arti&les, the &onsensus stands in stark &ontrast. 8nlike daily newspaper "ournalists who applauded the ability o! a 2wiss dire&tor to shoot 2outhern gothi&a and get it right BKrahamC, /i&hael Forster ;a &areerist dallying in the !oothills o! 2&out badge.< le3 Fung demurs' +he pi1otal se3 s&ene, designed as the !ilm:s turning point, where the oppressi1e despair and hopelessness per1ading the grim 2outhern gothi& gradually gi1es way to a !ragile optimism, !ails to !ul!ill its trans&endent ambitions, and be&omes bogged downed by ill-&on&ei1ed dire&tional !lourishes. B..C Both Di&hard 1on Busa&k:s ;+he >ot 2Guat' Billy Bob +hornton Doman&es >alle Berry in the Deep 2outh o! (onster4s Ball< and Jonathan Dosenbaum:s ; ll is Forgi1en< bemoan what they &onsider to be the s&ript:s &ontri1an&e and the !au3 so&ial &ons&iousness o! its narrati1e. ;+he key !or s&ripting a succes d4estine,< writes Di&hard 1on Busa&k o! the Eakland Urban :ie&, is to' tkinson o! the :illage :oice &alls /ar& meri&an &ra&kerdom as i! earning a )ub
%#%
+ake a not 1ery &ontro1ersial sub"e&t Lmis&egenationM and treat it with the ma3imum amount o! sordidness, to make it seem more 1ital$+he Guestions (onster4s Ball raises get settled with risible ease?i! we all "ust sat on a por&h and ate i&e &ream together, we:d all get along. BJanuary 04, #44#C. Jonathan Dosenbaum, howe1er, unlike 1on Busa&k, is willing to ele1ate the !ilm to art house status. >e suggests that it does indeed interpellate the high brow sensibilities o! the same kind o! progressi1e and &ollege-edu&ated spe&tator who le!t the theater re!le&ting on the atom bomb and the 1ulnerability o! human intima&y thirty years ago a!ter 1iewing .iroshima (on Amour. Dosenbaum belie1es the s&ript and narrati1e strategies to be ;ridi&ulously &ontri1ed< and in ser1i&e to an ;outlandish absolution !antasy.< >e resus&itates @auline Iael:s early essay ;Fantasies o! the rt >ouse udien&e,< along
with Daymond Durgnat:s re"oinder to Iael, ;>ow 6ot to 5n"oy the /o1ies,< to &ontemplate why literati su&h as Dosenbaum himsel! !ind ;Rwish !ul!illment in the !orm o! &heap and easy &ongratulation on their sensiti1ities and their liberalism.:< Dosenbaum:s o1erar&hing sense that (onster4s Ball pro1ides White edu&ated liberals absolution without guilt gi1es his essay the same negati1e orientation toward the !ilm:s so&ially trans!ormati1e potential as Fung, 1on Busa&k, and his essay he dri1es this point home' (onster4s Ball pointedly e3&ludes as many tra&es o! so&iety as possible, as&ribing ra&ism to indi1iduals and their own twisted orneriness$and assigning responsibility !or &apital punishment and e$en the desire for it mainl" to the people being e)ecuted . We:re ne1er told what Leti&ia:s tkinson. +oward the end o!
%#(
husband:s &rime was, but no matter. >e a&&epts the "udgment that he4s &orthless and deser$es to be e)terminated, silencing an" of our ob5ections before &e can raise them. B; ll is Forgi1en,< emphasis mineC I ha1e no desire to settle the argument whi&h lo&al re1iews and the slightly more elaborate maga=ineHtabloid arti&les &onstru&tE i.e., Is the !ilm entertaining or boringF Is it power!ully interpellati1e and so&ially trans!ormati1e art, or is it na]1e and &ontri1ed agit propF 51en the Guestion o! whether the !ilm slides into ra&ist pornotroping or s&ales new &inemati& heights in Bla&k !emininity needs to be set aside until we &an return to it later on, armed with the proper intelle&tual proto&ols. t this point we ha1e only the proto&ols
o! e3ploitation and alienation whi&h, as we ha1e seen in @art I, are not only inadeGuate to an apprehension o! the Bla&k:s grammar o! su!!ering but are also the 1ery proto&ols through whi&h the Bla&k:s grammar o! su!!ering is produ&ed and &ompounded. BWhile gi1ing her a&&eptan&e spee&h >alle Berry gasped ^in horror or with gratitude, who &ould tellF?as she thanked /ar& Forster !or taking her pla&es she had ne1er been be!ore. I want to demonstrate the !alla&y o! this sentiment' Forster, or more pre&isely the &inemati& apparatus, did not ;take< Berry anywhere but rather threw into relie! the granite-like nature o! her pained ob"e&t status. B>artman 4 Scenes* (#CC For the Bla&k !emale Bmale, or &hildC body to be e3ploited there would ha1e to be a Bla&k !emale Bmale, or &hildC body on s&reen. +here was not. +here has ne1er been. 2till, the Guestion o! >alle Berry:s !emininity being e3ploited is one whi&h I, like so many Bla&k people, !ind hard to shake. 3&1i But in its 1ery posing there is a trap' it snares us with the same stru&ture o! !eeling out o! whi&h the lo&al newspaper "ournalists, the maga=ine writers, and, per my predi&tion, the !orth&oming White !ilm theori=ing on
%#,
(onster4s Ball are snared by' namely, the dilemmas o! a human sub"e&t as engaged though the ma&hinations o! hegemony. @ut another way, the snare is none other than the sedu&tion o! amnesia. We then begin to belie1e that we &an be &alled, hailed by, a Krams&ian histori& blo&, and we !orget that one &annot be Bla&k and histori&. s stated in @art I, I take the re&ent &elebration o! superstars >alle Berry and Den=el Washington in both the Bla&k press and the mainstream &riti&al establishment as symptomati& o! a re!usal or inability to &ountenan&e the long shadow o! sla1ery inso!ar as it writes a history o! the present. +hat is, the heralding o! Bla&k stardom, now disa1owing its relation to long-standing &inemati& stereotypes, is !ounded upon a belie! in not only the possibility o! redress Bor e1en reparationC within &i1il so&iety but also its relati1e ease. )entral to this belie! is B1C a histori&al redu&tion o! sla1ery to the relation o! &hattel and B#C a !ormulation o! Bla&k eman&ipation and en!ran&hisement limited to the most nominal dimensions o! &i1il rights and liberties. 5mbra&ing Bla&k peopleTs agen&y as sub"e&ts o! &i1il so&iety Bi.e. sub"e&ts o! rights and libertiesC and e1en their potential to a&t as or partner with en!or&ers o! the law Bin an ordinary &op show or as with Den=el Washington:s military psy&hologist in Ant&one %isherC, presents itsel! as an a&ting out o! the histori& parado3 o! Bla&k none3isten&e Bi.e., the mutable &ontinuity o! so&ial deathC. >ere, Bla&k Oa&hie1ement,O in !ilms like Ant&one %isher Bdis&ussed in @art INC and (onster4s Ball, !or e3ample, reGuires the bra&keting out o! that non-e3isten&e in hopes o! telling a tale o! loss and re&o1ery that is intelligible within the national imagination B>artman, #440' 1-.C. nd
&inema:s insisten&e on Bla&k personhood Brather than a radi&al Guestioning o! the terror embedded in that 1ery notionC operates most poignantly in (onster4s Ball:s problemati&
%#.
&oding o! gender and domesti&ity?as well as in "ournalisti& and theoreti&al responses to that &inemati& &oding. Dosenbaum:s ; ll is Forgi1en< resembles the &on&erns o! Bla&k writers on &inema who ask, Is the Bla&k woman:s Bor man:s 3&1iiC se3uality e3ploited or is it lo1ingly portrayedF when he throws his weight into the agit prop 1s. so&ially trans!ormati1e art house !ilm debate, and de&lares (onster4s Ball to be agit prop be&ause, as he &ontends, the !ilm as&ribes ;ra&ism to indi1iduals and their own twisted orneriness< and be&ause it ;e3&ludes as many tra&es o! so&iety as possible.< gain, I am not arguing !or or against
the &ontent o! Dosenbaum:s &laims Bthough my sentiments are with the &ontent o! those Bla&k &laims whi&h suggest Berry:s ;body< has indeed been pornotropedC. I am attempting something more essential than what Jared 2e3ton &alls ;an anthropology o! sentiment< Be1en when those sentiments are my ownC. What 6 am sa"ing is that<content of the concerns aside< the labor of being concerned is ethical &ork, essential to one4s ontological status onl" to the degree one is not Black, because there is no Black ontolog" . Dosenbaum is, howe1er?and howe1er a&&identally?onto something essential with respe&t to Bla&ks when he obser1es, ;LLawren&e /usgro1eM a&&epts the "udgment that he:s worthless and deser1es to be e3terminated, silen&ing any o! our ob"e&tions be!ore we &an raise them.< +his is essential be&ause an ob"e&tion silen&ed be!ore it &an be raised has yet to be&ome an ob"e&tion' it is pre-ontologi&al, or, perhaps more pre&isely, hyperontologi&al. I!, as in the &ase o! Lawren&e /usgro1e, this ob"e&tion not raised is indeed ali1e B&an eat, shit, walk, !u&k, speak, laugh, andHor &ryC, it is ;a !atal way o! being ali1e< B/arriott 1(CE whi&h is to say, ;it< ;RLdMon:t look human, does itF:< B7C. We are ba&k to the emergen&e o! /odernity dis&ussed in @art IE ba&k to the birth o! &i1il so&iety whose
%#-
1alue-!orm is the ;human< and whose ;&ir&uit o! displa&ement, substitution, and signi!i&ation< BBarrett 10C is hegemony?a drama o! 1alue staged between disparate entitiesE ba&k to the arti&ulation between =te& and e&&lesiasti&E all o! whi&h brings us
ba&k to the 6egro, those ob"e&tBionsC silen&ed ;be!ore we &an raise< them' ;the bea&hed whales o! the se3ual uni1erse, un1oi&ed, misseen, not doing, awaiting their 1erb< B2pillers 1(0C. (onster4s Ball e3e&utes a mise/en/scCne in whi&h dramas are per!ormed as struggles o1er !iliation, mas&ulinity, alienated labor-power, Whiteness, and the phallus, ea&h one a 1alue-!orm. Dosenbaum:s !ilm re1iew stumbles, albeit symptomati&ally, upon the reali=ation that the 1alue-!orm, regardless o! its &ontent?that is the 1alue-!orm as a generi& arbiter?is not elasti& enough to in&lude the Bla&k as one o! its disparate entities.3&1iii nd the !ilm itself, both at the le1el o! the diegesis and at the le1el o!
enun&iation Bthat is, at the le1el o! the &inemati& apparatusC is unable to maintain the illusion o! a Bla&k arti&ulation with, or within, the world. +his breakdown o! the illusion o! Bla&k arti&ulation, whi&h happens only symptomati&ally i! at all in !eminism, !ilm theory, and meta-&ommentaries on su!!ering like the tomes o! 6egri and >ardt, breaks through (onster4s Ball with a 1engean&e?no thanks, howe1er, to the s&ript or the intentionality o! its dire&tor, but due to the sensory e3&ess o! its !ormE an e3&ess whi&h allows in Bdemands o!FC an ordinary White !ilm what is disa1owed by e3traordinary White !olks. We ha1e seen how the e3e&ution seGuen&e is a highly &on&entrated tra&k o! imagery through whi&h this breakdown o&&urs, but so is the seGuen&e o! shots immediately pre&eding the in!amous and &ontro1ersial se3 s&ene' &hapter 1, o! the DND,
%#7
titled, without irony, ;/ake /e Feel Kood.< @rodu&er Lee Daniels wanted a dire&tor who was ;not Bla&k< and ;not White< Bnot White meri&an, he addsCE ;someone that had a
&ompletely na]1e 1iew on ra&ismE someone that was !oreign, that would look at the interra&ial relationship !rom a &hild:s eyeE and not gi1e a Bla&k and White perspe&ti1e on the !ilm< BBehind the Scenes &ith +roducer 'ee 3aniels C. >owe1er, the White-!oreign&hild-dire&tor hired by Daniels Ba Bla&k meri&anC dire&ted a se3 s&ene B;my dire&tor,<
Daniels dis&laims, ;is responsible !or that s&ene<C with enough adult-like Guotations !rom the e3tensi1e !ilmography o! interra&ial pornography as to &all into Guestion Daniels: &laims regarding Forster:s se3ual nai1etV or interra&ial wonder. Both Daniels and Forster Band the s&reenwriters /ilo ddi&a and Will DokosC would no doubt re"oin this
assessment o! a naked and inebriated Bla&k woman being thrown about the &ou&h, the &o!!ee table, and the !loor with some assertion o! Leti&ia:s agen&y during this s&ene. BBerry makes this &laim hersel! when she &omments?in the DND:s 2pe&ial Features 1oi&e-o1er &ommentary?how Leti&ia:s looking ba&k at >ank when they are !u&king ;doggie-style,< marks a signi!i&ant inter1ention whereby Leti&ia is telling him not to treat her like he treats the White prostitute, and he stops, Berry &laims, and &hanges positions. But in this an3ious and sel!-prote&ting assertion, Berry does not e3plain how Leti&ia kno&s what >ank does with a White prostitute or that he sees a prostitute at all' this is a moment o! an3ious &on!lation between the 2peaking 2ub"e&t and the 2ub"e&t o! 2pee&h, between the apparatus and the s&reenC. nd Forster, ddi&a, and Dokos would no doubt
re"oin my assessment by drawing our attention to the montage that &ross-&uts the 1iolent se3 with images o! a &aged-bird and pair o! white hands setting it !reeE images, Forster in!orms us, inspired by /aya ngelou:s 6 Fno& Wh" the Caged Bird Sings. BCast and
%04
Cre& 6nter$ie&s and Commentar" b" (arc %orster and Academ" A&ard/#ominated Writers (ilo Addica and Will RokosC. Being drawn into su&h arguments would only lead us down the road o! !ilm theory and radi&al !eminism Ba la Butler and 2eshadri-)rooks, abo1eCE Guestions o! &inema, interpretations o! the body, and their &ombined signi!i&an&e to a so&ially trans!ormati1e aestheti&. Instead, I a&&ept that both >alle Berry and Leti&ia /usgro1e belong to e1erything and e1erybod" !rom the &inemati& apparatus BForster, ddi&a, Dokos, and +hornton?but not DanielsC to the &inemati& s&reen B>ank but not Lawren&eC, i! by ;a&&eptow soF +he !launting nudity o! White people in &inema, and in &i1il so&iety more broadly, mani!ests itsel! as one o! !emininity:s many &ontested dramas. What this nudity meansE who Bgender-wiseC is allowed, or e1en should, display itE what politi&al gestures the &ontestation and per!orman&e o! its &odes generate Bwhether e3ploitati1e or liberatoryC?these are some o! the ensemble o! tiresome and aggra1ating Guestions through whi&h White women Band menC stru&ture their drama o! 1alue arbitrations. +he rub, o! &ourse, is that e$er"one must &ontend with the !or&e and !allout o! this drama !or the simple reason that the assumpti1e logi&s o! a woman:s body are in !a&t inde3i&al o! a shared histori&al and anthropologi&al &apa&ity between White women and White menE and then, se&ondarily, between all nonBla&ks, "oint and se1erally. +he White woman is the most narrati1i=ed trope o! this phenomenon, but there e3ists a demo&ra&y o! ontologi&al &apa&ity between White men and White women, "ust as there is a demo&ra&y o! ontologi&al in&apa&ity between Bla&k men and Bla&k women' su!!ering e3perien&es are gendered, aged, and &lassed but the
%01
grammar o! su!!ering is not. Dobert Williams, the Bla&k re1olutionary, was stru&k by this as a young boy when his !ather worked at a railroad house in 6orth )arolina' Bla&k women walking !rom 6ewtown &rossed the railroad yard on their way to work in the kit&hens o! white !amilies. White LmaleM workers using the washroom ;would walk all around the pla&e and in the yard nude. +hey would do that,< a&&ording to bla&k workers, ;"ust so that the bla&k women would see them.<$White workers a&ted this way, !ri&an
