This is a pre-press version of

Roberts, B., 2006. Cinema as mnemotechnics: Bernard Stiegler and the indstrialisation
of memor!. Angelaki, ""#"$, pp.%%&6'.
()*: "0."0+0,0-6-.2%0600.-.+6/
CINEMA AS MNEMOTECHNICS
Bernard Stiegler and the Industrialization of Memory
n his mlti-volme 0or1 La Technique et le temps, or Technics and Time, Bernard
Stiegler attempts to rethin1 the relationship bet0een the hman and technical ob2ects,
or 0hat he calls 3technics.4 The term 3technics4 here renders the 5rench 3la technique4
0hich, as Stiegler6s translators Richard Beards0orth and 7eorge Collins point ot, refers
to the 3technical domain or to technical practice as a 0hole.4 *t is therefore to be distin-
gished from 3la technologie4 #3technolog!4$ and technologique #3technological4$ 0hich
refer to the 3specific amalgamation of technics and the sciences in the modern period4
#Beards0orth and Collins in Stiegler, Technics and Time 2+0&+" n. "$. The 8nglish term,
technics, is probabl! best 1no0n throgh its se b! the theorist of technolog! 9e0is
:mford, 0ho first ses it in his "-'/ boo1 Technics and Civilization. :mford defines
the term in the later Art and Technics as 3that part of hman activit! 0herein, b! an ener-
getic organi;ation of the process of 0or1, man controls and directs the forces of natre
for his o0n prposes4 #Art and Technics "%$.
"
<o0ever, in the 0or1 of Stiegler, the term
3technics4 ta1es on a particlar meaning. Stiegler ses technics to refer to 0hat he calls
3organi;ed inorganic matter.4 <e e=plores a histor! of technics as epiph!logenesis & the
preservation in technical ob2ects of epigenetic e=perience. 8piph!logenesis for Stiegler
mar1s a brea1 0ith genetic evoltion #0hich cannot preserve the lessons of e=perience$, a
brea1 0hich also constittes the 3invention4 of the hman. >s Stiegler pts it in the gen-
eral introdction to Technics and Time: 3>s a ?process of e=teriori;ation,6 technics is the
prsit of life b! means other than life4 #Technics and Time ".$.
I
This paper 0ill briefl! otline Stiegler6s ideas arond technics as the! appear in
the first volme of Technics and Time. *t 0ill move on to sho0 that in more recent 0or1
b! Stiegler, e=emplified b! the later volmes of Technics and Time, there is a shift of
emphasis in Stiegler6s thin1ing of technics. This shift seems to be characteri;ed b! the
move from an emphasis on technics as the e=teriori;ation of the hman, or on prosthesis,
to an emphasis on technics as 0hat Stiegler calls 3tertiar! memor!,4 or mnemotechnics.
This is paralleled b! a move from the first volme6s e=ploration of the origin of the
hman in tools and 0riting to an e=plicit focs on modern tele-technologies, on cinema,
on the televisal and on technoscience. This ne0 emphasis on technics as 3tertiar!
memor!4 is therefore accompanied b! a rethin1ing of tele-technologies as the global
3indstriali;ation of memor!.4
i Prosthesis and the Exteriorization of the Human
There are reall! t0o different strands to Stiegler6s argment in the first volme of Tech-
nics and Time #3The 5alt of 8pimethes4$. The first is a reading of the @estion of tech-
nics in relation to the philosophical anthropolog! of Rossea, the 0or1 of the 5rench an-
thropologist 9eroi-7orhan, the 0or1 of the historian Bertrand 7ille, and that of the the-
cinema as mnemotechnics
orist of technolog! 7ilbert Simondon. <ere the argment is concerned 0ith the anthropo-
logical @estion of the origin of the hman and see1s to demonstrate that the origin of the
hman is to be fond not in some essence of the hman being itself, 0hether biological or
transcendental, bt rather in a ne0 relation bet0een the living and the non-living, or a
ne0 process of e=teriori;ation 0hereb! the 3interior4 of the living being becomes ine=-
tricabl! bond p 0ith an 3e=terior4 realm of tools or of inscription. The histor! of the
hman is therefore no longer in the realm of genetic evoltion bt that of technical evol-
tion #or the evoltion of 3organi;ed inorganic beings4$
2
in 0hich it is impossible to separ-
ate the living being from its e=ternal prosthetic technical spport. Stiegler distingishes
this technical evoltion from biological evoltion #ph!logenesis$ b! calling it epiphylo-
genesis.
