The Politics of Representation: Brecht and the Media

Author(s): Marc Silberman

Source: Theatre Journal, Vol. 39, No. 4, Distancing Brecht (Dec., 1987), pp. 448-460
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3208247 .
Accessed: 04/11/2014 17:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Theatre Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.144.16.134 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:37:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Politics of Representation:
Brechtand the Media

Marc Silberman

In an unfinishedand unpublishedsatiricalsketchwrittenin the1950s,Brechtpro-

jectshimselfforward intothe1990sand describesthenew society,bathedin thecon-
stantsound of radio musicand satisfiedwitha literature
thatexhaustsitselfin pure
He
repetition. continues:

had been able to canceltravelentirely

The authorities sincetelevisionnow showed
everythingthat interesteddelegations.... By means of raisingproductivity and
volunteerism
as wellas by increasing it was possibleto limitthenumber
efficiency, of
workersneeded.Atlast,about99% ofthepopulation coulddevoteitself
totherealgoalof
life,to thefillingout of forms.x

The thrustof this sarcasticsketchwas aimed in part at Brecht'sdisappointments

associatedwiththeJune1953 workers'strikesin East Berlinagainstthegovernment
policiesof forcedsocialization.2It also reflectsBrecht'sexasperationat theoccasion-
ally bitter
dispute concerning the role of his theatrepracticein SocialistRealismand
the attendantsuspicionthathe was a formalist in disguise.3

Today, as we approachthe1990sand thesecontroversies have takenon theirown

specific,historicalmeaning,Brecht'sdystopiagivespause forotherreasons.Here we

Marc Silberman is AssociateProfessor

ofGermanat theUniversityof Texas,San Antonio.He haspublishedar-
ticlesand booksoncontemporary Germanliterature
andfilmas wellas translated
playsbyHeinerMiller. He edited
thejournalCommunications oftheInternational BrechtSociety
from1983-86 and is currently
on theEditorial
Boardof theBrecht Yearbook.

An earlier,shorterversionof thisessay was firstpresentedin December1986, at the SeventhSym-

posium of the InternationalBrechtSocietyin Hong Kong.
1BertoltBrechtArchiv,Mappe 95, Blatt 7-8. I want to thankDr. GerhardSeidel, Directorof the
Archiv,forgivingme access to thismaterialand BarbaraBrecht-Schall forpermissionto quote it in this
essay.
2On Brecht'sresponseto theeventsofJune1953, see Ronald Speirs,"Brechtin theGermanDemocratic
Republic,"in BertoltBrechtin Perspective,ed. Graham Bartramand AnthonyWaine (London/New
York: Longman,1982), 175-89.
3For details on Brecht'sinvolvementin the formalismdebates of the early 1950s-a particularly
dogmaticrehashingof the Brecht-Luckacsopposition duringthe 1930s, see Klaus Valker, Brecht:A
Biography,trans.JohnNovell (New York: Seabury,1978), 335-43, as well as JohnWillett,Brechtin
Context(London/NewYork: Methuen,1984), 199-204.

448

This content downloaded from 193.144.16.134 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:37:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
449 / POLITICSOF REPRESENTATION

finda remarkably prescient formulationofwhatin recentyearshas cometo be known

as the"postmodern condition."AlthoughBrecht'sterminology soundsantiquated,he
is characterizing that post-industrial, post-production societyof simulacrawhere
history has ended, spatial distancehas disappeared, and the subjecthas withered
away "filling out forms." The impact that technology will have on the realmof ex-
periencethrough the media's and
uninterrupted repetitive programming is centralto
Brecht's vision. That Brecht mentions the televisionmedium specifically- what he
calls "wirelessseeing"(Sehfunk,misspelledin theoriginalmanuscript as Seefunk)- is
noteworthy. It is one of thefewpassageswherehe makesreference to an innovative
technology that was in
still itsinfancyin the early1950s. Yet Brechtalreadyperceived
television'slatentpossibilityto become in the futurethe dominantmode for cir-
culatingculturalimagery.As themajorsourceforshowingmeaning,television,in this
sketch,becomesthe substitute forimagination.It displacesotherrealmsof activity
and experienceand thus,ultimately, ofpoliticalintervention.Takingup thiscue from
Brecht,theidea thattechnologicalchangeshave a massivestakein constituting and
interpreting the real forus, we can focusour attention
on the impact of the electronic
media.
Any discourseabout therealand therelationships ofpowerwhichgovernit cannot
escape an examinationof how we represent "reality"and how thoserepresentations
constitutethatveryreality.It has become a convenientand all too facileclicheto
writeofftheelectronicmedia,televisionin particular,as formsofstandardizedenter-
tainment. As a result,we failto investigate
theconditionsunderwhichtechnology can
transforminformationas well as entertainment into an indeterminate form of
representation. This issue points,then,to the question: what does the politicsof
representation meanin theculturalspheretoday?In whatfollows,I wantto sketcha
briefhistoryof representation, or moreprecisely,a politicalphenomenologyof the
image,usingBrecht'sreflections on mimesisas pointofdepartureand as provocation.
His premise- thattheimageis a historically constitutedsign- draws on his theatre
experienceas well as his encounters withothermediasuchas radio and film.This,in
turn,will lead to a considerationof some theoreticalmodelswhichsuggesthow or
why television,as a new technology,shiftsthe representational mode of the real.
Finally,by inserting thisinquirybetweentheformaland thepolitical,at thatpoint
where the formalbeginsto collapse into the political,I hope to demonstratethat
displacingBrecht'slessonsto thenew mediumof televisionimageryand representa-
tionis itselfa productiveactivityin the Brechtiansenseof a materialistpractice.
In theearly1930s Brechtbecame closelyinvolvedin two filmprojects,the Pabst
productionof The Threepenny Opera in 1930 and thecollectiveproductionof Kuhle
Wampe(WhitherGermany?)in 1931-32. In his lengthyessay The ThreepennyTrial
and in The ThreepennyNovel (both 1931) Brechtpresentsa classicexampleof "re-
functioning"
(Umfunktionierung) to exposetherevolutionary energyin thedialectical
contradictions
of thecapitalistprocess.4This is, in fact,Brecht'smostextendedand

