Making Things Public Which Cosmos for Which Cosmopolitics? From Objects to Things The Great Pan Is Dead! ue 7 a ae On Ces ee Uc anor edited by Bruno Latour and Peter WeibelMaking things Public. Atmospheres of Democracy 2003-703 10-2005 (Curators: Brno Letourand Peter Weibel ‘Curator of web-based projects: Steve Die ‘Cratos! Assistance and Project Management: Heilee Ander, Sabine Fimmelshach, Project Coordination: Vali Pther Assitance: Tasa Langenbach, Katin Werner, Margit Rosen, Ika Scope undrsing: Margit Rosen, tka Szope Registrar: Mariame Meister ‘Conservation: Thomas Zidlewagen ‘Technical Manager: Marin Fiberie Construction Management: Ronald Haas, Christiane Ostertag Consteuetion Tear: Wemter Huizenlaub, Christof Hietholze, Rainee Gabler, Dirk Meesakker, Gisbert Leaber, Mirco Fras, Christian Naingolan, Eke Cordell, Anna Reiss, Gregor Gesissmsies, Volker Becker, Claudius Bib, Volker Méllenhort, Marco Pretschoyy, Bastian Hersminger, Sitke Fehsenfeld, Advion Flovea,Poter Gather, Alexander Gcininges, Hiciko Moos, Garuma Janfeng, Mewtin Boul, Partner ofthe ZKM Landesektagen tent ope feotem nde Culture 2000 Sponsors With Kind supper of { VISENSO ] sua engrenng cations woes ® LB=BW 2nces" ition at the ZKM } Center for Art and Media Karleruhe Mane Surmabinger, Jeg Bales, Oliver Dehn, Pamcla Schmid, (Olaf Quantius, Hauke Reich, Ralf Rose, Mona Scheibe, Andtea Hartinges, Tom Di Stefano Exhibition Architecture: Nitolaus Hirsch / Michel Mille, Frankfurt am Main, Assistance: Tobias Katz, Felix Raschke- echnical support: ZKM | Instiowe for Visual Media 1 Support: Philipp Foffnans, Joachiny Sehires, Uwe aber Frcilgy Management: Peter Futteces Peter Kul Klaus Wirth, ‘Martin Braun, Hartmut Kampe, Mating Herlan, Christof ‘Menold, Peter Kiefer, Kal Stomm, Klas Gerstner ‘Website (concept): Steve Dietz ‘Websire (design and realization): GFT Medi Libray: Claudia Gefrig, Js Lil, Naru Jeg, Christiane Miner, Matthias Feitsch ‘Museums Communications: Beeshard Serexhe, Janine Burger, fifaviamne Womack Public Affair: Andrea Buddensieg, Evel Edimaic, ‘rina Kououdis, Angela Wiedemann 2 Blea Warctemberg wemewcariinntiomat Katine Mondrian Stichting {Mondtiaan Foundation) Kindly supported by Protelveta the Arts Counci of Sitzetand wanzr [iy Johannes and Mindy Mann Making Things Public. Atmosphexes of Democracy Publication Edivors: Bruno Latourand Petec Weibel ZKM | Publication Program: Ubike Havermann, edo Jens Lut, Miriam Stier, assistant edicors Production Rm: Katharina Sacken, Ske Miller, Christiane ~ Gast, Carmen Beckenbach, Cassiopée Guitery “Text eng: Katharina Sacken Copy editing: Sally Bixby Defiy “Translations by: Rober Beyee, Sarah Chit, Stuart Kendal, Sandra Reid, Uli Nickel, Liz Cavey-Libbrecht, Chats, Wolf, ‘Mare Soiston, Redney Stringer, Gloria Custance, Barbara Fes, Apailfulch Peree, Amy Jacobs, Maci Shickis, Andris Metiakoul, David Kers Jeremy Gaines, Marlies Solnzar, Silke Miller Design: HolgerJose ‘Type seting and layout: Holger Jost, hstine Weber Lithography: COMYK, Roland Mere Printed and bound: Engethare 8 Bouer, Karlsruhe Special thanks co: Emst Gartner, Fondazione CINL Wah the continuing suppeer of ce Centre Sociologie de Plarovacion of the Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines, de Pais Many contebutions in this volume and several installations in ehe show are the result of research carried out under the Imermiversity Atteaction Poles progeamime V.16*The loyal- ‘ies of knowledge. The postions and responsibilities of the sciences and of scientists in 2 democratic consctuional sate" financed by the Belgian Federal Science Policy. See http://www. imibeogliobe Frondspice: Andrew Barry, Lucy Kabel, Pde: Demons siraing Meters of Public Coner, 2005, photo: H Jost (© 2005 ZKM | Cemter for Ar and Media Karlsruhe, ‘Geemany and Massachusetts istvate of Technology, Combridge, Massachusetts uless otbervse nore all texts copyright ‘© by the individual authors llrightsreserved. No par of this book may be reproduced inany form by any electronic of mechanical means (incucing photocopying, recording, or information storage and retsieval) ‘without permission in writing fram the publisher Despite intensive esearch and best intentions, i was nor possi ble in every case ts establish the right holders. We ask holders of such rights who erl they have nae been properly acknowledged roconrace ws MAT Press books may be purchased at special quantity dis- counts for business of sales promotional use. Forinformation, please email specal_sales@minpress.mitedu or write co Special Sales Departinent, The MIT Pees, 55 Hayward Stres, ‘Cambridge, MA 0214, ISBN o-262-12279-0 Library of Congeess Cataloging Publication dats ‘Making sings pb amospheres of dersoeney? ‘edited by Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel. hom Incdesbitiogaphical references ISBN 0162-12279 (alk pape “Roll scene Philosophy. 2. Represtnvation {Pilosophy? Latour, Brune. I, Wetbl Feee JA66.Ma9 2005 jao.o1-dexa so0sagsierFrom Realpolitik or How to Make Things Public Bruno Latour to Dingpolitik “The aide said ehae guys ike me weve “in what we cll the reality-based community,” which ‘ye defined as people who “believe that sohtions emerge from your judicious study of dis cemible cea t nodded and earmured something aboca saightenesene principles ard ‘empiricism. He ene me off “That's not the way the world eeally works aayrnore,” he con tinued. “We've an empire nov, and when we act, we create out Own Tell ‘while vyou'e stadying that eealiy ~ judiciously, as you will~ wll act again, resting other new eae which yoo can stuly toa, and thar's how ehings will Sort out. We're histony's actors (| and you, all ofyous, willbe lft to just study what we do.” Some conjunctions of planets are so ominous, astrologers used to say, that it seems safer co stay at home in bed and wait until Heaven sends a snore auspicious message. It's probably the same with political conjunctions. They are presently so hopeless that it seems prudent to stay as far away as possible /rom anything political and to wait for the passing away of afl the present leaders, terror ists, commentators and buffoons who strut about the public stage “Astrology, however, is as precatious an art as political science; behind the nefarious conjunc- tions of hapless stars, other much dimmer align- ments might be worth pondering. With the politi- cal pesiod triggering such desperation, the time seems right to shift our attention to other ways of considering public matters. And “matters” are pre- cisely what might be put center stage. Yes, public matters, but how? While the German Reich has given us two world wars, the German language has provided us with the word Realpolitik to describe a positive, ‘materialist, no-nonsense, interest only, matter-of- fact way of dealing with naked power relations. Although this “reality,” at the time of Bismarck, might have appeared as welcome change after the cruel idealisms it aimed to ceplace, i strikes us now as deeply unrealistic. In general, to invoke “realism” when talking about politics is something ‘one should not do without trembling and shaking. ‘The beautiful word “reality” has been darnned by the too many crimes committed in its name. 4 Ron Suskind? What Is the Res of Res publica? By the German neologism Dingpolitik, we wish to designate a risky and tentative set of experiments in probing just what it could mean for political thought to corn “things” around and to become slightly more realistic than has been attempted up to now. A few years ago, computter scientists invented the marvelous expression of “object-ori- ented” software to describe anew way to program. their computers. We wish to use this metaphor to ask the question: “What would an object-oriented democracy look like” The general hypothesis is so simple that it might sound trivial ~ but being trivial might be part of what itis 10 become a “realist” in polities. ‘We might be more connected to cach other by our worries, our matters of concern, the issues we cate for, than by any other set of values, opinions, ati- tudes or principles. The experiment is certainly easy to make. Just go in your head over any set of contemporaty issues: the entry of Tukey into the European Union, the Islamic veil in France, the spread of genetically modified organisms in Brazil, the pollution of the river near your home, the breaking down of Greenland’ glaciers, the ditmin- ishing return of your pension funds, the closing of your daughter’s factory, the repairs to be made in your apartament, the rise and fall of stock options, * Although} cannot thans alte people whose though have conrrbuted to this paper without iting this entire cat alog, Tone avery special hanks to Noone Mares, wbose ‘work on Lippmann ond Dewey has been cent dug the three yeas preparation for this show. 4. Ron Suskind, “Without 2 Doubs’, New Yor Tins, October 17,2004 Clinton's cat “Socks” or the degree 2er0 of politics, Litle Rock Arkansas, November 17, 1992, AP Photo /req Gibson ‘A Chelsea Clinton's cat “Socks” gots the attention of Photographe’s onthe sklervalk outside he fenced Arkansas Govarnar's "Mansion Lite Rack, “Sooke” stolled eboute Iwo block area with photographers in tow. President elect Bil Cinton was ‘working on his vanstion and preparing fora tip to Weshington ant ameeting with President George H.W. Bush Presidential hopefuls US Vice President Al Gore and former US Senator Bill Bradey listen to.9 avestion December 17, 1999 during an ABC TV Nightline town hall geting moder. ‘ied by Tes Koppel at Daniel Webster Collage in Nashua, New Hampshire. BPnore © AFPE-Lance Mada, photo: Luke Fraxt® a5 the latest beheading by fanatics in Falluja, the last American election. For every one of these objects, you see spewing out of them a different set of pas- sions, indignations, opinions, as well as a different set of interested pasties and different ways of car- zying out their partial resolution. It’s clear that each object ~ each issue - gener- ates a different pattern of emotions and disrup- tions, of disagreements and agreements. There might be no continuity, no coherence in our opin- ions, but there isa hidden continuity and a hidden coherence in what we are attached to, Each object gathers around itself a different assembly of rele- vant pasties. Each object triggers new occasions to passionately differ and dispute. Each object may also offer new ways of achieving closure without having to agree on much else. In other words, objects ~ taken as 50 many issues - bind all of us in ways that map ut @ public space profoundly dif- ferent {rom what is usually recognized under the label of “the political”. It is this space, this hidden geography that we wish to explore through this catatog and exhibition. Ie’s not unfair to say that political philosophy has often been the victim ofa strong object-avoid- ance tendency. From Hobbes to Rawls, from Rousseau to Habermas, many procedures have From Realpolitik to Dingpolitix meron 1 |been devised to assemble the relevant parties, to authorize them to contract, to check their degree of representativity, to discover the ideal speech conditions, to detect the legitimate closure, to write the good constitution. But when it comes down to whatis atissue, namely the object of con- cern that brings them togethes, not a word is uttered. In a strange way, political science is mute just at the moment when the objects of concern should be brought in and made to speak up loudly. Contrary to what the powerful etymology of their most cherished word should imply, their res pub- lica does not seem to be loaded with too many things, Procedures to authorize and legitimize are important, but it’s only half of what is needed to assemble. The other half lies in the issues them- selves, in the matéers that matter, in the zes chat creates a public around it. They need to be repre- sented, authorized, legitimated and brought to bear inside the relevant assembly. What we call an “object-oriented democracy” ties 10 redress this bias in much of political phil- cosophy, that is, to bring together two different meanings of the word representation that bave been kept sepacate in theory although they have remained always mixed in practice. The first one, so well known in schools of law and political sci- ence, designates the ways to gather the legitimate people around some issue. In this case, a represen- tation is said 10 be faithful if the right procedures have been followed. The second one, well known in science and in technology, presents or rather represents what is the object of concern to the eyes and ears of those who have been assembled around it. In this case, a representation is said to be ‘good if the matters at hand have been accnsately portrayed, Realism implies that the same degree of attention be given to the two aspects of what itis to represent an issue, The first question draws a sort of place, sometimes 4 citcle, which might be called an assembly, a gathering, a meeting, a coun- cil; the second question brings into this newly cre- ated locus a topic, a concem, an issue, a