david g media and memory,bernard stiegler

8/12/2019 David G Media and Memory,Bernard Stiegler

1/12

This is a pre-press version of

Roberts, B., 2006. Cinema as mnemotechnics: Bernard Stiegler and the indstrialisationof memor!.Angelaki, ""#"$, pp.%%&6'.

()*: "0."0+0062%0600+6/

CINEMA AS MNEMOTECHNICS

Bernard Stiegler and the Industrialization of Memory

n his mlti-volme or1La Technique et le temps, or Technics and Time, Bernard

Stiegler attempts to rethin1 the relationship beteen the hman and technical obects,or hat he calls 3technics.4 The term 3technics4 here renders the 5rench 3la technique4

hich, as Stieglers translators Richard Beardsorth and 7eorge Collins point ot, refers

to the 3technical domain or to technical practice as a hole.4 *t is therefore to be distin-gished from 3la technologie4 #3technolog!4$ and technologique#3technological4$ hich

refer to the 3specific amalgamation of technics and the sciences in the modern period4

#Beardsorth and Collins in Stiegler, Technics and Time2+0&+" n. "$. The 8nglish term,technics, is probabl! best 1non throgh its se b! the theorist of technolog! 9eis

mford, ho first ses it in his "'/ boo1 Technics and Civilization. mford definesthe term in the laterArt and Technicsas 3that part of hman activit! herein, b! an ener-

getic organi;ation of the process of or1, man controls and directs the forces of natrefor his on prposes4 #Art and Technics"%$."s a ?process of e=teriori;ation, technics is the

prsit of life b! means other than life4 #Technics and Time"$.

I

This paper ill briefl! otline Stieglers ideas arond technics as the! appear inthe first volme of Technics and Time. *t ill move on to sho that in more recent or1

b! Stiegler, e=emplified b! the later volmes of Technics and Time, there is a shift of

emphasis in Stieglers thin1ing of technics. This shift seems to be characteri;ed b! the

move from an emphasis on technics as the e=teriori;ation of the hman, or on prosthesis,to an emphasis on technics as hat Stiegler calls 3tertiar! memor!,4 or mnemotechnics.

This is paralleled b! a move from the first volmes e=ploration of the origin of the

hman in tools and riting to an e=plicit focs on modern tele-technologies, on cinema,on the televisal and on technoscience. This ne emphasis on technics as 3tertiar!

memor!4 is therefore accompanied b! a rethin1ing of tele-technologies as the global

3indstriali;ation of memor!.4

i Prosthesis and the Exteriorization of the Human

There are reall! to different strands to Stieglers argment in the first volme of Tech-

nics and Time#3The 5alt of 8pimethes4$. The first is a reading of the @estion of tech-

nics in relation to the philosophical anthropolog! of Rossea, the or1 of the 5rench an-thropologist 9eroi-7orhan, the or1 of the historian Bertrand 7ille, and that of the the-


2/12

cinema as mnemotechnics

orist of technolog! 7ilbert Simondon.


3/12

roberts

7orhan, hman1ind is here constitted not in relation to the animal, as an animal ith

something added #a consciosness, sol or freeill$, bt in relation to the gods: 3the

deviation, if there is one, is not in relation to natre bt in relation to the divine E>nthropogon! onl! ac@ires meaning in theogon!4 #Technics and Time"+$. The hman

is therefore not so mch a special t!pe of animal as a deficient god: a being ith access to

the poers of the gods #and hence ith an nderstanding of immortalit! throghreligion$, bt in mortal form. Contra Rossea, then, 3FitG is not a matter of recalling a

state of natre, nor of claiming hat ?hman natre oght to have beenH there as no

fall, bt a falt, no hap nor mishap, bt mortalit!4 #"0$. There is no origin of hmannatre hich is then deviated fromH the hman, the mortal, is deviation itself. Inli1e

animals, ho are each allotted essential characteristics or poers, the hman is originall!

nothing. The origin of the hman is ths constitted b! a lac1. The crcial figre here for

Stiegler is 8pimethes, ho constittes, throgh his forgetflness, the hman as thisoriginar! lac1 or defalt, and not the more traditional figre of romethes. 8pimethes

is forgotten b! a philosoph! hich old see hmanit! constitted positivel! throgh the

gifts and @alities that romethes bestos, and not throgh the originar! lac1 or falt of

8pimethes. *n fact romethess falt #aute$ & that is, his theft from the gods & simpl!dobles p 8pimethes originar! falt of forgetting. Both Titans, romethes and

8pimethes are necessar! to nderstand the origin or 3origin4 of the hman, hichold be constitted !othb! the lac1 or defalt and hat comes to ma1e p for that

defalt in the form of prosthesis #tekhne"$.