meri&an men !elt, be&ause ;the only thing they had was their white authority, the power o! their white skin.< B+yson 17C +here are important so&ial impli&ations o! this per!orman&e o! power and authority, but a dis&ussion o! them would enable only a !eeble return ba&k to the ;/ake /e Feel Kood< &hapter o! (onster4s Ball. Instead, I wish to mine the essential stru&tural impli&ations o! nudity. +he so&ial impli&ations would lead us to an interpretation o! nudity and the grammar o! e3ploitation and alienationE what we need is to be led to the stru&tural impli&ations o! nudity and the grammar o! a&&umulation and !ungibility. White nude men outside the railroad house or White nude women in &i1il so&iety are essential not be&ause o! the 1arying ways in whi&h they play out as 1alue-!orms, but be&ause they can Bha1e the &apa&ity toC play out as 1alue-!orms. 6udity, then, in its display and &ontestation as a 1alue-!orm Bits disparate 1alen&y within &i1il so&ietyC, is a uni$ersal phenomena !or some and a homicidal phenomena !or Bla&ks. +he semioti&s o! nudity as drama o! 1alue Bwhether per!ormed through the barbarism o! White !eminist gestures or the barbarism o! White mas&ulinist gesturesC is an assertion o! White &apa&ity in &ontradistin&tion to Bla&k ;monstrosity< B2pillers ##7C. White women:s stru&tural &apa&ity to &laim and &ontest this
%0#
drama Bwhether win, lose or drawE through personal displays o! nudity in the publi& and pri1ateE or by negotiating the battle lines between the se3ual e3ploitation o! pornotroping and se3ual ;liberation< in theory and the aestheti&C their dramaturgical capacit", i! you will, their status as ;entities,< howe1er disparate and de1alued in relation to White male per!orman&es o! nudity?in other words, their possible lo&ations in the semioti&s o! intra/aster dramas?is what sets them apart !rom Leti&ia on the &ou&h, Lawren&e in the &hamber, and +yrell on the side o! the road. +his marks a range o! seemingly in!inite positions whi&h neither Leti&ia nor >alle Bnor Lawren&e, 2ean )ombs, +yrell, or )oron"iC &an assume. nd so the Guestion o! pornotroping and e3ploitation is hobbled at best and
anti-Bla&k at worst. Whereas the per!orman&e o! nude ;bodies< &an be either hegemoni& or &ounter-hegemoni&?that is, it &an ha1e a so&ially regressi1e or so&ially trans!ormati1e impa&t upon the ma&hinations o! &i1il so&iety?the per!orman&e o! nude ;!lesh< &annot. +his is &ommon, though un&ommonly unspoken, knowledge' the grammar o! su!!ering:s dis&ourse as opposed to the dis&ourse o! su!!ering itsel!. Without this grammar, the stru&ture o! White pleasure through &ommunal nudity would &rumble. nd e1ery White
Band Bla&kC person knows this, knows how ne&essary the Bla&k is to e1en the most naked White pleasures. >alle Berry knows this as she is about to take o!! her &lothes, and she knows that ;e3ploitation< &annot e1en begin to e3plain what she knows. +he seGuen&e o! shots leading up to ;/ake /e Feel Kood< are indi&ati1e o! this. >ere, the homeostasis o! Bla&k !lesh B2pillers #47E Judy, 73is8%orming 7.C ruptures the hubris implied by !ilm theory and !eminism:s need !or a Bla&k per!ormati1e body. +his rupture is an un!oreseen and uns&ripted irruption through whi&h the homeostati& ob"e&t, >alle-as-!lesh, breaks in on the s&reen o! the sub"e&t, Leti&ia-as-body. +yrell has died.
%00
>ank has dri1en Leti&ia ba&k to her home. +hey are seated on the so!a. From the &ommentary o! Forster, ddi&a, and Dokos, we are led to understand that the s&ript &alled !or >ank and Leti&ia to be positioned on the &ou&h, !or them ha1e a !ew drinks, e3&hange a !ew brie! words, and then !or Leti&ia to say ;make me !eel good< and start to take o!! her &lothes and &rawl on top o! >ankE to mo1e swi!tly !rom being seated to drinking to se3E !or her to waste no time in putting the mo1es on >ank. s /ilo ddi&a re&alls' When we wrote this we really had this whole animalisti& kind o!?you know?two people kind o! grabbing and tou&hing, sweating and !u&king the li1ing shit out o! ea&h other. Doing whate1er they need to do to e3tra&t some kind o! good !eeling !rom it$It wasn:t the typi&al lo1e making s&ene, it was more about two people getting it on. B Commentar" b" (arc %orster and Academ" A&ard/#ominated Writers (ilo Addica and Will RokosC Forster then tells the two writers that when they started shooting, Berry, rather than sti&king to the s&ript, went into a long impro1isationE in short, Leti&ia says things Leti&ia was not meant to say. Leti&ia tells >ank how o!ten she told +yrell that li!e in meri&a is impossible !or a man who is both !at and Bla&k. Leti&ia' Lto >ankM >e was so fatA L&rying, grima&ing, laughing hysteri&allyM. 9ou saw how !at he was. I don:t &are what I brought in this house he "ust ate it up. I don:t &are what it was I brought in here. I bring some @opeye:s )hi&ken, that boy eat the W>*L5 thing R!ore I e1en get a &han&e !or me to get me a bite o! the &hi&ken. >e "ust eat it allA >e would eat his little ass o!!A 9ou ain:t ne1er seen nobody eat like that. >e would
%0%
eat &andyE gumballs. >e make me take him up there, o1er to the 2uper I/art and he put them Guarters in that gumball ma&hine. >e had to wait till he get the red gumball. >e always had to get the red gumball. *n this s&ore >ank has nothing to say to herE he sits !orward on the &ou&h and looks at his hands. It is not that he agrees with her, !or as &iti=en and prison guard, his &ommer&e with, or tra!!i&king in, Bla&ks is not burdened with the imposition o! Bla&k ethi&al dilemmas. 6or does he disagree with her. It is not that >ank sees +yrell as being either deser1ing or undeser1ing o! the perils o! obesity and Bla&kness, but that >ank has no !ramework through whi&h to think Guestions o! deser1ability together with the !igure o! a Bla&k &hild. +yrell, in the pri1ate and Guotidian o! >ank Krotowski, is an ob5ection silenced before it can be raised. In anthropomorphi& terms, and in &on&ert with what a&tually takes pla&e, +yrell is already dead on arri1al. >ank' >e sounds like a &hara&ter, I guess. t this point Billy Bob +hornton may be wondering what all o! this is aboutE what kind o! impro1ising he is going to ha1e to do in response?in other words, will >alle take her &lothes o!! and mo1e on him, or will he ha1e to make up some lines to get them thereE and when, e3a&tly they:re going to do it. Leti&ia' L&rying moreM >e get that red gumball and he "ust eat. L>ank puts his arm around her as she &ries.M Leti&ia' I did e1ery single thing Lslapping her kneeM I &ould doA I was really good. I was really good. L&ryingM I didn:t want him to be !at like that. I did not want my baby to be !at like thatE R&ause I know a Bla&k man in meri&a?you &an:t be like that. I try to?L&rying, slapping her kneeM. I
%0( meri&a
tried to tell him you &an:t be like that, you &an:t be like that in and Bla&k. I was "ust?Lnow sobbing inaudiblyM. >ank' I:m not sure what you want me to do.
Is this a Guestion or a demand' the demand to stop the impro1, the stream o! &ons&iousness !low o! Bla&kness and !leshF Whate1er the &ase, >ank:s, or Billy Bob:s ;I:m not sure what you want me to do< has the e!!e&t o! pun&tuation on Berry-Leti&ia:s stream o! &ons&iousness, it snaps them both ba&k into their roles. Leti&ia' I want you to?Llowering her halter-top, &limbing on to his lapM. I want you to make me !eel good. +he symptomati& progression o! >alle Berry:s ;impro1isation< ad1an&es through a rubri& o! terror, a rubri& in e3&ess o! !ear. It mo1es !rom +yrell:s obesity to images o! the boy de1ouring the world' ;that boy eat the W>*L5 thing.< In point o! !a&t, howe1er, it is +yrell who has "ust been de1oured, eaten ali1e by the ne&essity o! the BWhiteC body:s drama o! 1alueE the e3tent to whi&h this ne&rophili& ne&essity has been de1ouring Leti&ia ?slowly, !or the length o! the s&reenplay, rather than in one spe&ta&ular !east?breaks in on >alle Berry who &annot keep the knowledge o! this terror !rom breaking in on Leti&ia. B+he Bla&k is homeostati& at the le1el o! 2peaking 2ub"e&t, the apparatus?in other words, Berry the a&tor, as well as at the le1el o! the 2ub"e&t o! 2pee&h, Leti&ia the &hara&ter. +o Guote Fanon, ;the 6egro is a 6egro e1erywhere.<C 2till, there is displa&ement in her words' ;9ou &an:t be like that in meri&a and Bla&k'< displa&ement
in an e!!ort to hold on to that thread o! agen&y that might mark some real distan&e between +yrell-the-de1oured and Leti&ia-the-e3ploited. But the thin logi& o! the senten&es yields only an e1en thinner alibi !or su&h distin&tions. s she speaks, she
%0,
&ollapses the distan&e and renders e3ploitation an inessential grammar o! su!!ering. +here is, in her ;impro1,< a de1astating annihilation o! any distan&e between BaC a world de1oured and de1ouring, BbC Bla&kness and B&C &ollapse o! &omplete &onsummation, all o! the meri&a. In other words, the imaginary !ri&ans in the &ountry, and all o! the
territory o! that &ountry &annibali=es any s&intilla o! agen&y, whi&h is the !lip-side, that o!ten unspoken and una&knowledged performati$e gesture against e3ploitation' agen&y is &annibali=ed and distan&e Bdistin&tionC is annihilated when Berry:s stream o! &ons&iousness breaks in on the s&ript and marks her Band Leti&ia, 2ean )ombsHLawren&e, and )oron"iH+yrellC ;as both 1i&tim and spe&tator?spe&tator as 1i&tim?o! LaM lyn&hing< B/arriott %C. @ut di!!erently, a&&umulation and !ungibility break in on e3ploitation and alienation as the Bla&k is &on!ronted with the essen&e o! the stru&tural ;redu&tion whi&h is pre&isely, your annihilation and their pleasure< B/arriott 7C. nd in the realm o! the
stru&tural, as >artman points out, per!ormati1e agen&y is hardly the !ellow tra1eler o! a&&umulation and !ungibility BScenes*(#C. +oward the end o! her ;impro1,< the alibi o! e3ploitation wears e1en thinner as her stream o! &ons&iousness &on!ronts her not only with the impossibility o! being Bla&k in meri&a but with the impossibility o! being a Bla&k parent in meri&a. >er inability to parent +yrell is not per!ormati1e but stru&tural, ine3tri&ably bound to her inability to prote&t hersel!. +he 1ulnerability o! both ;parent< and ;&hild< is open, gratuitous, &omplete. *nly +yrell:s ;parents< Band here the Guotation marks do matter, !or I use the word skepti&allyC relate to +yrell as though he had or e1en &ould possibly rise to the le1el o! an ob"e&tion. +his is due in part to the !a&t that they are delusional enough to think that
%0.
the" ha1e risen to su&h a le1el themsel1es. During their last moments together in the prisoners: 1isiting room, Lawren&e tells +yrell that he is to be e3e&uted be&ause, as he puts it, ;I:m a bad man.< With this senten&e, /usgro1e inserts himsel! as a sub"e&t into modernity:s moral, "urisprudential, and anthropologi&al dis&ourses whi&h, we know !rom Judy B-%--7, 7%-7., 047C would break apart were they to look up and !ind him there. But i! /usgro1e &an e3plain his e3e&ution as being contingent upon moral and "urisprudential transgression?64m bad because 6 broke the Jth CommandmentD 64m to be e)ecuted because 6 broke the la&?and as also being possible due to his sense o! his own spatial and temporal Bi.e., anthropologi&alC &apa&ity? 6 am a man?then his embra&e o! his ;son,< mani!est in the !atherly wisdom do not gro& up to be like me , or a$oid m" mistakes, would ha1e to be more meaning!ul than the embra&e o! two ;genealogi&al isolateLsM< B@atterson (C be&ause, by de!inition, a 2la1e !ather:s !ilial embra&e o! a 2la1e son has all the markings o! an o3ymoron, a ;!ather< and ;son< who per!orm !iliation against a mise/en/scCne 1oid o! the paternal signi!ier. )ertainly, Leti&ia:s sentiments are in a&&ord with this, intuiti1ely i! not analyti&ally. But this pro!undity is lost on >ank as he sits with her in the li1ing room and lost as well on the narrati1e o! the !ilm itsel!. +he insatiable appetite !or delusion whi&h both ;parents< share as regards ;their< ;&hild< is shared by neither the !ilm itsel! nor by the world beyond the !rame whi&h the !ilm apprehends as re!erent. In the 2an Fran&is&o Chronicle, Berry speaks o! the s&ene in whi&h she beats and berates )oron"i )alhoun B+yrellC as being ;a lot harder than e1en the lo1e s&ene< B/eyer, ; beauty o! a role !or
Berry<C. )arla /eyer, the BWhiteC writer who inter1iewed Berry, attributes Berry:s worry to the !a&t that ;)oron"i )alhoun had been &ast through an open &all in Louisiana and had
%0-
little a&ting e3perien&e.< /eyer does not make a &onne&tion between 1iolen&e, Bla&kness, se3uality, and the impossibility o! Bla&k !iliation. But this &onne&tion links the speaking sub"e&t:s BBerry as a&tor, as a &omponent o! the &inemati& apparatusC &laim that that beating +yrell was ;a lot harder than e1en the lo1e s&ene< with the sub"e&t o! spee&h:s BLeti&ia:sC lament that a man &an not be both Bla&k and !at in meri&a. 2urprisingly, it is )oron"i )alhoun, the ;&hild< himsel!, who unlike the &riti& )arla /eyer, unlike the 2ub"e&ts o! 2pee&h Lawren&e and Leti&ia /usgro1e, and unlike the 2peaking 2ub"e&t >alle Berry, makes a good !aith attempt to say something about what the re!erent Bthe world beyond the !rameC and !ilm ;know,< e1en in the midst o! su&h widespread bad !aith and disa1owal. Berry said, ;I worried that I would somehow damage him emotionally, not "ust in doing the s&ene, but down the road.< >ere, Berry, as 2peaking 2ub"e&t, a &omponent o!, i! not the le1el o! enun&iation, at least the &inemati& apparatus, imagines hersel! as ele1ated to the le1el o! an ob"e&tion, i! not beyond. 2he speaks as though the materiality o! her words and a&tions &an ha1e the impa&t o! a stru&tural inter1ention, whi&h is to say she is a 2la1e with the hubris o! a human' ;2o I talked to him a lot and hugged and kissed him a lot. >e said Land this is keyM R?ou don4t ha$e to &orr" about &hat "ou sa"E it &an:t be as bad as how they treat me at s&hool,: Berry saysE her 1oi&e so!tening. ;But I hear now he:s the most popular kid in his s&hool. 2o I guess Bthe mo1ieC helped.< B/eyer, emphasis mine.C +he &ompensatory hope!ulness lodged in the phrase ;2o I guess Bthe mo1ieC helped< has mu&h in &ommon with Lawren&e /usgro1e:s &on!ession, ;I:m a bad man,< and with Leti&ia /usgro1e:s obser1ations that ; man &an:t be that !at and Bla&k, not in
%07
