Friday, March 17, 2006
work, part five
I look at these photographs and remember that this drawing was a really nice experience.
I worked with an artist who is currently staying at another guest studio in town - Stichting BAD, which is in the south of Rotterdam.
The drawing is quite comprehensive, and takes in the judicial system, as well as two houses of parliament, the provinces and Gemeente. What is also interesting is the appearance of the word "bevolking" on the edge of the drawing. Bevolking is Dutch for "the Population".
It looks back to the interview with Chantal Mouffe that I was reading at the beginning of this work, in 2004. Mouffe discusses a work by Hans Haake at the German Parliament building which brings the terms "the population" and "the people" into play - and from there, discusses the influence of the work of Carl Schmitt on the development of her political philosophy.
If Haacke’s piece is seen as a way of questioning the manner in which “the German people” is currently defined, then it is a very interesting intervention. In terms of political philosophy, it points to the need to redefine “the people,” to extend it by introducing people who have until now not been considered citizens. But that should not happen by abandoning the idea of “the people” because it’s necessarily related to either a Nazi past or to a certain type of exclusion. The existence of a certain type of exclusion is something that politics cannot do without. That is one of the questions I’ve been trying to address in my thinking about Schmitt and the idea of “the demos.” You cannot have a demos if it is not in some sense exclusive. The very idea of “the demos” simultaneously implies both a logic of inclusion within and exclusion without. It can never be the case that everyone who happens to be in a certain territory—be it France or Germany— should be entitled to vote. There needs to be a definition of who constitutes the body of citizens, who constitutes “the people.” This is something that needs to be discussed in Germany—less now, perhaps, with the broader immigration laws, although the conception of “the people” is still too restricted. However, it can never be a question of replacing the political conception of “the people” with the sociological concept of “the population.”
In this drawing, the population have limited influence on the workings of government - exercised through the vote. Outside of this influence are the military, the judiciary and the eerste kamer (Senate), bodies which act upon the population.
Does this emphasise one intention of the project? - the idea that, in a system over which we have, in theory, the controlling influence of the vote, but in practice are only secondary to the greater influence of state machinery, we have a kind of responsibility to understand how it works. Does knowledge such as this lead to greater involvement, or greater influence?
Throughout this project I have been thinking of a line from a book, I think that it is by either William Gibson or Neal Stephenson, that you should never trust anything if you can't see where it keeps its brain. The 'brain' of the system of democratic government is variously located by these drawings as being the media, the parliament ... but rarely 'the population'. It is something dispersed, ambient - mutable.
I worked with an artist who is currently staying at another guest studio in town - Stichting BAD, which is in the south of Rotterdam.
The drawing is quite comprehensive, and takes in the judicial system, as well as two houses of parliament, the provinces and Gemeente. What is also interesting is the appearance of the word "bevolking" on the edge of the drawing. Bevolking is Dutch for "the Population".
It looks back to the interview with Chantal Mouffe that I was reading at the beginning of this work, in 2004. Mouffe discusses a work by Hans Haake at the German Parliament building which brings the terms "the population" and "the people" into play - and from there, discusses the influence of the work of Carl Schmitt on the development of her political philosophy.
If Haacke’s piece is seen as a way of questioning the manner in which “the German people” is currently defined, then it is a very interesting intervention. In terms of political philosophy, it points to the need to redefine “the people,” to extend it by introducing people who have until now not been considered citizens. But that should not happen by abandoning the idea of “the people” because it’s necessarily related to either a Nazi past or to a certain type of exclusion. The existence of a certain type of exclusion is something that politics cannot do without. That is one of the questions I’ve been trying to address in my thinking about Schmitt and the idea of “the demos.” You cannot have a demos if it is not in some sense exclusive. The very idea of “the demos” simultaneously implies both a logic of inclusion within and exclusion without. It can never be the case that everyone who happens to be in a certain territory—be it France or Germany— should be entitled to vote. There needs to be a definition of who constitutes the body of citizens, who constitutes “the people.” This is something that needs to be discussed in Germany—less now, perhaps, with the broader immigration laws, although the conception of “the people” is still too restricted. However, it can never be a question of replacing the political conception of “the people” with the sociological concept of “the population.”
In this drawing, the population have limited influence on the workings of government - exercised through the vote. Outside of this influence are the military, the judiciary and the eerste kamer (Senate), bodies which act upon the population. Does this emphasise one intention of the project? - the idea that, in a system over which we have, in theory, the controlling influence of the vote, but in practice are only secondary to the greater influence of state machinery, we have a kind of responsibility to understand how it works. Does knowledge such as this lead to greater involvement, or greater influence?
Throughout this project I have been thinking of a line from a book, I think that it is by either William Gibson or Neal Stephenson, that you should never trust anything if you can't see where it keeps its brain. The 'brain' of the system of democratic government is variously located by these drawings as being the media, the parliament ... but rarely 'the population'. It is something dispersed, ambient - mutable.
Labels: studies for the shape of government, the netherlands
# posted by amcqu : 12:30 am