Since the 3hman4 is constitted throgh its e=teriori;ation into tools, its origin isneither biological #a particlar arrangement of cells$ nor transcendental #to be fond in

something li1e consciosness$. The origin of the hman as the prosthesis of the living is

therefore fndamentall! aporetic: one shold spea1, for Stiegler, of a non-origin or

defalt of origin.Stiegler develops these argments throgh a reading of Rossea and9eroi-7orhan, shoing on the one hand ho the empirical approach of the palaeo-

anthropologist cannot avoid the transcendental @estion of origin and, on the other, ho

Rosseas transcendental accont of the @estion of origin inscribes inside its accont,despite itself, the thoght of the hman as contingent or accidental.+

ii Technics as Tertiary Memory

The idea of tertiar! memor! in Stieglers Technics and Timeemerges initiall! at the end

of the first volme, 3The 5alt of 8pimethes,4 in the conte=t of Stieglers discssion of


4/12


dration. The phenomenon of this temporal obect is a flo E the properl!

temporal obect is not simpl! in time, it constittes itself temporall!, it

eaves itself into the thread of time & as that hich appears in passing, as thathich passes, as that hich manifests itself in disappearing, as a fl=

vanishing as it is prodced. hen * listen to a melod!, the obect is presented

to me in a flo. *n the corse of the flo each of the notes hich presentsitself no has retained in it the note hich preceded it, this note retained in it

all the notes hich preceded it, it is the 3no4 FmaintenantG as persistence

FmantienG of the presence of the obect: the present of the temporal obect isits persistence. *t is in this a! that the nit! of the temporal obect is

constitted. *t is becase it retains all the notes, all the sonoros nos

FmaintentantsG that preceded it that the present note can sond melodicall!, be

msical, be harmonios or non-harmonios, be properl! a note and not onl! asond or a noise.

The melod!, then, is an e=ample of primar! retention in as mch as the retention of

previos notes belongs to the ver! act of perception. ithot this primar! retention, orprimar! memor!, there is no perception of the melod!. n e=ample of thissecond t!pe of memor! old be remembering a melod! heard !esterda!. The important

point here for


5/12

roberts

This difference beteen aditions can be nderstood, for Stiegler, onl! if the

primar! retention of the melod! * am listening to no is someho modified b! thesecondar! memor! of the same melod! heard previosl!. The e=perience of perceiving

the same temporal obect, that is, the melod!, tice reveals that the temporal obect

cannot be simpl! constitted throgh primar! retention. oreover & and here the themeof technics reasserts itself & the ver! e=perience of perceiving the same temporal obect

tice is possible onl! b! virte of the prosthetic memor! spport of digital or analoge

recording. *t is onl! ith the advent of sch technologies that the verbatim repeatabilit!of the temporal obect becomes possible. Stiegler calls this technical memor! spport

3tertiar! memor!4 and arges that 3it is the phonogram quatertiar! memor! that

originall! highlights the fact of the selection of primar! retentions b! consciosness, and

ths the intervention of imagination at the ver! center of perception4 #2$.Stiegler therefore locates in the gramophone record an inversion of


6/12


consciosness of the films spectator that triggers, in the pla! of movement

beteen the photographic stills lin1ed b! the phonographic fl=, the

mechanism of complete adoptionof the films time b! the time of thespectators consciosness that, itself a fl=, finds itself captred and 3borne

along4 b! the movement of images. This movement, invested b! the desire

for stories living in all spectators, frees the movements o consciousnesscharacteristic of cinematographic emotion.""

e can no see the tre significance of Stieglers reor1ing of


7/12

roberts

>t this point, Stieglers argment begins to sond similar to that of >dorno and


8/12


*nterested parties e=plain the cltre indstr! in technological terms E Do

mention is made of the fact that the basis on hich technolog! ac@irespoer over societ! is the poer of those hose economic hold over societ! is

greatest. > technological rationale is the rationale of domination itself E *t

has made the technolog! of the cltre indstr! no more than theachievement of standardi;ation and mass prodction, sacrificing hatever

involved a distinction beteen or1 and that of the social s!stem. This is the

reslt not of a la of movement in technolog! itself bt of its fnction intoda!s econom!. #Dialectic o 'nlightenment"2"$

B! sbordinating technical evoltion to the rationale of economic and social poer,

technolog! here is nderstood in classical fashion as a means to an end, as a toolfashioned and directed b! an intention that lies otside of it. The @estion of technolog!

is ths displaced b! socio-economic anal!sis.