4BertoltBrecht,Der Dreigroschenprozess.
Ein soziologischesExperiment,in Schriftenzur Literatur
und Kunst (Frankfurt/M.:Suhrkamp,1964), 1:141-234 (especiallyPart III, "Kritikder Vorstellungen,"
164-220); and BertoltBrecht,Dreigroschenroman,in GesammelteWerke (Frankfurt/M.:Suhrkamp,
1967), VI, 2:731-1165.

This content downloaded from 193.144.16.134 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:37:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
450 / 1987
TJ,December

coherentanalysisof thefilmmedium'simpacton theway artrepresents realityand

theway thereaderor spectatorsees. In The ThreepennyTrialthereis an oftenquoted
passage in whichBrechtpointsto one of thosehistoricaljunctureswheretechnology
a qualitativechangein therepresentation
effects and perceptionof reality.He is refer-
ringto the photographicimage as a formof mimesis:

Thesituationhasbecomeso complicated ofreality"

thata simple"reproduction saysless
thaneversomething A photograph
aboutthatreality. oftheKruppFactory oroftheelec-
AEGyieldsalmostnothing
tricalconglomerate abouttheseinstitutions.
Theactualreality
hasslidintothefunctional.5
In this passage Brecht'sjugglingof reality- "reproductionof reality"and actual
reality- recordstheslippageintowhat he refersto as a new functionalism.
He pro-
poses that the technologicaladvance of capitalismhas insertedmore and more
machinesor mechanicalprocessesbetweentherealand humanperceptionof thereal.
Duringthe same period Brechtwrotea numberof essays and fragments on the
radio, referred to now as his "radio theory,"in which he began to elaboratesome fun-
damentalideas about media technologyas an apparatus. Neitherprogressiveor
regressive in itself,thebroadcastmediumis viewedby Brechtas an activityin a social
and institutional framework.Althoughthe medium'stechnologycould potentially
operate as a democratic,political,public organ, bourgeoissocietyuses the mass
mediumto isolateand passifythelistener."The technologicalapparatusof thenew
mediaproducesa social, or socialized,realitycorresponding to thealienatedformsof
labor in capitalistsociety,the"actualreality"in Brecht'swordsin theabove text.The
photographicimage,therefore, is not an adequate representation of thevisiblebut a
merereproduction of thesurface.Brechtgoes on to discussrepresentation as a tran-
sitiveprocess necessitating new means to make visible the functionswhich insert
themselvesbetweenreal thingsand imagesof things.In thisway thealienationand
objectification hiddenby thesurface,by the"reproduction ofreality,"can be exposed.
Brecht'sdistinction,of course, has nothingto do with the Platonic notionsof
essence and appearancebut ratherwith the critiqueof a traditionaldefinitionof
mimesisin whichtheimageis understoodto be an autonomousprojectionof reality.
By transforming the real into an image, an originalcorrespondenceis established
whichin turnbecomesa realityby virtueof itsverisimilitude. be-
This relationship
determined
tweenthe sign and the real is a historically way of seeingaccordingto
Brecht,and othershave shown subsequentlyhow it is groundedin themomentous
discoveryof perspectivalrepresentation.7 The introductionof a singular,centered
pointofperspectiveoutsidetheimageby theFlorentine paintersAlberti,Brunelleschi,
and della Francescain the fifteenth centurysignaledan end to the dynamismof

5 Brecht,Schriften zur Literaturund Kunst,I:171-172 (translationmine). The originalGermanreads:

"Die Lage wird dadurch so kompliziert,dass wenigerdenn je eine einfache'Wiedergabeder Realitit'
etwas fiberdie RealitAtaussagt. Eine Photographieder Kruppwerkeoder derAEG ergibtbeinahenichts
uiberdiese Institute.Die eigentlicheRealittitist in die Funktionalegerutscht."
6 BertoltBrecht,
Schriften zur Literaturund Kunst,I:119-40. Cf. also PeterGrothand ManfredVoigts,
"Die Entwicklungder Brechtschen Radiotheorie1927-1932,"Brecht-Jahrbuch 12 (1976): 9-42.
7 Cf. forexample,JohnBerger,Ways of Seeing (Middlesex:Penguin,1972), especiallyChapter
5.

