Demystification: A Dialogue between Barthes and Lefebvre Author(s): Michael Kelly Reviewed work(s): Source: Yale French Studies,

No. 98, The French Fifties (2000), pp. 79-97 Published by: Yale University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2903229 . Accessed: 13/10/2012 20:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Yale French Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

MICHAEL

KELLY

Demystification: Dialogue A BetweenBarthes and Lefebvre

Mystification a ubiquitous was motif France in during 1950s.Itwas the in commoncurrency the politicalpolemicsof the time,and it also an In played important in theemergence cultural role of criticism. parit a ticular, formed pointofconvergence betweenRolandBarthes and HenriLefebvre, ofthemostinfluential in two French writers thistradition. a on Bothdeveloped sustained critical reflection thedomainof on of everyday drawing theresources literary life, criticism, philosoBut discussedtogether. exphy,and social theory. theyare rarely By to and aminingtheirapproaches the questionof mystification, the linksbetween it and them, will becomeclearthattheideas ofBarthes in Lefebvre at weredeveloped dialogue and,for period least,converged a in a common project. The relationship is betweenBarthesand Lefebvre acknowledged in of movements of fleetingly someofthebroader surveys intellectual in theperiod. MarkPoster, hiswideranging Existential notes Marxism, of as Barthes connechad that, an earlyeditor thereview Arguments, tionswithvariouscurrents independent and of Marxism, thathis use ofstructuralism analyzeeveryday was akinto thatofLefebvre. to life He also surmises thatBarthes's influenced LeMythologies probably febvre.' Kristin Ross, in Fast Cars, Clean Bodies, drawson the contribution bothwriters theanalysisofeveryday but does not of to life, Eve exploretheirintellectualaffinities.2 Tavor Bannet,discussing thattheyarein Barthes other and majorstructuralists, acknowledges to critics modern of various waysindebted theworkofearly left-wing
in to 1. MarkPoster, Existential Marxism PostwarFrance.FromSartre Althusser 313. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), of 2. Kristin Ross, Fast Cars, Clean Bodies: Decolonizationand the Reordering French Culture (Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press,1995). C YFS 98,TheFrench Fifties, SusanWeiner, 2000byYale University. ed.

79

80

YaleFrench Studies

in society, Lefebvre.3 like This debtcan be traced their of perceptions of of society, thefunctioning the symbolic order, ofthesubject's and in placewithin them. However, discussing Barthes emphasizes she his that criperception Marxism failed.She also alludesto Lefebvre's has tique of structuralism, which is generally contextin which Lethe is in febvre mentioned studiesofBarthes.4 Otherwise, Lefebvre rarely in in features discussions Barthes, Barthes discussions Lefebvre. of or of Theirintellectual footprints notusuallyoverlap, the dialogue do and between themhas largely of goneunnoticed. is thepurpose thisartiIt cle to reconstruct it. Thereis somebiographical evidence that Barthes Lefebvre and were friends neighbors.5 although focusofthisstudy theconand And the is it ceptualexchange betweenthem, is pertinent identify biographto a ical dimension, order set a moreconcrete in to historical context for their intellectual Lefebvre fourteen was relationship. yearsolderthan but the Barthes, thetwomenkneweachother wellfrom late 1940s,and byall accountsbecamefriends. comAmongother things theyshared monroots theSouth-West France, thePyrenees in in of whereLefebvre was bornandBarthes spenthis childhood, wherebothofthemreand turned often each otherin theirrespective regularly, visiting family homes.6 at Parislycee LouisTheywerebothstudents theprestigious in albeita generation Thereweresimilarities their cale-Grand, apart.7 reertrajectories, including experience precarious the of employment, and bothbecameacademicsociologists, withoutlosingtheir though
cault,Lacan (London: Macmillan, 233. 1989), 4. See forexample:Rick Rylande, Roland Barthes(Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, Annette RolandBarthes, Structuralism andAfter (London: Lavers, 1994),5; Methuen, 1982),21. 5. Theprincipal biographical sources usedinthefollowing discussion Jean-Louis are: Calvet,Roland Barthes1915-1980 (Paris:Flammarion, as 1990),availablein English A Roland Barthes: Biography, trans.SarahWykes(Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press,1995);and R6miHess, HenriLefebvre l'aventure siecle (Paris:M6tailie, et du entry Lefebvre the"Maitron": on in Nicole Racine, 1988).Thereis also an informative "Lefebvre, Henri, in biographique mouvement du ouvrierfranFrangois," Dictionnaire are Sais. Le Maitron, CD-ROM (Paris: Editions l'Atelier, de 1997).In Calvet,there two his anecdotal references Lefebvre, to where nameis misspelled Lefevre. as Hess offers a smallnumber anecdotal of references Barthes. to in 6. Lefebvre bornin 1901in Hagetmau theLandes;Barthes bornin 1915, was was andspent in took mostofhischildhood Bayonne. Lefebvre subsequently a housefurther moved to southinNavarrenx, whileBarthes's mother tooka houseinHendaye later and Urt.Allofthese a of corner France. of placesarewithin radius 30 milesintheSouth-West 7. Lefebvre studied Louis-le-Grand 1914-17,Barthes at circa studied there 1930-34 (Hess,21-25; Calvet,40-51).
3. Eve Tavor Bannet,Structuralismand the Logic ofDissent: Barthes,Derrida, Fou-

MICHAEL

KELLY

81

passionateinterest the arts,literature, ideas. Theybothspent in and much ofthe 1950s in research postsat the CNRS in Paris.8This into cludeda period from 1956whentheywerebothattached thesame sectionofsociology. theearly1960s,theymovedon to permanent In academicposts,Barthes seniorpositionsat the Ecole pratiquedes to hautes etudesin Paris,whichspecializedin social sciences,and Lefirst Strasbourg thenat Nanterre. febvre a chairofsociology to at and in From late 1940s, the bothmencirculated thesamemilieuofParisian on party(of left-wing intellectuals, the marginsof the communist was until1958)and ofSartrean whichLefebvre a member existentialbothpublishedarticlesin Les tempsmodernes). They had ism (they with independent Marxistssuch as GeorgesFriedaffinities strong Morin.Morinin particular a strong between was link mannandEdgar them,9 led thembothintoinvolvement withthegroup around the and reviewArguments, which had an influential voice withinthe nonleft often metin both communist from 1956 to 1962.Theytherefore of editorprofessional social contexts, meetings theArguments and at ial board,at thesisexaminations, each other'shomes,or in Latin at In the Quarter restaurants. short, despitetheir differences, two intelintertwined lives.Theydidnot lectualsproveto haveled surprisingly to a whichrarely lackinformal emerges opportunities pursue dialogue, into arena. explicitly theformal published The issue of demystification providesa commonpointof focus, interests the around whichtheir gravitated during 1950s.It was nota new issue. Claims thatthosein politicalorsocialpowermaybe seekin and deceivehave a longhistory France, in many as ingto confuse of has other countries. Andthedenunciation mystification longbeen in a feature publicdiscourse France. Therearemanyreasons of whyit the thatNathalieSarraute becameso prevalent during 1950s,a period is aptlycalled the "era of suspicion."10 ThoughSarraute concerned of mutualsuspiwitha malaise in thenovel,herdiagnosis profound of cioncan readily extended be the and beyond readers authors novels. of or It pointsto a widersocial suspicionthattheproducers imagined and their conare constructed narratives deliberately mendacious, that
is, scientifique national la recherche de 8. TheCentre (CNRS) was,andstill themain universities. statesupport fundamental for research French in agency providing withMorinat theCNRS, whileBarthes for shared office an 9. Lefebvre, example, (Hess,165;Calvet,137). of wife Violette was a closefriend Morin's du 10. NathalieSarraute, L'&re soup~on(Paris:Gallimard, 1956).The essayfrom in was first published 1950. whichthetitleis taken

82

YaleFrench Studies

sumersarereceptive onlyto stereotypes. politicaland social cirThe cumstances offered manyopportunities confirm climateofsusto this picion,in whichthree factors wereparticularly significant. First, the its Cold Warwas entering mature phase,as thetwo globally opposed camps settledinto what JohnLe Carre labeled the "looking-glass " war. 11Thiswas echoedin an institutionalized which Manicheanism, withmasks and deceptions, nestled a and encouraged preoccupation life. fueled deepintoeveryday Second,thewave ofpostwar prosperity of theemergence a "consumer whichbrought wonders the of society," into It modern on technology thedomestic sphere. placeda premium and theefficacy marketing other of techniques, whichVancePackard called the "hiddenpersuaders," well as increasing as suspicionofthe Andthird, France in wield.12 the powerthesemight particularly, state its was revitalizing longtradition censorship newsmanagement, of and to its as itstrained retain control reporting thecollapseofitscoloon of nial empire. Takentogether, thesefactors helpedto ensure thatmystification remained widespread a publicpreoccupation. had HenriLefebvre been a criticofmystification since the 1930s. Together withhis collaborator, Norbert Guterman, haddeveloped he a of and mindin thecontext a reof theory mystification themystified 13 formulation Marxism. Lefebvre's of role depre-eminent in theearly of is He velopment Marxistphilosophy well documented.14 was the mainexponent a nondogmatic of humanist of version Marxism, based of whichemerged theprincipal on thetheory alienation, as alternative to Stalinist Marxism France. reflection mystification in His on sprang from fact the thatmany workers of supported political movements the fascism Nazism.This was uncomfortable leftand for right, including who considered that wing movements, especiallythe communists, In the of theythemselves represented trueinterests workers. a somewhatpolemicalwork,Lefebvre Guterman and to attempted analyze the of ideological processesto discover emergence alienationwithin consciousness. the notionthatconsciousness a is Rejecting Cartesian
11. See John Carr6, Looking-Glass (London: Le The War Heinemann, 1965). 12. See VancePackard, HiddenPersuaders The (NewYork: David McKay,1957). 13. HenriLefebvre Norbert and Guterman, Mystification: "La Notespourune cri2 Lefebvre and tiquede la vie quotidienne," Avant-poste (August 1933),91-107; Henry Norbert Guterman, conscience La (Paris: mystifige Gallimard, 1936). 14. See Poster, Existential Marxism; MichaelKelly, Modern French Marxism (Oxford: "HenriLefebvre Contemporary and Blackwell, Schmidt, Interpreta1982);Alfred tionsofMarx,"in Dick HowardandKarlE. Klare, Dimension. Eueds.,The Unknown 322-41. ropean Marxism sinceLenin(New York: BasicBooks,1972),

MICHAEL

KELLY

83

of guarantor truth, theLeninist and notionthatit is purely reflection a ofobjective conditions, they identified consciousness a siteofstrugas gle, wheredeceptionand self-deception common.And theyasare serted important played ideology, the role by especially whendeployed was notwell received communist in circles bythestate.This analysis in the 1930s,wheretheroleofideology social development rein was as garded wholly subordinate theeconomicinfrastructure. to Lefebvre reports angry the reaction GeorgePolitzerthat"thereis no mystiof 15 Politzer fied consciousness, there onlyhoaxers are (mystificateurs)." was an early in incollaborator withLefebvre theembryonic left-wing tellectualmovements the 1920s,and had since become a leading in spokesman intellectual on matters theFrench for Communist Party. His clearimplication was thatLefebvre Guterman and werehoaxers, who wereattempting bamboozlethepeoplewithcomplicated to but irrelevant abstractions aboutideas and ideology. in After war,Lefebvre the returned theissueofmystification one to ofhis best-known books,Critique of Everyday Life (1947).16 Tracing thewaysinwhichFrench and writers artists responded themodhad to ernworldovera century, argued he thatthey the haverejected realimto of life poverishment everyday undercapitalism, sought escape and a intovariousforms mystical of unreality. This has exacerbated funin worldhas damentalambiguity humanlifein whichthe imagined been morevaluedandbetter knownthantherealworld.The resultis in thatpeoplehave becomeincreasingly ignorant disempowered and theirreal lives. Lackingthe knowledge decipher humanlandto the scape around he suggests: us, life We perceive inauthentic everyday onlyin its familiar, trivial, the to on Howcanweavoid temptationturn backs it?Like our guises. the creaturestemptation-which of fruit the magnificent and beautiful we crumble ashes to should touch them-myths, poetry, mys"pure"
awaitus withopenarms.[Critique Everyday teries, of Life,133]

of As an exampleofthesemyths, Lefebvre offers typical the response the towndwellers, strolling through countryside. Theyare enchanted bythepastoral idylltheysee, unawareofthematerial processesthat
(Paris: Klincksieck, 15. Lefebvre, somme La 458.The text etlereste M6ridiens 1989), was first published 1959. in 1. (Paris:Grasset, 16. Lefebvre, Critique la vie quotidienne, Introduction de 1947). available Foreword (Paris: L'Arche, Thesecond edition, containinghundred-page a 1958), Life,1. Introduction, trans. John Moore (London: in English CritiqueofEveryday as text. Verso, 1). Quotations from English 199 are the

84

Yale FrenchStudies

produce A deeper it. satisfaction wouldcome,in Lefebvre's view,from an understanding thedifficulties achievements thepeasants of and of whose workhas shapedthe countryside overcenturies. exAnother ampleis thehistorian, fascinated theactivities kings princes. by of and of Studying formality pageantry stateoccasions,thehistorian the and wonders how peoplewerenaive enoughto be dupedbythemasquerade. Lefebvre thata sharper awareness thetheatricality of of suggests everyday wouldprovide clearer life a It perspective. would revealthe factthatwordsand gestures usuallydirected are toward actionrather thansimply reflecting statesofmind.Hence it is futile analyzelanto Inguageinterms "sincerity" "lies," whichhe regards myths. of and as the whichencapsulates stead,he offers, notionof "thought-action," is thepointthatspeaking directed toward mobilizing peopleto think, or of condition of feel, act in particular ways,regardless thesubjective In thespeaker. practice, argues, he is speaking a performance, the with complexity implies: that Ineveryday orinthe glare thetheatre life of full footlights, human bebehave mystifiers, manage 'play role' who to a ings always like precisely

their byexaggerating ownimportance. [Critique Everyday of Life,136]

The "mystifiers" emphasized Lefebvre in French, mystifiby are, the to had but cateurs whichPolitzer objected, whichnowappearas a parThere is undoubtedly different a seadigmof real humanbehavior. manticfieldfor French the wordthanits English(partial) equivalent. It is helpful remember to is thattheFrench"mystification" also the wordfor hoax,ora magictrick. themystificateur notsimply a So is a but and prankster, trickster, jester, joker, somemystifier, also a hoaxer, of are thing a magician:the connotations not all negative. Moreover, Lefebvre audienceis expected clearly impliesthatthemystificateur's to be awareoftheconventions, to be complicit and rather thaninnoin theperformance. cent The complexity thisconceptofmystification well illustrated of is in an articleon the "Salon des ArtsMenagers"of 1957,published by The danParis-Match.I7 lavishphotography features music-hall star and the cer,Zizi Jeanmaire, herhusband, magicianRolandPetit,in a futuristic automatedkitchen.Dressed in theirrespective stage cosand at of tumes, theystrike poses ofwonder delight themarvels techmicrowaveoven, ceramichob, ultranology(push-button controls,
17. "La cuisine de demain," Paris-Match, 2 March 1957, 40-47.

MICHAEL

KELLY

85

sounddishwasher, automatic washing ironing and machine, much and in else).An accompanying describes self text -parodic toneshowthepetitemenagere (little housewife) enjoystheenchanted kitchen created byhermagicien artsdu foyer des of while (magician thedomestic arts), out pointing thatthemiraculous kitchen a substantial ofmodis feat ern technology, achievedby Americanengineers, "whose invisible presence embodied themagician is by RolandPetit." The article strikingly demonstrates multiple the layers meaning of to which a readermust attendin responding a "mystification," to whichcombines boththetheatrical theeveryday. and Textandimage emphasizethe copresenceof contradictory messages.For example, Miss Jeanmaire's figuration the"little of housewife" contradicted is by in herpresentation theglamorous as star, matching pinkleotard, highheeledshoes,andlongevening confirmed herappearance on gloves, by themagazinecoveras "la nouvelleMiss" in pearlsand ostrich feathfrom successat theAlhambra.18 her RolandPetit'seffortless ers,fresh are and conjuring gestures contradicted thevisibletechnology the by accountofthe installation: brought special cargoshipwiththree by General Motors the tooktendaystoassemble engineers, showkitchen its And of andrequired ownelectricity generator. theappearance journalisticreportage contradicted the detailsofcommercial is by sponsorship, the manufacturers, the Salon's organizers, the supby by by and by the two magazines pliers of decor and productsdisplayed, responsible theexhibition for and All stand, Paris-Match Marie-Claire. ofthem, withthetwostars, wouldexpecttobenefit from the together in No resulting publicity. doubt this is a classic mystification Leand its success dependson the willing febvre's Barthes's) (or terms, of who is comfortable withconflicting complicity a reader messages. of"thought-action," thatthetextis a piece Thatreader will recognize in to atwhoseprincipal is performative, seeking promote aim certain of titudes forms consumption. and ForLefebvre, is mystification nota processbywhichtheinnocent a aredupedbythedevious, rather collective but processbywhichsolife cial relations, including powerrelations, actedout in everyday are inthedomainofideology. evenwarnsthat"we shouldavoidfalling He of rotten themarto intotheproletarian myth thesadisticbourgeois, a and whichinpoint row, consciously strategically mendacious, myth
2 Miss' (thenewMiss),thetitleofthe 18. Paris-Match,March1957,1. "La nouvelle Miss Tinguette), France's front-cover caption, a reference Mistinguette is to (originally mostfamous female music-hall performer, diedin 1956. who

86

YaleFrench Studies

offact onlytheFascistsmadeintoa reality" [Critique Everyday of Life, 148].The realdanger, his view,is thatmystification in privatizes conis a sciousness, promotes sensethatexperience uniqueto theindividof more ual,andmaskstheawareness socialcontext. Likeideology genthe development a erally, mystification therefore conflicts with of of and critical knowledge realsocial structures, prevents peoplefrom takingeffective practicalsteps to overcomethe alienationof their life. everyday Lefebvre's analysisin theCritiqueofEveryday was essentially Life not couldbe optimistic, becausehe believed mystification ideology) (or abolished,but because he believedthat it could be transcended by and he knowledge action.It was in thisprocessoftranscendence, becouldbe mostfully and lieved,thathumanpotential realized, he held outtheutopian visionofl'hommetotal(the wholeman)as theendgoal. He arguedthat Marxistphilosophy providedthe necessarycritical to But of knowledge securethistranscendence. despite beinga member oftheCritique's theFrench Communist at and Party thetime writing first did linkbetween analyhis publication, Lefebvre notdrawa direct for his sis and theparty's policiesoractions.Perhaps thisreason, ideas founda morereceptive audienceamongthe noncommunist intellifor thanamong gentsia party members, whomhe appeared increasingly heterodox. his was RolandBarthes. Among readers undoubtedly Barthes's knowledge Marxism certainly of was eclectic. hada deHe tailedknowledge Marx'shistorical of whichhe readin conwritings, in nection withhislong-term study MicheletandFrench of history the And witha range Trotskyof nineteenth century. he was also familiar whose thrust he ist and anti-Stalinist critiquesof social alienation, with broadly espoused(Calvet,87-89). No doubthe was also familiar his whichpresented non-StalLefebvre's best-selling popularizations, 19 he inistaccountofMarxist philosophy. Though gavelessprominence to Barthes found concept alienation be a fruitthe of toitthanLefebvre, fulcontext hiswork. essayWriting for His DegreeZero(1953 )20 echoed of the Lefebvre's utopianperspectives, seeking disalienation language in literature:
de 19. Lefebvre's books, Materialisme dialectique (Paris:PressesUniversitaires de werere(Paris: Presses Universitaires France, France, and 1948), 1939), Le marxisme in series. "Que sais-je"paperback printed many times, latter thepopular the Seuil,1953),availablein English zero de 1'9criture (Paris: 20. RolandBarthes, Degrg Annette Laversand Colin Smith(New York:Hill and as Writing DegreeZero,trans. translation. are from English the Wang, 1968).The quotations taken

MICHAEL

KELLY

87

Like modern initsentirety, art literary writing carries the at same time the alienation History the of and dream History; a Necessitytesof as it to division languages of is from division tifies the which inseparable the ofclasses; Freedom,is theconsciousness this as it of division the and seeks surmount [87-88] to effort which it. very of from alienationto utopia,is a particular The trajectory literature, movement societies, thestruggle of and within figuration thegeneral of takesitsimportance partat leastfrom parin and a language literature in The of ticipation thewiderstruggle. optimism Barthes's finaldeclaration, that'Literature becomestheUtopiaoflanguage' (88),is attenuthat one. atedbyrecognition thestruggle be a perpetual In anycase may without successful a in itssuccesscannot secured be outcome theother social domainsofstruggle. suggests He thatmostmodern unwriters derstand that"therecan be no universal outsidea concrete, language and no longermysticalor merelynominal,universality society of (mondecivil)"(87). in The linkbetween writing revolution Writing and DegreeZerois into of transposed an application linguistic analysisto social struggle in Barthes'smost politicallycommitted The work,Mythologies.2' of life fifty-three vignettes French inthe1950swerewritten witha view abuseconcealed thepresentation conof toexposing ideological the by that Barthes thisimplied political a events. temporary accepted agenda, he to though leavesitto thereader workoutwhathis standpoint (mon be pani)might (12). Lefebvre makes a surprising appearance Mythologies, as a in not His but basedon thelifeoftheDanphilosopher as a playwright. play, ish philosopher S0ren Kierkegaard,22 the occasion forone of was Barthes's morecausticpieces,castigating conservative the reviewers whodisingenuously not a professed tounderstandwordoftheplay.Atthe he tacking tacticsof"dumbandblindcriticism," exposedthebad in to faith critics of who feigned incomprehension order dismissthe Marxist existentialist to and ideas in it,without having discussthem. he Apostrophizing them, concluded: Youdon't but want explain philosophers, they explain Youdon't you. the that tounderstand play Lefebvre Marxist, you besure the by but can
21. Barthes, Mythologies (Paris, Seuil,1957), reprinted a short with Preface 1970. in in A selection from bookis available English Mythologies, the as trans. Annette by Lavers (London, Paladin, are the text. 1973).Quotations from English 22. The text was published Lefebvre, Don Juan Nord, as "Le du pieceen 3 actes(inspiration la Kierkegaard)," a Europe (1948),73ff. 28

88

YaleFrench Studies Lefebvre Marxist the understands incomprehension your perfectly in well, above (forbelieve tobemore than and all I you wily lacking culthe "harmless" confession make it.[35] you of ture) delightfully

In thisgenerous endorsement HenriLefebvre, of Barthes bothco-opts himas a fellow and withhisMarxism. mythologist impliesa solidarity have differed Barthes couldhimself be Commentators aboutwhether a himself a Marxist considered Marxist. occasionally He as described it of at thisperiod, though was morean expression intellectual sympathiesthanof any doctrinal obedience.At all events,he sharedwith in Lefebvre commonpointofreference Marx'sand Engels's a textThe GermanIdeology,23 which is explicitly quotedin bothMythologies andtheCritiqueofEveryday of Life.Theircommonstrategy demystiin fication rooted theideasmostclearly outin a short much is laid but The passagedevelopsa theory ideolof quotedsectionofthework.24 whichsees thought language beingproduced peoplein and as ogy, by their but that reallifeactivity, withthedifference peoplehave an upof and As side-down perception their activity relationships. Marxand
Engels put it:

Ifin all ideology andtheir as men relations appear upside-down in a from hisarises camera obscura, phenomenon justas much this their as of on torical does life-processtheinversion objects theretina from their physical life-process.25 This "inversion" constitutive whatLefebvre is of calls "mystified consciousness"andwhatBarthes Takentogether usuallycalls mythology. withtheidea ofthecameraobscura,inversion a productive is metaif phor,particularly it is not seen as a purelymechanicalprocess. Barthes laterrecalledthatthe camera obscura ("darkroom"),more was a prephotographic decalleda cameralucida ("light fairly room"), of to vice,principally designed enableits userto make a drawing the like notions therefore are objecton whichitwas focused.26 Ideological thecameraimagein thatthey produced withcareandfor purpose. a are
French until1932,andthefirst 23. Thistext, written 1845-46,was notpublished in by edition appeared 1937,as part the(Euvres in of compltes published Costes. CollectedWorks, 5 (NewYork: vol Interna24. See KarlMarxandFriedrich Engels, Ideology comprises pagesandoc250 tionalPublishers, 1976).The textofTheGerman is The passageunder discussion on pages35-49. cupiesmostofthevolume. 141, different transla25. German Ideology, quotedinMythologies, in a slightly 36, tion. on trans.Richard Howard 26. Barthes, Camera Lucida. Reflections Photography, (London: Vintage, 1993),106.

MICHAEL

KELLY

89

Whilethey maybe viewedas banalandself-evident, Barthes as suggests photographs often they are, also call for careful a reading distinguish to " their ostensible meaning, "studium, from or their connection withsocial reality, "punctum"(Cameralucida, 25-27). Ideology exemor is plified thetendency thebourgeoisie view(ortopresent) hisby of to the toricalreality the worldas timelessand natural.To demystify of it a the requires processofreconstitution, whichwill restore social and historical connections. Barthes refers reader Marx'sexampleof the to thecherry whichwas frequently tree, invoked philosophers the by as But typical example an objectofsimplesensualcertainty. thecherry of tree,like most species of fruit tree,was introduced into Europeby at traders a particular periodin history. "sensual certainty" Its has therefore been sociallyproduced. The task ofthe mythologist deor is the mystifier to restore senseofa linkbetweenthemystified image and its social and politicalcontext. Barthes's In termsthe task is to identify politicaltrace, "a however faint and diluted, moreorless the memorable of fitted presence thehumanact whichhas produced, up, it" used,subjected rejected (Mythologies, or 143-44). The exhibiting ofsuch a trace, argues, easilyachievedbythe "language-object" he is that"speaksthings" that"speaksof rather thanbythemetalanguage things" (144). in Barthes's concept "language-object" mentioned of is briefly comfor whichacknowledge, example,that"at variouspoints mentaries, in Mythologies, a direct beBarthes celebrates different, relationship "27 tweenlanguage reality. Buttheideais rarely in and examined detail. In part, thisreticence from sincetheidea mayspring embarrassment, is expoundedin one of Barthes's more revolutionary-romantic pasfrom as funcsages.Init,he absolvestheLeft myth-makingan essential the Revolutionand the oppressedproletarian or tion, and offers of colonialpeoplesas exemplars immediate of speech,stripped metadwells more exlinguisticmyths.But while Barthessubsequently on of his tensively thestructures metalanguage, notionof"languageand suggestively echoes object"is an important pointin his analysis, thatmetLefebvre's Barthes conceptof"thought-action." recognizes colonizeand dependparasitically alinguistic myths upon object-lanas intransitive theatrical and and identifies guage, myths (149).Their and function seenas beingconservative, is preventing change, opposed This to thetransitive, transformative language-object. is an apparent
29. (Cambridge: Polity Press,1991), 27. MichaelMoriarty, RolandBarthes

90

YaleFrench Studies

of point difference Lefebvre, from whosenotion mystificationboth of is theatrical and transitive. Lefebvre insists on its political efficacy, whichimpliesa measure transitivity. of Barthes recognized politithe cal efficacy myth "stolenlanguage," conceived as a process of as it but ofdisabling activerelationship language-object theworld. the of to The principal pointofdifference between twoaccounts the maythen reside in thestanceoftheeveryday reader. Whereas Lefebvre positsan everyakin to a theater-goer, dayreader awareofthecontradictory relationship betweenlanguageand society, Barthes morepessimistic. is His analysis permits three distinct reading positions, depending howthe on of duplicitous signifier myth received. is to Theycorrespond themythproducer, demystifier, the myth-consumer the and (128-29). But the first two positionsare occupiedby themedia elite ofjournalists and whiletheeveryday in is critics, reader left thethird positionofdupe. The different conceptions reading of then leadtodifferent strategies forresisting mystification. WhereLefebvre advocatesa strategy of and Barthes's of knowledge theworld) action, (of strategy demystification is the unveiling the hiddenlinks,and therefore of the drawing into myth-consumer the positionof the demystifier. drawsback He from either positive a offering socialanalysis, a recommendation or for social action,otherthana generalization theprocessofunveiling. of Barthes that purpose hiscritique mythology toconof the of agreed was to tribute the struggle but againstalienation, his pessimismoverits outcomedeepened the during 1950s.Bythetimehe wrotetheconclusionofMythologies, was offering a senseofmuchdeeper he alienation, whichposed evergreater obstaclesto the desired"reconciliation betweenreality men": and Thefact wecannot that manage achieve to more anunstable than grasp of doubtless the of present alienation: conwe reality gives measure our drift the and to stantly between object itsdemystification, powerless render wholeness. its [159] Barthes's stemssubstantially from nostalgia thethird a for anguish positionofreading, whichin his accountis "dynamic"and generates a It in of and both a unity form meaning. is therefore attractive offering kindofwholenessand repulsive thatit is ideologicaland illusory. in he thatalienation insuperable, thatthe is and Consequently suggests connections betweenthe textor image and civil societywere more alienation mystification to provide and than likelyto reinforce opporfor tunities emancipation. himthecritic's For roleremains demystifi-

MICHAEL

KELLY

91

catory, focused but moreon theanalysis internal of contradictions and their workings thanon themeansbywhichtheymight overcome. be In the"Avant-propos" thevolume, teasesthereader to he aboutthepoliticalstandpoint implied theessays: by What sought I through book this were significant features.this sigIs a In nificance which read them? other I into words, there mythology is a ofthemythologist? doubt, thereader easily where and will see I No But I stand. totellthetruth,don't think is quite right to this the way state problem. the "Demystification"-to a word use which beginis ning show to signs wear-is notanOlympian of operation. [12] It seemsclearthathis concern thepoliticsofdemystification for had this.His preponderant for passeditspeakbythetimehe wrote concern of his theprocesses mystification increasingly outweighed concern for the "concrete universality society."But even withinthe process, of there a significant is difference betweenBarthes Lefebvre, and which to can tosomeextent attributed themodelofcausality be thateachdeBarthes associated ploys.Whereas largely adoptsa structural causality of withtheSaussurian Lefebvre's concept thelinguistic sign, causality offersreciprocal is dialectic. Where dialectic the a interaction between the thetwoopposedterms, Saussurian the signproposes arbitrary juxof and The mythological does taposition signifier signified. signifier in contain potential a dialectical movement itsambiguous statusas fiof of nal term thelinguistic andtheinitialterm themythological sign and form, on one "at full sign.It is therefore thesame timemeaning term sideandempty theother"(117).This ambiguous on the provides the basis for deliberate character myth, of sinceits open(motivated) ness(oremptiness) thehooktowhichconnotations be attached, is may the whileat thesametimeitsdenoted which meaning provides screen, concealsthepowerto mystify. Barthes of analyzestherelation ambias or guity twoaspectsthatoscillatein a "tourniquet" revolving-door but mutualinterdependence exhibit fashion, in their they manyofthe or to characteristics a dialectic, at leasta "dialogic," borrow Morin's of But term.28 bothBarthes Morinsharethenotionofa relationship and It recursion. therefore differs betweenoppositesbased on perpetual Lefebvre's whichadoptstheHegeliannotion "Aufheof from dialectic, can of bung,"themoment transcendence whichtheopposition be by or resolved overcome.
Morin (London: Pluto,1996), 59-60. 28. See Myron Kofman, Edgar

92

YaleFrench Studies

Lefebvre impressed Barthes's was by theoretical essayin Mytholoto subsequent works.29 a mostgenIn gies,andhe referred itin several eral sense, it contributed steering to Lefebvre towarda "linguistic turn,"whichhas been littleremarked upon,but beganto emerge in 1958.30He was clearly not struck, onlybytheparallel concern withdemystification, also withthe productive but way in whichlinguistic theory couldbe used to elucidatesocialproblems. secondvolumeof A in his Critique Everyday of the appearing 1961,demonstrated imLife, portance was beginning assume.31 to The book attempts language to founda sociology everyday and proposesa framework conof life, of ceptsandstrategies. that Lefebvre suggests theoldHegelianconcept of "totality" misleading, offers conceptof"field"as a producis and the The tivereplacement. whole ofhumansocial practice can (praxis) be regarded the"wholefield"(champtotal), as it although is onlygrasped in partial and fragmentary it are ways.Within there smallerdomains, whichcan also usefully understood fields their be as in Each ownright. field its own rulesand logic,and distinctive has conceptual strategies withwhichitcanbe elucidated (Critique 274-77). Thoughtheterm II, is thesame as theone laterpopularized Pierre Lefebvre's by Bourdieu, to conceptof a fielddoes not refer a particular groupor community within it to whichresociety. Rather, refers a domainofsocialactivity, of branch knowledge. relationship The quiresa particular between the and branch knowledge dialectical of is and changes activity itsrelated overtime. " The example Lefebvre choosestoanalyzeis the"semantic field, of whichlanguage a part.Assisted linguistics communications is and by Lefebvre seeks to analyzethisdomainofsignals,signs,symtheory, and social context. acknowlHe bols, and images,in theirhistorical of notion the"tourniquet" beedgesthevalueofBarthes's relationship tweenthethree terms thesign-system of and (signifier, signified, sign), of theconsequent oscillation discourse betweenthetwopoles ofplatitude(denotation) rhetoric and whichbecomeincreas(connotation),
of references in Lefebvre, sommeetle reste, is La 462. The ref29. The first several sur contient, de that erence in a footnote says:"Le travail R. Barthes les 'Mythologies' is d'un des th6oriques grand pages, 6l6ments surtout dansles centdernieres int6rkt." (The in work R.Barthes "Mythologies" of on some contains, especially thelasthundred pages, theoretical very interesting elements). " "Besoinsetlangage, Cahiersde l'Institut science6conomique de 30. See Lefebvre, 1958):33-52. appliqu6e 75 (December d'unesociologiede la II. Critiquede la vie quotidienne Fondements 31. Lefebvre, L'Arche, quotidiennet6 (Paris: 1961).

MICHAEL

KELLY

93

ingly dissociated (Critique 283-84). ButLefebvre addsthatthesign II, is built on the prior foundation signals,unitsof communication, of whicharein themselves meaningless, virtually Andhe emphaor so. to constituted sizes thatsignsalso contribute therichandhistorically The semanticfieldmakesa particular contribution bodyofsymbols. in to general an alienation, expressed the "law ofdisplacement," enthe of field tendstoward pole ofthe tropy meaning whichtheentire by in Thismeansthat, modern are signal. society, symbols overthrown by or whilesignsthemselves socialchange corroded signs, by decaytothe is or levelofmeresignals(301).This tendency notsmooth gradual, but is characterized upheavalsandresurgences by (306). Fromthepointofviewofindividual experience, semantic the field of takestheform the"social text,"a conceptwithwhichLefebvre atof temptsto definethe impactof his analysison an understanding life. whichrevealstheextent to everyday Itis an adventurous concept, whichhis philosophy beeninflected Barthes. argues has by He that: Everyoneconstantly-daily-faced a social is with text. scanit, We we it. with with on read Wecommunicate others, global society theone hand, with nature theother, on through text through this and reading it.Atthesametime, everyone part a socialtext. only we is of Not do but illuminated not). is read, weareread, deciphered, (or Everyoneboth and object subject, indissolubly. my [307, translation] of and within socialtext the revalorizes the The dialectic subject object in in reader waysthatanticipate Barthes's lateressays,32 which"the reader thespace on whichall thequotations is thatmakeup a writing areinscribed" Lefebvre de("Death oftheAuthor," 148).LikeBarthes, it finesthe social textby whether is moreor less legible.He distinrichtext, overloaded from excessively the guishesa scale oflegibility withsymbolism information, thetrivial or to text, tediously repetitive and reduced banal signals.Somewhere to betweenthemlies thegood the social text, informative evensurprising, notexceeding caand but of thatreaders pability thesubjectto readit.He also recognizes differ, the from ignorant the informed. exemplify social text,Lethe to To withthevillageand the town. febvre evokescontrasting encounters dominated Whereas villageis a simpleand archaicenvironment, the traversed the by symbols, townis a complexmodernexperience, by
an 32. Forexample, (Paris: S/Z Seuil,1970), "The DeathoftheAuthor," essayof and 1968, reprinted Roland in Barthes, ImageMusicText: EssaysSelected and Translated by Stephen Heath(London: Fontana, 1977),142-48.

94

YaleFrench Studies

of and struggle ranging and from richsymbolism churches monuthe and ments, thepoorsignal-dominated to zones oftraffic factories. To a large extent,Lefebvre's theoryof the social text adopted of Barthes's concept thereader, of together withhisversion Saussurian in The principaldifference theirpositionwas that Lelinguistics. accountofthe semantic febvre's social textwas locatedin a broader articulated witha theory socialpractice. of As field, whichwas in turn a result, Lefebvre able to maintaina dialecticalrelationship was beand tweenthetexton theone handandbothknowledge actionon the or other. This enabledhimto arguethatthesocial textcouldaffect, be or affected changes bothscientific in knowledge socialpractice. As by, of a result, moreinformed, a reading thesocial textcould demystified, in knowledge pracor producepositively disalienating effects either of that tice.However, remained it something a difficulty thelinguistic did lend itselfto dialecticalanalysis.Barthes framework not readily maintained that"languageis not dialectical-it allows onlya moveterm mentin twostages"andthata third (transcending) couldonlybe rhetorical assertion, pioushope" (ImageMu"pureoratorical flourish, this moregenerally, sic Text,199-200). Extending pointto discourse but that is Barthes argues progress notmadebytranscendence by"para" in to dox, in whicha newdiscourse emerges opposition thepreceding in of and doxa. The resulting form progress, a spiralofseparation reto a of Lacking concept newal,remains internal thediscursive process. be socialprocesses. it transcendence, cannotreadily linkedto other searchfora dialecticalthirdtermwas subHowever,Lefebvre's of stantiallyassisted by Barthes'snotion of the "imagination the In Barthes elaborates thethree on sign."33 his essayofthesame title, The symbolic relation the connects sigrelations implied every by sign. The relation differentiates to nifier a particular signified. paradigmatic relation of Andthesyntagmatic thesignwithin system similar a signs. associatesitwitha dynamic signs.He sees the"parsequenceofother as of consciousness" thedefining adigmatic preoccupation structuralwhichesthe consciousness," ism,superseding crumbling "symbolic of relations. an example, As sentially rejected consideration formal any he citestheChristian signoftheCross.On itsown,theCrossis a powinto of but erful symbol Christianity, whenit is incorporated thetitle
Reader, Susan Sontag ed. of 33. Barthes, "The Imagination theSign,"in A Barthes in in Essais Vintage, (London: 1993),211-17. Written 1962,it was published Barthes's critiques (Paris: Seuil,1964).

MICHAEL

KELLY

95

oftheRedCrossandsetbesidetheRedCrescent, paradigmatic a awareness is irresistibly produced whichperceives homology the between thetwo.In Barthes's terms, thisdefines structuralist the threshold. It was crossed,forexample,by Levi-Strauss who solved the riddleof totemism abandoning by attempts discover to symbolic analogiesbetweentotemand clan,andproposed homology relations a of between totems between and clans. To a largeextent, Lefebvre's critique structuralism of focuses its on abandonment "symbolic" of in content favor "paradigmatic" of form.34 Buthe takesBarthes's analysis thebasisfor as incorporating lessons the ofstructural linguistics his ownMarxist into framework. bookLe His langageet la societe(1966) is an extended reflection the debates on withinlinguistics how theymightcontribute a deeperunderand to standing society.35 arguesagainstthe prevailing of He binarismof structural in linguistics, favour a three-dimensional of analysisechoingBarthes's three relations thesign. of Taking Barthes's example the of RedCrossandRedCrescent, acceptsthatwhentwosymbols be can he compared, theydrift toward sign(ils derivent the versle signe,252). but However, argues, "signoftheCross" is notjusta sign, also he the a symbolic enabling believer identify the to act, withChrist's suffering in and participate a cosmic drama.The form theCross servesas a of the mediation, in thissense,thesymbol and transcends sign.Lefebvre does notwish to return prestructural a to or linguistics to introduce form mysticism, rather recallthatsignsareattached social of but to to practicesand sociallyconstituted meaningsthatprecedethem.He crumtherefore reverses Barthes's awareness argument symbolic that bles in thepresence thesyntagmatic paradigmatic. theconof and On he it thattranscends sign, the dimension trary, argues, is thesymbolic But to discourse history to lived humanexperience. the and linking in is transcendence inthiscase a Hegelian"Aufhebung" whichthefirst twoterms conserved. reasserting importance thesymbolic In of are the of Lefebvre acknowledges respective also the dimension, importance parmodel and dimensions. The three-dimensional adigmatic syntagmatic intohis oflanguage realities enableshim to integrate translinguistic
Position.Contre technocrates les 34. See thefollowing worksby Lefebvre: (Paris: 1971);andAu-dela (Paris: Gonthier, as le Gonthier, 1967), reprinted Vers cybernanthrope structuralpartially reprinted L'ideologie as (Paris: Anthropos, 1971), du structuralisme iste(Paris: Seuil,1975). Gallimard, 1966). Le 35. Lefebvre, langageetla societ6 (Paris:

96

YaleFrench Studies

analysis. The resulting-model provides then Lefebvre withan analytical tool,whichcanhelptoelucidate many areasofsocialactivity, much as Barthes mobilizedSaussurian linguistics Mythologies. in Taking one example, Lefebvre schematizes traditional the town.In theparadigmatic thetownis opposedtothecountry, insideto axis, the theoutside, center theperiphery, thewalls (orboundaries) the to and to the gates(or entrances). the syntagmatic In axis, he distinguishes itineraries, connecting networks, residential unitsand linksbetween historia them.In thesymbolic axis,he identifies monuments, style, cal memories continuity. and Applying schematoa modern this town, Lefebvre notes thatthe practicalresultsofurbandevelopment have produced impoverishment an along each of the threeaxes. He commentsthat: Here, fragmentation town a form as a setof the ofthe as (not functions, ofcourse, ofstructures) or coincides the with predominance synof the in tagmatic. symbolic The dimension almost has disappearedthe"new in districts" hasbeentransformed "microcosms" suburban and into All houses. paradigmatic The dimension fading. that left traffic is is is routes networks "services." my and of [290, translation] Itsapplication urban to forms alienation onlydemonstrates of not the analytical value ofthemodel,butalso provides basis for a developing to the at strategies overcome social problems identifies, leastto the it extent pointing theaxes alongwhichremedial of to actionneedstobe directed. In thisway, conovera period twenty of years, Lefebvre Barthes and ducteda fruitful dialogueon thenature mystification. of Theydidnot in conclude anyobviousagreement, insomerespects and they diverged muchofthearmature significantly. 1966,Lefebvre incorporated By had oflinguistic into whileBarthes increashad theory his social analysis, inglydistanced himself from anyspecific sociopolitical target his for toLefebvre's critique. biographer relates thatthetwomenweredining in in gether theSaint-Germain district night May 1968whenriots one first brokeout,butthisdidnotprevent themfrom ordering bottleof a did goodwine (Hess,243). Theircompanionable conviviality notpreventthem on from stances theMayupheavals. taking sharply divergent Barthes conspicuously withdrew from events, whichhe subsequently treated withconsiderable on suspicion.Lefebvre, theother hand,was in at he deeply engaged them.As a professor Nanterre, was at theepicenterof events,and the mentorof manystudentactivists.Subse-

MICHAEL

KELLY

97

to quently, was among mostenergetic attempting analyzeand he the in understand whathadtranspired.36 divergence clearin their The is subs for sequentwritings, maybe measuredby comparing, example, and Barthes's efforts define utopianrealmoftextoutsidetheembrace to a ofpower,37 for withLefebvre's attempt define strategy thesocial to a transformation urbanspace.38While Lefebvre's of voice is no more in is thana residual trace Barthes's later writings, Barthes a continuing in interlocutor Lefebvre's. doubtthis reflects broadershiftof No a French intellectual after life movedaway 1968,inwhichcritical theory from imporsocial concerns, while social theory attached increasing and tanceto discursive strategies. so, thetrajectories Barthes LeIf of the febvre mayappearas reminders that,fora seminalperiodduring 1950s,therewas a degree convergence of betweensocial and critical in theory thecommon project demystification. of

1968). Anthropos, (Paris: au de L'irruption Nanterre sommet 36. See Lefebvre, 457-78. Reader, Collge de France" inA Barthes lecture, "Inaugural 37. See Barthes, Donald NicholsonThe of example, Lefebvre, Production Space,trans. 38. See, for Blackwell, 1991). Smith (Oxford: