062006

Thelanguageofthings
HitoSteyerl
Whodoesthelampcommunicatewith?Themountain?Thefox?
WalterBenjamin

Whatifthingscouldspeak?Whatwouldtheytellus?Oraretheyspeakingalreadyand
wejustdonthearthem?Andwhoisgoingtotranslatethem?

AskWalterBenjamin.Infacthestartedaskingthosequitebizarrequestionsalreadyin1916inatextcalled:
"OnLanguageasSuchandontheLanguageofMan".OfallweirdtextsbyBenjamin,thisisdefinitelythe
weirdest.Inthistexthedevelopstheconceptofalanguageofthings.AccordingtoBenjaminthislanguageof
thingsismute,itismagicalanditsmediumismaterialcommunity.Thus,wehavetoassumethatthereisa
languageofstones,pansandcardboardboxes.Lampsspeakasifinhabitedbyspirits.Mountainsandfoxes
areinvolvedindiscourse.Highrisebuildingschatwitheachother.Paintingsgossip.Thereexistseven,ifyou
will,besidesthelanguagecommunicatedbytelephonealanguageofthetelephoneitself.And,accordingto
Benjaminstriumphantconclusion,nobodyisresponsibleforthissilentcacophonybutGDhimself.
But,youmayask:whatisthepointofthiseccentricplot?Letspretendthatthepointistranslation.Because
obviously,thelanguageofthingshastobetranslatedinordertobecomeintelligibleforthoseofuswhoare
dumbforitssilentsplendour.Buttheideaoftranslation,whichBenjaminhasinmind,isacompletelydifferent
conceptoftranslationthantheoneweareusedto.Because,fromthemostordinarytothemostsophisticated
translationtheories,onethingisusuallytakenforgranted:thattranslationtakesplacebetweendifferenthuman
languagesorthecultures,whicharesupposedtonurturethem.Thus,languagesareassumedtobean
expressionofdifferentculturesandnations.Thiscombinationishastilyidentifiedasthepoliticalaspectof
translationandevenlanguageassuch.Andonthislevelstandardtranslationtheoryisalwaysalready
implicatedinpoliticalpracticeandgovernmentalstrategies.
ButBenjaminsideaoftranslationatleastinthistextboldlyignoresthisobviousandperhapsbanalfeature
oftranslation.Andthus,anentirelydifferentconceptofapoliticsoftranslationemerges.Insteadofnational
languages,whichareonlymentionedpassinglyinthistext,hefocusesonwhatIwouldcalllanguagesof
practice:thelanguageoflaw,technology,art,thelanguageofmusicandsculpture.Andmoreimportantly:
translationdoesnttakeplacebetweenthem,butwithinthem.Thatis:betweenthelanguageofthingsandthe
languageofmen,atthebaseoflanguageitself.Thus,afewveryimportantmodificationsareintroducedwith
regardtotraditionaltranslationtheory:firstlylanguageisdefinednotbycommonorigin,belongingornation,but
bycommonpractice.Secondly,translationprimarilytakesplacewithinlanguagenotbetweenlanguages.And
thirdly,translationaddressestherelationshipofhumanlanguageandthinglanguage.
SinceBenjaminwasperfectlyawareoftheromantictranslationtheories,whichfocussedonconceptslikethe
nationalspirit,hisfeignedignorancehastobeseenasmorethenaboldpoliticalstatement.Itisablatant
declarationofirrelevanceofculturalistapproaches.Insteadofnationsandcultures,hisperspectiveon
translationtakesmatterandGodasfirstreferencepoints.Andthistheologicomaterialconceptoftranslation
radicallyshiftsthedefinitionofapoliticsoftranslation.Itdoesnothoveraroundorganicistnotionsofcommunity
andculture.Butitbluntlylocatestranslationatthecoreofamuchmoregeneralpracticalquestion:howdo
humansrelatetotheworld?
Insteadofapoliticsoftheoriginalcontentlikethenationstate,theculture,theVolksgeistornational

languageBenjaminarguesforapoliticsofform.Andtheformwilldecideaboutthepoliticsoflanguageas
such.