This content downloaded from 193.144.16.134 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:37:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
451 / POLITICSOF REPRESENTATION

medieval representationand the beginningof a monocular constructionthat

dominatedWesternvisual perceptionforfourcenturies,untilthe discoveryof the
photograph and Cezanne's revolutionin painting. The rigid, two-dimensional
representation of space organizestheangle of visionalong an axis and therebycon-
stitutesa privilegedspot forthespectator'seye. The viewingsubjectis "situated"by
thesymmetrical convergence of thelinesoffocusand light,and converselytheillusion
ofspace is foundedon thisunitary,centeredidentificationof thespectator.Somewhat
later,in the seventeenth century,Baroque painting,and even moreso the Baroque
theatre,substituted forthisillusionof space theexploitationof theillusionof move-
ment.In bothcases, however,theillusionderivesfromthemanipulationof thesign,
notthereal.Thus thetraditional definition
ofmimesisbased on verisimilitudesustains
thedifference betweenimageand real because it postulatesa centeredreferent as the
viewingsubject,namely,theindividualcitizenin bourgeoissociety.
When Brechtassertsthatrealityhas slippedintotherealmof functions, he means,
among other things,that the image has lost itsreferential
quality. This is not a result
of photography,but photographyacceleratesthe changeand signalsthe onset of a
new representational process.Althoughphotographicrealismalso is a formof pic-
tatorialrepresentation, it introducestwo new aspects:a machine,thecamera,inserts
itselfbetweentheobjectand theimage,and theimageis mechanicallyreproducible.
Consequentlythedifference betweentheoriginaland theimagediminishes moreand
more. Likewisethecinema:withtheadditionof theillusionof movement,of narra-
tion,and laterof sound, color,variablescreensize, etc., thereproductive qualityof
photographic realism is further reinforced. The latenttautology inherent in mimesis,
thetendencytoward"pure"identity alreadypresentin thephotograph,reachesa point
of culminationin thecinema.Representation of therealbecomesa processofcopying
thereal,and thesecopiesare no longera mediatedrealityforthespectatorbutassume
a value as thereal in itself.Here Brechtfindsboth theevidenceand theproofforthe
principleof distancingthatwill come to definehisaesthetics.The camera'soperation
of registeringphysical reality- objects and gesturesrather than emotions and
psychology- in other words, its Von-Aussen-Sehen(seeing from the outside)
becomesthecornerstone of an aestheticsofmakingvisible,das Sichtbarmachen. This
change in the mode of production is the shiftwhich, forWalter Benjamin, accounts
for the disintegration of aura. Aura is no longerattachedto the photographicor
cinematicimageas a materialvalue, as was thecase in painting,but to theprocess,to
thefunctioning of thereproduction.Further,Brechtrecognizesthespecificity of the
cinemain the mechanizedprocessof its productionand exhibition,in its power to
make art intoa commodity,an insightwhich,soon after,would informBenjamin's
seminal texton a modernisttheoryof representation.8 Finally,in the cinema the
perception of the a
image undergoes disintegration of visual perspectivewith the
levelling of difference between image and original. The privileged,centeredsite of
perspectivein post-Renaissancerepresentational formswas guaranteedby a stable
representational relationship betweenthesignand thereal in thebeliefthatthesign's

8
Walter Benjamin,"Das Kunstwerkim ZeitalterseinertechnischenReproduzierbarkeit,"
in Gesam-
melteSchriften(Frankfurt/M.:Suhrkamp,1974), I, 2:435-508 (two versions).

This content downloaded from 193.144.16.134 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:37:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
452 / 1987
TI, December

referentcontaineda deepersense. With the collapse of referentiality

thiscentered
is
perspective destroyed, and theworldbecomes representablein multiplesegments,
realizedmostfullyin thefragmentationof thecinematicmontage.
Brecht'semphasison thehistoricalnatureof representational proceduresis specific
to histhinking on realismas a setof conventions whichpurport portraythereal. In
to
short,for Brechtthereis no Realism any essentialistsense but ratherrealisms,
in
modesofrepresentation thatevolvewiththerealand thatat thesame timeplaya role
in transforming reality.Needless to say, underlying such ideas is a realistepistemol-
ogy thatpositsa correspondence between real and its representations
the as well as
betweenknowledge and image. In this sense, Brecht's conviction thata photograph
can no longergrasprealityas appearancerelatesto a moregeneraldisintegration of
in
social referentiality: politics, religion,philosophy, even in science. His own
responsewas to devisea seriesof techniquesthatcan makevisibletheartifice of real-
ity as construction.The extreme separation of the sign'ssignifier from its signified
producestheVerfremdungseffekt, thedistancing whichtransforms perceptionor spec-
tatorshipintoa new quality.This is thepointwhereBrecht'stheoryof realismcon-
vergeswiththeinterests of theavant-garde.That itsemergenceaftertheturnof the
centurycoincides with the culturaldominanceof the photographand its extended
form,themovingpicture thecinema,is no accident.9But contraryto Brecht,the
in
avant-gardetendsto justifyitselfand generateitsenergyas a protestagainstthecom-
modification of art,in particularof imagingin popularculturemade possibleby the
technologies mass reproduction.
of This is not, of course,a rearguardactionon the
partof theavant-garde to re-establish theautonomyof thereal but rathera seriesof
attemptsto radicalize that which is new in the commodityform:its indifference to
value or aura. Cubism, expressionism, dada, surrealism, and the string of other
movementsinto the 1960s try to account in one way or anotherfor the new
mechanicalprocessesin therepresentation of thereal. Avant-gardeartextractsfrom
thecollapseofreferentiality, from the alienation ofindifference, a wholearsenalofef-
fects:chaos, strangeness, surprise,agitation,transitoriness, self-destruction,irreality,
and by doingso it strivesto sustainitsown difference, to assertitsown value in the
veryface of indifference. The fetishization of emptinessand disappearance- most
oftenexecutedby means of thenon-narrative and non-representational practicesso
characteristicof theavant-garde - setsit off,on theone hand, againstmass culture,
perceivedas theculturalequivalentof capitalism,and on theotherhand,againstthe
kindof engagementBrechtsoughtin his pursuitof pleasureand popularity.
In theongoingdiscussionconcerning modernism and theavant-gardeBrecht'sprac-
tical and theoreticalcontributionsto the discourseon realismcomprisenot only a
historicalinterventionbut also a crucialmomentin theself-understanding of a later
generationof artistsand culturalcriticsin the1960sand 1970s. Seekingnew answers
to thequestion"whatis politicalart7,"theydiscoveredin Brecht'swritinga modelfor
linkingculturalproductionto social change.As textualproductionand readingen-
counteredthe broaderdiscussionsfirstof structuralism, thenof psychoanalysis,a
clear polaritycame to be establishedbetweentwo aestheticpositions.On the one

Suhrkamp,1974), especially123ff.
9Cf. PeterBiirger,Theorieder Avantgarde(Frankfurt/M.:

This content downloaded from 193.144.16.134 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:37:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
453 / POLITICSOF REPRESENTATION

hand, the illusionisttextis postulatedas thatwhichhidesits own construction and

assumesa unified,passivesubjectas reader.On theother,thedispersedor ruptured
textproducesmeaningby subvertingillusionand the unityof the readerthrough
deconstructive, distancingprocedures.ObviouslyBrechtwas identified withthesec-
ond mode. Yet a curioustransformation setsin here.The deconstructive
textseeksits
radical politics formallyin its anti-illusionisttextual practice, assuming that
capitalism'sprimaryformof symbolicexpressionis mimetic.Brecht'sdistancingef-
fects,meanwhile,become identified as formaltechniquesforsuspendingmeaningin
an effortto counteractwhatis perceivedas theall-too-powerful elaborationof mean-
ingsin the mass-culture sphere,especially in television.10
It did nottakelongbeforethisformaldualismrevealeditscontradictions, precisely
in its Brechtianpose. In a discussionon Brechtand thecinemaorganizedin 1975 by
theBritishfilmjournalScreen,thequestionwas raisedtangentially about televisionas
an epic formwith its Brechtiandevices of titles,repetition,directaddress,mixing
genres,etc.:
One ofthestriking
things abouttelevisionis thatat a veryformal levelitseemsextraor-
dinarily all thetime:it'sconstantly
"Brechtian" interrupted, inthecommercial
particularly
channels area wholeseriesofconventions
wherethere forhandling theadvertising
breaks
whichthenstructure
theplayandcanbe seeninalmostanyAmerican dramaseries.There
areconventions
whichhavebeendeveloped inrelation to theserial,whichimposes "epic"
formssimplybecauseitappearsat weeklyintervals: itcannotmaintain theunityoftime
whichis oneoftheessences ofnon-epic orempathetic theatre."1
No satisfactory explanationemergedfromthisdiscussionexceptthe assertionthat
televisionis epic in formbut not Brechtianin aim. The FrenchfilmcriticNo6l Burch
came to a similarconclusionseveralyearslater,afterhisexposureto Americantelevi-
sion: "It is beginningto appear to me today thatUnitedStatestelevision,moread-
vancedin thisrespectthanany other,save perhapsthatofJapan,mobilizesa number
of strategies whose cumulativeeffectis to inducea certaindisengagement, a certain
feeling that what we see - no matterwhatitis - does notreallycount.Distancing,in
short,has been co-opted."12 Burchthenadvises a strongerrealismor "liveness"in
orderto breaktheempatheticbond of fascinationhe sees visitedupon thetelevision
spectator.Here Brecht'saestheticsof "makingvisible"fallspreyto transparence: the
distancebetweenobjectand viewer,therealitydeficiency, becomesconventionaland
invisible;or to putitanotherway, Verfremdung becomesone moreornamental pillar
in thearchitecture of thebourgeoisstage.Withthereificationof thesocial- a central
aspectin Brecht'sthinking, forexample,in theGestus- Brecht'sepic theatretakeson
a metaphysicalqualityand resultsin a blockageof thepoliticalcontent.

10 These positionshave been critically

elaboratedat greaterlengthby Sylvia Harvey,"Whose Brecht?
Memoriesfor the Eighties,"Screen 23:1 (May-June,1982)- 45-60. In thiscontext,Dana Polan's essay
"The Politicsof a BrechtianAesthetics"in Polan, The PoliticalLanguage of Filmand theAvant-garde
(Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1985): 79-99, presentsa sophisticatedresponse to the formalist
approach towardBrecht.
11InScreen16:4 (Winter1975-76), fromthe discussion(Ben Brewster):96.
12Noil Burch,"Narrative/Diegesis - Thresholds,Limits,"Screen23:2 1982): 32.
(July-August

This content downloaded from 193.144.16.134 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:37:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
454 / 1987
TI, December

How can representation be epic but not Brechtian?How can distanciationbe co-
opted?While thesequestionsoffera means of focusingattentionon theimpasseof
Brechtiantheory,at thesame timetheformulation itselfpreventsconsideration of the
real issue here: how imagesproduceknowledgeabout "reality"underspecificand
changinghistoricalconditions.In thehistoricalevolutionof representation thetelevi-
sion or video is botha regressionand a refinementcomparedto cinematicrepresenta-
tion.As movingpictures,theysharethenatureof theshortvisual impressionwhich
controlsthespectator'sgaze and sustainsthespectator'simmobility, in contrastto the
photographwhichallows thespectatorto controlthedurationof thegaze. Although
theybothpartakeof photographic realism,thetelevisionimagepushesreproduction
to a new extreme.Withthetotalloss of referentiality theimageis drainedof meaning
so thateveryimageallows theillusionof immediacy,ofuncontrolled and unmediated
reality.Surpassingthe "photographic" or constructed effectof the cinema,the tele-
visionimagehas thedocumentary qualityofa mirror:itprojectstowardthespectator
an imageofrealitywhilethespectatorprojectstheselfontothetelevisionimage.This
co-presenceand intimacyof televisioncultureis one of itsmoststriking featuresand
has furtherimplications.Television'spower lies not only in its demographicor
sociologicaldominationin theeverydaylifeof millionsof people- its role as mass
medium- but also in itsdouble projection.The televisionscreenis a tabula rasa for
theimagination of thebroadcaster/producer/capital interestsas wellas ofthespecta-
tor.Thus, to paraphrasethetraditional Marxistwisdomon ideology- thatdominant
imagesare theimagesof thosewho dominate- is onlypartiallytrue.Whattelevision
is, is not what it shows,and whatit showshas no necessaryor causal social or ideo-
logicaleffect.Rather,as a projectionplane,televisionis neutral;itreflectstheimageof
theimaginationand as such theculturaland historicaldistortions circulatingin soci-
etyin general.
This comes close to what Brechtpredictedin his fantasy,wheretelevisionwould
show all, thusdisplacingexperience.And curiously,theverydistancingtechniques
Brechtinstrumentalized againstbourgeoistheatrehabitsseem to have become in a
new historicalcontextand witha new media technologypartof theveryproblem.
Televisionhas incorporated themintoa "flow"ofimages,programs,series,and events
whose fundamental organizationalunitis thesegment;and theseriesof segmentsis
connectednot causally but successively.13 Whereasthe cinema,with its darkened
theatre,encouragesscopophiliathroughthe spectator'srapt concentrationon the
screen,televisionhas habituatedthespectatorby meansof thesegmentto distraction
and dispersal,an etiquettewhichBrechtsoughtforthetheatre.It is oftenallegedthat
forthisreason, television,contraryto the cinema,prioritizesthe sound track(i.e.,
dialogand music)overtheimagetrack,thatitis soundwhichguaranteesthecontinu-
ityof flowto whichtheimageis subordinate.One can argue,however,thatthisis
merelya historicallag in theadvancementof televisiontechnologywhichhas already
been developed, even if not yet widely implemented.The impoverishedimages

130n televisionflow, cf. Raymond Williams, Television (New York: Shocken, 1974), especially
Chapter4; on thesegment,cf.JohnEllis,VisibleFictions:Cinema, Television,Video (London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul, 1982), 119ff.

This content downloaded from 193.144.16.134 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:37:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
455 / POLITICSOF REPRESENTATION

(dominatedby mediumshotsand close-ups,frontalperspectiveand balanced com-

position),theexcessiveacting,thelimiteddepthoffieldcan be ascribedto television's
historicalantecedentin radiobroadcastingas wellas to thesmallscreenand theas yet
poor imageresolutionof electronicimpulses.
Not surprisingly themosthighlydevelopedformof televisualstyleis to be foundin
televisionadvertising.Commercialsmanifestthemediumin and of itself,usingall its
sensorypotentialforsellingtheveryidea of commodityconsumption.Theycombine
quintessentially television'smodes of representation and address: short, intense,
precise,diverse,and consumer-oriented. One could cite, for instance,the Brooke
Shieldsseriesof commercialsforCalvin Kleinjeans or theMichaelJacksoncommer-
cial forPesi Cola. These segmentscompriseno morethansignswhichfunction solely
on the connotativelevel. The producthas recededbehindthe shinysurfaceof the
images;theyno longer"represent," in thetransitivesenseof bondingthesignifier to
thesignified. Whereasthephotographicimagewas a deceptivesubstitute forthelost
unityofthesign,simulating and relationwithitsredundantperspectives
referentiality
and realism,televisionachievesthedissolutionof thesignifierfromthesignified in its
capacityto mirrorthewishesand desiresof itspublic.14Televisioncommercials,the
epitomeof narcissisticconsumerism,best exemplify,then,the medium'stendency
towardself-absorption, and self-sufficiency.
self-referentiality, This, in turn,is to a
greatextentthesourcefortelevision'sfascinationamongits spectators.
Underlying Brecht'srejectionof thephotograph's abilityto "reproducereality"is his
assumption that the real does exist and can be known. Its functionscan be appre-
hendedthroughsymbolicdiscourse.If televisionimageryhas shiftedthecoordinates
ofrepresentation so thatthesignis liberatedfromthereal,removingan entirereferen-
tial term,then re-production has ceased to be the issue. There is nothingto re-
to
produce, "giveagain" (as the Germanword Wiedergabeof theoriginalimplies)in
theself-enclosedsystem of televisual
imagery.Thissuggeststhatthefundamental real-
ist epistemology has been completelyexhaustedin thetelevisionsphere,thatknowl-
edge about "reality"is not necessarilylinkedto therepresentation of thatreality.
In orderto reflecton this impassein Brecht'sown theoreticalmodel, it will be
helpfulto considerseveralothermodelsculturalcriticshave generatedto describethis
televisualworldas well as thestrategies theyhave projectedforharnassingitspoten-
tial. Marshall McLuhan's theoryof the global village electronically connectedby
televisionsetswas one of thefirstand mostimpressive attemptsto characterizemedia
technologyas a productivesocial force.15 Tracingthehistoricaldevelopmentof com-
municationsfromthe phoneticalphabetthroughthe discoveryof movable typeto
radio, film,and television- one could extendthisprogression withinteractivecable