9/12

roberts

Stieglers 37eneral *ntrodction4 to Technics and Timehere he remar1s as follos:

3the difficlt! of an interpretation of the meaning of modern technics for


10/12


s,#coulant/ Au cours de cet #coulement2 chacune des notes qui se pr#sente

maintenant retient en elle la note qui l,a pr#c#d#e2 celle-ci retenant en elle toutes

les notes qui l,ont pr#c#d#e2 elle est le 7maintenant8 comme maintien de lapr#sence de l,o!$et) le pr#sent de l,o!$et temporel est sa maintenance/ C,est ainsi

que se constitue l,nitLde l,o!$et temporel/ C,est parce qu,elle retient toutes les

notes2 tous les maintenants sonores qui la pr#c0dent2 que la note pr#sente peutsonner m#lodiquement2 9tre musicale2 9tre harmonique ou non-harmonique2 9tre

proprement une note2 et non seulement un son ou un !ruit/#Stiegler,Le Temps du

cin#ma'6-' F6+G H translation modified$

"0

5pose6 que la perception ne doit rien 4 l,imagination2 et que ce qui est per:u n,esten aucun cas imagin#2 ne peut a!solument pas 9tre contamin# par les ictions en

quoi consistent tou$ours les productions de l,imagination) la vie est perception et la

perception n,est pas l,imagination/#Stiegler,Le Temps du cin#ma' F0G$

""

1 la singularit# de la technique d,enregistrement cin#matographique r#sulte de la

congaison de de= coNncidences) d,une part2 la co;ncidence

photophonographique entre pass# et r#alit# 1 qui induit cet 7 eet de r#el 82 c,est-

4-dire de croyance2 o. le spectateur est install# d,avance par la technique elle-m9me< d,autre part2 la co;ncidence entre lu( du ilm et lu( de la conscience du

spectateur de ce ilm2 qui part le $eu du mouvement cr## entre les poses

photographiques2 li#es entre elles par le lu( phonographiqe2 d#clenche lem#canisme d,adoption complOtedu temps du ilm par le temps de la conscience du

spectateur2 qui2 en tant qu,elle est elle-m9me un lu(2 se trouve capt#e et 7

canalis#e 8 par le mouvement des images/ Ce mouvement2 investi par le d#sird,histoires qui ha!ite tout spectateur2 li!0re les movements de conscience

typiques de l,emotioncin#matographiqe/#Stiegler,Le temps du cin#ma'/ F66GH

original emphasis, translation slightl! modified$

"2 See Stiegler,Le Temps du cin#ma'% F6+GH translation slightl! modified. Stiegler is

@oting here from (ele;es obections to Bergson: 3(oes this mean that for Bergson the

cinema is onl! the proection, the reprodction of a constant, niversal illsionP >sthogh e had ala!s had cinema ithot realising itP4 #Cinema =) The *ovement-

>mage2$. Stiegler arges:

(ele;e is ndobtedl! correct to obect to Bergsons sa!ing that the reprodction

of an illsion is 3also its correction in one respect.4


11/12

roberts

1noing it4 means and fails to accont for the impact of the moving image.

#Stiegler,Le Temps du cin#ma'% F66G$

"' See Simondon,Du mode d,e(istence des o!$ets techniques.

"/

Le kantisme distingue deu( sources sans lesquelles aucune connaissance n,est

possi!le pour le su$et humain) la sensi!ilit# et l,entendement/ La sch#matisation2op#r#e par l,imagination2 est ce qui permet leur uniication2 c,est-4-dire2 du m9me

coup2 l,unit# de la conscience elle-m9me/ ?r2 les industries culturelles #tant des

industries de l,imaginaire2 @orkheimer et Adorno d#crivent l,industrialisation del,imagination comme une e=tLriorisation indstrielle d povoir de schLmatisation2

et par l4 m9me2 comme une rLification2 comme une chosiication ali#nante de la

conscience connaissante/#Stiegler,Le Temps du cin#ma6+$

"%

,il peut y avoir un 7 sch#matisme industriel 82 c,est parce que le schOme est

originairement et dans sa strctre mQme indstrialisable: il passe par la

rLtention tertiaire2 c,est-4-dire par la technique2 la technologie et2 au$ourd,hui2

l,industrie. #Stiegler,Le Temps du cin#ma/$

Bilio!ra"hy

>dorno, Theodor and a=


12/12


ar=, 9eo.Le%is *umord) Prophet o ?rganicism. De Jor1: eidenfeld, "+.

mford, 9eis.Art and Technics. De Jor1: Colmbia I, "%2.

mford, 9eis. Technics and Civilization. De Jor1: bier, "%+.

Stiegler, Bernard. Technics and Time. Trans. Richard Beardsorth and 7eorge Collins.

ol. ". The Eault o 'pimetheus. Stanford: Stanford I, "+.

Stiegler, Bernard.La technique et le temps. ol. '.Le temps du cin#ma et la question dumal-9tre. aris: 7alilLe, 200". artiall! translated as 3The Time of Cinema.4 Trans.

7eorge Collins. Tekhnema#"+$: 62&""'.

illiams, Rosalind. 3Classics Revisited: 9eis mfords Technics and Civilization.4

Technology and Culture/' #2002$: "'&/.

Ben Roberts

david g media and memory,bernard stiegler

Documents