Subject, Society and Culture
Publication Year: 2001
This book explores the relationships between visual culture, social theory and the individual. Visual culture has emerged as a central area of debate and research in contemporary sociology, yet the field is still underdefined. In particular, the relationship between visual culture and the individual remains obscure. Sociologists have insisted that all aspects of the individual are open to sociological explanation. The result is that the individual sometimes seems to have been theorized away from sociological understanding. Using a wide range of resources from Bourdieu's action theory and the contribution of actor network theory, through to the artistic explorations of Francis Bacon and Barnett Newman, this book shows how th
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
- Chapter 1: Bourdieu and the Sociological Tradition
- Chapter 2: Actor Network Theory: The Place of the Subject within Constructionist Sociology
- Chapter 3: Barnett Newman: Existentialism and the Transcendent Subject
- Chapter 4: Georg Baselitz: Fragmented Subjectivity
- Chapter 5: Carnality and Power: The Human Subject in the Work of Francis Bacon
Theory, Culture & Society[Page ii]
Theory, Culture & Society caters for the resurgence of interest in culture within contemporary social science and the humanities. Building on the heritage of classical social theory, the book series examines ways in which this tradition has been reshaped by a new generation of theorists. It also publishes theoretically informed analyses of everyday life, popular culture, and new intellectual movements.
EDITOR: Mike Featherstone, Nottingham Trent University
SERIES EDITORIAL BOARD
Roy Boyne, University of Durham
Mike Hepworth, University of Aberdeen
Scott Lash, Goldsmiths College, University of London
Roland Robertson, University of Pittsburgh
Bryan S. Turner, University of Cambridge
THE TCS CENTRE
The Theory, Culture & Society book series, the journals Theory, Culture & Society and Body & Society, and related conference, seminar and postgraduate programmes operate from the TCS Centre at Nottingham Trent University. For further details of the TCS Centre's activities please contact:
The TCS Centre, Room 175
Faculty of Humanities
Nottingham Trent University
Clifton Lane, Nottingham, NG11 8NS, UK
Recent volumes include:
Genealogies in Feminist Theory
Michel de Certeau
The Cultural Economy of Cities
Allen J. Scott
edited by Mike Featherstone
From Modernism to Hypermodernism
edited by John Armitage
For Maureen and Walter Turnbull
© Roy Boyne 2001
First published 2001
Published in association with Theory, Culture & Society, Nottingham Trent University
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by any means, only with the prior permission in writing of the publishers or, in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publishers.
SAGE Publications Ltd
6 Bonhill Street
London EC2A 4PU
SAGE Publications Inc
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd
32, M-Block Market
Greater Kailash – I
New Delhi 110 048
Published in association with Theory, Culture & Society, Nottingham Trent University
British Library Cataloguing in Publication data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 0 8039 8349 2
ISBN 0 8039 8350 6 (pbk)
Library of Congress catalog record available
Typeset by Mayhew Typesetting, Rhayader, Powys
Printed in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press Ltd, Trowbridge, Wiltshire
List of Illustrations[Page vi]
- Barnett Newman, First Station, 1958. © National Gallery of Art, Washington 47
- Barnett Newman, Second Station, 1958. © National Gallery of Art, Washington 47
- Barnett Newman, Third Station, 1960. © National Gallery of Art, Washington 49
- Barnett Newman, Fourth Station, 1960. © National Gallery of Art, Washington 53
- Barnett Newman, Fifth Station, 1962. © National Gallery of Art, Washington 55
- Barnett Newman, Sixth Station, 1962. © National Gallery of Art, Washington 57
- Barnett Newman, Seventh Station, 1964. © National Gallery of Art, Washington 59
- Barnett Newman, Eighth Station, 1964. © National Gallery of Art, Washington 61
- Barnett Newman, Ninth Station, 1964. © National Gallery of Art, Washington 62
- Barnett Newman, Tenth Station, 1965. © National Gallery of Art, Washington 64
- Barnett Newman, Eleventh Station, 1965. © National Gallery of Art, Washington 65
- Barnett Newman, Twelfth Station, 1965. © National Gallery of Art, Washington 66
- Barnett Newman, Thirteenth Station, 1965/66. © National Gallery of Art, Washington 67
- Barnett Newman, Fourteenth Station, 1965/66. © National Gallery of Art, Washington 68
- Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, The Drinker, 1915. © Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nürnburg 76
- Georg Baselitz, B for Larry, 1967. © Georg Baselitz 78
- Georg Baselitz, Die grossen Freunde, 1966. © Georg Baselitz 79
- Georg Baselitz, MMM in G and A, 1962–7. © Georg Baselitz 81
- Georg Baselitz, Kullervo's Feet, 1967. © Georg Baselitz 82
- Georg Baselitz, Woodmen, 1968. © Georg Baselitz 83
- Georg Baselitz, Portrait of Kasper and Ilka König, 1971. © Georg Baselitz 84 [Page vii]
- Georg Baselitz, ′45 (panels 1, 2, 11, 12), 1989. © Georg Baselitz 87
- Parmigianino (1503–40), Lady with Three Children. © The Prado, Madrid 89
- Georg Baselitz, Die Elbe, 1990. © Georg Baselitz 90
- Georg Baselitz, The Background Story, 1996. © Georg Baselitz 93
- Francis Bacon, Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion, 1944. © Tate Gallery 99
- Francis Bacon, Study for a Portrait, 1953. © Hamburger Kunsthalle 103
- Francis Bacon, Three Studies for a Crucifixion, 1962. © Guggenheim Foundation, New York 104 and 113
- Francis Bacon, Three Portraits (Dyer, Bacon, Freud), 1973. © DACS 105
- Francis Bacon, Triptych inspired by T.S. Eliot's Poem ‘Sweeney Agonistes’, 1967. © Hirshhorn Museum, Washington 116
- Francis Bacon, Triptych May-June 1973. © DACS 119