meri&a.< What, in this latter &ompensatory gesture, is the essential &ombination signi!ying stru&tural impossibility' !at in meri&a or Bla&k in meri&aF I! obesity was
indeed a bar o! absolute dereli&tion BFanonC in
meri&a then >enry Iissinger:s power in
politi&al e&onomy and se3 appeal in libidinal e&onomy would bear the mark o! a re1olutionary breakthrough.3&i3 +hese three &ompensatory gestures Bthe assumption o! Bla&k manhoodE the presumption a woman &ould raise a Bla&k &hild to manhood, whi&h !urther assumes that Bla&k women and Bla&k mothers are ontologi&ally possibleE and the belie! that &ir&uits o! hegemony, the materiality o! the symboli& order?the film helped?&an ha1e a stru&tural impa&t on Bla&knessC subtend ea&h other in a kind o! iron-&lad triangulation insuring the humanity o! the Bla&k, until, that is, the Bla&k ;&hild< himsel! speaks' ;9ou don:t ha1e to worry about what you say.< )oron"i )alhoun probably shares Leti&ia, Lawren&e, and Berry:s aspirations to sub"e&ti1ity Bthat is, he may be on re&ord as saying' I:m a &hild "ust like any other &hildC but his words are symptomati& o! an un&ons&ious knowledge o! the re!erent, o! the world, as a pla&e where he is ontologi&ally impossible, where ;Bla&k< and ;&hild< &annot be re&on&iled. ;9ou don:t ha1e to worry about what you say.< It is interesting to note that in this, the !irst &lause o! his senten&e, )oron"i )alhoun does not tell >alle Berry, ;9ou don:t ha1e worry about what you say to me.< +he phrase is, albeit un&ons&iously, abbre1iated, interruptedE as though ;to me< is not only grammati&ally gratuitous but e3istentially unwarranted. +he hubris Bor hopeC through whi&h the three Bla&k adults BLeti&ia, Lawren&e, and >alleC assume a ;me< is too elaborate, too sophisti&ated !or a &hild. )oron"i lea1es it to them.
%%4
)oron"i, young as he is, &annot manipulate spee&h in a &ompensatory !ashionE he &annot manu!a&ture the tissue o! illusion needed to de!end himsel! against ;the 1iolen&e o! the real< B/arriott 10C. s su&h, he &annot generate the kind o! alibis o! ;sur1i1al<
through whi&h Leti&ia, Lawren&e, and >alle remake themsel1es as bodies. ; s a symbol o! the$la&erating ground upon whi&h phobia and !antasy meet, the bla&k &hild, in taking up the burden o! su&h imagery$has been !atally e3posed to the glare o! the phobi& an3ieties &onstru&ted upon his 1isual image< B10C. 2o too ha1e the Bla&k ;&hild:s ;parents< ;been e3posed< e1en as they labor rigorously and &on1in&ingly, i! only to themsel1es and their kind, to resist ;the burden o! su&h imagery.< But )oron"i )alhoun:s missing ;to me< ropes the adults ba&k into their !ilial thanatology whi&h their &ompensatory spee&h-gestures had hoped to e1ade' his synta3 marks them as a !amily o! death. Lawren&e:s ;I:m a bad man,< as a &ompensatory gesture, &om!orts the ;!ather,< and it also &om!orts the 1iewer with the notion that, genealogi&ally speaking, Lawren&e on&e had a position within the symboli& order, a pla&e that he transgressed. Lawren&e sees his e3e&ution as being &ontingent upon that transgression. +he e3e&ution is proo! o! a transgressionE the transgression is proo! o! a position within the 2ymboli& *rder. Kuilt, and there!ore agen&y, &an be as&ribed to /usgro1e?e1en under senten&e o! death. (" agenc", he seems to be telling his ;son,< is not in dodging the electric chairD on the contrar", 6 accept it: the chair is a conse2uence: the conse2uence confirms m" agenc". (" agenc" is in m" being able to pass useful kno&ledge do&n to "ou, father to son, as though "ou and 6 both are positioned b" discourse, b" s"mbolic relationalit" and not b" filial thanatolog". +his homoso&ial bond between Bla&k ;!athers< and Bla&k ;sons< is
%%1
mythi&al. It &annot be sustained i! !or no other reason than the !a&t that at some point it is &on!ronted with the ne&rophilia that sustains the homoso&ial bond between White !athers and sons, White mothers and daughters. Da1id /arriott:s En Black (en establishes the relationship between, on one hand, the murder o! Bla&ks, along with the mutilation o! Bla&k genitals, &ommon to the ritual o! lyn&hing and, on the other hand, ordinary White people:s &apa&ity to ;re&ogni=e< themsel1es with !ilial and a!!ilial &oheren&eE that is, as men, women, parents, &hildren, lo1ers, and &iti=ens. /arriott suggests that the lyn&hing photograph is an imagisti& memento that stands in !or the &orporeal memento o! Bla&k !ingers, toes, and genitals. +he photograph:s shel! li!e may not be mu&h longer than the shel! li!e o! Bla&k genitals Bmany people kept Bla&k body parts !ermented in preser1ati1e "arsC. >owe1er, like the !ramed &inemati& image, the lyn&hing photograph:s &ir&uit o! e3&hange, and thus its surplus 1alue, is greater than that o! the body part. +his is be&ause the White person who poses beside the strung-up, mutilated &orpse be&omes ;a !igure in a publi& e1ent< and a&Guires ;a means to !ashion the sel! through the image o! a dead bla&k man and the identi!i&ation with !ellow whites whi&h &an !ollow< B7C. /arriott presents the image o! Bla&k death as a moment in a metonymi& &hain that begins with, and so &ontains the residue o!, ;the stink o! the real< B7C?that mutilated body whose de&omposition is preser1ed by the image. De&omposition, then, is what happens to Bla&k !lesh as hisHher ;genealogi&al isolation< B@atterson (C, the 2la1e:s ;ob"e&t statusartman 177.' (#C, is reena&ted, !irst in a lyn&hing, then in a lyn&hing photograph?and then, on&e again, in the a1erage !ilm, like (onster4s Ball. 2ubseGuently, the &apa&ity !or &omposition and re&omposition o! White sub"e&ti1ity is
%%#
a&&omplished by the White body:s insertion into, and e3&hange o!, this ;grotesGue !amily album< o! Bla&k !lesh. +he lyn&hing, and the s&ene o! lyn&hing preser1ed in photography and in &inema, is a gi!t whi&h Whites e3&hange, libidinally and literally, among themsel1es. Bla&kness is what gi1es this gi!t its !ungible Guality?its gi!t-ness?be&ause no other body in modernity is synonymous with a&&umulation. ;LBMla&kness is a 1i&arious, dis!iguring, "oy!ul pleasure, passionately enabling as well as substituti1ely dead< B17C. s su&h, Whites e3perien&e lyn&hing, whether ;li1e< on the tree, or
!ragmented through the prism o! photography and &inema, as the gi!t o! !iliation, the &apa&ity to ha1e and inherit parental ;lega&ies,< and as the gi!t o! a!!iliation, the &apa&ity to be re&ogni=ed, and a&t$ L+Lhe &rowd s&reamed as the kni!e !lashed, !irst up, then down, &utting the dread!ul thing away and the blood &ame roaring down. +hen the &rowd rushed !orward tearing at the body with their hands, with kni1es, with ro&ks, with stones, howling and &ursing& $as a &ommunity. +he White sub"e&t:s desire Bdesire reprodu&ed in &inema, on the photograph, or at the lyn&hing itsel!C to be the one holding the kni!e instead o! the one being &ut ;shows a willingness to pay Lone:sM dues and belong to something greater than Lonesel!M, to be one with the general will< B17C. What is !undamental?stru&tural, ontologi&al?here pertains not so mu&h to the horri!i& e3perien&e, the grotesGueness, o! lyn&hing generi&ally. +his would lead us to &on&lude that lyn&hing is undesirable and should there!ore be dis&ontinued. +his is probably as signi!i&ant a sentiment as those against torture or star1ation. +he ontological signi!i&an&e, howe1er, is that re&ognition o! Bla&ks is
%%0
o1erdetermined by their status ;as ab"e&t representati1es o! death< and, most importantly, that Whites &annot re&ogni=e themsel1es in a world where it is impossible to re&ogni=e Bla&ks. De&ognition is o1erdetermined by Bla&kness be&ause Bla&kness is
o1erdetermined by deathE lyn&hing, photography, and &inema are the institutional memory o! an ontologi&al ne&essity. Filial and a!!ilial re&ognition?sub"e&ti1ity?is a Guestion o! &omposition' the &omposition o! the body and the &omposition o! the &ommons. )uriously enough, we ha1e returned not only to 6egri, >ardt, and Butler, but to 2tephen >eath as well. ;@CAomposition,< >eath in!orms us, ;will organi=e the !rame in !un&tion o! the human !igures in their a&tions< BKuestions of Cinema 0.C. +he Bla&k &annot be !ilially or a!!ilially &omposed or re-&omposed be&ause !iliation and a!!iliation are predi&ated?that is, they trade?on Bla&k de&omposition Bthe stru&tural 1iolen&e o! genealogi&al isolation and its institutional memoryC as the guarantor of human coherence: $alue. Without &oheren&e, or ;narrati1e signi!i&an&eeath 0.C, the !rame !alls apart. +he logi& o! mo1ement that &enters the !rame would appear illogi&alE and spa&e &ould not &ohere as pla&e?all o! whi&h bodes ill !or the sub"e&t and hisHher &ommons. It is narrati1e signi!i&an&e that at any moment sets the spa&e o! the !rame to be !ollowed and ;read,< and that determines the de1elopment o! the !ilmi& &ues in their &ontributions to the de!inition o! spa&e !rame$ @SApace becomes place<narrati$e as the taking place of film$What is &ru&ial is the &on1ersion o! seen into s&ene, the holding signi!ier on signi!ied' the !rame, &omposed, &entred, narrated, is the point o! that &on1ersion. B>eath 0.C
%%%
But i! /arriott, Fanon, 2pillers, @atterson, >artman, Judy, and /bembe are &orre&t, then ;human !igures in their a&tionseath 0,C &annot ha1e their humanness guaranteed i! those a&tions are not a priori imbri&ated in the mutilation, the genealogi&al isolation, o! the Bla&k. I! this were not the &ase, then on what grounds &ould those ;a&tions< be deemed and redeemed, &omposed and re&omposed, as ;human<F I! ;what is &ru&ial is the &on1ersion o! seen into s&ene,< then modernity has made it impossible to &on1ert the ;seen< o! one body Bthe WhiteC into the ;s&ene< o! a human !igure without !irst &on1erting the ;seen< o! another body Bthe Bla&kC into the ;s&ene< o! absolute dereli&tion. +his, and not labor-power, is the essential ;gi!t< o! the /iddle @assage to /odernity. Lyn&hing, photography, and &inema are among the institutional memories o! this gi!t. >en&e their ne&essity to the lega&y o! human endea1or writ large' to the logi&s o! !iliation, a!!iliation, and the !rame. Lega&y, then, that metonymy o! ;e1ents< whi&h &ohere as ;heritage,< has in /odernity a ne&rophili& stru&ture. It !eeds o!! strange !ruit. Lega&y is indeed ;a gi!t !rom !ather to son.< ;+hat gi!t, the desire and power to &astrate? to take and so to take on?se3uality o! bla&k men, brings them together and !orges their !utures as white men< B/arriott 1-C. I! this is the &ase, then the logi&s o! !iliation, a!!iliation, and the !rame are not uni1ersal' someone must always be outside the !rame. +he White &hild, ;seeing himsel! through the enraptured eyes o! his mother and !ather and the doomed e"es of the black man$knows that what he has seen Lthe spe&ta&le o! Bla&k deathM is a mirror in whose re!le&tion his !ather had &hosen to re1eal Rto him a great se&ret whi&h would be the key to his li!e !ore1er: BLBaldwinM' #(1C< B1-C. +he !a&t that 2onny Krotowski turns his eyes away !rom ;the doomed eyes o! the bla&k man,< Lawren&e, may or may not ha1e so&ial
%%(
signi!i&an&e. /ar& Forster pla&es great hope in this gesture be&ause 2onny:s sui&ide is an important plot point in >ank:s &hara&ter trans!ormation. But its stru&tural, ontologi&al, signi!i&an&e is nil, !or the simple reason that Lawren&e and +yrell &annot strap >ank Krotowski to a &hair and burn his genitals with ele&tri&ity as a means o! suturing their !iliation. Be!ore Lawren&e /usgro1e &an pass his lega&y on to +yrell, he must inter1ene stru&turally in >ank:s relationship to 2onny, whi&h is nothing short a re1olution against the Western >emisphere:s tou&hstones o! &ohesion. +o think o! the li1ing !iliation o! White !amilies !eeding o!! o! the dead !iliation o! Bla&k ;!amilies< would lea1e Lawren&e spee&hless. Like +yrell, he would witness his ;to me< being eaten ali1e. Likewise, >alle Berry:s inter1ention stems !rom the presumption o! a li1ing, rather than a dead, !iliation. ;2o I talked to him a lot and hugged and kissed him a lot<? "ust as any mother would. nd then she per!ormed the beating, the berating, the ;hard<
se3, the s&enes o! sub"e&tion B>artmanC?"ust as e1ery sla1e must. >alle Berry and Leti&ia and Lawren&e /usgro1es: &ompensatory gesture, this lying and sel!-de&eption, is a !orm o! ne&essity so widely &ir&ulated among Bla&ks as a 1irtue as to warrant its own name' mentoring BJudy, ;6igga<C. @erhaps )oron"i )alhoun was trying to mentor >alle Berry and she was too distra&ted to be mentored. *r maybe she knew all too well how his words impli&ated her in his nonpersonhood. *mitting the ;to me< in his &lause suggests' 6 ha$e no sub5ecti$e presence to be addressed<one4s address cannot interpellate me, for the capacit" to interpellate, in and of itself, is defined in m" absence Blike an ob"e&tion silen&ed be!ore it &an be raisedC. +hen there is that part o! the &lause whi&h was not omitted, ;9ou don:t ha1e to worry about what you say.< >ere again, )oron"i is mentoring >alle, and
%%,
mentoring her in good !aith, unlike the bad !aith mentoring she imparts to him, and the /usgro1es impart to +yrell. ;?ou don4t ha$e to &orr" about &hat "ou sa"- because you, .alle, ha$e no interlocutors &ho could hear &hat "ou sa". ?ou are &ithout ,contemporaries- BLa&an %,C. In this, my ;mother< and my ;!ather,< we are one and the same. But Bla&k &hildren rarely mentor Bla&k adults, and Bla&k adults rarely mentor in good !aith. +here are things Bla&k parents dare not speak to Bla&k &hildren, and that ;rather homeostati& thought' the 6egro< BJudy, 73is8%orming' 7.C is !oremost among them. +he &oheren&e o! man, woman, &hild, !amily, home, and !rame?&i1il so&iety, the &ommons?depends on &inemati& rituals to reena&t this homeostasis, to !orti!y and e3tend the interlo&utory li!e o! that spe&tator who &an hold the kni!e to the genitals, rather than that spe&tator whose genitals are to be &hilled by the steel. In this way, true &inema:s addressees e3perien&e something greater than themsel1es' a &on&rete onti&sE a sense that they are at one with the general will o! &i1il so&ietyE and that bonds o! kinship &an be !orged between themsel1es and their &ontemporaries in the &ommons.
%%.