14It should be obvious thatI am referring

hereto thedominantmode of commercialAmericantele-
vision,not to state-ownedor publicbroadcastingnetworks.Insofaras everysignifyingsystemis histori-
cally and culturallydetermined,this suggestsa limitedapplication of the model I am proposing.
Nonetheless,I want to emphasizethattelevisionis a highlyadaptable medium,and I suspectthatthe
mirroreffectfunctionsequally well forthe respectivespectatorwhile watching,say, theeveningnews
broadcaston Americanor Soviet television.
15sMarshallMcLuhan, Understanding Media (New York: McGraw-Hill,1964).

This content downloaded from 193.144.16.134 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:37:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
456 / TI, December
1987

television,satellitedisks,and computerbulletinboards- McLuhan discernsan ever

denserspatio-temporal networkof interpersonalrelations,what he calls "planetary
communication." His deliriousoptimismis completelyblind,of course,to thesocial
formand effects of themedium.The revolutionin communications technology,for
whichMcLuhanfoundtheapt equation"themediumis themessage,"is reducedto a
structural
changeindependent fromthecontentand theformof itsexpression.
TheodorAdornopresentsanothermodelofmediaanalysiswhichregardstelevision
as producingand managingfalseconsciousness,thatis, a modelin whichthecontent
correspondsto theform.Adornoaddressestelevisionin onlytwo articles,bothwrit-
tenin theearly1950s,and theycontinuehis moregeneralcritiqueof theculturein-
dustryby analyzingthe specificityof the new medium.16 The notion of culture
industrystressestelevisionas a highlysophisticatedinstrument of ideologicalco-
optation where the apparatus can tolerateand absorb criticism.
Just as radio, film,
magazines, and comic books are manifestations of themanipulatory power of mass
cultureproducts,so televisiontoo elaboratesideologyand servesto passifythespec-
tator. The complex equation of television'saffirmative characterwith a view of
capitalism thatposits the only possibilityof contradiction or negationoutsideof it
leads Adorno to valorize the "otherness" of highculturein contradistinction to the
levellingofdifferencein massculture.In thisrespecthe shareswiththeavant-gardean
over-estimation of thetransformative functionof (high)art. Buthis critiquealso ex-
tends Brecht'sconclusionsabout the transparency of the photographto the new
medium.Television,in his view, does not qualitativelychangebut quantitatively
diminishes theboundarybetweenrealityand thereal: "The morecompletetheworld
as appearance, the more impenetrablethe appearance of ideology."17Adorno
localizestheideologicalfunctionof televisionin thecontentas wellas in theaesthetic
formof its messages.As a resulthe equates thesocial (mass deception)withtextual
practices(mimeticrepresentation, narrative),whereasin factthesepracticesare notin
the textbut relationalstrategiesbetweentext(sign)and spectatorand betweentext
(sign)and history.18
In a provocative combinationof McLuhan's technologicalexhilirationand
Adorno'scritiqueof therepressivetolerancegeneratedby theconsciousnessindustry,
Hans Magnus Enzensberger proposesan optimistic and offensive foreman-
strategy

16TheodorW. Adorno, "Prolog zum Fernsehn"and "Fernsehenals Ideologie," in Eingriffe:Neun

kritischeModelle (Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp,1963), 69-80 and 81-98. These two essayswerewrittenin
1952-53 in theUnitedStatesforthe Hacker Instituteand "rediscovered" in Germanyin theearly1960s
withthegrowinginterestin theculturalcriticismof theFrankfurt School. Portionsofboth articleswere
incorporatedin Englishinto"How to Look at Television,"in Quarterlyof Film,Radio and Television8
(1954): 213-35, and reprintedas "Televisionand the Patternsof Mass Culture,"in Mass Culture,ed.
B. Rosenbergand D. White(Glencoe: FreePress, 1957).
17Adorno,"Prologzum Fernsehen,"71.
18I would address the same critiqueat semiologicalinvestigations.There the emphasisis on the ar-
ticulatorycategoriesand criteriaof image productionas controlledby the text.The classic theoretical
foundationsare to be foundin Roland Barthes,"Elementsde s6miologie,"Le Degre z&rode 1'criture
(Paris: Seuil, 1965). Therehas been no extendedsemiologicalstudyofAmericantelevisionofwhichI am
aware.

