In a sense, capitalism has haunted all forms of society, but it haunts them as their terrifying nightmare, it is the dread they feel of a flow that would elude their codes.
Deleuze & Guattari, Anti-Oedipus, 1983:140
It would not be hard to argue that Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari remain faithful, in Jacques Derrida’s words, ‘to a certain spirit of Marxism’ in their 1972 book Anti-Oedipus (AO). Derrida himself might have found a clue as to which spirit (there is more than one of them) in the sheer number of hauntings in the text – eleven distinct appearances of the verb hanter (in both active and passive forms), throughout the book – since much of the inspiration behind Derrida’s own text, Specters of Marx (SM), comes from Marx’s own ‘obsession’ with ghosts, spirits and spectres (SM 132). The spirit of Marx-as-spectrologist unites the two halves of Derrida’s text, which switches to an assessment of ‘the spectral’ in Marx’s work, from an initial mediation on Marx-as-ghost, following the supposed ‘death’ of Marxism: the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the ‘failure’ of the ‘Socialist experiment’, and the ‘End of History’, as announced by Francis Fukuyama.
While SM discusses the spectral in general, the spectres that haunt AO are intrinsically linked to the spectre of Marx-as-spectrologist. It is within the fundamentally anachronistic category of the spectral that I propose to use Derrida’s text, written for a conference in 1993 on the title ‘Whither Marxism?’, as a point of departure to address Deleuze’s and Guattari’s 1972 book. In other words, we needn’t wait for Marx’s death to be announced so triumphantly in 1989, in order to start hunting his ghosts. ‘Haunting is historical’ for Derrida, but anachronistic, exhibiting its own ‘hauntology’, which ‘[harbors] within itself … eschatology and teleology themselves’ (SM 3, 28). As ‘revenant’, the spectre ‘begins by coming back’; the ‘event’ of haunting is described thus:
Each time it is the event itself, a first time is a last time. … Staging for the end of history. (SM 10)
More than colors and forms, it is sounds and their arrangements that fashion societies. With noise is born disorder and its opposite: the world. With music is born power and its opposite: subversion.
Among birds a tool for marking territorial boundaries, noise is inscribed from the start with the panoply of power. Equivalent to the articulation of a space, it indicates the limits of a territory and the way to make oneself heard within it.
Jacques Attali, Noise: The Political Economy of Music
Jacques Attali’s treatise on the ‘political economy’ of music discusses sound as something which can not only be ordered, but also has the power to order. As with all manifestations of power and order, both these qualities are essentially political. In approaching an ‘exploration’ as open-ended as this, I’ve tried to limit the critical tools at my disposal; in the case of this essay, it will be through a kind of ‘sensory deprivation’. Attali’s ideas on the relation between sound, order and politics should go some way to introducing my decision to focus this exploration of the politics of the African city in cinema within an ‘aural field’.
Sound and Order in the Cinematic City
I want to start by outlining some of the ways in which sound is implicated politically in notions of order, both as a tool of the filmmaker and within the diegesis of the film (and its representation of the (African) city). The ordering of images by a filmmaker can be understood as a political act: as the director Wim Wenders says, ‘the most political decision you make is where you direct people’s eyes’. Sound is implicated in this process too. This is primarily through what theorist Michel Chion, in his extensive work on film sound, calls added value – ‘a sensory, informational, semantic, narrative, structural, or expressive value that a sound heard in a scene leads us to project onto the image, so as to create the impression that we see in the image what in reality we are audio-viewing’. Maintain Chion’s vocabulary, the use of added value can be integral in temporal phrasing (or the ordering of narrative time) and audiovisual scenography (or the ordering of imaginary filmic space). Continue reading
Aesthetic approaches have begun an important process of broadening our understanding of world politics beyond a relatively narrow academic discipline that has come to entrench many of the political problems it seemingly seeks to address and solve.
Roland Bleiker, Aesthetics and World Politics, p.19
With reference to Roland Bleiker’s quotation, this essay will focus on one specific ‘aesthetic approach’ – Fredric Jameson’s concept of ‘cognitive mapping’. I will discuss its capacity for ‘broadening our understanding of world politics’ as a strategy of ‘Marxist aesthetics’, responding to the cultural condition of late capitalism (or ‘postmodernism’). For Marxists such as Jameson and myself, capitalism continues to constitute a ‘world system’. However, since the ‘postmodern’ transformation of capitalist production into its late or ‘multinational’ stage – accompanied, according to Jameson, by a new form of spatiality ‘in which the depth and materiality of the real world seems to implode into an endlessly differentiating play of affective surfaces’ – it has become increasingly difficult for us to ‘map the great global, multinational and de- centered communicational network in which we find ourselves caught as individual subjects’.  This prevents us from orientating ourselves as political subjects within this world system, and achieving ‘class consciousness’. I thereby mean to apply a Marxist interpretation to Bleiker’s problematic of the ‘narrow academic discipline’ of world politics, considering Jameson’s statement that ‘the method of [liberal-pluralist academic practice]…consists of separating reality into airtight compartments…so that the full implication of any problem can never come into view’. The ‘narrow’ political science which Bleiker describes can be interpreted then as a symptom of postmodern ‘fragmentation’ – the exacerbated inability to conceive of global capitalism as a ‘totality’ – making the achievement of class consciousness (still vital for any progressive socialist change) all the more challenging. In this way, the main political problem which it ‘entrenches’ is its very ‘narrowness’.
In order to combat these tendencies, Jameson suggests that we need to ‘grow new conceptual organs’, and he proposes the ‘aesthetic-pedagogical practice’ of cognitive mapping as the primary solution. I will introduce this aesthetic concept in relation to some of the recent ‘network art’, which Brian Holmes has identified as engaging with Jameson’s aesthetic in its most immediate sense. Then – by focusing on Tyson Lewis’s understanding of cognitive mapping as a response to ‘a crisis of Marxist pedagogy’ – I will look at two very recent examples which, I believe, go further towards satisfying both Jameson’s and Bleiker’s designation for such an approach: Patrick Keiller’s ‘The Robinson Institute’ at the Tate Britain in 2012, and Christoph Büchel’s ‘Piccadilly Community Centre’ at Hauser and Wirth in 2011. Continue reading