PotestasandPotentia
Butwhatexactlyarethepoliticalprocessesinvolvedinthistypeoftranslation?Letslookatitmoreclosely.Two
languagesaremediatedwithinthisprocess.Thelanguageofthingsisaninherentlyproductivelanguage
accordingtoBenjaminbecauseitcontainstheresidueofthewordofGod,whichcreatedtheworldbytalking.
Ontheotherhandthereisthehumanlanguage,whichcaneithertrytoreceive,amplifyandvocalisethis
languagebynamingthings,orelseclassify,categorise,fix,andidentifyitscomponentsinwhatBenjamincalls
thelanguageofjudgement.
Ifweweretomapthisjuxtapositiononmorerecentdebates,wecouldalsosaythattranslationcantakeplace
withinthetwodifferentspheresknownaspowerandforceormorepompouslypotestasandpotentia.While
thelanguageofthingsisfullwithpotential,thelanguageofhumanscaneithertrytoengageinthispotentialor
becomeatoolofforce.Andthustranslationtakesplaceinthemodeofcreationaswellasofforce,andusually
bothmodesaremixedwitheachother.
Andthus,politicsareplayedoutintheformsinwhichthetranslationbetweenthelanguageofthingsandthe
languageofmentakesplace.Intheworstcase,thisrelationshipcantakeontheformofanepistemological
dictatorship.Thathumansdecidedtoruleoverthingsandtodisregardtheirmessageledtothedisasterat
Babylon.Tostartlisteningtothemagainwouldbethefirststeptowardsacomingcommonlanguage,whichis
notrootedinthehypocritepresumptionofaunityofhumankind,butinamuchmoregeneralmaterial
community.Inthiscase,translationdoesnotsilencethelanguageofthingsbutamplifiesitpotentialofchange.
Itisnowclear,thatinthisperspectivetranslationishighlypolitical,becauseitdirectlyaddressesissuesof
powerwithinlanguageformation.Itconcernstherelationshipofhumanstotheworldasawhole.Itaddresses
theemergenceofpracticeandthelanguages,whichcorrespondtoit.Thus,Benjaminrelatestranslation
directlytopowerbylookingattheformofthetranslation,notitscontent.Therespectiveformoftranslation
willdecide,ifandhowthelanguageofthingswithitsinherentforcesandenergiesanditsproductivepowersis
subjectedtothepower/knowledgeschemesofhumanformsofgovernmentornot.Itdecides,whetherhuman
languagecreatesrulingsubjectsandsubordinateobjectsorwhetheritengageswiththeenergiesofthe
materialworld.
Whilethismaystillsoundcompletelyunpracticalforanybody,thecontraryisthecase.Onemightevensay,
thatmosthumanpracticeisconstantlyengagedinthisprocessoftranslation.Letmegiveyounowonevery
obviousexampleofsuchatranslationfromthelanguageofthingsintotheoneofhumans.Andthatisthe
exampleofthedocumentaryform.

Thedocumentaryformastranslation
Adocumentaryimageobviouslytranslatesthelanguageofthingsintothelanguageofhumans.Ontheone
handitiscloselyanchoredwithintherealmofmaterialreality.Butitalsoparticipatesinthelanguageof
humans,andespeciallythelanguageofjudgement,whichobjectifiesthethinginquestion,fixesitsmeaning
andconstructsstablecategoriesofknowledgetounderstandit.Itishalfvisual,halfvocal,itisatoncereceptive
andproductive,inquisitiveandexplanatory,itparticipatesintheexchangeofthingsbutalsofreezesthe
relationsbetweenthemwithinvisualandconceptualstillimages.Thingsarticulatethemselveswithinthe
documentaryforms,butdocumentaryformsalsoarticulatethings.