My colleagues in the Sociology Department of Durham University, in the European Studies Group at the University of Durham, Stockton Campus, and on the Editorial Board of Theory, Culture & Society, have provided continual stimulation and encouragement. John Hayward (who deserves a special word for his support, and for his superb work in developing the Stockton Campus of the University of Durham), Adrian Darnell and John Bancroft have provided cover, at critical moments, for my administrative duties in Durham, and I am in their debt. Ruediger Ahrens and the University of Wuerzburg were generous hosts during an extended research visit to Germany. Mike Featherstone, Bridget Fowler, Sarah Franklin, Steve Fuller, Ian Heywood, Scott Lash, John Myles, and Derek Robbins all read parts of the manuscript and made helpful comments for which I am grateful. The responsibility for what lies within is, of course, entirely my own. The National Gallery of Art in Washington, Georg Baselitz, the Prado, the Kunsthalle in Hamburg, the Guggenheim Foundation in New York, the Hirshhorn Museum, and DACS acting on behalf of the Tate Gallery and private collections, gave permission for the reproduction of the pictures which appear in the book. Faber and Faber gave permission for the extract from ‘Sweeney Agonistes’ to appear. Their help was invaluable.
A version of Chapter 3 appeared in Symbolism: a Journal of Critical Aesthetics, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1999. A short version of Chapter 4 appeared in The History of the Human Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1995 and in Chris Jenks (ed.), Visual Culture, London: Routledge, 1995. A short version of Chapter 6 appeared in Susanne Fendler and Ruth Wittlinger (eds), The Idea of Europe in Literature, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999. A version of Chapter 7 appeared in Angelaki, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1999.
Finally, I would like to express my thanks to my wife, Nicola, my stepdaughter, Clare, and my son, Christopher, who have all been outstanding in their constant support.
Preface: The Fate of the Subject[Page ix]
The story of the subject in Western thought can be approached through Machiavelli's tale of Remirro de Orco. He was the man who forcibly pacified and unified the Romagna at the start of the sixteenth century. Cesare Borgia, known at the time as Duke Valentino, knew that while the inhabitants of the Romagna had been quietened, they were nevertheless liable to nurse resentment and hatred at the way that they had been quelled. He therefore came to the decision that it had become unnecessary to keep faith with Remirro de Orco, despite the fact that this man had been his loyal lieutenant and a fruitful and effective subject acting on his behalf:
The Duke decided that there was no need for this excessive authority, which might grow intolerable, and he established in the centre of the province a civil tribunal, under an eminent president, on which every city had its own representative. Knowing also that the severities of the past had earned him a certain amount of hatred in the minds of the people and to win them over completely he determined to show that if cruelties had been inflicted they were not his doing but prompted by the harsh nature of his minister. This gave Cesare a pretext; then, one morning, Remirro's body was found cut in two pieces on the piazza at Cesena, with a block of wood and a bloody knife beside it.(Machiavelli 1961: 57–8)
This death of the agent in 1502 exhibits the classic form of the critical paradigm. In abstract, there are six moments: first the subject as untrammelled power, second the emergence of a relatively autonomous agent of that subject; third rejection of the potential consequences of that autonomy, fourth the death of the agent, fifth affirmation of the power of the agent (not now Remirro, but the Civil Tribunal), and sixth the persistence of the subject. What Machiavelli teaches us is to look for the subject behind the agent.
We need not however follow Machiavelli's (and, later, Sartre's) example here and define the subject in terms of the struggle for supremacy. While we do need to hold on to some notion of autonomy if we are to retain a notion of a subject, different forms of autonomy surely exist. In the fields of aesthetics, politics, economics, science, ethics, education, and one might even say, loosely, everyday life, it is not obvious that human actors are only agents acting on behalf of other forces. There will, of course, be plenty of occasions when that will be the case. There will, however, also be times when human subjects take considered actions when loyalties conflict, form [Page x]critical judgements in the absence of clear rules, attempt innovations without prior approval, and take principled stands which lead them into apparently untenable positions. The ubiquity of such examples presents prima facie grounds for arguing that the simple replacement of the human subject by the sociological notion of the agent cannot be justified. Perhaps it will be a matter of seeing these two basic notions as alternatives. At times, even when we do not know it, thought or action may be other-directed, representational, vicarious. This is certainly true. At other times, however, human action is not the action of agents, whether conscious or unconscious, but is seen as an expression of autonomous selfhood. The situation is made difficult because all human action can be seen by others as either agential or subjective, and the actor, him or herself, can never be completely clear which it is or where the balance lies. If we add this hermeneutic indeterminacy to the strength and weight of the formative social forces around us, forces which lead us without realising it to act and think as we sometimes do, it becomes plain that as subjects our constitution is relatively weak. There is however a very great difference between acknowledging this weakness, and acceding to the wholesale critique of the subject that has been common currency within much of the social sciences and some of the humanities since the 1960s.