.pilogue It is &ustomary !or a book like this to end with a pres&ripti1e gesture, at least the germ o! a new beginning i! not a new world, a seed to be nurtured and &ulti1ated by Lenin:s Guestion, What is to be doneF 51en when su&h seeds were not sown throughout the book, an author might be tempted to har1est a yield, howe1er meager, in the &on&lusion. 6ot only ha1e su&h seeds not been sown in this book, but I ha1e argued that anti-Bla&kness is the genome o! this horti&ultural template !or >uman renewal. Ki1en the stru&tural 1iolen&e that it takes to produ&e and reprodu&e a 2la1e?1iolen&e as the stru&ture o! Bla&k li!e, as opposed to 1iolen&e as one o! many li1ed Bla&k e3perien&es?a &on&luding &onsideration o! the Guestion, What is to be doneF would ring hollow. Fanon &ame &losest to the only image o! sowing and har1esting that be!its this book. Puoting )esaire, he urged his readers to start ;the end o! the world,< the ;only thing$ worth the e!!ort o! starting< BBlack Skin, White (asks 7,C, a shi!t !rom horti&ulture to pyrote&hni&s. Dather than mime the restoration andHor reorgani=ation dreams whi&h &on&lusions o!ten !all prey to, howe1er unwittingly, Fanon dreams o! an undoing, howe1er implausible, !or its own sake. 2till, there are moments when Fanon !inds his own !lames to be too in&endiary. 2o mu&h so that he momentarily ba&ks away !rom the &omprehensi1e eman&ipation he &alls !or. Whi&h is why one &an !ind the Fanon o! the 2la1e on the same page as the Fanon o! the post&olonial sub"e&t. 6onetheless, I am humbled by his e!!ortsE and though I am !reighted with enough hubris to e3tend his ensemble o! Guestions beyond his unintentional &ontainment strategies, I know better than to underrate their gra1itas by deigning to o!!er?or e1en hint at?a roadmap to !reedom so e3tensi1e it would !ree us !rom the epistemi& air we breathe. +o say we must
%%-
be !ree o! air, while admitting to knowledge o! no other sour&e o! breath, is what I ha1e tried to do here. In the pre&eding &hapters I ha1e &ritiGued /ar3ism, White !eminism, and Indigenism by arguing that their approa&h to the Guestion, What is to be thoughtF and to its doppelg_nger, What is to be doneF ad1an&es through misre&ognition o! the 2la1e, a sentient being that &annot be. +he way /ar3ism, White !eminism, and Indigenism approa&h the problem o! the paradigm, in other words, their a&&ount o! unethi&al power relations, emerges as a constituent element o! those relations. +hrough their indisputably robust inter1entions, the world they seek to &lari!y and de&onstru&t is the world they ultimately mysti!y and renew. Furthermore, I ha1e argued that the same &odes and &on1entions that rei!y the horti&ultural labor mobili=ed by 6egri:s restoration o! the &ommons, by Indigenism:s restoration o! +urtle Island, and by White !eminism:s sear&h !or alternati1e or ;negati1e< *edipus Ban *edipus &omple3 ;whi&h is &ulturally disa1owed and organi=es sub"e&ti1ity in !undamentally Rper1erse' and homose3ual ways,:< in short, an *edipus &omple3 endowed with the &apa&ity to be &laimed !or a re1olutionary !eminist agenda L!he Acoustic (irror*1#4MC are &odes and &on1entions shared by the narrati1e strategies o! some o! the most politi&ally moti1ated !ilms. In the spirit o! the meta&ommentaries on politi&al ontology under re1iew in this book, !ilms like Bush (ama and Skins attempt to raise the bar o! politi&al aestheti&s by deploying dis&ursi1e strategies allied more to analysis than to empathy. s an antidote to
empatheti& mysti!i&ation, politi&ally moti1ated !ilms su&h as Bush (ama and Skins subordinate biographi&al time to histori&al time?;the Ldramati&M un!olding o! e1ents
%%7
Lstaged asM the produ&t o! &olle&ti1e humanity.< In their repudiation o! the uni!ied sel! and the sel!-made Bor sel!-unmadeC indi1idual, su&h !ilms interpellate spe&tators through &odes and &on1entions properly suited to the dramati=ation o! ;so&iohistori&al heterogeneity< B/ike Wayne 1,%C. Whi&h is to say, they heighten so&ial and politi&al &ontradi&tions, rather than smooth them o1er or &rowd them out. 5mpatheti& aestheti&s, on the other hand, whi&h !ilms like Ant&one %isher and (onster4s Ball are underwritten by, dissipate &inema:s &riti&al potential by hailing the spe&tator to an impo1erished ensemble o! Guestions, su&h as Isn:t it sadF Isn:t tragi&F Why do some people beha1e badly and others don:tF /oral assessments made at the e3pense o! institutional analysis. By way o! &ontrast, analyti& !ilm aestheti&s stri1e to repudiate moral assessments by pri1ileging effect o$er cause BWayne #11C, thereby lo&ating &ausal agen&y Bthe Rbe&ause: prin&iple o! the dramaC within institutional relations o! power as opposed to interpersonal a&ts o! beha1ior. +hroughout this book, I ha1e re"e&ted, a priori, >ollywood:s embra&e o! the ristotelian promise o! empathy, while remaining skepti&al o! independent Banalyti&ally moti1atedC &inema:s impli&it and e3pli&it politi&al promise. +his is be&ause, disparate as these aestheti& orientations appear, their ontologi&al suppositions assume relational &apa&ity !or all sentient beings. In other words, !ilms underwritten by both o! these aestheti& orientations are rarely narrated through the 1oi&e o! someone !or whom relationality is a &ondition o! irre1o&able rupture?whether !ilial and interpersonal, in the &ase o! empathy, or a!!ilial and institutional, in the &ase o! analysis. +he dispute between an empatheti& aestheti& orientation and an analyti& one is not o1er whether relationality itsel! is possible or impossible, but o1er the proper scale at whi&h e)isting, though !rayed,
%(4
relations should be dramati=edE and whether the drama should be set in biographi&al time or in histori&al time. >istori&al time is the time o! the worker, the time o! the Indian, and the time o! the woman?the time o! analysis. But whereas histori&al time marks stasis and &hange &ithin a paradigm, it does not mark the time of the paradigm, the time o! time itsel!E the time by whi&h the 2la1e:s dramati& &lo&k is set. For the 2la1e, histori&al time is no more 1iable a temporality o! eman&ipation than biographi&al time?the time o! empathy. +hus, neither the analyti& aestheti& nor the empatheti& aestheti& &an a&&ompany a theory o! &hange that restores Bla&k people to relationality. +he so&ial and politi&al time o! eman&ipation pro&lamations should not be &on!used with the ontologi&al and epistemologi&al time o! modernity itsel!, in whi&h Bla&kness and sla1eness are imbri&ated ab initio. 2o&ially engaged &inema and politi&ally inspired meditations on ontology are hobbled by their misre&ognition o! the !ormer !or the latter. In !ilms like Ant&one %isher and (onster4s Ball, this displa&ement is o!ten sentimentali=ed. In su&h !ilms, an a&knowledgment o! stru&tural 1iolen&e as being the &ondition o! Bla&k possibility is rendered 1isually. >ere, the dread!ul, omnipresent knowledge o! the 1iolen&e that separates ontologi&al time Bthe time o! the paradigmC !rom histori&al time Bthe time in the paradigmC, whi&h is to say, knowledge o! 1iolen&e that se&ures the essential stasis o! Bla&k ;li!e< and in turn makes legible the essential &apa&ity !or trans!ormation and mobility that &hara&teri=es >uman li!e?here, in the images, editing, and &amera work o! e1en the most sentimental so&ially engaged !ilms one !inds &on!irmation o! stru&tural 1iolen&e.
%(1
I ha1e endea1ored to illustrate the ways in whi&h a !ilm:s narrati1e strategies tena&iously disa1ow this knowledge o! the &hasm between >uman li!e and Bla&k death, only to be disturbed and sometimes disrupted by eGually tena&ious &inemati& strategies that insist on patrolling this di1ide. +he narrati1e strategies labor like responsible &iti=ens, ra=ing so&ial barriers o! the ;past< and demo&rati=ing the personal pronoun ;we.< +he &inemati& strategies labor like wat&h &ommanders, sending the spe&tator out on patrol. We are not li1ing in the nineteenth &entury when >umans were not ashamed to embra&e their embodied &apa&ity out in the open and, i! need be, &lose their !ists and !orge their weapons to hold the line between the li1ing and the dead themsel1es, rather than by pro3y, the poli&e. Ki1en &i1il so&iety:s #4 th and #1st &entury libidinal in1estments in a presumed distan&e between its ;demo&rati&< present and its despoti& past, &i1i& ;e1olution< as an arti&le o! !aith, !ilm narrati1es are &harged with the task o! imposing an illusion o! unity on repressed a!!irmations o! relational logi& that the images, editing, and &amera work threaten to unleash. ntwone Fisher begins the !ilm as a genealogi&al isolate, someone who is known to and positioned by others as a thing with no relations. >e ends the !ilm at a !east, with those lost relations he dreamt o! when the !ilm began. We are asked to belie1e that his isolation !rom kinship, the e!!e&t o! a 1iolent e3tra&tion at the highest s&ale imaginable, has been o1er&ome through inner !ortitude &ataly=ed by three or !our sessions o! therapy, inter1entions at the lowest s&ale imaginable. 2imilarly, as >ank spoon-!eeds Leti&ia &ho&olate i&e &ream, the narrati1e o! (onster4s Ball reminds us o! that old adage, lo1e &onGuers all, and !a&ilitates our !orgetting o! a 1iolen&e that has always already &onGuered lo1e.
%(#
In the !a&e o! an e3tensi1e &orpus o! sentimental apologies !or stru&tural 1iolen&e, e3empli!ied here by Ant&one %isher and (onster4s Ball, !ilms su&h as Bush (ama and Skins are oases o! &riti&al thinking. For in their e!!ort to per!orm paradigmati& analyses they attempt to reassert relational logi& on the illusion o! unity. But, as I ha1e argued throughout this book, their e!!orts to reassert relational logi& on the illusion o! unity !ail to reassert relational logi& on relationality itsel!. >ow does one de&onstru&t li!eF Who would bene!it !rom su&h an undertakingF +he &o!!le approa&hes with its answers in tow. #ibliograph( LMth .our BDir. 2pike Lee #44#C. gamben, Kiorgio. Remnants of Ausch&it1: !he Witness and the Archi$e. +rans. Daniel >eller-Doa=en. 6ew 9ork' Yone Books, 1777. l!red, +aiaiake, +eace, +o&er, Righteousness: An 6ndigenous (anifesto. Don /ills, *ntario' *3!ord 8ni1ersity @ress, 1777. !he American .eritage 3ictionar" of the nglish 'anguage, 17,7. Anatom" of a Scene. 2undan&e )hannel presentation on the DND 1ersion o! (onster4s Ball. BDir. /ar& ForsterC. @er!. >alle Berry, Billy Bob +hornton. Lion:s Kate, #44#. ngelou, /aya. 6 Fno& Wh" the Caged Bird Sings. 6ew 9ork' Bantam Books, 17.1. Ant&one %isher. BDir. Den=el Washington #44#C. @er!. Den=el Washington, Derek Luke, 2alli Di&hardson. tkinson, /i&hael. ; >ate Worse than Death' +he 2orrow and the @. Diddy< :illage :oice. January 1, #44#. Baldwin, James. ;+he Bla&k Boy Looks at the White Boy.< #obod" Fno&s (" #ame: (ore #otes of a #ati$e Son. 6ew 9ork' Dell @ublishing, 17,1. ---. !he %ire #e)t !ime. 6ew 9ork' Nintage Books, 1770 B17,0C. ---. !ell (e .o& 'ong the !rain4s Been 0one. 6ew 9ork' Nintage Books, 177- B17,-C.
%(0
---. 0oing to (eet the (an. London' /i&hael Joseph, 17,(. BA(=+%A @Berkele" Art (useum & +acific %ilm Archi$eA Art & %ilm #otes. Berkeley' 8ni1ersity o! )ali!ornia, Berkeley. /ar&hH pril #44%. Barrett, Lindon. ;+he ;I< o! the Beholder' +he /odern 2ub"e&t and the !ri&an Diaspora.< 8npublished paper presented at Blackness in 0lobal Conte)ts )on!eren&e, 8) Da1is, /ar&h #--04, #44#. ---. Blackness and :alue: Seeing 3ouble. )ambridge, 8I' )ambridge 8ni1ersity @ress, 1777. Battle of Algiers BDir. Killo @onte&or1o 17,,C. @er!. Brahim >aggiag, Jean /artin, 9a&e! 2aadi, 2amia Ierbash. Behind the Scenes &ith +roducer 'ee 3aniels. *n the DND 1ersion o! (onster4s Ball. BDir. /ar& ForsterC. @er!. >alle Berry, Billy Bob +hornton. Lion:s Kate, #44#. Benton, +homas >art. ;+he 2uperior Da&e and the Di1ine )ommand.< !he Congressional 0lobe. /ay #-, 1-%,. Ben1eniste, 5mile. +roblems in 0eneral 'inguistics. B17.1C. +rans. /ary 5li=abeth /eek. )oral Kables' 8ni1. o! /iami @ress. Berlin, Ira, /ar& Fa1reau, and 2te1en F. /iller BedsC, Remembering Sla$er": African Americans !alk about !heir +ersonal )periences of Sla$er" and mancipation. 6ew 9ork' +he 6ew @ress, 177-. Berry 2. +orriano and Nenise +. Berry. !he MN (ost 6nfluential Black %ilms: A Celebration of African/American !alent, 3etermination, and Creati$it". 6ew 9ork' )itadel @ress, #441. Black and !an. BDir. Duke 5llington 17#7C. @er!. Duke 5llington. Blassingame, John W. !he Sla$e Communit". 6ew 9ork' *3!ord 8ni1ersity @ress, 17.#. Bogle, Donald. !oms, Coons, (ulattoes, (ammies, & Bucks: An 6nterpreti$e .istor" of Blacks in American %ilms. 6ew 9ork' )ontinuum, 17.0, 17-7. Brennan, 2andra. ;8ntitled.< All (o$ie 0uide. *nline arti&le about Kraham Kreene. Bull&orth BDir. Warren Beaty 1777C. @er!. >alle Berry, Warren Beaty. Burrell, 2usan L. ;Kang 51iden&e' Issues !or )riminal De!ense.< Santa Clara 'a& Re$ie&. Nol. 04, no. 0, 2ummer 1774, pp. .07-.-0.
%(%
Bush (ama. BDir. >aile Kerima 17..C. @er!. Barbara *. Jones. !he Business of %anc"dancing BDir. 2herman 2t. John, Kene +agaban. le3ie #44#C @er!. 51an dams, /i&helle
Butler, Judith. 0ender !rouble: %eminism and the Sub$ersion of 6dentit" . 6ew 9ork' Doutledge @ress, 1774. 1-,.#4-#. BWest 17-- & 2upp. 1774C Bamended by &h. 1#%#, 1, 17-stats.E amended by &h. 1#(,, 1, 17-- stat.C
) L @56 L )*D5
Cast and 3irector 6nter$ie&s. *n the DND 1ersion o! (onster4s Ball. BDir. /ar& ForsterC. @er!. >alle Berry, Billy Bob +hornton. Lion:s Kate, #44#. )hur&hill, Ward. En the ;ustice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Conse2uences of U.S. 6mperialism, Arrogance, and Criminalit". 5dinburgh' I @ress, #440. ---. Fantasies o! the /aster Da&e' Literature, )inema and the )oloni=ation o! Indians. 2an Fran&is&o' )ity Lights @ress, 177-. ---. A 'ittle (atter of 0enocide. 2an Fran&is&o' )ity Lights, 177.. ----. Since +redator Came: #otes on the Struggle for American 6ndian 'iberation . Littleton, )*.' igis @ub., 177(. ---. ed. (ar)ism and #ati$e Americans. Boston' 2outh 5nd @ress 17-0 ----. ;+oward an Immanent )ritiGue o! /ar3ism' 6otes on the Di&hotomy o! )ultural )ons&iousness.< (inorit" #otes. Nol. #, 6os. 1-#, 17-#. Cit" of .ope BDir. John 2ayles 1771C. Nin&ent 2pano, 2tephen /endillo, )hris )ooper, Joe /orton. Clearcut. BDir. Dys=ard Buga"ski 1771C @er!. Kraham Kreene, Floyd RDed )row: Westerman, Don Lea, /i&hael >ogan. )linton, )atherine. .arriet !ubman: !he Road to %reedom. 6ew 9ork' Little, Brown and )ompany, #44%. Coff" BJa&k >ill 17.0C. @er!. @am Krier. Coming .ome BDir. >al shby 17.-C. @er. Jane Fonda, Jon Noight, Bru&e Dern. meri&an
%((