Anditisalsoobvious,howBenjaminspoliticsoftranslationfunctionswithregardtothedocumentaryimage.In
documentaryarticulations,thingscaneitherbetreatedasobjects,asevidenceforhumanplots,ortheycanbe
subjectedtothelanguageofjudgementandthusoverruled.Ihaveoncereferredtothisconditionas
documentality,thatisthewayinwhichdocumentsgovernandareimplicatedincreatingpower/knowledge.Or
else,theforces,whichorganisetherelationshipsbetweenthem,canbechannelledinviewoftheir
transformation.Thedocumentaryformcanalsoletitselfbeseducedandevenoverwhelmedbythemagicof
thelanguageofthingsalthoughwewillsee,thatthisisnotnecessarilyagoodidea.Butbasically,thisishow
therelationbetweenpotestasandpotentiaisarticulatedwithinthedocumentaryform.Itistherelationshipof
productivityvs.verification,oftheasignifyingvs.thesignified,ofmaterialrealityvs.theiridealistinterpretation.
Butletmemakeonethingveryclear:toengageinthelanguageofthingsintherealmofthedocumentaryform
isnotequivalenttousingrealistformsinrepresentingthem.Itisnotaboutrepresentationatall,butabout
actualisingwhateverthethingshavetosayinthepresent.Andtodosoisnotamatterofrealism,butratherof
relationalismitisamatterofpresencingandthustransformingthesocial,historicalandalsomaterial
relations,whichdeterminethings.Andifwefocusonthisaspectofpresencinginsteadofrepresentation,we
alsoleavebehindtheendlessdebateaboutrepresentation,whichhasleftdocumentarytheorystuckinadead
end.

Thepowerofthings
Butwhy,youmayask,isBenjaminsoinlovewiththelanguageofthingsinthefirstplace?Whyshould
anythingthatthingshavetosaybesospecial?Letssimplydisregardthereason,whichBenjaminhimselfgives
inhistext:thatthewordofGodshinesforththroughthemutemagicofthings.Whilethismaysoundpoetical,it
isratheranexpressionofBenjaminspompousperplexity,thenaconvincingcase.
LetsinsteadremembertherolethatmaterialobjectstookoninBenjaminsthoughtlateron,whenhestarted
decipheringmodernitymainlybysiftingthroughthewakeoftrashitleftbehind.Modestandevenabjectobjects
becamehieroglyphsinwhosedarkprismthesocialrelationslaycongealedandinfragments.Theywere
understoodasnodes,inwhichthetensionsofahistoricalmomentmaterialisedinaflashofawarenessor
grotesquelytwistedintothecommodityfetish.Inthisperspective,athingisneverjustsomething,butafossilin
whichaconstellationofforcesispetrified.AccordingtoBenjamin,thingsareneverjustinertobjects,passive
itemsorlifelessshucksatthedisposalofthedocumentarygaze.Buttheyconsistoftensions,forces,hidden
powers,whichkeepbeingexchanged.Whilethisopinionbordersonmagicalthought,accordingtowhichthings
areinvestedwithsupernaturalpowers,itisalsoaclassicalmaterialistone.Becausethecommodity,too,isnot
understoodasasimpleobject,butacondensationofsocialforces.Thusthingscanbeinterpretedas
conglomeratesofdesires,wishes,intensitiesandpowerrelations.Andathinglanguage,whichisthuscharged
withtheenergyofmattercanalsoexceeddescriptionandbecomeproductive.Itcanmovebeyond
representationandbecomecreativeinthesenseofatransformationoftherelations,whichdefineit.While
Benjaminseemstohopeforthiskindofevent,healsoforeseesadarkerpossibilityofitsrealisation,whichhe
1

callsconjuration. Ifthereissotospeakawhitemagicofthings,bristlingwithcreativityandpower,thereisalso
ablackone,chargedwiththedarkpowersofthetaboo,illusionandthefetish.Thepowerofconjurationtriesto
tapintotheforcesofthingswithoutproperreflection,orasBenjamincallsit:withoutinterruptionbythe
2

inexpressive. Anditisontheseunmediatedanduninterruptedchaoticpowers,thatcapitalistcommodification
andgeneralresentmentthrives.Andtocomebacktothedocumentarymodeinwhichthoseforcesof
conjurationcanbeunleashedbyaswell:propaganda,revisionismandrelativismareallexamples,ofhow
conjurationthatiscreativitywithoutreflexiveinterruptionfunctionswithinthedocumentaryform.They
engagewiththeforcesofresentment,hysteria,individualinterestandfear,whichareallpowerful,unmediated
urges.Buttheydosotospeakwithoutpropertranslation,andthuscontaminateallmodesofcommunication

withtheirmalignantdrive.