Suppose, however, that we are living through the death of the subject. If this is the case, we are surely in dramatic and momentous times. Both the objective view of nature advanced especially within science and technology, and the subjective view of human beings as moral subjects, have been enormously productive. Apparatuses of knowledge, law and economy testify to this efflorescence. We might expect, then, that announcements of the transcendence of the objectivity–subjectivity divide will either enshrine a critique of such productivity itself (radical ecology springs to mind here) or offer an equally fecund potential (actor network theory, discussed in Chapter 2, below, may be the best example here). Thus far, however, as I will try to show in the course of this book, denials of either the subjectivity of subjects or the objectivity of objects rest within the general framework of subject and object which remains untranscended. This is not to say that the principles of science and morality (to take the two obvious instances) have not given rise to mistakes, false promises and, certainly, terrors. Nor is it to say that local vectors of the overall subject–object framework are immune to criticism and reformulation.
This book is concerned with the subjective moment that, thus far, remains residual and obdurate even after the fiercest dilutions, deprivations and denials to be found within contemporary social science and postmodern practice within the humanities and the philosophy of culture. What do we mean by the subject? At its core is the idea of an autonomous principle of judgement. A prototype for this principle is based on the idea of single individual human beings who are able freely to decide upon the actions that they take within virtually all social and personal contexts. The site of the decision process, in this view, is the individual consciousness, [Page xi]and although it can be compromised by drugs, emotional turmoil, physical duress, and by the artful manipulations of others, and even though it can never be certain of the authenticity of its own condition, in its normal form it is sufficiently powerful to be autonomous, discerning and, therefore, responsible for its own actions. This view of the subject is a basis of the day-to-day understanding of the self within Western society. It is reflected in contemporary legal systems whether based on English common law, Roman law, or Islamic law. It is also contained in the very structure of our language, with its subjects and predicates, its nominative and accusative cases. The essence of this classical, post-Augustinian view of the subject is that the T is the first cause of its own intentional actions.
There is a clear opposition between contemporary sociological thought and contemporary cultural theory with regard to the question of the subject. Both regard the classical post-Augustinian view as untenable. Sociologists have tended to hold that view in epistemological terms, finding that there is no aspect of human behaviour which can a priori be treated as outside the mechanisms of social cause and effect. Cultural theorists have tended to find that the classical view of the subject is an ideological construction, both in theory and in practice. In consequence, and in general, sociological thought repudiates the subject, while cultural theory seeks to understand how the subject is constructed and/or how and where it is placed. In the first chapter of this book, we will look at the first of two major currents within sociological theory: Bourdieu's reflexive field theory. In the second chapter, our topic will be actor network theory. I aim to show, in this first part of the book, that one of the things that unites these exemplars of structuralist and constructivist thought is a shared rejection, on epistemological grounds, of the subject, but that they both, as Machiavelli might lead us to expect, depend upon the principle of subjectivity, even as they have intimated its death.
The second part of the book suggests that the pristine moment of refusal of the sociological consciousness that has defined the contemporary period is to be found in modern art. Paradigmatically, this takes the form of the artist's striving to express something of the subjective, human condition. One might say that the artist tries to puncture, even burn, the institutional layers which lie heavy, like so many sheets on a cold bed,1 on the subject made supine by the weight of social forces. While the sociologist holds that it is this weight which constitutes the subject, creating the very idea of a moral subject and casting grave doubt upon the artist's project, the artists we will consider try to excavate what is essential to the subject, finding qualities of the subject which are a-social, pre-social and supra-social. They do not aspire to a scientific description of a non-social subject, but rather try to crystallise out the qualities of the subject that endure despite the pressures of social construction and conformity that bear down upon us all.
The varied affirmations of subjectivity that we find in Newman, Baselitz and Bacon give us limited insight into the cultural condition of the contemporary subject, into its modes of possibility as being-in-the-world. The [Page xii]cinema has no particular privilege over literature or philosophy in this regard, but, as the seventh art form, it is both the contemporary mode of leisure and a powerful medium of reflexivity for the subject in the world. This is not, of course, its generally understood function – far from it. So we have to be careful. There is, however, on the evidence of the body of work, accessible work for the most part, that has been produced over the last century, a continuing potential for anthropological analysis and investigation of subjective temporalities which goes far beyond the intentions of the profit seekers, and penetrates into the symptomatology of the contemporary subject.