The second strand is an argment b! 0hich Stiegler positions himself both 0ith
respect to the 0or1 of his immediate predecessor, Aac@es (errida, to 0hom he is clearl!
indebted
'
and 0ith respect to the 0or1 of <eidegger and <sserl. <ere, 0hat Stiegler is
1een to sho0 is the repression of technics throghot the histor! of philosoph! from
Blato to <eidegger, an argment 0hich is clearl! also broght ot in (errida6s discssion
of the repression of 0riting, bt not @ite in the form in 0hich Stiegler 0ishes to present
it.
/
>lthogh in man! 0a!s, as Stiegler admits, <eidegger6s approach to technics is
ambigos
%
and despite the fact that <eidegger cold be seen in some 0a!s to broach the
@estion of technicit! & for e=ample, throgh the discssion of being-in-the-0orld,
facticit! and the alread!-there in Being and Time, and his criticism of instrmentalit! in
The Question concerning Technology & Stiegler arges that <eidegger fndamentall!
mista1es the @estion of technics, in particlar b! failing to see the constittive role that
technics pla!s in temporalit!. This dialoge 0ith <eidegger is the concern of mch of the
latter part of the first volme of Technics and Time.
*n man! 0a!s 0hat holds these t0o strands of 3The 5alt of 8pimethes4 together
is the figre of 8pimethes himself. Stiegler refers to t0o acconts of the m!th of
Bromethes and 8pimethes. The version of the m!th reconted in the Protagoras is as
follo0s. 8pimethes is allotting po0ers to mortal creatres. <e shares varios po0ers
li1e speed and strength ot among the animals in a balanced manner so that no species is
too strong and no species 0ill be destro!ed. <aving completed this distribtion he
reali;es that he has forgotten hmans #leaving them 3na1ed, nshod, nbedded and
narmed4: Blato, The Collected Dialogues '2"c$. Chen his brother Bromethes discovers
the error he steals from the gods s1ill in the arts #in 7ree1, ten enteknen sophian, a point
0hich Stiegler nderlines$
6
and fire. This m!th therefore provides the follo0ing
e=planation of the hman condition:
Since then, man has had a share in the portion of the gods, in the first place
becase of his divine 1inship he alone among living creatres believed in
gods, and set to 0or1 to erect altars, and images of them. Secondl!, b! the art
0hich the! possessed, men soon discovered articlate speech and names, and
invented hoses and clothes and shoes and bedding and got food from the
earth. #The Collected Dialogues '22a$
Do0 there are a nmber of points that Stiegler 0ants to nderline in Blato6s
accont. The first is that, nli1e the anthropological acconts of Rossea and 9eroi-
roberts
7orhan, hman1ind is here constitted not in relation to the animal, as an animal 0ith
something added #a consciosness, sol or free0ill$, bt in relation to the gods: 3the
deviation, if there is one, is not in relation to natre bt in relation to the divine E
>nthropogon! onl! ac@ires meaning in theogon!4 #Technics and Time "+-$. The hman
is therefore not so mch a special t!pe of animal as a deficient god: a being 0ith access to
the po0ers of the gods #and hence 0ith an nderstanding of immortalit! throgh
religion$, bt in mortal form. Contra Rossea, then, 3FitG is not a matter of recalling a
state of natre, nor of claiming 0hat ?hman natre6 oght to have beenH there 0as no
fall, bt a falt, no hap nor mishap, bt mortalit!4 #"-0$. There is no origin of hman
natre 0hich is then deviated fromH the hman, the mortal, is deviation itself. Inli1e
animals, 0ho are each allotted essential characteristics or po0ers, the hman is originall!
nothing. The origin of the hman is ths constitted b! a lac1. The crcial figre here for
Stiegler is 8pimethes, 0ho constittes, throgh his forgetflness, the hman as this
originar! lac1 or defalt, and not the more traditional figre of Bromethes. 8pimethes
is forgotten b! a philosoph! 0hich 0old see hmanit! constitted positivel! throgh the
gifts and @alities that Bromethes besto0s, and not throgh the originar! lac1 or falt of
8pimethes. *n fact Bromethes6s falt #aute$ & that is, his theft from the gods & simpl!
dobles p 8pimethes6 originar! falt of forgetting. Both Titans, Bromethes and
8pimethes are necessar! to nderstand the origin or 3origin4 of the hman, 0hich
0old be constitted !oth b! the lac1 or defalt and 0hat comes to ma1e p for that
defalt in the form of prosthesis #tekhne"$.
Since the 3hman4 is constitted throgh its e=teriori;ation into tools, its origin is
neither biological #a particlar arrangement of cells$ nor transcendental #to be fond in
something li1e consciosness$. The origin of the hman as the prosthesis of the living is
therefore fndamentall! aporetic: one shold spea1, for Stiegler, of a non-origin or
defalt of origin.
.