Thenonpublicpublicsphere
Wehaveseenseveralmodesofhowaninternalpoliticsofthetranslationaffectsthedocumentaryform.How
dohumansrelatetothings?Whatdoescreativitymeaninthisregard?Andwhyisitnotnecessarilyagood
idea,whenitcomestodocumentarism?Butthereisalsoanexternalaspect,whichisrelevantforthe
discussionofthedocumentaryformastranslation.Andthisaspectaddressesthedocumentaryformasan
exampleofatransnationallanguageofpractice.Because,althoughthedocumentaryformisbasedon
translation,inasenseitalsoseemstohavemovedbeyondtranslation.Itsstandardnarrativesarerecognised
allovertheworldanditsformsarealmostindependentofnationalofculturaldifference.Preciselybecausethey
operatesocloselyonmaterialreality,theyareintelligiblewhereverthisrealityisrelevant.
Thisaspectwasrecognisedasearlyasthe20es,whenDzigaVertoveuphoricallypraisedthequalitiesofthe
documentaryform.IntheprefaceofhisfilmThemanwiththemoviecameraheproclaimed,thatdocumentary
formswereabletoorganisevisiblefactsinatrulyinternationalabsolutelanguage,whichcouldestablishan
opticalconnectionbetweentheworkersoftheworld.Heimaginesasortofcommunistvisualadamiclanguage,
whichshouldnotonlyinformorentertain,butalsoorganiseitsviewers.Itwouldnotonlytransmitmessages,
butconnectistaudiencetoanuniversalcirculationofenergieswhichliterallyshotthroughtheirnervous
systems.Byarticulatingvisiblefacts,Vertovwantedtoshortcircuithisaudiencewiththelanguageofthings
itself,withapulsatingsymphonyofmatter.
Inasense,hisdreamhasbecometrue,ifonlyundertheruleofglobalinformationcapitalism.Atransnational
documentaryjargonisnowconnectingpeoplewithinglobalmedianetworks.Thestandardisedlanguageof
newsreelswithitseconomyofattentionbasedonfear,theracingtimeofflexibleproduction,andhysteriaisas
fluidandaffective,asimmediateandbiopoliticalasVertovcouldhaveimagined.Itcreatesglobalpublic
sphereswhoseparticipantsarelinkedalmostinaphysicalsensebymutualexcitementandanxiety.Thusthe
documentaryformisnowmorepotentthenever,andinasensepreciselybecauseitconjuresupthemost
spectacularaspectsofthelanguageofthingsandamplifiestheirpower.AtthispointIwouldliketocomeback
tothecautiousremarkmadeearlier:totapintothelanguageofthingsisnotalwaysagoodideaandits
potentialisnotnecessarilyapotentialforemancipation.Theasignificantflowsofcompressedinformation
translatewithoutinterruptionandreflection.Theirformscompletelyignorethedifferentlanguagesofthings.If
theyarenotculturallyspecific,theyarenotspecifictodifferentmaterialrealitiesandpracticeseither.Theyonly
translatetherequirementsofcorporateandnationalmediamachines.
Butdoesthisformofdocumentarytranslationhaveanyotherpoliticalpotentialthentheoneforpropaganda
andproductplacement?Yes,andherewearebacktothepointofthebeginning.Thedocumentaryformisno
nationallanguageandnotculturallyspecificeither.Thusitisabletosustainnonnationalpublicspheresand
thereforealsotheseedsforapoliticalarenabeyondnationalandculturalformations.Butatthemomentthis
sphereisentirelycontrolledbythedynamicsofageneralprivatisation.ItisasPaoloVirnohasrecentlyargued:
anonpublicpublicsphere.
Butthisdoesnotnecessarilyhavetobethecase.Andweseeinexperimentaldocumentaryproduction,that
differentrelationstothingsandthesocialconditionsinwhichwerelatetothemarepossible.Thereasonisvery
simple.Theriseofimportanceofglobaldocumentaryjargonsrestsonthematerialbaseofinformation
capitalism,whichisdefinedbydigitalisationandflexibility.Andanydocumentaryform,whichreallyarticulates
thelanguageofthosethings,alsoarticulatespreciselytheseconditions,thatistheconditionsofprecarious
symbolicproduction.Thenewdocumentaryformsofproductionwithhomecomputersandunconventional
formsofdistributionthuscanbeunderstoodasarticulations,whichrevealtheoutlineofnewformsofsocial