The cinematic subject cannot be strong, for it, like Superman sold for $65 in 1938, then has value only as parody and entertainment. In contrast to the case of sociology, however, the subject for cinema does not disappear entirely from view, nor is it too often made arcane as a result of the brilliant and obsessive hunt for clinching and exquisite essence. The very core of cinema as an art form is the fabulation and illustration of the strength and weakness of the contemporary subject. This subject is not strong enough to forgo accommodation: no matter what form the attempted repudiation of exterior forces might take, whether the attempt to deny one's past or the effort to dissolve oneself in a sealed narrative of private desire, the effort will fail. However, even in the case of a subject entirely overwhelmed by social forces, some element of its own does struggle to endure, an iconic counter-instance even if in death and failure.
It is the overall argument of this book that the humanities and the social sciences are moving too far apart, that the social scientific repudiation of the subject has its counterpart in the Manichaean subjectivism of popular entertainment, and that both risk forgoing the moral narrative subtleties of contemporary life. We fail to appreciate and reinforce these intricacies at our peril, and art, whether on canvas or on the screen, can help with their reproduction.Note
1. The work of Anselm Kiefer is instructive, not only for his 1974 picture, Painting = Burning. His 1992 installation, The Women of the Revolution, included fourteen steel beds with mattresses covered with lead sheets.
In Conclusion[Page 166]
How should we now understand the subject? Within the framework of sociological analysis, whether ruled by an objectivist commitment to real structures or by the plastic scepticism of contingent constructionism, the subject is entirely resolved and dissolved into its component social parts. From birth to death, and at all points before, between and after, at every point on both its surface and in its interior, the subject is a social accomplishment. There is no level that is anterior to the social. This is the sociological position and it is unimpeachable. It does not mean that there is no morality or that the sense of the physical is bogus, merely that – just to take these two of many examples that could have been picked – the moral and the physical never escape sociological definition. Sociologically speaking, there has never been a history of the subject which was not first, foremost, and entirely a history of society. Thus, if conceptions of the subject have moved from Platonic replicas of the Gods through various stages to current conceptions of Freudian splitting or postmodern fragmentation, this narrative of the subject is a sociological phenomenon and its stages can be sociologically analysed. None of this, however, authorises the conclusion that the subject is therefore only an agent of wider social forces, or that it does not exist, or that the drive to give cultural expression to the ache and conscious persistence of the human is either inferior or without significance. It does not mean that the exploration of alienation to be found in, for example, the films of David Cronenberg or Robert Bresson does not catch something of the eternal condition of the subject, nor does it enable the refusal of contemporary lessons concerning the poor fit of the moral rags clothing the subject given to us by Maurice Blanchot or Krzysztof Kieślowski. In short, the inevitability of the social takes its place alongside the inevitability of the subject. Neither precludes the other. Sociological explanation is only one perspective on the human world, and even if it does account for the subject to the point of its dissolution, this is just not the case for other perspectives, such as the aesthetic, axiological or dramatic. These in their turn may exclude the sociological. This may be a lesson that sociologists still have to learn, that reflexivity will operate to relativise, that it will perform a function of de-domination.
It was Barnett Newman's self-appointed task to attempt to portray the struggle of the subject without reducing that struggle to a narrative. He wanted to suggest the scale of the phenomenon: infinitely reproduced, infinitely varied, closely united but unspeakably separate, sociologically [Page 167]deniable yet existentially apodictic, beyond and within. Baselitz wished to show the subject uncontaminated, not now by the sociological perspective, but by his own. He was led in a number of directions: fragmentation, inversion, sculptural brutalism, and an obsessively myopic neo-romanticism. Between these artists, we see a contrast of sacred and profane: Newman trying to see and then to express what it is about the subject that is set apart, Baselitz attempting in different ways to approach, without the transport of his own subjectivity – an impossible task, of course – the sheer materiality of the subject. This contrast between Baselitz's figure and Newman's ground, between a dogged phenomenology and a rapturous idealism, is, needless to say, a fundamental alternation in the current of the subject itself. It was then for Francis Bacon to add a third term: a witness to the subject and a witness as subject, a line of inquiry into the conditions of the subject which has hardly begun, but which might suggest a third ontological category to be added to those of master and slave. That the twentieth century was the time of the witness, debarred from but close to the action, admitting both good and evil done to and by others, locked in a present circumscribed by alien histories and inaccessible futures, of great weight but without specific powers, is a thought that is already very familiar. It takes us, it might be thought, into the cinema.