This content downloaded from 193.144.16.134 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:37:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
457 / POLITICSOF REPRESENTATION

cipatingthe media fromthe controlof monopolycapitalism.19 Contraryto both

theoristshe recuperatesthe sign functionof the media froma meresuperstructural
phenomenonby expandingclassic Marxistpoliticaleconomyto the fieldof com-
munications.Buildingon Brecht'searlyradio theory,Enzensberger pointsto theneed
forchangingthemedia froma meredistribution networkto a real communications
media. If the technologyis fundamentally egalitarianbut has been pervertedby
capitalism,he argueswithBrecht,thenthepotentialof themedia'sdemocraticstruc-
turemustbe realized.Indeed,muchNew Leftmediatheoryofthelastfifteen yearshas
implicitlyor explicitlydrawnon thisinfiltration model to legitimate to in-
itsefforts
tervenein theinformation process.A numberof televisionproducers- mostnotably
NormanLear- wereable duringthe1970sto introducea heretofore unknowncritical
edge to traditionaltelevisionprogramming. "MaryHartman,MaryHartman,"forex-
ample,was a counter-soapoperawhichproblematized theverythemeofalienationin
a television-saturated culture,contestingboth therulesof thesoap opera genreand
thedominanttelevisionimageof theideal Americanfamily.That theseriesbecamea
popularsuccesson commercialtelevisiondemonstrates, on the one hand, how even
pessimism,discontent, and alienationare marketable,as faras advertising sponsors
are concerned,and on theother,how thetelevisionmediumas an institutional form
does not favorone kindof ideologicalmessageover another.Nonetheless,theeffort
to gaincoverageforsubversivecontentis notto be underestimated, forthestruggle to
gain a voice, to gain access, can in itselfbe a politicallyradicalizingexperience.
JeanBaudrillard,like Enzensberger, beginsin his earlywritingsfroma Marxist
framework, but his critiqueis more fundamental and his conclusionstherefore more
radical. The centralconcept in Marx's theoryof politicaleconomy is the law of
surplusvalue, a law of quantitativeequivalency(exchange)and of generalequiva-
lences (use). Baudrillardsuggeststhat thislaw has shiftedits terrainfromone of
equivalencyto one of structural relativityregulatedonlyby codes of interchangeabil-
ity. Drawing on the conclusions of Saussure'sstructural he expandsthe
linguistics,
economiclaw of surplusvalue to a politicaleconomyof the sign.2'The shiftfrom
equivalencyto interchangeability bringswithit an increasingloss of differencein all
social fields:theage ofsimulacradawnswhilesubjectivity disappears.This emancipa-
tion of the law of value describes,accordingto Baudrillard,the transitionfroman
economybased on commodityproductionand reproduction to theserviceeconomy,
theeconomyof circulation.A parallelmutationtakesplace in thesphereof mimetic
practicewheretheequivalencyof thesignand thereal,wheresignification based on
referentiality dissolves into the total play of combination and simulation. The
(of
speculativefloating currency, market futures, stock options) in the economic

19Hans Magnus Enzensberger, "Baukastenzu einerTheorieder Medien,"Kursbuch20 (1970): 159-86;

reprintin H. M. Enzensberger,Palaver: Politische Oberlegungen(Frankfurt/M.:Suhrkamp,1974),
91-129.
20JeanBaudrillardintroducedhis theoryin Pour une critiquede
Vlconomiepolitiquedu signe (Paris:
Gallimard,1972), especiallyin thechaptertitled"Requiempour les media"; he continuedto develop its
implicationsin Le Miroirde la production(Paris: Casterman,1973) and L'Echangesymboliqueet la mort
(Paris: Gallimard,1976).

This content downloaded from 193.144.16.134 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:37:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
458 / 1987
TI, December

sphereof multi-national capitalismfindsits parallel in the flow of signswithout

referencesin themedia.Televisionmarks,in Baudrillard's model,a qualitativelynew
level of simulation. In a progressionfrom the sign as imitationof reality
to thesignas copy and duplicationof reality(reproduction),
(verisimilitude) it now
becomespuremodulation.No longera vehicleforthereal,thatis, no longera relation
based on exploitation
and ideologicaldeformationofa subject,themediahas become
an operation,the abstractformitselfof social relationsbeyonddifference and ex-
change,beyond communication between subjectsas an exchange of information.
The postmodernism describedby Baudrillard,and others,achievestwohistorically
important goals alreadyanticipatedby Brecht.21 One, itfinallydislodgesthecentered,
unified,bourgeoissubjectand withit theautonomous,immanentwork of art. And
two, it focusesculturalpracticeon theprocessof representation itself.Baudrillard's
of of
revision thelaw surplusvalue, then, leads him to a number of otherconclusions
whichseemto be symptomatic butnotcompelling.He observestheend of thedialec-
tic and thesuspensionof theinfrastructure-superstructure model,and his prognosis
calls fora dismantling of the "operation"of the media by disrupting the systemof
the
codes,by breaking monopoly speech on communications throughreciprocity and
simultaneity. Later,whathe calls antagonisticreciprocitycomes to resemble more and
moreGeorgeBataille's notion of transgression,formulated by Baudrillard in the acts
of seductionand death.TheseaspectsofBaudrillard's theoreticalmodelare unhelpful
in thecontextof reflecting on whateffective politicalculture could be in a televisually
dominatedsociety.Theydo, however,indicateto whatextentit is possibleto see his
commentary as a theoretical readingof thecrisisin modernism, or as whathas been
called the"culturallogic of late capitalism." 22 Baudrillard accounts forthefailureof
modernism to articulate a really effectivecritique of bourgeois society and
technological modernization, and he recognizes inability themodernist
the of project
to changesocietyby organizingrealityin a new way throughart.Yet hisrejectionof
themodernist visionleads himintoa kindofimperialism ofrepresentation, perhapsa
symptomatic state of the"postmodern condition."As a result,Baudrillard failsto con-
siderhow thecrisisin modernismhas openednew spaces thatcan be creativelyoc-
cupied. This is wherereconnoitering Brechtcan be useful.
Brecht'slegacyfora theoryand critiqueof mimesisliesin hislinkageofrepresenta-
tion,social change,and thesubjectwho willeffect thatchange.Butevenmoreimpor-
tantthantheway Brechtmanagesthisrelationis hisstresson thehistoricalformation
of each term.This is to recognizethatBrecht'scritiquetoo has a historicalvalue, a
historicitywhichhe himselfunderscoredin theconsciousmove fromtheepic to the
dialecticaltheatrein the1950s.23The questionforus is how to negotiatethesethree
terms- representation, social change,and historicalsubject- in our context.First,it
is important to remember thattechnology - in thiscase televisiontechnology- is not