Stiegler develops these argments throgh a reading of Rossea and
9eroi-7orhan, sho0ing on the one hand ho0 the empirical approach of the palaeo-
anthropologist cannot avoid the transcendental @estion of origin and, on the other, ho0
Rossea6s transcendental accont of the @estion of origin inscribes inside its accont,
despite itself, the thoght of the hman as contingent or accidental.
+
ii Technics as Tertiary Memory
The idea of tertiar! memor! in Stiegler6s Technics and Time emerges initiall! at the end
of the first volme, 3The 5alt of 8pimethes,4 in the conte=t of Stiegler6s discssion of
<eidegger bt it is onl! in the later volmes that it is developed at length and becomes a
dominant theme. Stiegler develops the idea of tertiar! memor! throgh a reading of
<sserl. *n particlar, Stiegler is interested in <sserl6s distinction bet0een primar! and
secondar! retention. 5or <sserl, primar! retention is part of the ver! constittion of the
temporal ob2ect and therefore part of perception in as mch as 0e perceive temporal ob-
2ects. The 1e! e=ample of a temporal ob2ect in <sserl & and the one that Stiegler con-
cerns himself 0ith & is the melod!. Stiegler glosses <sserl6s argment abot the melod!
as follo0s:
> melod! is a temporal ob2ect in the sense that it constittes itself onl! in
cinema as mnemotechnics
dration. The phenomenon of this temporal ob2ect is a flo0 E the properl!
temporal ob2ect is not simpl! in time, it constittes itself temporall!, it
0eaves itself into the thread of time & as that 0hich appears in passing, as that
0hich passes, as that 0hich manifests itself in disappearing, as a fl=
vanishing as it is prodced. Chen * listen to a melod!, the ob2ect is presented
to me in a flo0. *n the corse of the flo0 each of the notes 0hich presents
itself no0 has retained in it the note 0hich preceded it, this note retained in it
all the notes 0hich preceded it, it is the 3no04 FmaintenantG as persistence
FmantienG of the presence of the ob2ect: the present of the temporal ob2ect is
its persistence. *t is in this 0a! that the nit! of the temporal ob2ect is
constitted. *t is becase it retains all the notes, all the sonoros no0s
FmaintentantsG that preceded it that the present note can sond melodicall!, be
msical, be harmonios or non-harmonios, be properl! a note and not onl! a
sond or a noise.
-
The melod!, then, is an e=ample of primar! retention in as mch as the retention of
previos notes belongs to the ver! act of perception. Cithot this primar! retention, or
primar! memor!, there is no perception of the melod!. <sserl differentiates this t!pe of
memor! from 0hat he thin1s of as secondar! retention or memor!. >n e=ample of this
second t!pe of memor! 0old be remembering a melod! heard !esterda!. The important
point here for <sserl, as Stiegler emphasi;es, is that 0hereas primar! retention belongs
to the act of perception, secondar! retention belongs to the imagination. 5or Stiegler this
means that <sserl doesn6t 2st distingish bet0een primar! and secondar! retention, he
activel! opposes them, he sets p an 3absolte difference4 bet0een them, mirroring the
distinction bet0een 3perception4 and 3imagination4 #Stiegler, Le Temps du cin#ma '+&
'-$. This distinction is, in effect, essential for <sserl in as mch as he 0ants to arge
that the temporal ob2ect, for e=ample the melod!, is a real ob2ect of perception, not an
imaginar! one. <o0ever, as Stiegler arges, in inagrating this absolte difference
bet0een primar! and secondar! retention, <sserl 3FpositsG that perception o0es nothing
to imagination, and that 0hat is perceived is in no case imagined, can absoltel! never be
contaminated b! the fictions of 0hich imaginar! prodctions consist: life is perception,
not imagination.4
"0
Since primar! retention never involves imagination, it also never
involves an! acts of selection: the 1ind of memor! constittive of primar! retention is
never selective: it retains ever!thing. 5or if primar! retention involved selection it 0old
alread! indicate that, as Stiegler pts it, 3a 1ind of imagination4 0as at 0or1 in that
selection process. >gainst <sserl6s absolte distinction bet0een primar! and secondar!
memor!, Stiegler otlines the contere=ample of 0hat is happening 0hen * listen to a
melod! more than once, for e=ample 0hen * pla! a record several times. Stiegler arges:
Jo onl! have to listen t0ice to the same melod! to see that bet0een the t0o
aditions, consciosness #the ear, here$ never hears the same thing: something
has occrred. 8ach ne0 adition affords a ne0 phenomenon, richer if the
msic is good, less so if not, and that is 0h! the msic lover is an aicionado
of repeated aditions & a variation of selections E 5rom one adition to the
ne=t the ear is not the same, precisel! becase the ear of the second adition
has been affected b! the first.