Kieślowski's trilogy suggests to us that there may be three basic ideal types of subject. The existential subject is caught in the night at that point when the only presence to consciousness is the sound of one's breathing and the slightly irregular pulse of the heart. From a base of unadorned bodily existence, unanswerable but insistent questions of meaning arise. This is not a willed condition. Nor is it pristine. It is accompanied by an emotional response: fear, disgust, self-pity, for example. The existential subject is crystallised out of an intersubjective existence, and experienced in language against a ground of significant macro- and micro-others. The Cartesian subject is a creature of instrumental reason. He or she is a construction well known to economists, military commanders, works managers and police forces, to name just some of the more obvious instances. Without elements of calculation, the human subject cannot survive within any context. However, an entirely Cartesian subject is not human, but robotic, controlled by the instructions of others. We are here within what has been called on many occasions the realm of means. The Kantian subject has an answer to the existentialist's question of meaning (an answer which is entirely lost sight of once inside the existentialist mode, but which, from the Kantian standpoint, never leaves one's side, as the musical expression of caritas never leaves Julie) and that answer, expressed as a set of shared values, a grammar of collective life, provides an overall framework for the subject's conduct, both instrumental and non-instrumental, vis-à-vis him- or herself and others. We are here, as will already be clear and familiar, within the realm of ends. To these three ideal types, it is now necessary to add a fourth: the subject as witness. The three imperatives above of being, doing and care are all of them underpinned, as each is by the others, by the [Page 168]inescapability of testimony. Perhaps this is where the power of sociology lies, as well as the characterisation of the twentieth century, but be that as it may, Bacon, Kieślowski, Ballard (tempted from observation into participation), and no doubt many others, affirm that it is time to give the witness its due, and to begin to work out its implications.
References[Page 169]1984) T.S. Eliot. London: Sphere Books.(1995) The Stations of the Cross. Manchester: St Marys's.(1994) ‘On re-presentational pictures’ in Georg Baselitz: Printed Works 1965–1992. Stuttgart: IFA.(1952) The Complete Plays. London: Allen and Unwin.(1995) Fin de Siècle Social Theory. London: Verso.(1965) The Stations of the Cross. London: Catholic Truth Society.(1995) Kieslowski. Paris: Éditions Payot et Rivages.(Amiel, V. (ed.) (1997) Krzysztof Kieslowski. Paris: Jean-Michel Place, Positif.1993) ‘Struggles for liberty’. Financial Times, 14 Oct.(1981) The Hour of our Death. London: Penguin.(1945) The City of God. London: J.M. Dent.(1985) Francis Bacon. London: Tate Gallery and Thames and Hudson.(1992) ‘From Expressionism’  in C.Harrison and P.Wood (eds), Art in Theory 1900–1990. Oxford: Blackwell.(1995) Crash. London: Vintage.(1995a) ‘Notes on Nude Elke’. http://www.guggenheim.org/baselitz/elke.html.(1995b) ‘Notes on B for Larry’. http://www.guggenheim.org/baselitz/larry.html.(1992) The Pandemonium Manifestos  in C.Harrison and P.Wood (eds), Art in Theory 1900–1990. Oxford: Blackwell.and (1997) ‘The torment’ in F.Botting and S.Wilson (eds), The Bataille Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.(1994) ‘Crash’ in his Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 111–20.(1970) ‘The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction’ in Illuminations. London: Jonathan Cape.(1973) Essays on J.L. Austin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1991) The Aesthetics of Murder. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.(1995) The Writing of the Disaster. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.(1997) Friendship. Stanford: Stanford University Press.(1994) The Western Canon. London: Macmillan.(1984) ‘A conversation with Hans Haacke’ in A.Michelson, R.Krauss, D.Crimp and J.Copjec (eds), October: the First Decade, 1976–1986. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987., and (1995) Rationalizing Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.(1984) Distinction. London: Routledge.(1987) Choses dites. Paris: Minuit.(1988) ‘Vive la crise’, Theory and Society, Vol. 17, No. 4: 773–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00162619(1991) ‘Epilogue: on the possibility of a field of world sociology’ in P.Bourdieu and J.Coleman (eds), Social Theory for a Changing Society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.(1996) The Rules of Art. Cambridge: Polity.(1997) Meditations Pascaliennes. Paris: Seuil.(1998a) ‘A reasoned Utopia and economic fatalism’, New Left Review, No. 227, Jan./Feb.([Page 170]1998b) Acts of Resistance: Against the New Myths of Our Time. Cambridge: Polity.(1995) Free Exchange. Cambridge: Polity.and (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: Chicago University Press.and (1998) ‘Postmodernism, the sublime and ethics’ in I.Velody and A.Still (eds), The Politics of Modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1993) Terminal Identity: the Virtual Subject in Postmodern Science Fiction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(1973) Theory of Film Practice. London: Secker and Warburg.(1998) ‘Merely cultural’, New Left Review, No. 227, Jan./Feb.: 33–44.(1995) The Resurrection of the Body. New York: Columbia University Press.(1999) ‘Why all the fuss about the body: a medievalist's perspective’ in V.E.Bonnell and L.Hunt (eds), Beyond the Cultural Turn. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.(1995)  ‘Subject matter in the work of Barnett Newman’ in G.Battcock (ed.), Minimal Art. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 109–15.(1986) ‘Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay’ in J.Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief. London: Routledge.(1981) ‘Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do it’ in K.Knorr-Cetina and A.V.Cicourel (eds), Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro- and Macro-Sociologies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.and (1992) ‘Don't throw the baby out with the Bath School! A reply to Collins and Yearley’ in A.Pickering (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: Chicago University Press.and (1983) ‘Introduction’ in N.Serota and M.Francis (eds), Georg Baselitz: Paintings 1960–1983. London: Whitechapel Art Gallery.(1985) ‘A source of the inverted imagery in Georg Baselitz's paintings’, The Burlington Magazine, 894–99.(Caruth, C. (ed.) (1995) Trauma: Explorations in Memory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.1996) Unclaimed Experience: Trauma, Narrative and History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.(1991) ‘From dangerousness to risk’ in G.Burchell, C.Gordon and P.Miller (eds), The Foucault Effect. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.(1995) The Engine of Reason, the Seat of the Soul. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1997) ‘In defence of abstract expressionism’ in R.Krauss, A.Michelson, Y.-A.Bois, B.H.D.Buchlon, H.Foster, D.Hollier and S.Kolbowski (eds), October: The Second Decade, 1986–1996. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1992a) ‘Epistemological chicken’ in A.Pickering (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: Chicago University Press.and (1992b) ‘Journey into space’ in A.Pickering (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: Chicago University Press.and (1996) Crash. London: Faber and Faber.(1989) ‘Nietzsche to neo-expressionism: a context for Baselitz’, German Art Now: Art and Design, No. 5 (December): 76–83.(1993) Critical Aesthetics and Postmodernism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1999) ‘Bourdieu on art: field and individual’ in R.Shusterman (ed.), Bourdieu: a Critical Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.(1996a) Baselitz Charabia et Basta: Entretiens avec Eric Darragon. Paris: L'Arche.(1996b) ‘Baselitz à Paris’ in S.Pagé, J.Laffon and O.Burluraux (eds).([Page 171]1984) Francis Bacon: Logique de la sensation (2 vols). Paris: Editions de la différence.(1987) A Thousand Plateaus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.and (1976) Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.(1978a) ‘Freud and the scene of writing’ in Writing and Difference. London: Routledge.(1978b) Edmund Husserl's ‘Origin of Geometry’: an Introduction. New York: Nicholas Hays.(1982) ‘The ends of man’ in Margins of Philosophy. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.(1987) The Truth in Painting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1992) The Other Heading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.(1993) Memoirs of the Blind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.(1994) Specters of Marx: the State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and the New International. New York: Routledge.(1997) The Politics of Friendship. London: Verso.(1972) The Expressionists. London: Thames and Hudson.(1952) Suicide. London: Routledge.(1999) ‘Bourdieuean dynamics: the American middle class self-constructs’, in R.Shusterman (ed.), Bourdieu: a Critical Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.(1936) Collected Poems 1909–1935. London: Faber and Faber.(1962) Collected Plays. London: Faber and Faber.(1981) ‘Snobs’, London Review of Books, 5–18 Nov.: 10–12.(1996) ‘Krzysztof Kieslowski: human touch of a master’. Guardian, 14 Mar.(1997) ‘Watch on the Rhine’. Times Higher Educational Supplement, 7 Nov.(1998) Post-traumatic Culture: Injury and Interpretation in the Nineties. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.(1994) The Gilded Gutter Life of Francis Bacon. London: Vintage.(1995) ‘Education and crisis, or the vicissitudes of teaching’ in C.Caruth (ed.), Trauma: Explorations in Memory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.(1997) A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis: Theory and Technique. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1996) The Return of the Real. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1984) ‘On repression’ in On Metapsychology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1992) The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.(1991) The Re-enchantment of Art. London: Thames and Hudson.(1999) Francis Bacon: Working on Paper. London: Tate Gallery.(1994) ‘Trois Couleurs Blanc: inégalité sociale et égalité en amour’. Études cinématographiques, 203–10: 129–39.(1997) Krzysztof Kieślowski's Decalogue Series. Lublin: Maria Curie-Sklodowska University Press.(1997) ‘Authority, reading, reflexivity: Pierre Bourdieu and the aesthetic judgement of Kant.’ Diacritics. Vol. 27, No. 1: 20–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/dia.1997.0006(1968) Words and Things. Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1998) Language and Solitude: Wittgenstein, Malinowski and the Habsburg Dilemma. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612466(Georg Baselitz: Paintings 1964–1967 (1985) Anthony d'Offay Gallery. London.Georg Baselitz: Prints 1964–1990 (1992) Geneva/Valencia/London: Tate Gallery.Georg Baselitz: Retrospektive 1964–1991 (1992) Munich: Hirmer-Verlag.1996) ‘Toile ou tableau? Considération sur la catégorie “image” chez Georg Baselitz’ in S.Pagé, J.Laffon and O.Burluraux (eds).