topos. But the two have to be taken together: Who is to be concerned; What is to be considered? When Thomas Hobbes instructed his engraver ‘on how to sketch the famous frontispiece for Leviathar, he had his mind full of optical metaphors and illusion machines he had seen in x6 his travels through Europe.t A third meaning of this ambiguous and ubiquitous word “tepresenta- tion,” the one with which artists are most familiar, had to be called for to solve, this time visually, the problem of the composition of the "Body Politik” Up to now it has remained a puzzle: How to repre- sent, and through which medium, the sites where people meet to discuss their matters of concern? It’s precisely what we are tackling here.” Shapin and Schaffer might have renewed Hobbes’s prob- Jem even more tellingly when they redrew his monster for their frontispiece and equipped his left arm not with the Bishop’s erosiee but with Boyle's air-pump.t From now on, the powers of science are just as important to consider: How do they assemble, and around which matters of concern? But in addition to the visual puzzle of assem- bling composite bodies, another puzzle should strike us in those engravings. A simple look ar them clearly proves that the “Body Politik” is nor only made of people! They are thick with things: clothes, a huge sword, immense castles, large cultivated fields, crowns, ships, cities and an immensely complex technology of gathering, meeting, cobabiting, enlarging, reducing and focusing. In addiion to the throng of little people summed up in the crowned head of the Leviathan, there are objects everywhere. To be crowded with objects that nonetheless are not really integrated into our definition of pol- ities is even more tellingly visible in the famous fresco painted by Lorenzetti in Siena’s city hall Many scholars have deciphered for us the com- plex meaning of che emblems representing the 2 Horst Bredekam, Thovnas Hobbes Viel Setegin. Der Leviathan Urbild des moderten States. Werkillsiationen toed Ports, Akademie Vel, Betin,x9593 Sima Schat- fe, this volume, chapter about Nicéton’s machine JewFrangois Nicéon, La perspective criensed ars cher Plow Blane Che Joan Du Pur Saint Joes la Courome d'OravsePOpique ets Ceopuriqe du RP Mersenne a mesne ordre Ozu srs ule Peres, Arcee, Septet, Crvenes ed tous ates ise rslont de Desa, x63. 2 Dario Gambon, his volume chapter. 4 sSreven Shapin, Simon Schafer, Levan an he Air-Pump. Hobbes, ole ad he Experimental Lif, Princeton Univer sity Tress, Princeton, 1985 8 Quentin Skinner, Ainogio Lorenzi the Arts as Plical Phfosopher,Caniriege University Press, Cnbridge, 2986; Anne-Mavie Beso, Ste at XIV side dans es fresquer de ‘Lorenzi: la Cie parte, ’Harmatian, Ps, 1999; Go ‘anni Pavanello, I Buovo ei! Cativo Govsro.Reppreen- ‘aziowi nelle Arti del Wediovo al Nove exhib. ct, Fondazione Cini, Masi, Venice, 2004, ad his paper in this vohie, chapter 2. ‘Aunbrogio Lorenzet, The Effects ofthe Goo! Government, 1336-1338, leesco dow, Pulszz0 Pubbiico, Siena, Sala dei Novo, © ‘Comune di Siena, photo: Foto Lensini Siena Good and the Bad Government, and have traced their complex genealogy. But what is most strike ing fora contemporary eye is the massive presence of cities, landscapes, animals, merchants, dancers, and the ubiquitous rendering of light and space. The Bad Government is not simply illustraved by the devilish figure of Discordia but also through the dark light, the destroyed city, the ravaged landscape and the suifocating people. The Good Government is not simply personified by the vati- ous erablems of Virtue and Concordia bur also through the transparency of light, its well-kept architecture, its well-tended landscape, its diver- sity of animals, the ease of its commercial rcla- tions, its thriving arts. Far from being simply a décor for the emiblems, the (cesco requests us to become attentive to a subtle ecology of Good and Bad Government. And modesn visitors, attuned to the new issues of bad air, hazy lights, destroyed ecosystems, ruined architecture, abandoned industry and delocalized trades are certainly ready 9 to include in their definition of politics a whole new ecology loaded with things.’ Where has political philosophy tured its distracted gaze while so many objects were drawn under its very nose? a wew Eloquence In this show, we simply want to pack loads of stuff into the empty axenas where naked people were supposed to assemble simply to talk. Two wi- gnettes will help us focus on those newly crowded sites. The frst one isa fable proposed by Peter Sloter- ijk? He imagined that the US Air Force should have added to its military paraphernalia a “pneu- ‘matic parliament” that could be parachuted at the rear of the front, just after the liberating forces of the Goad had defeated the forces of Evil. On hit- ting the ground, this parliament would unfold and be inflated just like your rescue dingy is supposed to do when you fall in the water. Ready to enter 5 PecerSloterdify, Sphren 1H - Schiume, Plunale Sphivologe, Subekamp, Feanbfurt/M., 2004 T Peer Sloterli, this vokime, chapter rs, prom Realpolitie to Dingpolitie tocour“The United Notions Security Council meets atthe UN headquerters to hoar evidence of raa’s weapons program prosonted by US Secretary of State Colin Powell Wednesday, February §,2003, © AP Photo / Richard Drow and take your seat, your finger still red from the indelible ink that proves you have exercised your voting duty, instant democracy would thus be delivered! The lesson of this simile is easy to draw. To imagine a parliament without its material set of complex instruments, “air-conditioning” pumps, local ecological requirements, material infrastrac- ture, and long-held habits is as ludicrous as to try to parachute such an inflatable parliament into the middle of Lraq. By contrast, probing an object-ori- ented democracy is to research what are the mate~ rial conditions that may render the aie breatheable again. The second vignette is the terrifying one offered by the now infamous talk former Secretary of State Colin Powell gave to the United Nations on February 5, 2063, about the unambiguous and undisputable fact of the presence of weapons of mass destructions in Iraq" No doubs, the first half of the representation ~ namely the assembly of legitimate speakers and listeners ~ was well taken care of. All of those sitting around the UN Secu- rity Council horseshoe table had a right to be 8 there, But the same can’t be said of the second half, namely the representation of the facts of the matter presented by the Secretary of State. Every one of the slides was a blatant lic ~ and the more that time has passed, the more blatant it bas become. And yet their showing was prefaced by these words: “My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intell.- gence” (my emphasis). Never has the difference between facts and assertions been more abused than on this day. To assemble is one thing; to represent to the eyes and eats of those assembled what is at stake is another, An object-oriented democracy should be concerned as much by the procedure to detect the relevant parties as to the methods to bring into the center of the debate the proof of what it is co be debated, This second set of procedures to bring in the object of worry has several old names: elo- quence, ot mote pejorative, rhetoric, or, even more derogatory, sophistry. And yet these are just the 9 Pulltextis available at: hupiflwyrw.state pov/secretary/tm/2003/37300 hie labels that we might need to rescue from the dust- bin of history. Me. Powell tried to distinguish the thetoric of assertions from che undisputable power of facts. He failed miserably. Having no truth, he hhad no eloquence’éither. Can we do better? Can ‘we ttace again the frail conduits through which truths and proofs are allowed to enter the spheze of politics? ‘Unwittingly, the secretary of state put us on a teack where the abyss between assertions and facts ight be a nice *¢hetorical” ploy, but it has lost ies relevance. It would imply, on the one hand, that there would be matters-of-fact which some enlightened people would have unmediated access to. On the other hand, disputable assertions would be practically worthless, useful only insofas as they could feed the subjective passions of inter- ested crowds. On one side would be the truth and no mediation, no room for discussion; on the other side would be opinions, many obscure inter- mediaries, perhaps some hecklings. Through the use of this indefatigable cliché, the Pneumatic Par- Hiament is now equipped with a huge screen on which thoroughly transparent facts are displayed, Those who remain unconvinced prove by their resistance how irrational they are; they have unfortunately fallen prey to subjective passions. And sure enough, having aligned so many “indis- putable” facts behind his position, since the “dis- pute” was still going on, Powell had to close ic arbitrarily by a show of unilateral force. Facts and forces, in spite of so many vibrant declarations, always wall in tandem, ‘The problem is that transparent, unmediated, undisputable facts have recently become rarer and rarer. To provide complete undisputable proof has become. rather messy, pesky, risky business. And to offer a public proof, big enough and certain enough to convince the whole world of the pres- ence of a phenomenon or of a looming danger, seems now almost beyond reach ~ and always was2® The same American administration that vas content with a few blurry slides “proving” the presence of non-existing weapons in Iraq is happy to put scare quotes around the proof of much vaster, better validated, more imminent threats, such as global climate change, diminishing oil reserves, increasing inequality. [sit not time to say: “Me. Powell, given what you have done with facts, 3 Althing in Thingvali inva, Ieland, photo: Sabine Hira ‘molsbech Bl In 830 A.D. chioftains in lelang gathered ina nat Ural amphitheater and forme the worl’ fist paraenent, the Althing. The meeting piace vas called Thingvelir ("parliament lias"), and over the next 300 years representatives jour. eyed here once a yoar to elect leaders, argue eases, and set- We disputes, we would much prefer you to leave them aside and let us instead compare mere assertions with one another: Don't worry, even with such an infe- rior type of proof we might nonetheless come toa conelusion, and this one will not be arbitrarily cut short”™#4 Either we should despair of politics and abandon the hope of providing public proofs alto- gether, or we should abandon the worn-out cliché of incontrovertible matters of fact. Could we do better and manage ¢0 really conclude 2 dispute with “disputable” assettions? After all, when Aris- cotle - surely not a cultural relativist - introduced the word “thetoric” it was precisely to mean proofs, incoraplete to be sure but proofs nonethe- less.42 This is what we wish to attempt: Where mat- ters-of-fact have failed, let’s try what I have called matters-of-concern, What we are trying to segis- ter here in this catalog is a huge sea change in our conceptions of science, our grasps of facts, our understanding of objectivity. For too long, objects have been wrongly portrayed as matters-of-fact. This is unfaic to them, unfais to science, unfair to objectivity, unfair to experience. They are much Barbara Cassin, Left sophistique, Gallimard, Paris, 1995, and hee covtribution to this volume, chapeer 14 110 Simon Schaffer, tis volume, chapters. 11 See the complex set of assertions offered by Hans Blix, ‘Disarmang lng, Pantheon Books, New York, 2004 12 “Enthyrnen" i the name given to this typeof incomplete proof: Arsttle, Trentse ay Rhtorcs, Prometheus Books, New York, 1995. Prom Restpolttik to Dingpolitik securHangar at Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida, March 7, 2003, phote® NASA/Gotty Imager & NASA crash invest- ‘gators place debris rom the Spaco Shutile Columbia onto a rid on die floor ofa nangar. NASA is attempting o reassemble debris {om the shuttle len what caused Columb to breas-uP during reoniry, NASA Mission Control Jost contact with the Space ‘Shuttle Columbia during the reentry phase of mission STS-107 0° Febeuary 1, 2008 end later learned thatthe shutlehad broken ‘up over Texas. Debris trom the wreckage difted hundreds of miles from central Texas to Louisiana, all even 2sironauis onboard ‘he shuttle died inthe cash, more interesting, variegated, uncertain, com- plicated, far reaching, heterogencous, risky, b torical, Jocal, material and networky than the pathetic version offered for too long by philo- sophers. Rocks are not simply there to be kicked at, desks to be thumped at. “Facts are facts are facts”? Yes, bur they are also a lot of other things in addition? For those like Mt. Powell, who have long been accustomed to getting cid of all opposition by claiming the superior power of facts, such a sea change might be met with cries of detision: “rela- tivism,” “subjectivism,” “irrationalism,” “mere shetoric,” “sophistry”! They might see the new life of facts as so much subtraction. Quite