roberts
This difference bet0een aditions can be nderstood, for Stiegler, onl! if the
primar! retention of the melod! * am listening to no0 is someho0 modified b! the
secondar! memor! of the same melod! heard previosl!. The e=perience of perceiving
the same temporal ob2ect, that is, the melod!, t0ice reveals that the temporal ob2ect
cannot be simpl! constitted throgh primar! retention. :oreover & and here the theme
of technics reasserts itself & the ver! e=perience of perceiving the same temporal ob2ect
t0ice is possible onl! b! virte of the prosthetic memor! spport of digital or analoge
recording. *t is onl! 0ith the advent of sch technologies that the verbatim repeatabilit!
of the temporal ob2ect becomes possible. Stiegler calls this technical memor! spport
3tertiar! memor!4 and arges that 3it is the phonogram qua tertiar! memor! that
originall! highlights the fact of the selection of primar! retentions b! consciosness, and
ths the intervention of imagination at the ver! center of perception4 #.2$.
Stiegler therefore locates in the gramophone record an inversion of <sserl6s model
of memor!. 5or <sserl there is primar! retention, the form of retention that belongs to
perception, 0hich is constittive of consciosness as temporal phenomenon and 0ithot
0hich there 0old be no perception of a temporal phenomenon sch as the melod!. Then
there is secondar! retention, 0hich as the #selective, imaginative$ memor! of a previos
e=perience is alread! derivative and not constittive of e=perience. *n effect, secondar!
memor! is a re-presentation or reactivation of primar! retention. Both of these t!pes of
memories are distinct from recorded memories, sch as pictres, 0hich <sserl calls
image-consciosness bt Stiegler prefers to call 3tertiar! memor!.4 5or Stiegler, on the
other hand, tertiar! memor! is constittive of primar! and secondar! memor! and not
derivative from them. Stiegler6s point is that in the gramophone record, more generall! in
the recorded temporal o!$ect, it is not perception 0hich ma1es possible memor! and the
artefact bt the artefact that ma1es possible both primar! and secondar! retention: the
record allo0s both the perception of the melod! and, crciall!, the constant modification
of that perception throgh repeated aditions.
iii The Industrialization of Memory
5or Stiegler, then, perception of the temporal ob2ect can never be prel! or simpl! consti-
tted b! primar! retentions bt onl! throgh a process of imaginative selection afforded
b! secondar! and tertiar! memor!. The gramophone record is one e=ample of the consti-
ttion of the temporal ob2ect throgh the intert0ining of primar!, secondar! and tertiar!
memor!. >nother e=ample & one 0hich is crcial to the argments that Stiegler 0ants to
advance & is cinema #nderstood here in general terms as the technolog! of the moving
image$. The film, li1e the melod!, constittes itself as temporal fl=. >ccording to Stieg-
ler, consciosness is particlarl! affected b! the cinematic temporal ob2ect:
the singlarit! of the cinematographic recording techni@e lies in the
con$ugation o t%o coincidences: on the one hand, the photo-phonographic
coincidence of past and realit! E indcing this 3realit! effect,4 that is, this
belief 0hich is installed in the spectator immediatel! b! the techni@e itselfH
on the other hand, the coincidence bet0een the film fl= and the fl= of
cinema as mnemotechnics
consciosness of the film6s spectator that triggers, in the pla! of movement
bet0een the photographic stills lin1ed b! the phonographic fl=, the
mechanism of complete adoption of the film6s time b! the time of the
spectator6s consciosness that, itself a fl=, finds itself captred and 3borne
along4 b! the movement of images. This movement, invested b! the desire
for stories living in all spectators, frees the movements o consciousness
characteristic of cinematographic emotion.
""
Ce can no0 see the tre significance of Stiegler6s re0or1ing of <sserl. *f the
temporal fl= of cinema coincides 0ith consciosness it is becase consciosness is itself
to be nderstood on the basis of a temporal fl=. *n effect this leads Stiegler to assert,
against (ele;e, 3the h!pothesis of an essentiall! cinemato-graphic strctre of
consciosness in general, as if it ?has al0a!s been engaged in cinema 0ithot 1no0ing it6
& 0hich 0old e=plain the singlarl! persasive force of cinematograph!.4
"2
The
importance of cinema is not that it artificiall! mimics a properl! natral temporal fl= in
consciosness. 5or this temporal fl= of primar! retention is al0a!s alread! 3artificial4 in
the sense of being modified and constitted throgh secondar! and tertiar! memor!. *n
this sense cinema simpl! parta1es in the histor! of mnemotechnics or the 3e=teriori;ation
of memor!4 from primitive tools throgh 0riting to analoge and digital recording. Bt
the recording and reprodction of the temporal ob2ect nonetheless mar1s a distinctive
shift in histor! of this e=teriori;ation and in the relationship bet0een primar!, secondar!
and tertiar! memor!.
To nderstand the constittion of the temporal ob2ect as fndamentall! technical is
also, for Stiegler, an e=plicitl! political pro2ect. >s he pts it, 3to nderstand the
singlarit! of the affection of consciosness b! temporal ob2ects is to begin to nderstand
the specificit! and the force of cinema, ho0 it can transform life & for e=ample b! getting
the 0hole 0orld to adopt the >merican 0a! of life4 #3The Time of Cinema4 .2$. *t is
important, therefore, to nderstand cinema & to nderstand the adiovisal in general &
not onl! as a ne0 t!pe of tertiar! memor! bt also as the 3indstriali;ation of memor!.4
The 20th centr! is the centr! of the indstriali;ation, the conservation and
the transmission & that is, the selection & of memor!. This indstriali;ation
becomes concreti;ed in the generali;ation of the prodction of indstrial
temporal ob2ects #phonograms, films, radio and television programs, etc$,
0ith the conse@ences to be dra0n concerning the fact that millions,
hndreds of millions of consciosnesses are ever! da! the consciosnesses, at
the same time of the same temporal ob2ects. #"06$
Stiegler arges that this indstriali;ation of memor! leads to a 3loss of
individation,4 a terminolog! he is borro0ing from 7ilbert Simondon6s accont of
indstriali;ation in the nineteenth centr!.
"'
5or Simondon, the advent of indstriali;ation
ta1es individal technical s1ill a0a! from the 0or1er and replaces it 0ith the machine
tool. This deprives the 0or1er of the abilit! to differentiate & to individate, in
Simondon6s terms & their labor. *n Stiegler the indstriali;ation of memor! shifts this
loss of individation to the ps!chic domain and reslts in 0hat he calls a
3proletariani;ation4 of the spirit or 3paperi;ation of cltre.4
roberts
>t this point, Stiegler6s argment begins to sond similar to that of >dorno and
<or1heimer arond cltre indstr! #&ulturindustrie$ in Dialectic o 'nlightenment. 5or
>dorno and <or1heimer 0hat is at sta1e is, in Kantian terms, the loss of an individal
abilit! to schemati;e:
Kant6s formalism still e=pected a contribtion from the individal, 0ho 0as
thoght to relate the varied e=perience of the senses to fndamental conceptsH
bt indstr! robs the individal of this fnction. *ts prime service to the
cstomer is to do his schemati;ing for him. Kant said there 0as a secret
mechanism in the sol 0hich prepared direct intitions in sch a 0a! that
the! cold be fitted into the s!stem of pre reason. Bt toda! that secret has
been deciphered. #Dialectic o 'nlightenment "2/$
)stensibl! this po0er of the cltre indstr! to rob the individal of their
individal schemati;ation seems similar to Stiegler6s 3indstriali;ation of memor!4 and
3loss of individation.4 <o0ever, there are several reasons 0h! 0hat Stiegler is sa!ing is
importantl! different from >dorno and <or1heimer. The first is the one that, conscios of
this comparison, Stiegler ma1es for himself. Stiegler does this throgh the argment
arond Kant in Dialectic o 'nlightenment. >dorno and <or1heimer arge that the
schematism, 0hich in Kant nifies sensibilit! and nderstanding, has been ta1en over b!
the cltre indstr!. >s Stiegler pts it:
Kantianism distingishes t0o sorces 0ithot 0hich no 1no0ledge is
possible for the hman sb2ect. Schemati;ation, carried ot b! the
imagination, is 0hat permits their nification, 0hich means at the same time,
the nit! of consciosness itself. <or1heimer and >dorno describe the
indstriali;ation of the imagination as an industrial e(teriorization o the
po%er o schematization and in this 0a! as a reiication, as an alienating
3thingification4 of 1no0ing consciosness.
"/
Bt for Stiegler, as 0e have seen, consciosness is al0a!s alread! e=teriori;ed into
its technical spports: from the earliest tools, throgh 0riting to tele-technologies. *t can
therefore never be a @estion of technolog! srping the place of a properl! 3hman4
faclt! of schemati;ation. *ndeed, the schematism is alread! technical:
*f there can be an indstrial schematism, it6s becase the schema is
originarily and in its very structure industrializa!le) it passes through
tertiary retention, that is, throgh technics, technolog! and, toda!, indstr!.
"%
*n a sense, for Stiegler it is this 3technics4 of the schematism that >dorno and
<or1heimer have failed to thin1. 5or Stiegler the indstriali;ation of memor! is not a
transformation in the relationship bet0een technolog! and cltre or bet0een technolog!
and individal imagination bt a transformation in the technolog! of memor! itself.