to the varietyand contradictionsof

21Two recentcollectionsof essays provide good introductions
postmodernisttheoreticalpositions: Hal Foster,ed., The Anti-Aesthetic (Port Townsend: Bay Press,
1983), and BrianWillism,ed., ArtAfterModernism:Rethinking Representation (Boston:Godine, 1985).
22Cf. FredericJameson,"Postmodernism or The CulturalLogic of Late Capitalism,"New LeftReview
146 (July-August,1984): 53-92.
23For example,Brecht,Schriften zum Theater(Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp,1964), VII:294.

This content downloaded from 193.144.16.134 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:37:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
459 / POLITICSOF REPRESENTATION

in and ofitself politicalor ideological. It is adaptedand implemented forparticular

usesbythesocietythatproduces it,subjectto theconflicting forcesthatdefine those
uses (e.g., manufacturers, consumers, institutions, etc.). Second,it is necessary to
identifythespacewherestruggle forchangewilltakeplace.Brecht's viewson this
matter seemtodayabstract and naive:we can no longerrelyon "theproletariat" or
"Socialism" in an unreflected way. Moreover,thestruggle fortradition itselfhas
shiftedawayfrom rigidpolaritieslikeprogressive andconservative orleftandright to
newcoalitions formed byecologists, byfeminists, andbyliberation movements. One
factorthatBrecht alwaysdid stress,however, was thepopularor massaudience.24
Whatis generally considered itslackof taste,itsfascination withthespecularized,
narcissisticimageinconsumer pointsto sociallydetermined
society, needswhichthe
publicseeksto satisfy. Thisraisesa finalpoint.Brecht's historicalthinking is dialec-
tical,thatis,heconfronted andrefused thecommodity function ofartinthesphere of
mechanical reproduction, buthe also soughtthepositive, revolutionary moment in
thephenomenon. In theculture ofsimulation, as Baudrillard describesit,thedimen-
sionsof socialorganization have becomeevenmoretotalizedthanthemodelof
reproduction whichexposedforBrecht a newform ofrepresentation. As thecondition
and framework ofthenew,then,televisual spectacle also containsthepromise ofa
moreencompassing, radicaltypeofrepresentation. Through itsfunction as a mirror
ofimagination, itcanmaketherealvisible,notbyshowing us reality
butrather our
of
projections reality.
Is itpossibleto nametherevolutionary moment inmulti-national capitalism, ina
societydominated bycodesofinterchangeability as Baudrillard describesit?Is therea
waytorepresent this"reality"ina newformofrealism? Willa newwayofseeingrein-
vigoratethemimetic processforthereal?Our current situation doesnotholdout
muchhopefora quickstepforward in answering suchquestions.Nonetheless, I
wouldarguethatthenotionofrepresentation is a strategic terrain.
Thisis notonlyof
theoretical but also of politicalimportance becauseit implicates thestruggle for
ideological domination: whoserepresentation of"reality" willprevailandhowwillit
be seen?Accompanying thepostmodern claimthatthesubjecthasbeendestroyed is
thewidespread beliefin advancedcapitalist societiesthatwe are livingin a post-
industrial,post-production worldwithout classesinthetraditional sense.Baudrillard
describestheendof subjectivity as theloss of thesubject'sautonomy in advanced
capitalism. Yetthislossofautonomy doesnotnecessarily meanthatthesubjecthas
disappeared. Formulating theprocessbywhichthesubjecthasbeenerasedinthecir-
culationofsimulacra opensup possibilities ofconstituting thesubjectanew.Indeed,
thedenialofthesubjectprompts meto ask,withBrecht, "forwhom?"Andthisvery
questioning is a practicewitha material forcethatcanpotentially alterthesubjectin
subversive ways.Itbeckonsthecultural powerofdetermining howthings aremadeto
mean.To return toBrecht'srealistepistemology, onemight onceagaincitehisremark
concerningthe photographicimage that the simple"reproduction of reality"says
nothingabout thatreality.Brechtaimsto deconstruct theimagein orderto makevisi-
ble a realitywhose referent
it no longerreveals.He achievesthisby creatinga subject

24Cf.Brecht,Schriftenzur Literaturund Kunst,1:177.

This content downloaded from 193.144.16.134 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:37:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
460 / TI,December
1987

positionoutsidethatreality,at a distance(Von-Aussen-Sehen). Now theproblemis

no longerin theimageand its lack of a referentin thereal but ratherin theimaging
itselfwhichhas lost thestablesubjectposition,thedualistically definedsubjectposi-
relationbetweenrealityand spectator
tionedvis-a-vistheobject.Thus,thenarcissistic
is one of fascinationwhichdeniestheposition.The task,it seemsto me, is to break
thatabsorption,to organizethespace or thedialogicalsituationin a largerframework
whichallows a new subjectivity,whichallows us to beginto definea new individual
and collectivesubject.

This content downloaded from 193.144.16.134 on Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:37:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions