The Art of Getting Lost
“No doubt there are more and less painful ways of getting lost… But at the very least they all lead one who has left behind the categories of what can be said about society… to the point where what comes back to us from what we say is that no one can see where we’re going.”
– Jacques Rancière
“I don’t know where I’m going, but I know that you can’t get there that way”
– Glauber Rocha recalling a Portugese saying
A tale of getting lost, letting go, setting forth without turning back. ‘A Child Kills himself’ feels like one of the most personal pieces Jacques Rancière has ever written. It does not only come across as a touching account of how his view on Roberto Rossellini’s Europa ‘51 has changed over time, but also of how his fundamental way of thinking has taken shape, much against the grain of the times. Indeed, when he describes the erratic wanderings of Irene, the character played by Ingrid Bergman, he might as well be referring to some of his own experiences. In Europa ‘51, the complacent bourgeois lifestyle of Irene is violently overturned by the suicide of her young child. This traumatic event leads Irene astray through the outskirts of Rome, where she hopes to find some sort of answer to the impassable questions haunting her. Her “voyage to the land of the people” is guided by her friend Andrea, who aims to give Irene’s desperate search meaning by situating it in the framework of Marxist thought: behind every individual agony, he suggests, there is the great social misery. What is hidden needs to be uncovered, what is unfamiliar needs to be explained, what is disordered needs to be cured. But there comes a time when the explanations given by others no longer suffice, when one needs to go elsewhere and see for oneself. That is how Irene’s progress towards (class) consciousness leads her ever further away from the trodden paths where things can supposedly be healed and revealed by the rules of knowledge, further down the borders of the river towards the barren wastelands where she starts nursing a tubercular prostitute, towards the cement factory where she takes the place of a worker and the steps of the church where she finds new faith. Instead of an act of “consciousness”, a conversion takes place. Irene’s own unridden, unplanned exploration turns out to be a deviation that displaces her from the system of explanations and motivations that determines what are the proper rules of conduct, the science of social dynamics and the sound state of mind. In letting go of all chains of causes and effects, knowledge and truth, she becomes a stranger who no longer has a valid place in the layout of paths and traces that others make up to be “reality”, a foreigner out of place and out of reason, lost in the void of uncertainty, in the niente, the nothingness that lingers through the film.
Rancière readily admits that when he first viewed the film during the 1960s, his Althusserian critical expectations were frustrated by Irene’s retreat into religious idealism, which seemed to contradict the first, “realist” half of the film. This part presented itself as a perfect marriage between Marx’ historical materialism that provided the theoretical foundation of the workers’ struggle and the materialism of the relation between bodies and spaces that defines the mise-en-scène. But as the main character ventures from the world of labor and oppression to the spiritual path towards sainthood, the materialist connection is severed. In order to reconcile the two seemingly opposing views, “it then became necessary to say”, writes Rancière, “that the materialism of the mise-en-scène had been diverted by the personal ideology of the director. It is a new version of the old Marxist argument that praised Balzac for revealing the reality of the capitalist social world, even though he was a reactionary.” According to this explanation, Rossellini the materialist filmmaker contradicted Rossellini the Catholic idealist, showing something other than what the latter wanted to say: in her inability to achieve consciousness of the social formations in which she found herself caught, Irene did not find salvation, but utter “madness”. Still not content with this interpretation, it took Rancière 25 years to change his view on the film: more than two decades of working in the archives of the workers’ movements, where he took flight from the Althusserian science of the hidden that he had denounced so fiercely after the events of 1968. “For one who had been invited to look behind things, the break comes from looking to the side instead,” he writes. With that in mind, Irene’s conversion no longer indicates a lack of ”consciousness”, but a departing from it: it does not stem from a revelation, but from a deviation that leads her towards places where she is not supposed to be, where all certainties are put into question. A world without coordinates where nothing is identifiable as such any longer. “Irene bids farewell to this consciousness in the Socratic manner: she lets it go.” This is the Socratic atopia that characterizes Irene’s wanderings: a being out of place that begins in an act of trust. Trust in what we see, in what lays before us and the uncertain paths that lead towards it.
It is an idea that runs through all of Rancière’s work, ever since he parted with Althusser, his former teacher: the denunciation of all teleologies of “coming-to-consciousness”, which are always based on a certain distribution of sense: there are some who need to speak for others who know not what they do, because they know not how to see. Such is the position of Andrea, Irene’s communist guide: he is there to point out what is to be revealed, to make knowledge out of what others do not know. It is a position of basic mistrust: truth can only be found behind appearances, so they say. But in the process of uncovering, the truth only gets reduced to the certainty of place, the only “right” place, the place of knowing. According to Rancière however, “the problem is not that of knowing what one does… The problem is to think about what one does, to remember oneself… ” Remembering oneself by becoming foreigner, by refusing the dominant interpretative schema’s that connect sense with sense: here is the fundamental idea that underlies Rancière’s thinking. The question is not one of unveiling, he writes, but of “encircling”. That is what Irene’s gaze does: an interminable encircling that unlocks the settled system of places excluding all forms of atopia, that undoes the certainty of social identities by exceeding everything that they are supposed to be one with. It is a matter of establishing a logic of “heterology”, which is also a logic of the other: one that denies given identities that pin down people to certain names, relations, times and places; one that disturbs the fabric of the sensible sustained by the dominant network of meanings, one that unsettles and undermines the system of coordinates that determines where and what we are supposed to be. It is the foreigner’s gaze that puts us in touch with the world, not the gaze of those who decide to stay on safe grounds, who stopped looking, who cease to put their trust in what they see and feel. Irene, like Rancière, knows what to respond to those who claim to know what is meaningful and worthwhile and what isn’t: there is something else to be done, something that is not accomplished, and will never be. Something that defies the reasoning behind the choices we all have to make at one time or another, we who are torn between fragile sensitivity and common sensibility, passionate longing and prudent sustaining, between knowing and unknowing, holding on and letting go.
About this entry
You’re currently reading “The Art of Getting Lost,” an entry on diagonal thoughts
- 10.02.13 / 5pm
- Figures of Dissent