:ore generall! & althogh Stiegler does not discss this directl! & 0e can see this
problematic at 0or1 in the 0a! in 0hich >dorno and <or1heimer s!stematicall! psh the
@estion of technolog! to one side of the anal!sis:
cinema as mnemotechnics
*nterested parties e=plain the cltre indstr! in technological terms E Do
mention is made of the fact that the basis on 0hich technolog! ac@ires
po0er over societ! is the po0er of those 0hose economic hold over societ! is
greatest. > technological rationale is the rationale of domination itself E *t
has made the technolog! of the cltre indstr! no more than the
achievement of standardi;ation and mass prodction, sacrificing 0hatever
involved a distinction bet0een 0or1 and that of the social s!stem. This is the
reslt not of a la0 of movement in technolog! itself bt of its fnction in
toda!6s econom!. #Dialectic o 'nlightenment "2"$
B! sbordinating technical evoltion to the rationale of economic and social po0er,
technolog! here is nderstood in classical fashion as a means to an end, as a tool
fashioned and directed b! an intention that lies otside of it. The @estion of technolog!
is ths displaced b! socio-economic anal!sis. <o0ever, it is 2st this nderstanding of
technolog! that Stiegler6s 0hole pro2ect see1s to challenge. Stiegler sitates the problem
of indstriali;ation at the level of tertiar! memor! and not at the level of cltre. The
criti@e of this indstriali;ation, or 0hat Stiegler calls 3the politics4 of memor!, is
therefore inseparable from the rethin1ing of the relation bet0een the hman and its
technical spports.
Notes
" 9eo :ar= arges that :mford ses technics 3as the mbrella categor! of tools and
tensils that figre in all of recorded histor! E FitG enables him to stress the relativel!
brief histor!, hence the distinctiveness of machine technologies4 #Le%is *umord ".%$.
Rosalind Cilliams observes: 3The term ?technics6 therefore has a 0ider range than
?technolog!64 #3Classics Revisited4 "/-$.
2 Stiegler, Technics and Time "..
' 3Aac@es (errida has made this 0or1 possible throgh his o0n, and the reader 0ill
find in these pages a reading that strives to remain faithfl 0hile ta1ing on #?starting
from,6 ?beside,6 and in the deviation ##cart$ of a diffLrance$ the fascinating inheritance
that the spectral athorit! of a master engenders & all the more fascinating 0hen the
master sspects an! and all figres of master!4 #Stiegler, Technics and Time =$.
/ )n this point and, more 0idel!, on the relationship bet0een Stiegler6s 0or1 and that
of (errida see m! article 3(econstrction and Technics.4 See also Beards0orth,
3Thin1ing technicit!4H Bennington, 38mergencies.4
% (espite the 3vehemence4 #"-%$ and 3anims against <eidegger4 #"+"$ 0hich 7eoffre!
Bennington sggests characteri;e certain sections of Stiegler6s discssion of <eidegger,
Stiegler does in fact insist on a certain comple=it! and ambivalence in <eidegger6s
approach to technicit! #38mergencies4 "+", "-%$. This nderstanding can be glimpsed in
roberts
Stiegler6s 37eneral *ntrodction4 to Technics and Time 0here he remar1s as follo0s:
3the difficlt! of an interpretation of the meaning of modern technics for <eidegger is on
a par 0ith the difficlt! of his entire thoght. :odern technics is the concern of
nmeros te=ts, 0hich do not al0a!s appear to move in the same direction. *n other
0ords, the meaning of modern technics is ambigos in <eidegger6s 0or1. *t appears
simltaneosl! as the ltimate obstacle to and the ltimate possibilit! of thoght4
#Technics and Time .$. *t is also notable that Stiegler is 1een to distance <eidegger6s
approach to technicit! from <abermas, 0ho he arges is simpl! reprodcing 3the
fonding positions of philosoph!4 in 3liberating commnication from its technici;ation4
#3if <abermas and <eidegger appear to agree in considering the technici;ation of
langage as a perversion E 0e can also detect from 0ithin <eidegger6s anal!sis the
development of a completel! different point of vie04$ #"2&"'$. Stiegler goes on to
nderline @ite forcefll! the point that <eidegger does not hold a 3traditional
metaph!sical position to0ards technics4 in condemning :arlLne Marader6s reading of
<eidegger for confsing technics 0ith calclation and for imagining that <eidegger
thin1s 3falling4 can be srmonted #3>s if falling 0ere ?srmontable.6 This so-called
reading of <eidegger has @ite simpl! never read <eidegger E4 #20+$$. *n this vein
Stiegler also critici;es 3the more correct4 (re!fs for imagining that 3it is not clear
0hether Being and Time opposes technolog! or promotes it4 #(re!fs, 3<eidegger6s
<istor! of the Being of 8@ipment4 ".% cited in Stiegler, Technics and Time 20-$.
Stiegler conters: 3it is never a @estion of sch an alternativeH it is not the ?tas1 of
thin1ing6 to ?confront6 technics & nor of corse to promote it & bt to open ?oneself to it64
#Stiegler, Technics and Time 20- @oting <eidegger, Basic +ritings '-0&-2$.
6 See Stiegler, Technics and Time "+..
. )n the aporia of the origin of the hman in relation to the 0or1 of 9eroi-7orhan see
particlarl! Technics and Time "/"&/2. Stiegler develops the argment arond the
3defalt of origin4 #d#aut d,origine$ throgh a reading of the 3falt4 of 8pimethes in
Blato6s Protagoras, conclding 3FhmansG onl! occr throgh their being forgottenH the!
onl! appear in disappearing4 #Technics and Time "++$. See also Bennington and
Beards0orth6s e=position of this argment in Stiegler: Bennington, 38mergencies4 "+0&
+"$H 35rom a 7enealog! of :atter to a Bolitics of :emor!4 -% n. "6.
+ See Stiegler, Technics and Time "0/&''. )n this point see also Richard Beards0orth6s
accont of Stiegler6s 0or1: Beards0orth, 35rom a 7enealog! of :atter to a Bolitics of
:emor!4 -+.
-
-ne m#lodie est un o!$et temporel au sens o. il ne se constitue que dans sa dur#e/
Le ph#nom0ne de cet o!$et temporel est une #coulement 1 l,o!$et proprement
temporel n,est pas simplement dans le temps) il se constitue temporellement2 il se
trame au il de temps " comme ce qui appara3t en passant2 comme ce qui passe2
comme ce qui se manieste en disparaissant2 comme lu( s,#vanouissent 4 mesure
qu,il se produit/ 516 Lorsque $,#coute une m#lodie2 l,o!$et se pr#sente 4 moi en
cinema as mnemotechnics
s,#coulant/ Au cours de cet #coulement2 chacune des notes qui se pr#sente
maintenant retient en elle la note qui l,a pr#c#d#e2 celle-ci retenant en elle toutes
les notes qui l,ont pr#c#d#e2 elle est le 7maintenant8 comme maintien de la
pr#sence de l,o!$et) le pr#sent de l,o!$et temporel est sa maintenance/ C,est ainsi
que se constitue l,nitL de l,o!$et temporel/ C,est parce qu,elle retient toutes les
notes2 tous les maintenants sonores qui la pr#c0dent2 que la note pr#sente peut
sonner m#lodiquement2 9tre musicale2 9tre harmonique ou non-harmonique2 9tre
proprement une note2 et non seulement un son ou un !ruit/ #Stiegler, Le Temps du
cin#ma '6-'. F6+G H translation modified$
"0
5pose6 que la perception ne doit rien 4 l,imagination2 et que ce qui est per:u n,est
en aucun cas imagin#2 ne peut a!solument pas 9tre contamin# par les ictions en
quoi consistent tou$ours les productions de l,imagination) la vie est perception et la
perception n,est pas l,imagination/ #Stiegler, Le Temps du cin#ma '- F.0G$
""
1 la singularit# de la technique d,enregistrement cin#matographique r#sulte de la
con2gaison de de= coNncidences) d,une part2 la co;ncidence
photophonographique entre pass# et r#alit# 1 qui induit cet 7 eet de r#el 82 c,est-
4-dire de croyance2 o. le spectateur est install# d,avance par la technique elle-
m9me< d,autre part2 la co;ncidence entre lu( du ilm et lu( de la conscience du
spectateur de ce ilm2 qui part le $eu du mouvement cr## entre les poses
photographiques2 li#es entre elles par le lu( phonographiqe2 d#clenche le
m#canisme d,adoption complOte du temps du ilm par le temps de la conscience du
spectateur2 qui2 en tant qu,elle est elle-m9me un lu(2 se trouve capt#e et 7
canalis#e 8 par le mouvement des images/ Ce mouvement2 investi par le d#sir
d,histoires qui ha!ite tout spectateur2 li!0re les movements de conscience
typiques de l,emotion cin#matographiqe/ #Stiegler, Le temps du cin#ma '/ F66GH
original emphasis, translation slightl! modified$
"2 See Stiegler, Le Temps du cin#ma '% F6+GH translation slightl! modified. Stiegler is
@oting here from (ele;e6s ob2ections to Bergson: 3(oes this mean that for Bergson the
cinema is onl! the pro2ection, the reprodction of a constant, niversal illsionP >s
thogh 0e had al0a!s had cinema 0ithot realising itP4 #Cinema =) The *ovement-
>mage 2$. Stiegler arges:
(ele;e is ndobtedl! correct to ob2ect to Bergson6s sa!ing that the reprodction
of an illsion is 3also its correction in one respect.4 <o0ever, (ele;e fails to dra0
all the conse@ences of this ob2ection, precisel! becase he does not ta1e into
accont the specificit! of reprodction qua analog-photographic recording
techni@e, incorporating the Barthesian 3it has been,4 and qua fsion of
instantaneos stills in the fl= of a temporal ob2ect. This is the reason 0h!, it seems
to me, (ele;e fails to e=plain 0hat 3having been engaged in cinema 0ithot reall!
roberts
1no0ing it4 means and fails to accont for the impact of the moving image.
#Stiegler, Le Temps du cin#ma '% F66G$
"' See Simondon, Du mode d,e(istence des o!$ets techniques.
"/
Le kantisme distingue deu( sources sans lesquelles aucune connaissance n,est
possi!le pour le su$et humain) la sensi!ilit# et l,entendement/ La sch#matisation2
op#r#e par l,imagination2 est ce qui permet leur uniication2 c,est-4-dire2 du m9me
coup2 l,unit# de la conscience elle-m9me/ ?r2 les industries culturelles #tant des
industries de l,imaginaire2 @orkheimer et Adorno d#crivent l,industrialisation de
l,imagination comme une e=tLriorisation indstrielle d povoir de schLmatisation2
et par l4 m9me2 comme une rLification2 comme une chosiication ali#nante de la
conscience connaissante/ #Stiegler, Le Temps du cin#ma 6+$
"%
A,il peut y avoir un 7 sch#matisme industriel 82 c,est parce que le schOme est
originairement et dans sa strctre mQme indstrialisable: il passe par la
rLtention tertiaire2 c,est-4-dire par la technique2 la technologie et2 au$ourd,hui2
l,industrie. #Stiegler, Le Temps du cin#ma ./$
Bilio!ra"hy
>dorno, Theodor and :a= <or1heimer. Dialectic o 'nlightenment. Translated b! Aohn
Cmming. 9ondon: Rerso, "-.-.
Beards0orth, Richard. 35rom a 7enealog! of :atter to a Bolitics of :emor!: Stiegler6s
Thin1ing of Technics.4 Tekhnema) Bournal o Philosophy and Technology 2 #"--%$: +%&
""%.
Beards0orth, Richard. 3Thin1ing Technicit!.4 Cultural Calues 2 #"--+$: .0&+6.
Bennington, 7eoffre!. 38mergencies.4 ?(ord Literary Devie% "+ #"--6$: ".%&2"6.
(ele;e, 7illes. Cinema =) The *ovement->mage. Translated b! <gh Tomlinson and
Barbara <abber2am. 9ondon: >thlone, "-+6.
(re!fs, <bert. 3<eidegger6s <istor! of the Being of 8@ipment.4 @eidegger) A Critic-
al Deader. 8d. <bert (re!fs and <arrison <all. )=ford: Blac10ell, "--2. ".'&+%.
(re!fs, <bert and <arrison <all #eds.$. @eidegger) A Critical Deader. )=ford: Blac1-
0ell, "--2.
<eidegger, :artin. Basic +ritings. 8d. (avid 5arrell Krell. 9ondon: Rotledge, "--'.
cinema as mnemotechnics
:ar=, 9eo. Le%is *umord) Prophet o ?rganicism. De0 Jor1: Ceidenfeld, "-+-.
:mford, 9e0is. Art and Technics. De0 Jor1: Colmbia IB, "-%2.
:mford, 9e0is. Technics and Civilization. De0 Jor1: <arcort, "-'/.
Blato. The Collected Dialogues. 8d. 8. <amilton and <. Cairns. Brinceton: Brinceton IB,
"-6".
Roberts, Ben. 3(econstrction and Technics.4 Postmodern Culture "6." #200%$. '. pars.
% 5eb. 2006 Shttp:,,mse.2h.ed,2ornals,postmodernTcltre,v0"6,"6."roberts.htmlU.
Simondon, 7ilbert. Du mode d,e(istence des o!$ets techniques. Baris: >bier, "-%+.
Stiegler, Bernard. Technics and Time. Trans. Richard Beards0orth and 7eorge Collins.
Rol. ". The Eault o 'pimetheus. Stanford: Stanford IB, "--+.
Stiegler, Bernard. La technique et le temps. Rol. '. Le temps du cin#ma et la question du
mal-9tre. Baris: 7alilLe, 200". Bartiall! translated as 3The Time of Cinema.4 Trans.
7eorge Collins. Tekhnema #"--+$: 62&""'.
Cilliams, Rosalind. 3Classics Revisited: 9e0is :mford6s Technics and Civilization.4
Technology and Culture /' #2002$: "'-&/-.
Ben Roberts