Commentar" b" (arc %orster and Academ" A&ard/#ominated Writers (ilo Addica and Will Rokos. *n the DND 1ersion o! (onster4s Ball. BDir. /ar& ForsterC. @er!. >alle Berry, Billy Bob +hornton. Lion:s Kate, #44#. Coole" .igh. BDir. /i&hael 2&hul= 17.(C. @er!. Klynn +hurman, Karrett /orris, Lawren&e, >ilton-Ja&obs. )ripps, +homas. Black %ilm as 0enre. Bloomington' Indiana 8ni1ersity @ress, 17.-. Daley, Dobert. !arget Blue: An 6nsider4s :ie& of the #.?.+.3. 6ew 9ork' Dela&orte @ress, 17.0. 3ance (e Eutside. BBru&e /&Donald 177(C. @er!. Dyan Da"endra Bla&k, Jenni!er @odemski, dam Bea&h, /i&hael Kreyeyes. 3ancing on the (oon BDir. Dodri&k @o&owat&hit #440C. Kuy Day @o&owat&hit, /ark Wells, Dodri&k @o&owat&hit. 3ances &ith Wol$es. BDir. Ie1in )ostner 1774C @er!. Ie1in )ostner, Kraham Kreene, /ary /&Donnell, Floyd RDed )row: Westerman, +antoo )ardinal. 3a$id 0ilbert: A 'ifetime of Struggle. Filmed inter1iew #7 minutes B)laude /arks adn Lisa Dudman, editors #44#C. Based on an inter1iew done in July o! 177- at Kreat /eadows @rison, )omsto&k, 6ew 9ork with 2am Kreen & Bill 2iegel. )amera' Federi&o 2alsano. 3aughters of the 3ust BDir. Julie Dash 1771C. @er!. )ora Lee Day, Barbara-* BJonesC, )heryl Lynn Bru&e, +ommy >i&ks. De Lauretis, +eresa. Alice 3oesn4t* Bloomington' Indiana 8ni1ersity @ress, 17-%. Deloria, Nine, Jr. L&ompilerM 3ocuments of American 6ndian 3iplomac": !reaties, Agreements, and con$entions, OPPM/OIPI. 6orman' 8ni1ersity o! *klahoma @ress, 1777. ---. !he (etaph"sics of (odern )istence. 6ew 9ork' >arper & Dow, @ublishers, 17.7. ---. 0od is Red. 6ew 9ork' Krosset & Dunlap, 17.0. ---. We !alk, ?ou 'isten: #e& !ribes, #e& !urf. 6ew 9ork' /a&millan, 17.4. Deloria, Nine, Jr. and Da1id 5. Wilkins. !ribes, !reaties, and Constitutional !ribulations. ustin' 8ni1ersity o! +e3as @ress, 1777. Deloria, Nine, Jr., John /ohawk, Lyons et al. eds. )iled in the 'and of the %ree: 3emocrac" 6ndian #ations, and the U.S. Constitution . 2anta Fe' )lear Light @ublishers, 177#.
%(,
Deloria, Nine, Jr. and )li!!ord /. Lytle. #ations Within: !he +ast and %uture of American 6ndian So$ereignt". 6ew 9ork' @antheon Books, 17-%. Diawara, /anthia Bed.C. Black American Cinema. 6ew 9ork' Doutledge, 1770. Doane, /ary nne. %emme %atales: %eminism, %ilm !heor", +s"choanal"sis. 6ew 9ork' Doutledge, 1771. Dorsey, @eter . ;+o R)orroborate *ur )laims:' @ubli& @ositioning and the 2la1ery /etaphor in De1olutionary meri&a.< American Kuarterl". Nol. ((, 6o. 0, 2eptember #440' 0(0-0-,. Durgnat, Daymond. %ilms and %eeling. London' Faber, 17,.. Dyer, Di&hard. White. London' Doutledge, 177.. 5ltis, Da1id. ;5uropeans and the Dise and Fall o! !ri&an 2la1ery in the meri&as' Interpretation.< !he American .istorical Re$ie&. Nol. 7-, 6o. (, De&. 1770. 5yre, )hris. ;Dire&tor:s )ommentary< Skins DND. Fanon, Frant=. Black Skin, White (asks. +rans. )harles Lam /arkmann. Kro1e @ress, In&.' 6ew 9ork, l7,.. ---!he Wretched of the l7,0. arth. +rans. )onstan&e Farrington. Kro1e @ress' 6ew 9ork, n
Faulkner, William. Absalom, AbsalomB 6ew 9ork' Dandom >ouse, 170,. %ear and 'oathing in 'as :egas BDir. +erry Killiam 177-C. @er!. Johnny Depp, 5llen Barkin, Beni&io Del +oro. Feelings, +om. (iddle +assage: White Ships, Black Cargo. 6ew 9ork' Dial Books, 177(. Fisher, ntwone. %inding %ish. 6ew 9ork' >arper)ollins, @ub. #441. %ollo& (e .ome. BDir. @eter Bratt 177,C. @er!. Ben"amin Bratt. l!ie Woodward, Jesse Borrego,
Fortunati, Leopoldina. !he Arcane of Reproduction: .ouse&ork, +rostitution, 'abor and Capital. +rans. >illary )reek. 5d. Jim Fleming. Brooklyn, 69' utonomedia, 177(. Fou&ault, /i&hel. 3iscipline and +unish. +rans. lan 2heridan. 6ew 9ork' Nintage Books, 17.7.
%(.
Fung, le3. ;(onster4s Ball' Like Fathers, Like 2ons< Currenc". /ar&h #44#. 6o. 14. Kardner, llen. ;Kraham Kreene, the httpHHwww.1en&emag.&omH!eaturesHggreene.html. 2pirit o! Skins.< *n line'
Kenet, Jean. !he !hief4s ;ournal. @aris' *lympia @ress, 17(7. Kilroy, @aul. !he Black Atlantic: (odernit" and 3ouble Consciousness. )ambridge, / .' >ar1ard 8ni1ersity @ress, 1770. 0ood Will .unting BDir. Kus Nan 2ant 177.C. @er!. /att Damon, Dobin Williams, Ben !!le&k. Kraham, Bob. ;@robing meri&an taboos' 2wiss dire&tor takes on ra&e in R/onster:s Ball:.< San %rancisco Chronicle. January #%, #44#. Krams&i, ntonio. Selections from the +rison #otebooks. 5d. and +rans. Puintan >oare and Keo!!rey 6owell 2mith. 6ew 9ork' International @ublishers, 17.1. !he 0reen (ile. BDir. Frank Darabont 1777C. @er!. +om >anks, Da1id /orse, Kraham Kreene, Bonnie >unt. Kuerrero, 5d. %raming Blackness: !he African American 6mage in %ilm. @hiladelphia' +emple 8ni1ersity @ress, 1770. 0uess Who4s Coming to 3inner> BDir. 2tanley Iramer 17,.C. @er!. 2idney @oitier, Iatherine >epburn, 2pen&er +ra&y, Iatherine >oughton. Kuthman, 5dward. ;>ot and >ea1y.< San %rancisco Chronicle. January #(, #44#. >ammonds, 51elynn, /. ;+oward a Kenealogy o! Bla&k Female 2e3uality' +he @roblemati& o! 2ilen&e.< %eminist 0enealogies, colonial legacies, 3emocratic %utures. 5ds. /. Ja&Gui le3ander and )handra +alpade /ohanty. 6ew 9ork' Doutledge, 177.. >ardt, /i&hael. ;+he Withering 177(C' #.-%%. way o! )i1il 2o&iety.< Social !e)t, 6o. %(. BWinter,
---. ;@rison +ime.< ?ale %rench Studies. 6o. 71, 0enet: in the 'anguage of the nem" B177.C' ,%-.7. ---. ;+he 6ew Fa&es in Kenoa Want a Di!!erent Future.< #e& ?ork !imes. Wednesday, July #(, #441 >ardt, /i&hael and ntonio 6egri. mpire. )ambridge' >ar1ard 8ni1ersity @ress, #444.
%(-
>ardy, 5rnest. ; ntwone Fisher.< '.A. Weekl", Nol. ,, 6o. %, De&ember #4-#,, #44#. Deprinted in the 6ew 9ork !imes, De&ember #%, #44#. .arold of Erange BDir. Di&hard Weise 17-%C @er!. )harlie >ill. >artman, 2aidiya N. Scenes of Sub5ection: !error, Sla$er", and Self/(aking in #ineteenth Centur" America. 6ew 9ork' *3!ord 8ni1ersity @ress, l77.. ---.;R+he @osition o! the 8nthought:' n Inter1iew with 2aidiya N. >artman.< )ondu&ted by Frank B. Wilderson, III. Kui +arle, Nol. 10, 6o. # 2pringH2ummer #440. >ayward, 2usan. Cinema Studies: !he Fe" Concepts. London' Doutledge, #444. >eath, K. Louis Bed.C. !he Black +anther 'eaders Speak: .ue" +. #e&ton, Bobb" Seale, ldridge Clea$er and Compan" Speak Eut !hrough the Black +anther +art4s Efficial #e&spaper. /etu&hen, 6.J.' +he 2&are&row @ress, In&., 17.,. >eath, 2tephen. Kuestions of Cinema. London' +he /a&millan @ress, Ltd., 17-1. >enry, >./., /. . !he +olice Control of the Sla$e in South Carolina . Do&toral Dissertation. 5mory, Nirginia' Nanderbilt 8ni1ersity, l71%. .igh #oon. BDir. Fred Yinnemann 17(#C. @er!. Kary )ooper, Iaty Jurado, Kra&e Ielly, +homas /it&hell, Lloyd Bridges. .iroshima (on Amour. BDir. lain Desnais 17(7C @er!. 5mmanuelle Di1a, 5i"i *kada. hooks, bell. Reel to Real: Race, Se), and Class at the (o$ies . 6ew 9ork' Doutledge, 177,. !he .orse BDir. )harles Burnett 17.0C. .ouse&ife a.k.a. Bone BDir. Larry )ohen 17.#C. @er!. 9aphet Iotto. 6mitation of 'ife. BDir. Douglas 2irk 17(7C. @er!. Lana +urner, John Ka1in, Juanita /oore. 6n the .eat of the #ight. BDir. 6orman Jewison 17,.C. @er!. 2idney @oitier, Dod 2teiger. 6ncident at Eglala BDir. /i&hael pted 177#C. Do&umentary' Leonard @eltier Bhimsel!' ar&hi1e !ootageC, John +rudell Bhimsel!C, Dobert Ded!ord Bnarrator 1oi&eC. Internet /o1ie Data Base. ;8ser )omments.< Ki1e 8DL James, Joy Bed.C. 6mprisoned 6ntellectuals: America4s +olitical +risoners Write on 'ife, 'iberation, and Rebellion. Lanham, /aryland' Dowman & Little!ield @ub. In&., #440.
%(7
;oe. BDir. John B. 1ildsen 17.4C. @er!. @eter Boyle, Dennis @atri&k, 2usan 2arandon. Warner Bros. Judy, Donald. ;*n the Puestion o! 6igga B utumn 177%C' #11-#04.
udrey )aire, and
uthenti&ity.< Boundar" L. Nol. #1, 6o. 0
---. 73is8%orming the American Canon: African/Arabic Sla$e #arrati$es and the :ernacular. /inneapolis' 8ni1. o! /6 @ress, 1770. Iau!!mann, 2tanley. #e& Republic De&ember #1, 17,Ieeling, Iara. ;RIn the Inter1al:' Frant= Fanon and the @roblems o! Nisual Depresentation.< Kui +arle, Nol. 10, 6o. # 2pringH2ummer #440. Ieeter, 6i&ole. ;(onster4s Ball.< !ime. De&ember #., #441-January #, #44#. Iidwell, )lara 2ue. ;)ho&taw Women and )ultural @ersisten&e in /ississippi.< #egotiators of Change: .istorical +erspecti$es on #ati$e American Women. 6an&y 2hoemaker, ed. 6ew 9ork' Doutledge, 177(. Filler of Sheep. BDir. )harles Burnett 17.#C. @er!. >enry K. 2anders, Iay&ee /oore, )harles Bra&y, ngela Burnett. Iilligaro, Wieland. ;Kraham Kreene Desume.< http'HHwww.amiannoying.&om Ioehler, Dobert. ;@oeti& Fragile RBall:.< :ariet". February 17-#1, #441. La&an, Ja&Gues. l7... crits: A Selection. +rans. lan 2heridan. 6ew 9ork' W.W. 6orton,
///.!he Seminar of ;ac2ues 'acan, Book 66: !he go in %reud9s !heor" and in the !echni2ue of +s"choanal"sis lIMQ/lIMM. 5d. Ja&Gues- lain /iller. +rans. 2yl1ana +omaselli. 6ew 9ork' W.W. 6orton and )ompany, l771. Landy, /ar&ia. OKrams&i beyond Krams&i' +he Writings o! +oni 6egri.< Boundar" L, Nol. #1, 6o. #. B2ummer, 177%C' ,0-7.. !he 'earning !ree. BDir. Kordon @arks 17,-C. @er!. Iyle Johnson, 51ans. le3 )larke, 5stelle
Lee, Jonathan 2&ott. ;ac2ues 'acan. mherst' 8ni1ersity o! /assa&husetts @ress, l774. Lent=, >arris /. III. Western and %rontier %ilm and !ele$ision Credits OINR/OIIM, :olume L. Je!!erson, 6).' /&Farland & )ompany, In&., 177,.
%,4
Leo,$..6ewsweek !he 'ife of 3a$id 0ale BDir. lan @arker #440C. @er!. Ie1in 2pa&ey, Iate Winslet. 'one Star BDir. John 2ayles 177,C @er!. 2tephen /endillo, 2tephen J. Lang, )hris )ooper, 5li=abeth @ena. !he 'ost (an. BDir. Dobert lan Freeman, Jr. and /i&hael +olan. rthur 17,7C. @er!. 2idney @oitier, Joanna 2himkus, l
Lott, +ommy. ; 6o-+heory +heory o! )ontemporary Bla&k )inema.< Representing Blackness: 6ssues in %ilm and :ideo. 5d.Nalerie 2mith. 6ew Brunswi&k' Dutgers 8ni1ersity @ress, 177.. /aier, )harles 2. 6n Search of Stabilit": )plorations in .istorical +olitical conom". )ambridge' )ambridge 8ni1ersity @ress, 17-.. (anufacturing Consent: #oam Chomsk" and the (edia . BDir. /ark Wintoni&k 177#C. &hbar and @eter
/arriott, Da1id. En Black (en. 6ew 9ork' )olumbia 8ni1ersity @ress, #444. /artinot, 2te1e and Jared 2e3ton. ;+he 1ant-garde o! White 2uprema&y.< Social 6dentities. Nol. 7, no. #. June #440. /ar3, Iarl. Capital: :olume O. +ranslated by Ben Fowkes. London' @enguin Books, 17.,. (ar" +oppins BDir. Dobert 2te1enson 17,%C. @er!. Di&k Nan Dyke. /asilela, 6tongela. ;+he Los ngeles 2&hool o! Bla&k Filmmakers.< Black American Cinema. 6ew 9ork' Doutledge, 1770. /assood, @aula J. Black Cit" Cinema: African American Urban @hiladelphia' +emple 8ni1ersity @ress, #440. )periences in %ilm .
/bembe, &hille. En the +ostcolon". Berkeley' 8ni1ersity o! )ali!ornia @ress, #441. (edium Cool BDir. >askell We3ler 17,7C. @er. )hristine Bergstrom, >arold Blankenship, Nerna Bloom. (enace 66 Societ". BDir. llen >ughes, lbert >ughes, Lisa Din=ler 1770C. /eyer, )arla. ; #44#. Beauty o! a Dole !or Berry.< 2an Fran&is&o Chronicle, January #4,
%,1
/i&hener, )harles. ;Bla&k /o1ies.< Black %ilms and %ilm/makers: A Comprehensi$e Antholog" from Stereot"pe to Superhero. Lindsay @aterson Bed.C 6ew 9ork' Dodd, /ead & )o., 17.(. /iller, @eter and 6ikolas Dose in ;*n +herapeuti& uthority' @sy&hoanalyti&al 53pertise 8nder d1an&ed Liberalism.< .istor" of Sciences. Nol. ., 6o. 0, 177%' #7-,%. (onster4s Ball. BDir. /ar& ForsterTs #441C. @er!. >alle Berry, Billy Bob +hornton, 2ean ;@. Diddy< )ombs, )oron"i )alhoun, >eath Ledger, @eter Boyle.. /orrison, +oni. Belo$ed. 6ew 9ork' Dandom >ouse 17-.. !he (urder of %red .ampton. BDir. >oward lk 17.1C 6egri, ntonio. Re$olution Retrie$ed: Selected Writings on (ar), Fe"nes, Capitalist Crisis and #e& Social Sub5ects OIJP/OISR. Introdu&tory notes by John /errington. London' Ded 6otes, 17-0. ///+olitics of Sub$ersion: A (anifesto for the !&ent"/%irst Centur". +ranslated by James 6ewell. )ambridge, 8I' @olity @ress, 17-7. ///(ar) Be"ond (ar): 'essons on the 0rundrisse . Brooklyn, 69' 1771. utonomedia, In&.
#aturall" #ati$e 5Dirs. Jenni!er Wynne Farmer and Nalerie Ded->orse 177-7. 91onne Dusso, Nalerie Ded->orse, Irene Bedard. #e& ;ack Cit". BDir. /ario Nan @eebles 1771C. 6ewton, >uey @. ;>e Won:t Bleed /e' De1olutionary nalysis o! R2weet 2weetba&k:s Baadasssss 2ong.:< Black +anther, Nol. ,, June 17, 17.1. #WA. ;Fu&k the @oli&e.< Straight outta ComptonB )ompa&t Dis&, 17--. Erdinar" +eople BDir. Dobert Ded!ord 17-4C. @er!. /ary +yler /oore, Donald 2utherland, +imothy >utton. +anther BDir. /ario Nan @eebles 177(C. +assion %ish. BDir. John 2ayles 177#C. @atterson, nita. ;2&enes o! 2ub"e&tion' +error, 2la1ery, and 2el!-/aking in 6ineteenth )entury meri&a< BDe1iewC. African American Re$ie&. Nol. 00, no. %. Winter, 1777. @atterson, *rlando. Sla$er" and Social 3eath: A Comparati$e Stud". )ambridge, /assa&husetts' >ar1ard 8ni1ersity @ress, 17-#.
%,#
@eltier, Leonard, +rison Writings: (" 'ife is (" Sundance. 6ew 9ork' 2t. /artin:s @ress, l777. @etro, @atri&e. Aftershocks of the #e&: %eminism and %ilm .istor". 6ew Brunswi&k, 6J' Dutgers 8ni1ersity @ress, #44#. !he Ri$er #iger. BDir. Irishna 2hah 17.,C. @er!. )i&ely +yson, James 5arl Jones, Klynn +hurman, Louis Kossett, Jr. Dobinson, Dandall. !he 3ebt: What America E&es to Blacks. 6ew 9ork' @lume, #444. Dodowi&k, D.6. !he Crisis of +olitical (odernism: Criticism and 6deolog" in Contemporar" %ilm !heor". Berkeley' 8ni1ersity o! )ali!ornia @ress, 17--. Dosenbaum, Jonathan. ; ll is Forgi1en.< Chicago Reader. February ##, #44#. R.+.(. 7Re$olutions per (inuteC. BDir. 2tanley Iramer 17.4C. @er. /argaret, Kary Lo&kwood, @aul Win!ield nthony Puinn, nn
2assoon, nne 2howsta&k. pproa&hes to Krams&i. London' Writers and Deaders, 17-#. 2&he&kel, 2usan. !he 6nsistence of the 6ndian: Race and #ationalism in #ineteenth/ Centur" American Culture. @rin&eton' @rin&eton 8ni1ersity @ress, 177-. 2&hweninger, Lee. ;Writing 6ature' 2ilko and 6ati1e ( 'US. Nol. 1-, 6o. #. 2ummer 1770' %.-,4. meri&ans as 6ature Writers.<
2eshadri-)rooks, Ialpana. 3esiring Whiteness: a 'acanian Anal"sis of Race . London' Doutledge, #444. Set 6t EffB BDir. F. Kary Kray 177,C. @er!. Pueen Lati!ah, Jada @inkett 2mith, Ni1i&a Fo3, Iimberly 5lise, Blair 8nderwood. 2e3ton, Jared. ;+he )onseGuen&es o! Da&e /i3ture' Da&ialised Barriers and the @oliti&s o! Desire.< Social 6dentities. Nol. 7, no. #. June #440. ---. 5mail )orresponden&e. pril #44,. ---. Amalgamation Schemes. /inneapolis' 8ni1ersity o! /6 @ress, #44-. Shaft. BDir. Kordon @arks 17.iC. @er!. Di&hard Doundtree, /oses Kunn. 2hakur, ssata. Assata: An Autobiograph". )hi&ago' Lawren&e >ill Books, 17-.. 2herman, Dono1an. 5mail )orresponden&e. /ar&h 10, #44-.
%,0
2ilko, Leslie. Almanac of the 3ead. 6ew 9ork' 2imon & 2&huster, 1771. 2il1erman, Ia"a. !he Sub5ect of Semiotics. 6ew 9ork' *3!ord 8ni1ersity @ress, 17-0. ///!he Acoustic (irror: !he %emale :oice in +s"choanal"sis and Cinema. Bloomington' Indiana 8ni1ersity @ress, 17-///(ale Sub5ecti$it" at the (argins. 6ew 9ork' Doutledge, l77#. ---World Spectators. @alo lto' 2tan!ord 8ni1ersity @ress, #444. 2imon, 2&ott. !he 6n$ention of the Western %ilm: A Cultural .istor" of the 0enre4s %irst .alf/Centur". )ambridge, 8I' )ambridge 8ni1ersity @ress, #440. Siou) Cit" BDir. Lou Diamond @hillips 177%C @er!. Lou Diamond @hillips, 2alli Di&hardson, Kary Farmer, +antoo )ardinal. Skins BDir. )hris 5yre #44#C @er!. Kraham Kreene, 5ri& 2&hweig, Kary Farmer, 6oah Watts, /i&helle +hrush, Lois Ded 5lk, +ina Ieeper. 2mith, Nalerie, Bed.C. Representing Blackness: 6ssues in %ilm and :ideo. 6ew Brunswi&k' Dutgers 8ni1ersity @ress, 177.. Smoke Signals BDir. )hris 5yre 177-C. @er!. Kary Farmer, +antoo )ardinal, John +rudell. dam Bea&h, 51an dams, Irene Bedard,
2nead, James. White Screen, Black 6mages: .oll"&ood from the 3ark Side . 6ew 9ork & London' Doutledge, 177%. Soul :engeance aka Welcome .ome Brother Charles. BDir. Jamaa Fanaka 17.(C. @er!. /arlo /onte, Deatha Krey, 2tan Iamber, and +i!!any @eters. 2pillers, >ortense. Black , White and in Color: ssa"s on American 'iterature and Culture. )hi&ago' +he 8ni1ersity o! )hi&ago @ress, #4440. 2pi1ak, Kiatry. 6n Ether Worlds: /ethuen, 17-.. ssa"s in Cultural +olitics . 6ew 9ork and London'
!he Spook Who Sat b" the 3oor. 73ir. 6$an 3i)on OIPR8 +erf. 'a&rence Cook. Stagecoach. BDir' John Ford 1707C. @er!. )laire +re1or, John Wayne, )arradine, Louise @latt. ndy De1ine, John
!he Stra&berr" Statement. BDir. 2tuart >agmann 17.4C. @er. Bru&e Da1ison, Iim Darby, Bud )ort, /urray /a&Leod.
%,%
Superfl". 73ir. 0ordon +arks, ;r. OIPL8. +erf. Ron E4neal, Carl 'ee. 2weet 2weetba&k:s Baadasssss 2ong. 73ir. (el$in :an +eebles OIPO8. +erf. (el$in :an +eebles, Brer Soul. !a"lor, Cl"de. ,We 3on4t #eed Another .ero: Anti/!heses on Aethetics.- Bla&k Frames' )riti&al @erspe&ti1es on Bla&k Independent )inema . (b"e B. Cham & Claire Andrade/Watkins 7eds8. Cambridge, (A.: !he (6! +ress, OISS. +eale, +amara /. ;+he 2ilko Doad !rom )hiapas or Why 6ati1e /ar3ists.< ( 'US, Nol. #0, 6o. %. Winter 177-. meri&ans )annot be
!helma and 'ouise BDir. Didley 2&ott 1771C @er!. 2usan 2arandon, Keena Da1is, >ar1ey Ieitel, Brad @itt. !hunderheart BDir. /i&hael Kreene. pted 177#C. @er!. Nal Iilmer, 2am 2hepard, Kraham
!raining 3a". BDir. ntoine Fugua #441C. @er!. Den=el Washington +rask, >aunani-Iay. %rom a #ati$e 3aughter: Colonialism and So$ereignt" in .a&ai4i. /onroe, /5' )ommon )ourage @ress, 1770. +yson, +imothy B. Radio %ree 3i)ie: Robert %. Williams & the Roots of Black +o&er. )hapel >ill' +he 8ni1ersity o! 6orth )arolina @ress' 1777. Up !ightB BDir. Jules Dassin 17,-C. @er!. Daymond 2t. Ja&Gues, Duby Dee, Frank 2il1era, Dos&oe Lee Brown, /a3 Julien. ;Up !ight.< Nariety De1iews. OL=OS=JS . ;8p +ightA< !he :illage :oice. /ar&h ,, 17,-. Nera, >ernan and ndrew /. Kordon. Screen Sa$iors: .oll"&ood %ictions of Whiteness . 6ew 9ork' Dowman & Little!ield @ublishers In&., #440. 1on Busa&k, Di&hard. ;+he >ot 2Guat' Billy Bob +hornton Doman&es >alle Berry in the Deep 2outh o! (onster4s Ball.< Eakland Urban :ie&, January 04, #44#. Wa&Guant, Loi&. ;From 2la1ery to /ass In&ar&eration' Dethinking the RDa&e Puestion: in the 82.< #e& 'eft Re$ie&, no. 10, JanuaryHFebruary #44#, pp' %1-,4. Wayne, /ike. !heorising :ideo +ractice. London' Lawren&e & Wishart, Ltd., 177..
%,( l!red .
West, )ornell and >enry Louis Kates, Jr. !he %uture of the Race. 6ew 9ork' Inop! 177,.
White 2hield. ;>istori&al +rauma.< !he Circle. /inneapolis, /innesota' January #441. Williams, @atri&ia J. ;Without 2an&tuary.< !he #ation. February 1%, #444. Q, /al&olm. ;+he Ballot or the Bullet.< 2pee&h deli1ered February %, 17,%. Detroit. udio &assette' @a&i!i&a r&hi1es. 9an&ey, Keorge. Who is White: 'atinos, Asians, and the #e& Black=#onblack 3i$ide. Boulder' Lynne Dienner @ub., #440. 9earwood, Kladstone L. Bla&k Film as a 2igni!ying @ra&ti&e' )inema, 6arration and the !ri&an- meri&an estheti& +radition. +renton' !ri&a World @ress, In&., #444.
%,,
.nd 1otes
i ii
For e3amples o! @re-17-4 2ettlerH/aster !ilms see >askell We3ler:s (edium Cool B17.4C, L. )ohen:s Bone or .ouse&ife B17.#C, lan J. @akula:s !he +aralla) :ie& B17.%C, >al shby:s Coming .ome B17.-C, and James Bridges: !he China S"ndrome B17.7C. For e3amples o! @re-17-4 2la1e !ilms see )harles Burnett:s Filler of Sheep B17.#C, >ugh Dobertson:s (elinda B17.#C, /i&hael )ampus: !he (ack B17.0C, I1an Di3on:s !he Spook Who Sat b" the 3oor BI1an Di3on 17.0C, and >aile Kerima:s Bush (ama B17..C. iii !ter the Watts Debellion, DFI obser1ed' ;+here is no point in telling 6egroes to obser1e the law$It has almost always been used against them$ ll these pla&es?>arlem, Watts, 2outh 2ide Lo! )hi&agoM?are riots wating to happen.< Puote in' )lark, Ienneth B. ;+he Wonder is +here >a1e Been 2o Few Diots.< #e& ?ork !imes (aga1ine, 2eptember (, 17,(. i1 ;2la1e estate< is a term borrowed !rom >ortense 2pillers. 1 2ee 5mile Ben1eniste. +roblems in 0eneral 'inguistics. +rans. /ary 5li=abeth /eek. )oral Kables' 8ni1. o! /iami @ress, 17.1. 1i )harles 2. /aier. 6n Search of Stabilit": )plorations in .istorical +olitical conom" . )ambridge' )ambridge 8ni1ersity @ress, 17-.. pp. 0-,. 1ii I am grate!ul to Jared:s le&tures, pro!essional e3&hange, and &orresponden&e !or this summary de!inition. 1iii 2ee )hur&hill' ;Keno&ide in the meri&as' Landmarks !rom 6orth and 2outh meri&a, 1%7#-177#E< ;R6its /ake Li&e:' +he 53termination o! 6orth meri&an Indians, 1,4.-177,E< and ;)old War Impa&ts on 6ati1e 6orth meri&a' +he @oliti&al 5&onomy o! Dadioa&ti1e )oloni=ation< in A 'ittle (atter of 0enocide* i3 Sla$er" and Social 3eath: a Comparati$e Stud" . )ambridge, / ' >ar1ard 8ni1ersity @ress, 17-#. p. 10, itali&s in the original 3 2ee @atterson' ;+he )onstituent 5lements o! 2la1ery< and ;+he Idiom o! @ower< in Sla$er" and Social 3eath. 3i @aul Kilroy makes this argument in &hapter # o! !he Black Atlantic. 3ii +hough, as I ha1e argued, a non-6ati1e, non-Bla&k !ilmography &ould be substituted without &orrupting the integrity o! a paradigmati& analysis. 3iii 2ee Larry )ohen:s .ouse&ife a.k.a. Bone, 17.#E >al We3ler:s (edium Cool 17.4E 2tuart >agmann:s !he Stra&berr" Statement 17.4C and 2tanley Iramer:s R.+.(. LDe1olutions @er /inuteM 17.4. 3i1 +he 1(04s mark, !or Donald Judy, the time o! the +homists, leading e&&lesiasti&s o! 2alaman&aE the beginning o! what I will des&ribe below as e&&lesiasti& Bor 2ettlerC and 6ati1e meri&an ;&on!li&tual harmony.< 31 2ee Keorge 9an&ey:s Who is White: 'atinos, Asians, and the #e& Black=#onblack 3i$ide . Boulder' Lynne Dienner @ub., #440. 31i Fanon, Black Skin, White (asks p. 11,. 31ii 53plains the pressures o! the a&ademy here. 31iii Jared 2e3ton, pri1ate &on1ersation. 3i3 6ot, at least, as a sla1e. 33 *r woman, as in the &ase o! 2an Puentin and many women:s prisons. 33i ;*ntology,< he writes, ;on&e it is !inally admitted as lea1ing e3isten&e by the wayside?does not permit us to understand the being o! the bla&k man Lsi&M. For not only must the bla&k man be bla&kE but he must be bla&k in relation to the white man Lsi&M< BBSW( 114C. 33ii +his point I here in!er simply !rom the !a&t that o! all the meta-&ommentators on ;2a1age< ontology, Ward )hur&hill is the only one who works persistently o!! o! the modality o! geno&ide. ll o! the others are obsessed with the ethi&al dilemmas o! so1ereignty. B2ee A 'ittle (atter of 0enocide . 2an Fran&is&o' )ity Lights, 177.C. I will return to this o1erriding pro&li1ity !or one modality and not the other in the way ;2a1age< positionality is imagined in my dis&ussion o! Skins in @art III. 33iii +he other pillar is Krams&ian /ar3ism. 33i1 +hanks to 2aidiya >artman who suggested the moniker o! !ro-@essimism to me. 331 For an e3posV on how anti-Bla&kness is !oundational to the libidinal e&onomy o! multi&ultural politi&al !ormations see Jared 2e3ton:s Amalgamation Schemes. /inneapolis' 8ni1ersity o! /6 @ress, #44-. For an analysis o! how anti-Bla&kness is mani!est in the politi&alHso&ial e&onomy o! multi&ultural politi&al !ormations see Keorge 9an&ey:s Who is White> 'atinos, Asians, and the #e& Black=#onblack 3i$ide. 331i /elanie Ilein:s emphasis on a normati1e progress o! libidinal ob"e&t &hoi&es ran &ounter to an emphasis on the analysand:s spee&h, an emphasis whi&h La&an belie1ed should guide the &ourse o! analysis. >e took /elanie Ilein to task !or her promotion o! a psy&hoanalyti& &ure whi&h &entrali=ed the ;interplay o! reality and !antasy in the sub"e&t:s &hoi&e o! se3ual ob"e&ts,< otherwise known as *b"e&t Delations +heory. 2e&ondly, new attention was being paid to the role o! &ounter trans!eren&e in the psy&hoanalyti& en&ounter and thus to the importan&e, in training, o! dealing with its typi&al mani!estations BLee 00-0%C. +hrough what La&an &onsidered to be a se&ond theoreti&al ;wrong turn< the ego Bor ImaginaryC o! the analyst ran the risk o! be&oming entangled with the ego Bor ImaginaryC o! the analysand, leading the psy&hoanalyti& en&ounter through a perpetual hall o! mirrors?empty or egoi& re!le&tions speaking to similarly empty, egoi&, re!le&tions, a pro&ess that &ould !orti!y and e3tend the interlo&utory li!e o! what La&an &alled ;empty spee&h.< +his is why, ;+hroughout
the &ourse o! the analysis, on the sole &ondition that the ego o! the analyst does agree not to be there, on the sole &ondition that the analyst is not a li1ing mirror, but an empty mirror, what happens happens between the ego o! the sub"e&t$and the others< BLa&an, Seminar 66 #%,C. ;+he others< are what La&an &alls the analysand:s ;&ontemporaries< B crits %.C. or La&an, the analyti& en&ounter must bring the analysand to a pla&e where sHhe is able to see what sHhe is depositing at the pla&e o! the analyst. I! the analyst:s ego is present, i! the analyst is not an empty mirror, then the analysand will not &ome to understand where sHhe is in relation to the analyst. +he pla&e o! the analyst will not be&ome what, !or La&an, it should be&ome, the 2ymboli& *ther through whi&h the analysand &an hear hisHher own language. For this to happen, the analyst must be&ome a ;headless,< or a sephalic, sub"e&tE a sub"e&t that mirrors nothing other than a 1oid. In this way, and in this way only, will the analysand &ome to understand himHhersel! as a 1oid papered o1er by language.
331ii
>ere I am thinking alienation as a grammar psy&hoanalyti&ally, that is through the !ramework o! libidinal e&onomy. In ;+he Duse o! nalogy< I think alienation through the !ramework o! politi&al e&onomy. 331iii 2ee Loi& Wa&Guant, ;From 2la1ery to /ass In&ar&eration.< 33i3 /eaning Whites and their "unior partners in &i1il so&iety. 333 I am tweaking Fanon:s notion o! de&oloni=ation to meet the needs o! the post-eman&ipation sub"e&t Bthe sla1eC as opposed to the post-&olonial sub"e&t Bthe nati1eC. I think Fanon himsel! does this in Black Skin, White (asks. When he writes !he Wretched of the arth, I would argue that he is o!ten times 1entriloGui=ing on behal! o! the post-&olonial sub"e&t. >is letters to his brother seem to suggest how Bi! not whyC he &annot be a ;&ontemporary< o! the rab, e1en though they !ight in the same guerrilla army against an enemy in &ommon' Fran&e. 333i 2pe&ial thanks to Dono1an 2herman, !or helping me &lari!y this. 5mail &orresponden&e, /ar&h 10, #44-. 333ii ;Between the years 1--# and 17,-, lyn&hing &laimed, on a1erage, at leas one li!e a week. lmost (,444 bla&k men were lyn&hed. In addition, bla&k women, Jews, White &attle rustlers and a !ew white women be&ame its ob"e&ts. +he pra&ti&e began long be!ore the )i1il War but peaked during the ba&klash to De&onstru&tion, parti&ularly during the de&ade "ust prior to World War I. L &&ording to Leon Litwa&kM$the 1iolen&e in!li&ted$was o!ten sele&ti1e, aimed at edu&ated and su&&ess!ul Bla&ks, those in positions o! leadership, those determined to impro1e themsel1es, those who owned !arms and stores, those suspe&ted o! ha1ing sa1ed their earnings, those who had "ust made a &rop?that is, bla&k men and women per&ei1ed by whites as ha1e stepped out o! their pla&e, tr"ing to be &hite.< Lyn&hings ranged, geographi&ally, !rom the 2an Jose, ) . to 2t. @aul, /6 to Di3ie. 2ee @atri&ia J. Williams, ;Without 2an&tuary.< !he #ation. February 1%, #444. 333iii Dono1an 2herman. 5mail &orresponden&e. /ar&h 10, #44-. 333i1 Dono1an 2herman. 5mail )orresponden&e, /ar&h 10, #44-. 3331 s was implied in @art I, the re1olutionary ;good sense< o! the 2la1e is going to ha1e di!!erent rhetori&al elements than the re1olutionary ;good sense< o! the worker. +he latter needs a ;good sense< that throws e3ploitation and alienation into relie!E the !ormer needs a ;good sense< that throws a&&umulation and !ungibility into relie!. In addition, ;good sense< takes on di!!erent &hara&teristi&s when depending on whether it must e3plain stru&tural 1iolen&e that is gratuitous or &ontingent. 3331i +hanks to Jared 2e3ton !or this insight. 3331ii +hanks to 2aidiya >artman !or her insight regarding Ant&one %isher:s "u3taposition o! !ilial re"u1enation with a s&reen o! Bla&k women in&apable o! reprodu&ing. 3331iii Jared 2e3ton, pri1ate &on1ersation. 333i3 +oni /orrison:s Belo$edE 6W :s BinC!amous rap song %uck the +oliceE and the harrowing &olle&tion o! +om Feelings:s drawings (iddle +assage: White Ships, Black Cargo are "ust a !ew e3amples. 3l 2ee Ira Berlin BedC, Remembering Sla$er": African Americans !alk about !heir +ersonal )periences of Sla$er" and mancipation. 6ew 9ork' +he 6ew @ress. In the ;Introdu&tion< the editors ha1e this to say about the world o! Bla&ks at the turn o! the 1-th and 17th &enturies, when they had grown to belie1e in the elasti&ity o! a&&umulation and !ungibility' ;+he mo1ement o! some million sla1es !rom the seaboard to the Bla&k Belt and the ri1er bottoms o! the interior deeply disrupted the &i1ili=ation that bla&k people had established in the a!termath o! their !or&ed e3odus !rom !ri&a. During nearly two &enturies o! settlement along the seaboard, !ri&an and !ri&an- meri&an sla1es had &reated &omple3 &ommunities, linked by ties o! kinship and !riendship and resting upon a !oundation o! shared 1alues and belie!s. +hose &ommunities be&ame in&reasing sel!-&ontained with the &losing o! the trans- tlanti& sla1e trade, whi&h had ended in the Lower 2outh by &onstitutional mandate in l-4- and a generation earlier in the 8pper 2outh. +he westward mo1ement o! plantation &ulture? whether it was dri1en by indi1idual owners who a&&ompanied their sla1es or by pro!essional sla1e traders?tore that so&iety asunder, e3iling hundred o! thousands !rom their birthpla&e and traumati=ing those who remained. Families and sometimes whole &ommunities dissol1ed under the pressure o! this 2e&ond Kreat /igration< B331C. +he essay goes on to say how more than one million sla1es in their ;reprodu&ti1e< years were displa&ed in the !irst twenty years o! the 17 th &entury by this !or&ed migration to new plantations. Between 17-4 and 1777, the years o! laws like 2+5@, another one million Bla&ks in their ;reprodu&ti1e< years were sent to the @rison Industrial )omple3. +his, I submit, is what has &aused?howe1er indire&tly?a new generation o! !ro-@essimists to re-&onsider the Bla&k &ondition, stru&turally. 3li ) L @56 L )*D5 1-,.#4-#. BWest 17-- & 2upp. 1774C Bamended by &h. 1#%#, 1, 17-- stats.E amended by &h. 1#(,, 1, 17-stat.C, page %.%.