right! It sub- ‘wacts a lor of their power because it renders their lives more difficult. Think of that: They might hhave to enter into the new arenas for good and finally make their point to the bitter end. They might actually have to publicly prove their asser- tions against other assertions and come toa closure without thumping and kicking, without alternat- ing wildly between indisputable facts and indis- putable shows of terror. We wisit 10 explore in this catalog many realist gestures other than just thumping and kicking. We want co imagine a new eloquence. Is it asking t00 much of our public con- versation? I's great to be convinced, but it woutd be even better to be convinced by some evi- dence Our notions of politics have been thwarted for t00 long by an absurdly unrealistic epistemology. Accurate facts are hard to come by, and the harder they are, the more they entail some costly equip- ment, a longer set of mediations, more deticate proofs, Transparency and immediacy are bad for science as well as for politics; they would make both suffocate.*® What we need is to be able to bring inside the assemblies divisive issues with their long retinue of complicated proof-giving 14 Honeyinrg Rheinbergr, Tard 4 History of Epsemic Thing Sprbesiing Pot in the Tet Tube, Stoford Uri * versity Press, Sinforé,C, 97; Hans cg Rhcnbeege, ‘Henning Schinidgen, this volume, chapters 414 sa stekng feature ofthe 2004 American election ta have witnessed te dif ofthe meant ofthe Word “convinced™ froman objective toa subjective status: one now designaces by ithe inner wholesomensss ofan interior son and no longer the effec on one's mind of some inet and ky ‘evidence: the “convinced Bush won over the “fip-lopper™ torbe-consinced Kery AS Hayra Rose Shell shout Matey’simsyumearivn this ol une, ehaper Peter Galson shout the Wall of Science, hi ‘ole, chapters From Realpolitik to Dingpolitix ecu:NASA Crash Investigator, Kennedy Space Center Cape Conaveal Forca, March 11, 2003, © photo: AP PHOLONASA, Kirn Safle HA member ofthe space shutle reconstruction project team holds @ piace of building. equipment. No unmediated access to ageeement; no unmediated access to the facts of the matter. Afterall, we are used to rather arcane procedures for voting and electing. Way should we suddenly imagine an eloquence so devoid of means, tools, tropes, ticks and knacks that it would bring the facts into the arenas through some uniquely magi- cal transparent idiom? If politics is earthly, so is science. From objects to Things It’s to undedine this shift from a cheapened notion of objectivity to costly proofs that we want to resurcect the word “Ding” and use the neologism Dingpolitik as a substitute for Realpolitik, The 22 \wrockage and wes to locate i on pictures af Columbia taken while the orbiter was inthe vehicle assembly latter lacks realism when it talks about power rela- tions as well as when it talks about mere facts. It does not know how to deal with “indisputability”. To discover one’s own real naked interest requires probably the most convoluted and facfetched inquiry there is. To be brutal is not enough to turn you into a hard-headedl realise. As every reader of Heidegger knows, o a8 every glance at an English dictionary under the heading “Thing” will certify, the old word “Thing” or “Ding” designated originally a certain type of archaic assembly.2* Many parliaments in 18 See the Oxford Dictionary: “ORIGIN: Old English, of Germanic origin: related vo Geemean Ding. Early senses included ‘meeting’ and ‘matter’ ‘concer’ ag weltas"inani mate objects.” Martin Heidegger, Whar ia cing? cans W,B. Barton, fe, Vera Deutsch, Regnery, Chicago, 1968; Geaham Harman, this volume, chapter 4 Nordic and Saxon nations’still activate the old root of this etymology: Norwegian congressmen assemble in the Storting; Icelandic deputies called the equivalent of “thingmen” gather in che Althing? Isle of Man seniors used to gather around the Tings the German landscape is dor- ted with Thingstdtten and you can see in many places the circles of stones whete the Thing used ro stand.!® Thus, long before designating an object thrown out of the political sphere and standing there objectively and independently, the Ding or Thing bas for many centuries meant the issue chat brings people together becanse i divides them. The same etymology lies dormant in the Latin res, the Greek aitia and the French oF Italian cause. Even the Russian soviet still dreams of bridges and churches#° Of all the eroded meanings lefe by the slow crawling of political geology, none is stranger to consider than the Ieelandic Althing, since the ancient “thingmen” ~ what we would call “caa- sgressmen” or MPs ~ had the amazing idea of meeting in a desolate and sublime site that hap- pens to sirsmack in the middle of the fal line that marks the meeting place of the Atlantic and Euro ‘pean tectonic plates. Not only do Ieclanders mat~ age to remind us of the old sense of Ding, but they also dramatize to the utmost how much these political questions have also become questions of nature, Are not all padliaments now divided by the nature of things as well as by the din of the crowded Ding? Has the time not come to bring the res back to the res publica? This is why we have tried to build the provisional and fragile assembly of our show on as many faul Hines from as many tectonic plates a possible. The point of reviving this old etymology is hat swe don’t assemble because we agtee, look alike, feel good, are socially compatible or wish to fuse together but because we are brought by divisive matters of concern into some neutral, isolated place in order to come to some sort of provisional rvakeshife (dis)agreement. If the Ding designates both those who assemble because they are con- cerned as well as what causes their concems and divisions, it should become the center of our attention: Back to Things! Is this not a more ‘engaging political slogan? But how strange is the shape of the things we % should go back to. They no longer have the clarity, transparency, obviousness of matters-of-fact; they are not made of clearly delineated, discrete objects that would be bathing in some translucent space like the beautiful anatomical drawings of Leonardo, ot the marvelous wash drawings of Gaspard Monge, or the clear-cut “isotypes” devised by Otto Neurath?# Matters-of-fact now appear to our eyes as depending on a deticate aes- thetic of painting, drawing, lighting, gazing, con- vening, something that has been elaborated over four centuries and that might be changing now before our very eyes.2? There has been an aes- thetic of matters-of-fact, of objects, of Gegen- stiinde. Can we devise an aesthetic of matters-of- concer, of Things? This is one of the (too man copics we wish to explore. Gatherings is the translation that Heidegger used, 10 talk about those Things, those sites able to assemble mortals and gods, humans and non- humans. There is more than a little irony in extending this meaning to what Heidegger and his followers loved to hate, namely science, technol- ‘ogy, commerce, industry and popular culture And yet this is just what we intend to do in this book: the objects of science and technology, the aisles of supermarkets, financial institutions, med- ical establishments, computer networks even the catwalks of fashion shows!? ~ offer paramount ‘examples of hybrid forums and agoras, of the gatherings that have been eating away at the older realm of pure objects bathing in the clear light of 57 Gis Palsson, this volume, chapter 4. 448 Bleabech Edwards and Peter James on Benjamin Stone's photographs, this volume, chapter ‘U2 Barbaca Dlemeyer, this volume, chapter 4 20 Oleg Kharkhordn, this volume, chapter 4 21, “When [the res) appears in this function it is ot a a eeat where the unilateal mastecy of a subject execcised (..} If the resis an object it has this Fanetion above alin a debate ‘or an argument, a common object that opposes and rites ‘so protagonists within a single rion.” And, further or “lis objectivity is ensured by the common agreement whose place of origins controversy and judicial debate.” Yan “Thomas, “Res, chose er patcioine (note sur le rapport sjetobjet en deoi romain), in: Archives de philosophie du droit, 25, 1980, pp. 432426 here pp. 4:7 22 Frank Martmann, this volume, chapter 13 £23 Loreaine Daston, Peter alison, “The lage of Object in: Repreentatior, 40,1992, pp: 8-128; Loctaine Daston, this vokume, chapter 2. Jessica Riskin, this volume, chapter 24 Peter Weibel, this volume, conclusion, 25 Richard Roy, this volume, chapter 4. Grabany Harman, his volume, chapter 4 26 Phuline Tecreehorst, Gerard de Vries, cis volume chapter 21 ‘rom Reaipolitile to Dingpolitik ‘