composition.Thisformofimageproductionislargelybasedondigitaltechnologyandthustendstomerge
moreandmorewithotherfieldsofmasssymbolicproduction.Theyrepresentsotospeakanegativeofa
comingpublicsphere,whichhastobedeveloped,inordertobecomefunctionable.Thisformofthepublichas
leftbehinditsentanglementwithlocalandnationalmythologiesandischaracterisedbysimilarprecariousand
oftentransnationalformsofworkandproduction.Andthepoliticalarticulationorsocialcompositionofthese
mostlystilldispersedandwildlyheterogenouspointsofviewandgroupsisanticipatedinthecomplex
montagesandconstellationsofcontemporarydocumentaryexperimentalforms.
Butagain:theirpoliticsarenotdeterminedbycontentbutbyform.Iftheyjusttrytomimickthecorporate
standardsofthelargecapitalistandnationalaffectivemachines,theywillalsotoacertainextenttakeovertheir
politics.AsBenjaminwouldputit:theirmodesoftranslationareatoncetoimmediateandnotimmediate
enough.Onlyifdocumentaryformstranslatetheincongruities,theinegalities,therapidchangeofspeed,the
disarticulationanddizzyingrhythms,thedislocationandthearythmicpulsationsoftime,iftheymortifythevital
drivesofmatteranddeadenthembyinexpressiveness,willtheyengagewiththecontemporarycommunityof
matter.Onlyifthisformoftranslationisbeingachieved,willthedocumentaryarticulationreflectandthus
amplifythelanguageofthosethings,whicharedraggedacrosstheglobeonroadtocommodificationatneck
breakingspeedoragaintossedawayanddiscardedasuselessjunk.Andbyreflectingontheconditionsof
productioninwhichthisdocumentarytranslationisbeingachieved,newformsofanationalpublicspheresand
postcapitalistproductioncircuitsmightemerge.
Obviously,whateverIsaiddoesnotapplyonlytothedocumentaryformbutalsotootherlanguagesofpractice.
Onemightmakeasimilarargumentaboutthepracticeofcurating,whichcouldtranslatethelanguageofthings
intoaestheticrelationalities.Andwehavealsoseenthesepastdecades,howthefetishoftheartobjecthas
beendeconstructedandtracedbacktosocialandotherrelations.Butinthisfield,acautionaryremarkapplies
aswell:tosimplyrepresentthoserelationsintheartfieldisnotenough.Translatingthelanguageofthingsis
notabouteliminatingobjects,noraboutinventingcollectivities,whicharefetishisedinstead.Itisratherabout
creatingunexpectedarticulations,whichdonotrepresentprecariousmodesoflivingorthesocialassuch,but
ratheraboutpresencingprecarious,risky,atonceboldandpreposterousarticulationsofobjectsandtheir
relations,whichstillcouldbecomemodelsforfuturetypesofconnection.
IfBenjaminsconceptoftranslationcouldtellusonething,itisthattranslationisstilldeeplypolitical,ifwe
literallyputittopractice.Onlythatweneedtoshiftourattentionfromitscontenttoitsform.Weneedtoshift
thefocusfromthelanguagesofbelongingtothelanguageofpractice.Weshouldstoptoexpectthatitshould
tellusaboutessencebutinsteadabouttransformation.Andweneedtoremember,thatthepracticeof
translationonlymakessense,ifitleedstomuchneededalternativeformsofconnection,communication,and
relationsandnotofnewwaysofinnovatingcultureandnation.

1WalterBenjamin,"Goethe'sElectiveAffinities,"trans.StanleyCorngold,SelectedWritings19131926,ed.
MarcusBullock&MichaelW.Jennings,Cambridge,Massachusetts,HarvardUniversityPress(Bellknap),
1996,pp.297360.
2P.,297
Thelanguageofthings

http://eipcp.net/transversal/0606/steyerl/en