3lii
I/DB 8ser )omments on Ant&one %isher. 2ee 2pe&ial Features on the DND o! Ant&one %isher. 3li1 I went to see the !ilm in a 1ariety o! neighborhoods. 3l1 2ee I/DB 8ser )omments on Ant&one %isher. 3l1i For more e3amples o! the &laims and assertions o! this generally un&ontested assumption see Da1id James 1..-177E 2. +orriano and Nenise Berry & Berry 10%E 6tongela /asilela 14.-147, 11#E @aula /assood 7.-7-, 14.-110E 5d Kuerrero ,7, ., .,, -.-71E )lyde +aylor -1E )harles /i&hener #0(, #0--#07E 2usan >ayward %4-%%E and >uey @. 6ewton. 3l1ii In the past !i1e years, the s&holarship o! &hille /bembe has re&ast the ngolan woman as a 2la1e. Be&ause she stands a Bla&k B2la1eC in relation to the world, prior to her standing as an ngolan Ba post&olonialC in relation to the 2ettler Bthe @ortugueseC. 3l1iii In Joy James, ed. 6mprisoned 6ntellectuals: America4s +olitical +risoners Write on 'ife, 'iberation, and Rebellion . Lanham, /aryland' Dowman & Little!ield @ub. In&., #440. 3li3 +he pre&eding Guotations !rom the B@@ newspaper are &olle&ted in >eath, K. Louis Bed.C. !he Black +anther 'eaders Speak: .ue" +. #e&ton, Bobb" Seale, ldridge Clea$er and Compan" Speak Eut !hrough the Black +anther +art4s Efficial #e&spaper. /etu&hen, 6.J.' +he 2&are&row @ress, In&., 17.,. l /arilyn Bu&k is a White politi&al prisoner ser1ing time in a !ederal prison !or her role in se1eral alleged Bla&k Liberation rmy a&tions, in&luding the res&ue o! ssata 2hakur !rom a ma3imum-se&urity prison. li In Joy James, ed. 6mprisoned 6ntellectuals: America4s +olitical +risoners Write on 'ife, 'iberation, and Rebellion . lii 6oam )homsky talks about all these strategies, e3&ept a!!e&t, in the !ilm (anufacturing Consent. liii 2ee e3-69@D &op Dobert Daley:s &ontro1ersial !arget Blue, a &ombination memoir, &rime reporting, and rightwing politi&al &ommentary on 69@D poli&e in1estigations against the ma!ia and the Bla&k Liberation rmy. For a list o! BL a&tions &ompiled by the Justi&e Department and reprodu&ed !rom a website empatheti& to the BL , see the ppendi3. For more o! Jalil /untaGuim:s analysis, go online to' http'HHapa.online.!ree.!rH5tats W#48nisH/L6 HInUtheUBla&kULiberationU rmy.html. li1 For an e3tended e3position on Bla&k !eminism and Bla&k Liberation rmy soldier see ssata 2hakur:s Assata: An Autobiograph". l1 2ee Larry )ohen:s .ouse&ife a.k.a. Bone, 17.#E >al We3ler:s (edium Cool 17.4E 2tuart >agmann:s !he Stra&berr" Statement 17.4C and 2tanley Iramer:s R.+.(. LDe1olutions @er /inuteM 17.4. l1i +he 1(04s mark, !or Judy, the time o! the +homists, the leading e&&lesiasti&s o! 2alaman&a, 2painE the beginning o! what I ha1e des&ribed in )hapter # as ;&on!li&tual harmony< between White e&&lesiasti&s and 6ati1e meri&ans. l1ii )ast in &op shows as the !at, balding, &hie! o! poli&eE a !irst &ousin to the gangster. l1iii /ost demographers &laim the number o! indigenous people li1ing in the !orty-eight &ontiguous states was between twel1e and nineteen million. By the end o! the 17th &entury the !igure stood at #(4,444. +oday the population is %,117,444 li3 Whether /ogie 9ellow Lodge or his brother Dudy is the main &hara&ter is Guestion. nd this dispute is &entral to our meditation on ;2a1age< ontology. l3 Deloria is thinking spe&i!i&ally o! people like Jung, as opposed to Freud, and o! radi&al e&ologists, as opposed to &apitalist ?or, !or that matter?/ar3ist, industrialists. l3i It is important to note that though the spe&i!i&ity o! the politi&al &on!li&t between the 8.2. and >awaiians may bear greater similarities to those between White 6ew Yealanders and that island:s indigenous population, the stru&tural relation is not altered by this. l3ii 2ee >ardt and 6egri:s mpire. I will e3plore their dream o! a restored ;&ommons< in @art IN' (onster4s Ball. l3iii >ere, )hur&hill is making re!eren&e to Frant= Fanon:s !he Wretched of the arth, a mainstay !oundational to the work o! both Ward )hur&hill and >aunani-Iay +rask. l3i1 +his is also a !oundation o! Deloria and +rask:s arguments. 2ee Deloria, (etaph"sics of (odern )istence 1(#E +rask 11,-1#1C l31 We began this e3ploration in @arts I and II and will take it up again in our dis&ussion o! (onster4s Ball. l31i It is important to bear in mind that whereas, in histori&al terms, the 2ettler and the /aster may be di!!erent people, in ontologi&al terms they are one and the same. l31ii 2la1es belie1ed that, were they to get to )anada, oppression would be le!t behind them. Leonard @eltier !led to )anada, only to be e3tradited ba&k to the 8.2. /al&olm Q on&e &hastised Bla&ks to stop &omplaining about ra&ist oppression in the 2outh. ; s long as you 2outh o! the )anadian border,< he said, ;you:re 2outh.< B!he Ballot or the BulletC. l31iii In /ar&h o! 177., Kreene was hospitali=ed !ollowing a se1eral hours long stando!! with +oronto poli&e. *ne writer spe&ulated that Kreene was ;armed and sui&idal< BIilligaroCE while another wrote ;Kreene was sui&idal and a&&ording to the person who &alled the poli&e, he had guns in his home, though no weapons were used during the en&ounter whi&h ended pea&e!ully< BBrennanC. +here seems to be a need to mat&h the angst on s&reen with the angst in his real li!eE a need I would not ob"e&t to were it not !or the !a&t that none o! these reporters attribute the angst to his status as an Indian in 6orth meri&a.
3liii
l3i3
Kraham Kreene was nominated !or Best 2upporting &tor !or his role as Ii&king Bird in 3ances &ith Wol$es. >e re&ei1ed a 2&reen &tors Kuild B2 KC ward !or his work in !he 0reen (ile. l33 +wo )anadian !ilms do allow 6ati1e a&tors to embra&e the pathos o! stru&tural antagonism 1ia drama' 3ance (e Eutside, and Clearcut. .arold of Erange B8.2.C also allowed !or this embra&e, but by way o! &omedy and satire rather than drama. l33i +he ontologi&al and positional &ommonality between Whites, Latinos, and sians does not, o! &ourse, rule out the plethora o! &on!li&ts that erupt between them. l33ii 53panded in my dis&ussion o! ntonio 6egri and /i&hael >ardt:s mpireE as well as /i&hael >ardt:s ;@rison +ime< in @art IN' (onster4s Ball. l33iii Between 1740 and 177( roughly #4,444 Westerns were released in theater andHor s&reened on tele1ision. Lent=:s Western and %rontier %ilm and !ele$ision Credits OINR/OIIM :olume L &ontains (4% pages o! !ilm entries with an a1erage o! #4.1 entries per page, !or an estimated total o! 14,104.% Western !ilms. It &ontains #,- pages o! tele1ision entries with an a1erage o! 0,.% entries per page, !or an estimated 7,.(( tele1ision Westerns. +his adds up to 17,--(., !ilms and tele1ision programs all together. *ne must !a&tor in the hundreds, perhaps thousands, o! Westerns lost andHor destroyedE and !a&tor in those Westerns released in the periods that Lent= does not &o1er' !ilms released between 1-7% and 1740, as well as those released between 177( and #44%. l33i1 In John Ford:s Stagecoach, a White &hild is born Guite literally when its mother is trying to rea&h the )learing, a settled town, while being pursued a&ross the desert by ;2a1ages<?a word the !ilm does not utter with s&are Guotes. l331 +he !a&t that hegemony, rather than gratuitous 1iolen&e, is essential to the idiom o! power between the sian and the White was established as !ar ba&k as 1-%,, when /issouri 2enator +homas >art Benton, perhaps the most eloGuent spokesman !or /ani!est Destiny, wrote' ;+he$9ellow ra&e is there, !our hundred million in number, spreading almost to 5uropeE a ra&e on&e the !oremost o! the human !amily in the arts o! &i1ili=ation, but torpid and stationary !or thousands o! years. It is a ra&e !ar abo1e the$Bla&k$and abo1e the meri&an Indian$but still !ar below the White. LWhites and 9ellowsM must talk together, and trade together, and marry together. )ommer&e is a great &i1ili=er?so&ial inter&ourse as great?and marriage greater. !he Congressional 0lobe. /ay #-, 1-%,. 2pe&ial thanks to nita Wilkins !or this &itation. l331i 5ltis, Da1id. ;5uropeans and the Dise and Fall o! !ri&an 2la1ery in the meri&as' n Interpretation.< !he American .istorical Re$ie&. Nol. 7-, 6o. (. De&ember 1770. l331ii When ;predator,< as Ward )hur&hill des&ribes the 2ettler, arri1ed there were between 1#,744,444 and 17,444,444 6ati1e meri&ans in the %- &ontiguous 2tates. l331iii /y point throughout this book has been that there &an be no su&h entity as Bla&k &ulture. )ulture emanates !rom a so&ial !ormation o! human beings. s su&h they ha1e the &apa&ity to trans!orm spa&e into pla&e and time into e1ent, or &hronology. Language and genealogi&al &oheren&e are e!!e&ts o! the latterE homeland is an e!!e&t o! the !ormer. 2u&h are the ne&essary &urren&y !or the ;pur&hase< o! &ulture. +he 2la1e !or!eits both !orms o! &urren&y at the moment sHhe is gi1en so&ial death Bnatal alienationC as a substitute !or real death. +his is not to say that many Bla&ks might ;!eel< as though Bla&k &ulture e3ists, su&h is the bane o! the assumpti1e logi& o! the Bla&k !ilm studies that I dis&ussed in @art I. But they would be hard pressed to translate those &ultural ;!eelings< into )ulture, gi1en the uni1ersality o! the grammar o! &ulture that /odernity rei!ied in its relation to and dependen&e on, the !ri&an sla1e trade. ;2tyle< is a !ar more !itting des&ription. l33i3 2pe&ial thanks to Jared 2e3ton !or this insight on the !ungibility o! ;nigger< under globali=ed hip-hop. l333 2ee Almanac of the 3ead 74-71E 047-0#,E .%7. l333i Krams&i belie1es that the so&ius is one entity, but he di1ides it into politi&al so&iety and &i1il so&iety !or methodologi&al purposes?politi&al so&iety being the institutions o! !or&e' poli&e, military, prison. l333ii /i&hael >ardt. ;+he Withering o! )i1il 2o&iety.< Social !e)t, Nol. 1%, 6o. %, Winter 177(. l333iii 2ee 2il1erman:s (ale Sub5ecti$it" at the (argins %%-%.. l333i1 @rior to the an1il o! a post-industrial world. l3331 53amples o! su&h !ilms in&lude (edium Cool, R.+.(. 7Re$olutions +er (inuteC, !he Re$olutionar", !he Stra&berr" Statement, and ;oe. l3331i 6egri & >ardt would agree with the post-modernists on this point. l3331ii 2ee Dodowi&k:s !he Crisis of +olitical (odernism: Criticism and 6deolog" in Contemporar" %ilm !heor". Berkeley' 8ni1ersity o! )ali!ornia @ress, 177%. l3331iii Lpla&e endnote here on Da1id 5ltis: Beyond the LimitM l333i3 Puoted in Ialpana 2eshadri-)rooks: 3esiring Whiteness: a 'acanian Anal"sis of Race. 3& Di&hard Werbowenko, (onster4s Ball )omposer Anatom" of a Scene. 3&i For a Gui&k and easy demonstration o! this see John Ford:s 1707 Stagecoach. >ere &i1il so&iety is hermeti&ally sealed within the tight, knee-knee &on!ines o! the stage&oa&h &ompartment, and atop, where the dri1er and the sheri!! ride. s the !ilm progresses we &ome to see the ethi&al dilemmas o! &i1il so&iety being rearti&ulated through the re&omposition o! its standard bearers' trans&enden&e lea1es the 2outhern lady and is embodied in the prostitute, lea1es the banker to be embodied in the drunken Irish do&tor, lea1es the gentleman &ard shark to be re-embodied, "ointly, in both the sheri!! and the outlaw BJohn Wayne as the Dingo IidC. In this way, John Ford re-stages the drama o! 1alue surrounding the e3pansion o!
Whiteness as a &ategory and a&&ess to the institutionality o! &i1il so&iety. drama !irst staged during the Ja&ksonian period and &ontinuously restaged with ea&h histori&al episode o! meri&an migration and immigration Bsu&h as the time in whi&h John Ford li1ed and workedC. +he dynamism and drama bode ill !or any possibility o! !i3ed ethi&ality within &i1il so&ietyE but what keeps this dynami& drama !rom be&oming so e3pansi1e that it rends the 1ery !abri& o! &i1il so&iety:s &oheren&e Gua &i1il so&iety, what allows the internal &haos o! shi!ting agents to be unthreatening to the stru&tural &oheren&e o! the drama, is the !a&t that the stage&oa&h itsel!?in other words, the 1ery possibility o! this tumultuous drama?is always being threaten by ;2a1ages<?the pa&hes who ;"umped the reser1ation< and now ride out to kill ;inno&ent< Whites. 3&ii !he Black +osition: Ci$il 3eath in Ci$il Societ" is a work-in-progress that will address this issue. 3&iii @age 1( o! Faulkner. 3&i1 Both parties are arti&ulate and in general agreement that they both are indeed parties' they are so1ereign to themsel1es and to one another. 3&1 Whiteness as 1alue-!orm is indeed essential to WhiteH sian, WhiteHLatino, and o!ten to WhiteHIndigenous relationality. But I am not talking about that. @ost-&olonial paradigms, howe1er, are o!ten help!ul analyti& lenses !or su&h &on!li&ts, but they lose their e3planatory power when &ast upon what >ortense 2pillers &alls the sla1e estate. 3&1i !riend o! mine, a middle aged !ri&an meri&an woman, saw (onster4s Ball during a matinee with single men dotting the seats all around. 2he told me she !elt as though she was in a ;porno< theaterE she was so un&om!ortable. 2he waits !or hersel! to appear' and she appears in the se3 s&ene and they, the men in the seats, appear with her. But does her dis&om!ort ?her terrorA?suggest e3ploitationF 2omething more is at stake.
3&1ii 3&1iii
6ot e1en in the &yni&al way in whi&h ;+he +reaty,< or rei!i&ation o! the idea o! ;Land< arbitrate dramas o! 1alue between the 2ettler and the ;2a1age.< +here are moments when geno&ide gi1es way to so1ereignty and the Indian:s humanity is on&e again in Guestion. But the 2la1e:s humanity is ne1er in Guestion. 3&i3 In the 17.4 a !at rotund Iissinger was displayed nude as a +la"girl &enter!old. & Baldwin:s 0oing to (eet the (an' #(4-1. In /arriott' 1-.

Wilderson - , Frank Red White Black Cinema Struct

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wilderson - , Frank Red White Black Cinema Struct

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Red, White, & Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S.

Bibliography$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.$.%1, 5nd notes$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.$$$$$$$$$$$$$.%#7

Part I: The Structure of Antagonisms

Introduction Uns#eaka$le %thics

rmy soldiers, or in prison &ells where so many o! them ha1e been

positionality by theorists su&h as Leslie 2ilko, Ward )hur&hill, +aiaiake

di1ide separating 5uropean workers !rom !ull &hattel sla1ery.

!ri&an, sla1ery is now the

sia !ind themsel1es at an ontologi&al

rabC &ould not ha1e produ&ed itsel! without the simultaneous

meri&as$be&ause their own sub"e&ts &ould not

the &enter o! attention BeGuilibriumC. But

The Ruse of Analog&

us&hwit=-the (uselmann, the R&ore o! the &amp,: he whom

us&hwit= would rank third or !ourth in a normati1e, as opposed to

gamben goes on to sket&h out the ensemble o! Guestions that

absurd as ;rebellious property< B;*n the Puestion o! 6igga

sians stand in conflictual meri&a writ large?they

Chapter T!o The 'arcissistic Sla(e

!ri&ans, and how the need to &ra!t an ensemble o! Guestions through

t least two 1i1a&ious leading ladies ended up as domesti& workers. *ther

meri&an &lassi&al musi& BJa==C,

s su&h, not only is Bla&kness Bsla1enessC

Part II: Antwone isher & Bush !ama

Chapter Three ishing for Antwone

and tragi& disorder o! &reation< B1.,C, e1en the

!ri&an &ho &as not captured is

attention and emotions, lea1ing !ew dry eyes in the theater.

hurdles by simply dressing

ntwone Fisher up as a &ultural andHor histori&al being. It

the !igure o! !our Bla&k women. In !a&t, as we tra1el with

ntwone Fisher was dispossessed?one

ngeles. +hey noted gra!!iti and paraphernalia o! the )rips gang.

is a !i!ty-two teeth salute to the meri&an Dream.

Chapter %our Cinematic Unrest: #ush *ama & The B)A

determination and the withdrawal o! @ortuguese troops !rom 110C.

matter o! time be!ore the Bla&k Liberation

meri&a at this time with "ust a bri&k and a

Part III: Skins

Chapter %ive A$surd !o$ilit&

meri&as, i! not the world. +here is, howe1er, a &a1eat to whi&h I

meri&an &inema may not reprodu&e the White suprema&y o!

poli&e uni!orm is always prominent and asserti1e. 6arrati1ely, the

Chapter Six The %thics of So(ereignt&

&omponents o! dera&inated 6ati1e

meri&an so1ereignty. It is a pro1isional separation in

We ha1e been taught to look at

meri&an history as a series o! land

##. ssata 2hakur, and

wisdom o! the likes o! >arriet +ubman, 6at +urner, /al&olm Q, and

ad1entures in&lude Jungian, as opposed to Freudian, psy&hoanalysis B!(E(

#01 mish and

meri&a B1(#C. +hese names pro1ide tribal members with the

d1an&ed Liberalism.< /iller and Dose re"e&t the

legible within the dis&ourse o! post&olonial theory.

hands o! the 8.2. geno&idal pra&ti&es mirrors that o!

un&hara&teristi& in the te3tual attitude o! +aiaiake l!red:s dis&ussion o! )anada.

Chapter Seven %+cess )ack

Chapter .ight The *leasures of *arit&

+here is theoreti&al work to be done on the plenitude o! White Bas well as

upon the 1oi&e o! the

Chapter 1ine ,Sa(age- 'egro#ho$ia

s stated in )hapter (, the small &orpus o! 6ati1e

Chapter .ight The leasures of arit&