(1992) ‘Statement 1943’ in C.Harrison and P.Wood (eds), Art in Theory: 1900–1990. Oxford: Blackwell., and (1993) Serenity in Crisis: a Preface to Paul de Man 1939–1960. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.([Page 172]1990) Lanark. London: Harvest Books.(1992) Postmetaphysical Thinking. Cambridge: Polity.(1989) Primate Visions. London: Verso.(1991) Simians, Cyborgs and Women. New York: Routledge.(1992) ‘The promises of monsters: a regenerative politics for inappropriate/d others’ in L.Grossberg, C.Nelson and P.Treichler (eds), Cultural Studies. London: Routledge(1997) Modest Witness @ Second Millennium. London: Routledge.(1995) ‘Public memory and its discontents’ in M.Brown (ed.), The Uses of Literary History. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(1977) ‘The word of Nietzsche: “God is dead”’ in The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. New York: Harper and Row.(1978) ‘Letter on humanism’ in D.F.Krell (ed.), Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings. London: Routledge.(1997) ‘The interior surface’ in Baselitz. Milan: Edizione Charta.(1972) Barnett Newman. London: Tate Gallery Publications.(1976) ‘Towards a method’, Sub-stance, No. 14: 27–38.(1999) Double Lives, Second Chances: the Cinema of Krzysztof Kieslowski. New York: Hyperion.(1982) Ruins: Strategies of Destruction in the Fracture Paintings of Georg Baselitz 1966–1969. London: Anthony d'Offay.(1982) ‘Epiphenomenal qualia’. Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 32: 127–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2960077(1996) ‘Thinking about the self’ in L.May and J.Kohn (eds), Hannah Arendt: Twenty Years Later. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(Joachimides, C.M., Rosenthal, N. and Schmied, W. (eds) (1985) German Art in the Twentieth Century: Painting and Sculpture 1905–1985. Munich/London: Prestel-Verlag and Royal Academy of Arts.1977) Concerning the Spiritual in Art. New York: Dover.(1979) Aristotle's Theory of the Will. London: Duckworth.(1998) Three Colours Trilogy: Blue, White, Red. London: Faber and Faber.and (1998) Murder: a Tale of Modern American Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(1991) Art after Philosophy and After. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(Krens, T., Govan, M. and Thompson, J. (eds) (1989) Refigured Painting: The German Image 1960–1988. Munich: Prestel-Verlag.1991) Strangers to Ourselves. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.(1996) ‘Is sensation a language?’ in J.Lechte (ed.), Writing and Psychoanalysis. London: Arnold.(1988) The New Subjectivism: Art in the 1980s. New York: Da Capo Press.(1996) ‘Introduction’ in S.Pagé, J.Laffon and O.Burluraux (eds).(1983) ‘Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world’ in K.D.Knorr-Cetina and M.Mulkay (eds), Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. London: Sage.(1990) ‘Drawing things together’ in M.Lynch and S.Woolgar (eds), Representation in Scientific Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1993) We Have Never Been Modern. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.(1997a) ‘On recalling ANT’ in ‘Actor Network and After’ Workshop. Keele University: Centre for Social Theory and Technology.(1997b) ‘On actor-network theory: a few clarifications’ in ‘Actor Network and After’ Workshop. Keele University: Centre for Social Theory and Technology.(1994) Organizing Modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.(1983) Francis Bacon. London: Phaidon.(1976) Tristes Tropiques. London: Penguin.(1995) A Masterclass for Young Directors. Amsterdam: Kunst Kanaal Video.(dir.) ([Page 173]1984) Movements in Art since 1945 (new revised edition). London: Thames and Hudson.(1997) Prosthetic Culture. London: Routledge.(1988) The Differend. Manchester: Manchester University Press.(1990) Heidegger and ‘the Jews’. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.(1991) The Inhuman. Cambridge: Polity.(1997) ‘Shark operator’, Observer Life, 31 Aug.: 4–6.(1961) The Prince. Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1995) ‘Terminating bodies: toward a cyborg history of abortion’ in J.Halberstam and I.Livingstone (eds), Posthuman Bodies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.(1998 ‘This bust was cast from a decaying corpse. Whose work does it most resemble: Damien Hirst's or Jeffrey Dahmer's?’, Observer Review, 29 March.1995) Genealogies of the Text: Literature, Psychoanalysis and Politics in Modern France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597725(1994) The Balkanization of the West. London: Routledge.(Muthesius, A. (ed.) (1990) Georg Baselitz. Köln: Taschen.1997) ‘What is it like to be a bat?’ in N.Block, O.Flanagan and G.Güzeldere (eds), The Nature of Consciousness: Philosophical Debates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1992) Jackson Pollock: an American Saga. London: Pimlico.and (1993) ‘Trois Couleurs: bleu’, Variety, 20 Sept.(1966) The Stations of the Cross: lema sabachthani. New York: Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum.(1992) Selected Writings and Interviews, ed. John P.O'Neill. Berkeley: University of California Press.(1973) Beyond Good and Evil. Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1974) The Gay Science. New York: Random House.(1992) Beyond Recognition: Representation, Power, and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.(1996) ‘Préface’ in S.Pagé, J.Laffon and O.Burluraux (Eds). Pagé, S., Laffon, J. and Burluraux, O. (eds) (1996) Georg Baselitz: Musée d'Art Moderne de la ville de Paris. Paris: Éditions des musées de la ville de Paris.(1954) ‘The problem of controlled institutional change’  in Essays in Sociological Theory (revised edition). New York: Free Press.(1988) Doctor Zhivago. London: Collins Harvill.(1996) Francis Bacon: Anatomy of an Enigma. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.(1988) Philip Pearlstein: Drawings and Watercolors. New York: Harry N. Abrams.(1999) ‘Reading to read: a future for reading’ in G.Cavallo and R.Chartier (eds), A History of Reading in the West. Cambridge: Polity.(1998) ‘The living dead’, Guardian Weekend, 28 Mar.(Plato (1955) Timaeus. Harmondsworth: Penguin.1994) ‘Francis Bacon: the logic of sensation’ in C.V.Boundas and D.Olkowski (eds), Gilles Deleuze and the Theater of Philosophy. New York: Routledge.(1996) ‘In Memory’, Sight and Sound, Vol. 6, No. 8, Aug.: 65.(1999) Phantoms in the Brain: Human Nature and the Architecture of the Mind. London: Fourth Estate.and (1991) Introducing Lyotard: Art and Politics. London: Routledge.(1998) Faust's Metropolis. London: HarperCollins.(1992) On Heidegger's Nazism and Philosophy. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.(1996) Inventing Our Selves. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752179(1992) Klee, Kandinsky and the Thought of Their Time. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.(1979) Francis Bacon. New York: Oxford University Press.(1998) Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.([Page 174]1965a) Nausea. Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1965b) ‘The humanism of existentialism’ in The Philosophy of Existentialism. New York: Philosophical Library.(1989) ‘Metaphors: positions in contemporary German painting’ in T.Krens, M.Govan and J.Thompson (eds), Refigured Painting: The German Image 1960–1988. Munich: Prestel-Verlag.(1996) Paradoxes of Modernity: Culture and Conduct in the Theory of Max Weber. Stanford: Stanford University Press.(1985) ‘Points of departure and transformations in German art 1905–1985’ in C.M.Joachimides, N.Rosenthal and W.Schmied (eds), German Art in the Twentieth Century: Painting and Sculpture 1905–1985. Munich/London: Prestel-Verlag and Royal Academy of Arts: 21–74.(1996) The Prints of Barnett Newman 1961–1969. Ostfildern-Ruit: Verlag Gerd Hatje.(1996) Stratification and Power: Structures of Class, Status and Command. Cambridge: Polity.(Serota, N. and Francis, M. (eds) (1983) Georg Baselitz: Paintings 1960–1983. London: Whitechapel Art Gallery.1996) ‘Letter to the National Endowments for the Arts’  in K.Stiles and P.Selz (eds), Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art. Berkeley: University of California Press.(1995) Angels: a Modern Myth. Paris: Flammarion.(1996) ‘Strates’ in S.Pagé, J.Laffon and O.Burluraux (eds).(1997) Leaky Bodies and Boundaries. London: Routledge.(1999) Crash. London: BFI.(1996) Les Passions de Francis Bacon. Paris: Gallimard.(1991) Outside in the Teaching Machine. London: Routledge.(1997) Teratologies: a Cultural Study of Cancer. London: Routledge.(1996) ‘Introduction’ in , The Most High. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.(Stok, D. (ed) (1993) Kieslowski on Kieslowski. London: Faber and Faber.1995) The War of Desire and Technology at the Close of the Mechanical Age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1992) ‘Picasso, De Kooning: a passion for drawing’ in et al., The Body on the Cross. Montreal: Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, pp. 124–9.(1996) ‘Serial killing and the transformation of the social’, Theory, Culture and Society, Vol. 13, No. 1: 77–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026327696013001004(1980) Interviews with Francis Bacon. London: Thames and Hudson.(1998) Francis Bacon: the Human Body. Berkeley: University of California Press.(1989) Sources of the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1984) The Other: Studies in the Social Ontology of Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre and Buber. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1995) Scandal and Aftereffect: Blanchot and France since 1930. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.(1989) ‘Responsibility and free will’ in A. PhillipsGriffiths (ed.), Key Themes in Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1995) The Art of the Motor. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.(1993) ‘From ruling class to field of power: an interview with Pierre Bourdieu on La Noblesse d'État’, Theory, Culture and Society, Vol. 10, No. 3: 19–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026327693010003002(1995) Georg Baselitz: Art on the Edge. New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications.(1996) ‘Notes on B for Larry’. http://www.guggenheim.org/baselitz/larry.html.(1994) ‘In the shadow of the deconstructed metanarratives: Baudrillard, Latour and the end of realist epistemology’, History of the Human Sciences, Vol. 7, No. 4: 73–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/095269519400700405([Page 175]1996) The Doppelganger: Double Visions in German Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198159049.001.0001(1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation. New York: Free Press.(1948) ‘Class, status, party’ in and , From Max Weber. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1993) ‘Prosthetic gods in atrocious places: Gilles Deleuze/Francis Bacon’ in Carnival, Hysteria and Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 160–77.(1988) ‘Picasso and pâté de foie gras: Pierre Bourdieu's sociology of culture’, Diacritics, Summer: 47–60.(1979) Remarks on Frazer's ‘Golden Bough’. Retford: Brynmill Press.(1992) ‘Some remarks about positionism: a reply to Collins and Yearley’ in A.Pickering (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: Chicago University Press.(1997) Class Counts: Comparative Studies in Class Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(