Post by jjnickell on Mar 2, 2016 2:31:34 GMT
For me, the most interesting part of our Ranciere readings had to with his concept of “the police.” In “Introducing Disagreement,” he writes: “Archaic or modern, the way of counting parts, places, and function remains the same. This way of counting simultaneously defines the ways of being, doing, and saying appropriate to these places. I call this form of symbolizing the common, that is, the principle of distribution and completeness that leaves no space for a supplement, the police” (p. 6). While “the police” is certainly an apt name for a force of control, I think it is an interesting choice for Ranciere nonetheless given that he is a renegade student of Althusser. Therefore, I am interested in how Ranciere imagines the police functioning to define certain behaviors in certain locations as sensible in ways that are more symbolic than structural. For example, consider the portrayals of wives and mothers in 1950s sitcoms. Did these representations function as “the police” by symbolizing the range of acceptable behaviors, occupations, and locations for women? Or, is the police a more overt force than this more subversive discourse?
Stoneman seems to answer this question for me, writing: "...we should view the police as constituting a partition or regime of the sensible, a symbolic division of experiential reality, that serves as a foundation for determining what one is and for allocating the roles, occupations, and tasks that are the markers of identity" (p. 135). From this quotation, it would seem that representations of women's roles in television can function as "the police." But, who does "the police" serve? Stoneman continues, "In this respect, the police extends beyond the jurisdiction of state apparatuses, stemming just 'as much from the assumed spontaneity of social relations'" (p. 135). If they are not always a function of the state, does this mean that the police is a force that arises out of the ideologies and social norms that, like a virus, replicate themselves through our behaviors? I'm down with pointing the finger at some insidious ideologies, but I'm left unsure about what exactly the state's role is in this. Further, Ranciere himself writes, "...there are men who rule over others because they are - or they play the part of - the older, the richer, the wiser, and so on because they are entitled to rule over those who do not have their status or competence. There are patterns and procedures of rule predicated on a certain distribution of place and competence. This is what I call the rule of the police" (The Aesthetic Dimension, p. 10). From this, it also seems like the force of the police originates from the classic culprit: old, rich, white dudes. So that gives us three potential sources for the police: social elites, the state, and ideology itself. Who/what are we mad at here?
Stoneman seems to answer this question for me, writing: "...we should view the police as constituting a partition or regime of the sensible, a symbolic division of experiential reality, that serves as a foundation for determining what one is and for allocating the roles, occupations, and tasks that are the markers of identity" (p. 135). From this quotation, it would seem that representations of women's roles in television can function as "the police." But, who does "the police" serve? Stoneman continues, "In this respect, the police extends beyond the jurisdiction of state apparatuses, stemming just 'as much from the assumed spontaneity of social relations'" (p. 135). If they are not always a function of the state, does this mean that the police is a force that arises out of the ideologies and social norms that, like a virus, replicate themselves through our behaviors? I'm down with pointing the finger at some insidious ideologies, but I'm left unsure about what exactly the state's role is in this. Further, Ranciere himself writes, "...there are men who rule over others because they are - or they play the part of - the older, the richer, the wiser, and so on because they are entitled to rule over those who do not have their status or competence. There are patterns and procedures of rule predicated on a certain distribution of place and competence. This is what I call the rule of the police" (The Aesthetic Dimension, p. 10). From this, it also seems like the force of the police originates from the classic culprit: old, rich, white dudes. So that gives us three potential sources for the police: social elites, the state, and ideology itself. Who/what are we mad at here?