No More Learning

? EDITORS Timothy Lenoir and Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht
? GRAMOPHONE, FILM, TYPEWRITER
FRIEDRICH A. KITTLER
Translated, with an Introduction, by
GEOFFREY WINTHROP-YOUNG AND MICHAEL WUTZ
? STANFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS STANFORD, CALIFORNIA
The publication of this work was assisted by a subsidy from Inter Nationes, Bonn
Gramophone, Film, Typewriter was originally published in German
in I986 as Grammophon Film Typewriter, (C) I986 Brinkmann & Bose, Berlin
Stanford University Press Stanford, California
(C) I999 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Printed in the United States of America
erp data appear at the end of the book
TRANSLATORS' ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A translation by Dorothea von Mucke of Kittler's Introduction was first published in October 41 (1987): 101-18. The decision to produce our own version does not imply any criticism of the October translation (which was of great help to us) but merely reflects our decision to bring the Introduction in line with the bulk of the book to produce a stylisti- cally coherent text.
All translations of the primary texts interpolated by Kittler are our own, with the exception of the following: Rilke, "Primal Sound," has been reprinted from Rainer Maria Rilke, Selected Works, vol. I, Prose, trans. G. Craig Houston (New York: New Directions, 1961), 51-56. (C) 1961 by New Directions Publishing Corporation; used with permis- sion. The translation of Heidegger's lecture on the typewriter originally appeared in Martin Heidegger, Parmenides, trans. Andre Schuwer and Richard Rojcewicz (Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1992), 80-81, 85-86.
We would like to acknowledge the help we have received from June K. Phillips, Stefan Scherer, Candadai Seshachari, Shirin Shenassa, Steven Taubeneck, David Tompson, The Hemingway Trust and the Research and Professional Growth Committee of Weber State University, and the Inter- library Loan Divisions at the University of British Columbia and Weber State University.
G. W. -Y. M. W.
Vll
? CONTENTS
? Translators' Introduction Preface
Introduction Gramophone Film Typewriter
Notes Bibliography
Xi XXXiX
I
2 1
I I5
1 83
2 6 7 299
? TRA NSLATORS'
INTRODUCTION: Friedrich Kittler and Media Discourse Analysis
It was the Germans, those disastrous people, who first discovered that slag heaps and by-products might also count as learning, butIdoubt if we can blame any one race or nation in particular for setting dumps and dustbins above the treasure cabinets of scholarship.
- H . G . W ELLS , The Camford Visitation
MEDIA AWAKENINGS: THE USUAL SUSPECTS
In October 1939, in the first fall o f the war, students and instructors a t the University of Toronto abandoned their classes to listen to the enemy. A loudspeaker installed on a street close to Victoria College was broadcast- ing a speech by Adolf Hitler, who in the wake of Germany's victory over Poland was exhorting those still deluded enough to resist him to call it quits. Among the audience was a mesmerized classicist:
The strident, vehement, staccato sentences clanged out and reverberated and chased each other along, series after series, flooding over us, battering us, half drowning us, and yet kept us rooted there listening to a foreign tongue which we somehow could nevertheless imagine that we understood. This oral spell had been transmitted in the twinkling of an eye, across thousands of miles, had been auto- matically picked up and amplified and poured over us. 1
Half a century later, Eric Havelock-whose work on the Hellenic shift from orality to early literacy had become required reading for media and communication historians-recounted his wireless rapture in an attempt to explain why the early 1960s witnessed a sudden interest in the hitherto
? Xl
? ? xu Translators' Introduction
neglected topic of orality. In 1962-63, five prominent texts shedding light on the role of oral communication appeared within twelve months: La Pensee sauvage (Claude Levi-Strauss), The Gutenberg Galaxy (Marshall McLuhan), Animal Species and Evolution (Ernst Mayr), "The Conse- quences of Literacy" (Jack Goody and Ian Watt), and Havelock's own Preface to Plato. What united these publications, Havelock argued, was the fact that their authors belonged to the first generation to be shaped by a world in which a print-biased media ecology had been altered by new ways of recording, storing, and transmitting sounds and voices, including the radiogenic Austrian dialect of a German dictator. Indeed, how could a generation of listeners acoustically nurtured on short-wave broadcasts of fireside chats, burning airships, Martian invasions, and calls for total war not grow up to ponder the changing relationship between speech and writing? "Here was the moving mouth, the resonant ear, and nothing more, our servants, or our masters; never the quiet hand, the reflective eye. Here was orality indeed reborn. "2
"Media," the opening line of Friedrich Kittler's Gramophone, Film, Typewriter states with military briskness, "determine our situation" (xxxix). They certainly determine our appreciation of them. The media of the present influence how we think about the media of the past or, for that matter, those of the future. Without phonography and its new ability to faithfully manipulate the spoken word in ways that no longer require that speech be translated into writing, there would be no academic enter- prises aimed at understanding the communicative household of cultures with few or no symbol-based external storage capacities. Our "reborn" or, to use Walter Ong's better-known phrase, "secondary" orality retroac- tively created the bygone word-of-mouth world that was not yet at the mercy of the quiet hand and the reflective eye. 3 Not surprisingly, many media histories adhere to a tripartite structure that uses these two oralities to bracket an interim period known as the "Gutenberg Galaxy" or the "Age of Print. " Such framing, however, implies that the (re)discovery of a past orality will affect the perception of our present literacy, since every exploration of the dynamics of orality is a renegotiation of the limits and boundaries of literacy and its associated media networks. Why, then, sep- arate the quantum leap in the research into orality from the emergence of the more comprehensive attention toward mediality in general? We need only add to Havelock's list a couple of equally divergent and influential contemporary titles-most prominently, Andre Leroi-Gourhan's Geste et Parole (1964-65) and McLuhan's UnderstandingMedia (1964)-to real- ize that the watershed Havelock had in mind concerned more than ques-
Translators' Introduction Xlll
tions of orality versus literacy. A widespread interest cutting across all dis- ciplinary boundaries started to focus on the materialities of communica- tion. At a time when the term "media" either was still missing from many dictionaries or conjured up visions of spiritualism, numerous scholars were attempting to bring into focus the material and technological aspects of communication and to assess the psychogenetic and sociogenetic im- pact of changing media ecologies. Such attempts set themselves the tasks of establishing criteria for the examination of storage and communication technologies, pondering the relationships among media, probing their so- cial, cultural, and political roles, and, if possible, providing guidelines for future use.
Of course there were predecessors, and some are still being quoted. Of the many learned cliches circulating in the widening gyre of media studies, the most persistent may be the assurance that all the nasty things we can say about computers were already spelled out in Plato's critique of writing in Phaedrus. 4 In this century, Walter Benjamin's famous essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" was first pub- lished in 193 6, and Harold Innis's Empire and Communications and Bias of Communication, the first attempts to conjugate world history accord- ing to the workings of different media technologies, appeared in 1950 and 195 1 , respectively. The list of works published before 1960 could be ex- panded, especially if one were to include the many single-medium theorists and commentators-such as Miinsterberg, Arnheim, Balazs, and Kracauer on film, or Brecht and Lazarsfeld on radio-as well as the growth of North American communication studies, but media theory as we know it today first emerged in the 1960s.
Much of this work tends to go by generic names such as "media thee ory" or "media studies. " Such terms are so hospitable as to be ridiculous,! as if the combined trades, skills, and disciplines of paper production, book binding, bibliography, textual criticism, literary analysis, and the econom- ics of publishing were to be labeled "paper theory. " But their vagueness reflects a genuine diversity of possible approaches, for at the end of the
twentieth century the study of media is roughly where the study of litera- ture was at its beginning. When Boris Eichenbaum, one of the proponents of Russian formalism, tried to defend the "formal method" against the growing encroachment of state-sponsored Socialist Realism, he quoted the impatient comments of his fellow critic Roman Jakobson to underline the specificity and appropriateness of their new approach:
The object of the science of literature is not literature, but literariness-that is, that which makes a given work a work of literature. Until now literary historians
? ? ? XIV Translators' Introduction
have preferred to act like the policeman who, intending to arrest a certain person, would, at any opportunity, seize any and all persons who chanced into the apart- ment, as well as those who passed along the street. The literary historian used everything-anthropology, psychology, politics, philosophy. Instead of a science of literature, they created a conglomeration of homespun disciplines. They seemed to have forgotten that their essays strayed into related disciplines . . . and that these could rightly use literary masterpieces only as defective, secondary documents. s
The same impatience underlies Friedrich Kittler's comment that "media science" (Medienwissenschaft) will remain mere "media history" as long as the practitioners of cultural studies "know higher mathematics only from hearsay. "6 Just as the formalist study of literature should be the study of "literariness," the study of media should concern itself primarily with mediality and not resort to the usual suspects-history, sociology, philosophy, anthropology, and literary and cultural studies-to explain how and why media do what they do. It is necessary to rethink media with a new and uncompromising degree of scientific rigor, focusing on the intrinsic technological logic, the changing links between body and me- dium, the procedures for data processing, rather than evaluate them from the point of view of their social usage.
This centering upon media is reminiscent of the work of Marshall McLuhan, and, not surprisingly, the growing interest in the media-related work of Kittler, Vilem Flusser, Paul Virilio, Arthur Kroker, and Regis Debray coincides with McLuhan's resurrection as a critic of modernity worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Adorno, Foucault, or Heidegger. 7 During McLuhan's lifetime this respectability would have amazed many a critic, since he appeared to be second to none when it came to making life easy for his detractors: his questionable politics, his casual and at times cynical dismissal of social issues, his delight in hob- nobbing with the corporate and political elite, not to mention the breezy shallowness of his work following Understanding Media, all conspired to make him and his "Summa Popologica"8 a well-placed punching bag, es- pecially for the learned Left. McLuhan's focus on technologies, media for- mats, and materialities of communication did not fit easily within an in- tellectual landscape shaped more by questions of media ownership, audi- ence manipulation, and strategies for communicative emancipation.
The intellectual Left's dismissal of McLuhan was equally pronounced in Germany. In a well-known media essay of 19 7 1 , Hans Magnus Enzens- berger rejected him as a reactionary "ventriloquist" for the apolitical avant-garde, a "charlatan" ignorant of social processes "whose confused books serve as a quarry of undigested observations for the media indus-
? Translators' Introduction xv
try. "9 Building on Brecht and Benjamin, Enzensberger attempted to for- mulate a "socialist strategy" for the emancipatory use of media. Antici- pating a theme of great importance in Gramophone, Film, Typewriter (al- though stripped of its political overtones in Kittler's book), he pointed out that in principle, technologies such as the transistor radio recognize no contradiction between transmitter and receiver. Rather, these technical distinctions reflect the social division of labor into producers and con- sumers and therefore are ultimately predicated on the contradiction be- tween the ruling and ruled classes. If passive consumers were to become active citizens and producers, they would have to take charge of this un- tapped technological potential, install themselves as producers, and thereby "bring the communications media, which up to now have not de- served the name, into their own. "lO
This notion of liberating media "into their own" provoked a vocifer- ous response from Jean Baudrillard, who in his essay "Requiem for the Media" charged Enzensberger with regurgitating the old Marxist delu- sion that underneath the capitalist veneer of exchange value resides a more natural use value waiting to be uncoveredY It was erroneous to be- lieve, Baudrillard argued, that media are neutral technological systems whose social impact depended upon who uses them to say what; rather, it was "in their form and very operation" that they induced social relations. In other words, media are "not coefficients but effectors of ideology" 12_ which was Baudrillard's way of terminologically updating McLuhan's mantra that the medium is the message. In short, media do not mediate; they are anti-mediatory and intransitive. The "revolutionary" events of May '68, Baudrillard claimed, could not survive their mediation because "transgression and subversion never get 'on the air' without being subtly negated as they are; transformed into models, neutralized into signs, they are eviscerated of their meaning. "13
In his attempt to show that media destroy the aura of an event, Bau- drillard was, in essence, transferring structuralist and semiotic explana- tions of the production and maintenance of meaning and ideology from texts and signs to media. To him, writing in France in the early I970s, it was clear that "ideology" could no longer be constructed as an essence of social interests or manipulative intents fabricated at a hidden center and then channeled through the media. Just as recent scholarship had ana- lyzed ideology and meaning as the result of an interplay of signs, a media theory inspired by structuralism and semiotics saw them to be inherent in the ways media operated. "'The medium is the message' operates a trans- fer of meaning onto the medium itself qua technological structure. "14
? ? XVI Translators' Introduction
However little they otherwise may have in common, the work of Kittler and Baudrillard is located on the same intellectual trajectory. Both recon- ceptualize the media issue in terms of recent theoretical developments commonly grouped together as "French theory. " Superficially, Kittler's work can be seen as a merger of Foucault, Lacan, and McLuhan, that is, a combination of discourse analysis, structuralist psychoanalysis, and first-generation media theory. To distinguish it from the more generic terms "media studies" and "media theory," we will call it "media dis- course analysis"15 and present it in the following discussion as a distinctly German offshoot of poststructuralism that can only be understood against the German reception in the I970S of the French triumvirate of Derrida, Foucault, and Lacan (with Virilio to be added later).
"LACANCAN AND DERRIDADA": THE FRENCH ACROSS THE RHINE
When poststructuralist theorizing crossed the Rhine from France into Germany in the late I970s, it was not received with open arms. It is per- haps unsurprising that the harshest attacks against it were directed not at the maitre penseurs themselves but at their German adepts. One outspo- ken critic chastised the work of the latter as "Lacancan and Derridada," an "unconditional and frequently uncritical adaptation to French theo- ries" afflicted by a "congestion of linguistic expressiveness" that "above all desires one thing-not to be understood. "16 One no doubt can find similar sentiments in reaction to North American appropriations of post- structuralism, but to understand what Kittler says-and why he chooses to say it with a certain panache-it is necessary to describe briefly what distinguishes the German reception of poststructuralism from its North American counterparts. 17
In Germany there was no signature event such as Derrida's presenta- tion of " Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences" at Johns Hopkins, no "Yale School," and no "deconstruction" to speak of. There was instead, in Robert Holub's words, "a coterie of scholars"- among them Kittler, the philosopher Norbert Bolz, and the Germanist Jochen Horisch-who had no "spiritual father" or "intellectual center" and at some point became intrigued with French theory. 1s Whereas in North America theory profited from a form of intellectual Reaganomics, a trickle-down effect by which the work of reputable scholars at allegedly superior institutions percolated downward and outward, its German re- ception tended to start at the academic margins-with students, junior faculty, reading groups, small publishing houses-and then gradually, and
? ? Translators' Introduction XVll
against notable resistance, move inward and upward. To a large extent re- sistance came from the Left, since what Derrida, Lacan, Foucault, and their disciples had to say seemed at first incompatible with positions in- spired by Marx or the Frankfurt School (unlike today, where so much re- search goes into showing how like-minded they are). At times the struggle that ensued was motivated less by theory than by power. As had already happened in France in the wake ofthe events of 1968, the established Left was in danger of losing ground with one of its most important constituen- cies. If structuralist and poststructuralist criticism of Marx and his prog- eny prevailed, then disenchanted students, artists, and intellectuals might no longer be at the more-or-Iess exclusive disposal of the Left. Who, for example, could take Herbert Marcuse's sanguine Freudian-Marxist brew seriously after reading Lacan? 19 Faced with this challenge, the Left, which itself had faced stiff opposition during its fight for recognition, was quick to resort to the ubiquitous Irrationalismusvorwurf-that is, it accused French-inspired theorizing of downplaying history, eradicating the subject, and conjuring up impersonal, determinist symbolic chains and networks of irrationalism. Given National Socialism's mobilization and exploitation of the strong antirational tradition in German thought, this reproach car- ries considerable weight in Germany. Kittler has acknowledged the chal- lenge: in a recent interview he described his magnum opus, Discourse Net- works, as "written in black in every sense. "20 This phrase not only refers to the book's typographical appearance or to the fact that it was written in and for the black academic market (that is, outside established schools and trends) but also alludes to the German political color coding that as- sociates black with conservatism. !
Not that the Right and Center were any more welcoming, despite the fact that several of the German poststructuralists who later rose to promi- nence began their careers under the tutelage of well-known traditional lit- erary scholars. (Kittler, for instance, started as an assistant to Gerhard Kaiser, one of the more prominent representatives of the hermeneutic tra- dition. )21 Once again, conflict was probably unavoidable, and once again, it took on a certain edge because the opposing parties, despite their widely differing approaches and terminologies, were not that far removed from one another and were frequently concerned with identical issues. German critics of Derrida, especially those steeped in the hermeneutic tra- dition, have repeatedly claimed that he is not particularly original if read closely. His indebtedness to Heidegger is well known, and yet an assump- tion persists-explored in great detail in Manfred Frank's study What Is Neostructuralism? -that questions regarding the mediation of reference
? ? ? ? XVlll Translators' Introduction
and subjectivity by and through language were already addressed, and at least partly solved, in the writings of Schleiermacher and several post- Kantian German idealist and Romantic philosophers. 22 In short, what was good about French poststructuralism was not new, and what was
new was not good.
The poststructuralists responded with a threefold approach. First,
leaving aside the purported inferiority of French philosophers of 1950-80 to their German counterparts of 1790-1820, they argued that the very fact that French poststructuralism was posing the same questions and dealing with related issues urged for its increased reception rather than its dismissal. Second, instead of neutralizing the French poststructuralists by referring them back to their German antecedents, they proposed that the latter be radicalized by focusing on those instances where they anticipated or came close to the solutions put forward by French theorists. This strat- egy was adopted, for example, by Horisch, who plays off the brash, young (as it were, proto-French), antihermeneutic Schleiermacher against the elderly, cryptohermeneutical Schleiermacher so dear to the established German tradition. 23 It also helps to explain why, since the 1977 publica- tion of the collection Urszenen, German poststructuralism has been so drawn to "difficult" texts and writers of that era. 24 If Holderlin, Kleist, or even the long novels of Goethe are seen as inspired by, playing with, and taking apart the proto-French aesthetic and philosophic axioms of their day, then discourse analysis, Lacanian theorizing, and Derridean decon- struction become the more appropriate tools for dealing with them. 25
The third and most straightforward approach consisted in informing traditional hermeneutic scholars that they were unable to face the true di- mensions of the French theory offerings, an objection that sometimes took the shape of gleefully or defiantly confirming their worst suspicions of what poststructuralism is up to. In his critique of What Is Neostruc- turalism? Kittler honed in on Frank's fearful assumption that French the- orists were promoting the "dream of a subjectless machine. "26 Discussing Lacan's famous account of human consciousness as a camera that cap- tures and stores images even when nobody is around,27 Frank had argued that Lacan, in the final analysis, could not do without some kind of sub- ject endowed with self-reflective consciousness. Not so, Kittler responded: this mechanical Polaroid consciousness was all Lacan had in mind be- cause his technological materialism, just like Freud's, "reasoned only as far as the information machines of his era-no more and no less. "28 By emphasizing Lacan's frequent references to circuits and feedback (not to mention Lacan's refusal to discuss the subject of language with anybody
? ? ? Translators' Introduction XIX
not versed in cybernetics), Kittler moved Lacan out of the hermeneuti- cally soiled realms of old-style psychoanalysis, philosophy, and literary scholarship and into the far more appropriate posthermeneutic domain of information theory. Nowadays, Kittler noted disapprovingly, even news- papers regurgitate Lacan's famous dictum that the unconscious is the dis- course of the other, "but that this discourse of the other is the discourse of the circuit is cited by no one. "29
To associate French poststructuralism with modern media technology has become a commonplace in current North American literary theory. George Landow's Hypertext, with its programmatic subtitle, The Con- vergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology, asserts that hypertext presents an "almost embarrassingly literal embodiment" of Derrida's emphasis on de-centering and Barthes's conception of the read- erly versus the writerly text. 30 Gregory Ulmer claims that the grammato- logical works of Derrida "already reflect an internalization of the elec- tronic media, thus marking what is really at stake in the debate sur- rounding Western metaphysics. "31 Eugene Provenza and Mark Poster, in turn, link Foucault's analysis of surveillance techniques to databases and electronic control procedures. 32 It now appears that these links, analogies, and correspondences also can be projected back in time. What hypertext and hypermedia are to poststructuralism, cybernetics was to structural- ism and semiotics, and in both instances the human implication has been profound:
Without passing through linguistics at all, Norbert Wiener (inventor of cybernet- ics) had already as early as I948 defined man without reference to interiority as a communication machine, a machine for exchanging information with his enviJ ronment. The idea that all reality must be broken up in the final analysis into a set of relations between elements came together by an entirely different angle with the structural postulate, imputing every effect of meaning to a combination of mini- mal units or pertinent traits of a determinate code. While resolutely aware of it, French semiology was metaphorizing and "culturalizing" the American mechanist paradigm. 33
In a chapter entitled "Structures-Discourses-Media" in his book Philosophie nach ihrem Ende (Philosophy after its end), Bolz describes the "clear paradigm sequence" that has ruled French theory production since Saussure. First, Saussure's insight that the meaning of signs is an ef- fect of differential articulation reappears in Levi-Strauss to describe the human mind as a set of matrices for the emergence of structures, while Lacan, combining structural linguistics with cybernetic theory, "trans-
? ? ? ? ? xx Translators' Introduction
forms structural psychoanalysis into a media theory of the uncon- scious. "34 In the second stage, Foucault builds on this link to describe the relays and circuits of discursive practices. Finally, Paul Virilio's "dromo- logical" and "chronopolitical" analyses-which will be of great impor- tance to the "Film" section of Gramophone, Film, Typewriter-link the mutation of human perception to changes in military media technology. Step I : We recognize that we are spoken by language. Step 2: We under- stand that language is not some nebulous entity but appears in the shape of historically limited discursive practices. Step 3: We finally perceive that
these practices depend on media. In short, structuralism begot discourse analysis, and discourse analysis begot media theory.
Media, then, are (at) the end of theory because in practice they were already there to begin with. Accordingly, Kittler ties the emergence of structuralism to the introduction of the typewriter, and he criticizes Fou- cault for neither reflecting on the mediality of the discursive practices he analyzed nor going beyond the confines of the Gutenberg Galaxy. Thus, whereas Foucault's archives are based on the hegemony of written lan- guage, on the silent assumption that print is the primary (if not the only) carrier of signification, Kittler's archeology of the present seeks to include the technological storage and communication media of the post-print age(s). "Even writing itself, before it ends up in libraries, is a communi- cation medium, the technology of which the archeologist [Foucault] sim- ply forgot. It is for this reason that all his analyses end immediately be- fore that point in time at which other media penetrated the library's stacks. Discourse analysis cannot be applied to sound archives and tow- ersoffilmrolls" (5).
Media are the alpha and omega of theory. If media do indeed " deter- mine our situation," then they no doubt also determine, and hence con- figure, our intellectual operations. One could easily reappropriate Der- rida's much-deferred pronouncement il n'y a pas de hors-texte and sug- gest that the fundamental premise of media discourse analysis is il n'y a pas de hors-media.
DISCOURSE NETWORKS: FROM MOTHER TONGUES TO MATTERS OF INSCRIPTION
Kittler's intellectual career can be broken down into three parts, each roughly covering one decade. In the 1970s, his focus was on discourse analysis; in the 1980s, he turned his attention to the technologizing of dis- course by electric media; and in the 1990S, to its subsequent digitization.
? ? Translators' Introduction XXI
Beginning as a Privatdozent in Freiburg, he dealt with the so-called Age of Goethe (1770-1830) in most of his early work, concentrating on canonical authors like Lessing, Schiller, and Goethe himself. The influence of Foucault and Lacan is obvious-his highly demanding reading of E. T. A. Hoffmann's "The Sandman" ranks as "the most compressed and programmatic of all applications of Lacan"35-as is the attempt to fuse the two. One of his principal goals is to relate Lacanian notions of sub- ject (de)formation, specifically within the framework of the nuclear fam- ily that emerged in the second half of the eighteenth century, to the dis- cursive practices that came to regulate the new roles and relationships of mothers, fathers, and children on the one hand and authorities and sub- jects on the other. Looking back at this early work, Kittler emphasized that the nuclear family between the ages of the Enlightenment and Ro- manticism was "not a fact of social history" but a "code," a "veritable discourse machine" that produced all the secrets and intimacies that were subsequently mistaken as essential components of an equally essential hu- man nature. Hence, texts such as Lessing's family dramas or Goethe's Bil- dungsromane have to be read as instances of a cultural inscription pro- gram: German literature around 1 800, so often hailed as the apex of Ger- manic cultural output culminating in the twin peaks of Goethe and Schiller, becomes a means of programming people, part of the overall re- coding enterprise that ushered in an age that saw not only the spread of the nuclear family but also the growth of literacy, the notion of author- ship as the expression of ineffable individuality and Innerlichkeit, and the preindustrial mobilization of the modern nation state on all ideological, administrative, and military levels. 36 "The official locus of production for German Poetry was the nuclear family; scholars saw to its multiplication; and a science that claimed the title Science provided its justification. "37
The 1980s (during which Kittler moved from Freiburg to Bochum) brought a considerable broadening of his interests and increasing forays into non-German, and non-Germanist, areas. Always a prolific scholar, he produced essays on (among others) Nietzsche, Pink Floyd, Peter Handke, Dashiell Hammett, Bram Stoker, Richard Wagner, and Thomas Pyn- chon. 38 More importantly, "media"-a word rarely used in the previous decade-made a grand entry, and with good reason. If literature is pro- gramming, how exactly does it proceed? Obviously, it involves the pro- duction, circulation, and consumption of texts. Interpreting those texts, that is, isolating and forcing them to reveal something beyond the mate- rialities and orders of communication that produced them in the first place, will be of little help. Instead, discourse analysis begins by simply
? ? ? XXll Translators' Introduction
registering them as material communicative events in historically contin- gent, interdiscursive networks that link writers, archivists, addresses, and interpreters. 39 In so doing, discourse analysis does not deny interpreta- tion; it merely concentrates on something more interesting. First of all, it focuses on the brute fact that certain texts were produced-rather than not, and rather than others. Second, it shows that these texts, regardless of the variegated social practices to which they may be related, exhibit certain regularities that point to specific rules programming what people can say and write.
1
Half a century later, Eric Havelock-whose work on the Hellenic shift from orality to early literacy had become required reading for media and communication historians-recounted his wireless rapture in an attempt to explain why the early 1960s witnessed a sudden interest in the hitherto
? Xl
? ? xu Translators' Introduction
neglected topic of orality. In 1962-63, five prominent texts shedding light on the role of oral communication appeared within twelve months: La Pensee sauvage (Claude Levi-Strauss), The Gutenberg Galaxy (Marshall McLuhan), Animal Species and Evolution (Ernst Mayr), "The Conse- quences of Literacy" (Jack Goody and Ian Watt), and Havelock's own Preface to Plato. What united these publications, Havelock argued, was the fact that their authors belonged to the first generation to be shaped by a world in which a print-biased media ecology had been altered by new ways of recording, storing, and transmitting sounds and voices, including the radiogenic Austrian dialect of a German dictator. Indeed, how could a generation of listeners acoustically nurtured on short-wave broadcasts of fireside chats, burning airships, Martian invasions, and calls for total war not grow up to ponder the changing relationship between speech and writing? "Here was the moving mouth, the resonant ear, and nothing more, our servants, or our masters; never the quiet hand, the reflective eye. Here was orality indeed reborn. "2
"Media," the opening line of Friedrich Kittler's Gramophone, Film, Typewriter states with military briskness, "determine our situation" (xxxix). They certainly determine our appreciation of them. The media of the present influence how we think about the media of the past or, for that matter, those of the future. Without phonography and its new ability to faithfully manipulate the spoken word in ways that no longer require that speech be translated into writing, there would be no academic enter- prises aimed at understanding the communicative household of cultures with few or no symbol-based external storage capacities. Our "reborn" or, to use Walter Ong's better-known phrase, "secondary" orality retroac- tively created the bygone word-of-mouth world that was not yet at the mercy of the quiet hand and the reflective eye. 3 Not surprisingly, many media histories adhere to a tripartite structure that uses these two oralities to bracket an interim period known as the "Gutenberg Galaxy" or the "Age of Print. " Such framing, however, implies that the (re)discovery of a past orality will affect the perception of our present literacy, since every exploration of the dynamics of orality is a renegotiation of the limits and boundaries of literacy and its associated media networks. Why, then, sep- arate the quantum leap in the research into orality from the emergence of the more comprehensive attention toward mediality in general? We need only add to Havelock's list a couple of equally divergent and influential contemporary titles-most prominently, Andre Leroi-Gourhan's Geste et Parole (1964-65) and McLuhan's UnderstandingMedia (1964)-to real- ize that the watershed Havelock had in mind concerned more than ques-
Translators' Introduction Xlll
tions of orality versus literacy. A widespread interest cutting across all dis- ciplinary boundaries started to focus on the materialities of communica- tion. At a time when the term "media" either was still missing from many dictionaries or conjured up visions of spiritualism, numerous scholars were attempting to bring into focus the material and technological aspects of communication and to assess the psychogenetic and sociogenetic im- pact of changing media ecologies. Such attempts set themselves the tasks of establishing criteria for the examination of storage and communication technologies, pondering the relationships among media, probing their so- cial, cultural, and political roles, and, if possible, providing guidelines for future use.
Of course there were predecessors, and some are still being quoted. Of the many learned cliches circulating in the widening gyre of media studies, the most persistent may be the assurance that all the nasty things we can say about computers were already spelled out in Plato's critique of writing in Phaedrus. 4 In this century, Walter Benjamin's famous essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" was first pub- lished in 193 6, and Harold Innis's Empire and Communications and Bias of Communication, the first attempts to conjugate world history accord- ing to the workings of different media technologies, appeared in 1950 and 195 1 , respectively. The list of works published before 1960 could be ex- panded, especially if one were to include the many single-medium theorists and commentators-such as Miinsterberg, Arnheim, Balazs, and Kracauer on film, or Brecht and Lazarsfeld on radio-as well as the growth of North American communication studies, but media theory as we know it today first emerged in the 1960s.
Much of this work tends to go by generic names such as "media thee ory" or "media studies. " Such terms are so hospitable as to be ridiculous,! as if the combined trades, skills, and disciplines of paper production, book binding, bibliography, textual criticism, literary analysis, and the econom- ics of publishing were to be labeled "paper theory. " But their vagueness reflects a genuine diversity of possible approaches, for at the end of the
twentieth century the study of media is roughly where the study of litera- ture was at its beginning. When Boris Eichenbaum, one of the proponents of Russian formalism, tried to defend the "formal method" against the growing encroachment of state-sponsored Socialist Realism, he quoted the impatient comments of his fellow critic Roman Jakobson to underline the specificity and appropriateness of their new approach:
The object of the science of literature is not literature, but literariness-that is, that which makes a given work a work of literature. Until now literary historians
? ? ? XIV Translators' Introduction
have preferred to act like the policeman who, intending to arrest a certain person, would, at any opportunity, seize any and all persons who chanced into the apart- ment, as well as those who passed along the street. The literary historian used everything-anthropology, psychology, politics, philosophy. Instead of a science of literature, they created a conglomeration of homespun disciplines. They seemed to have forgotten that their essays strayed into related disciplines . . . and that these could rightly use literary masterpieces only as defective, secondary documents. s
The same impatience underlies Friedrich Kittler's comment that "media science" (Medienwissenschaft) will remain mere "media history" as long as the practitioners of cultural studies "know higher mathematics only from hearsay. "6 Just as the formalist study of literature should be the study of "literariness," the study of media should concern itself primarily with mediality and not resort to the usual suspects-history, sociology, philosophy, anthropology, and literary and cultural studies-to explain how and why media do what they do. It is necessary to rethink media with a new and uncompromising degree of scientific rigor, focusing on the intrinsic technological logic, the changing links between body and me- dium, the procedures for data processing, rather than evaluate them from the point of view of their social usage.
This centering upon media is reminiscent of the work of Marshall McLuhan, and, not surprisingly, the growing interest in the media-related work of Kittler, Vilem Flusser, Paul Virilio, Arthur Kroker, and Regis Debray coincides with McLuhan's resurrection as a critic of modernity worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Adorno, Foucault, or Heidegger. 7 During McLuhan's lifetime this respectability would have amazed many a critic, since he appeared to be second to none when it came to making life easy for his detractors: his questionable politics, his casual and at times cynical dismissal of social issues, his delight in hob- nobbing with the corporate and political elite, not to mention the breezy shallowness of his work following Understanding Media, all conspired to make him and his "Summa Popologica"8 a well-placed punching bag, es- pecially for the learned Left. McLuhan's focus on technologies, media for- mats, and materialities of communication did not fit easily within an in- tellectual landscape shaped more by questions of media ownership, audi- ence manipulation, and strategies for communicative emancipation.
The intellectual Left's dismissal of McLuhan was equally pronounced in Germany. In a well-known media essay of 19 7 1 , Hans Magnus Enzens- berger rejected him as a reactionary "ventriloquist" for the apolitical avant-garde, a "charlatan" ignorant of social processes "whose confused books serve as a quarry of undigested observations for the media indus-
? Translators' Introduction xv
try. "9 Building on Brecht and Benjamin, Enzensberger attempted to for- mulate a "socialist strategy" for the emancipatory use of media. Antici- pating a theme of great importance in Gramophone, Film, Typewriter (al- though stripped of its political overtones in Kittler's book), he pointed out that in principle, technologies such as the transistor radio recognize no contradiction between transmitter and receiver. Rather, these technical distinctions reflect the social division of labor into producers and con- sumers and therefore are ultimately predicated on the contradiction be- tween the ruling and ruled classes. If passive consumers were to become active citizens and producers, they would have to take charge of this un- tapped technological potential, install themselves as producers, and thereby "bring the communications media, which up to now have not de- served the name, into their own. "lO
This notion of liberating media "into their own" provoked a vocifer- ous response from Jean Baudrillard, who in his essay "Requiem for the Media" charged Enzensberger with regurgitating the old Marxist delu- sion that underneath the capitalist veneer of exchange value resides a more natural use value waiting to be uncoveredY It was erroneous to be- lieve, Baudrillard argued, that media are neutral technological systems whose social impact depended upon who uses them to say what; rather, it was "in their form and very operation" that they induced social relations. In other words, media are "not coefficients but effectors of ideology" 12_ which was Baudrillard's way of terminologically updating McLuhan's mantra that the medium is the message. In short, media do not mediate; they are anti-mediatory and intransitive. The "revolutionary" events of May '68, Baudrillard claimed, could not survive their mediation because "transgression and subversion never get 'on the air' without being subtly negated as they are; transformed into models, neutralized into signs, they are eviscerated of their meaning. "13
In his attempt to show that media destroy the aura of an event, Bau- drillard was, in essence, transferring structuralist and semiotic explana- tions of the production and maintenance of meaning and ideology from texts and signs to media. To him, writing in France in the early I970s, it was clear that "ideology" could no longer be constructed as an essence of social interests or manipulative intents fabricated at a hidden center and then channeled through the media. Just as recent scholarship had ana- lyzed ideology and meaning as the result of an interplay of signs, a media theory inspired by structuralism and semiotics saw them to be inherent in the ways media operated. "'The medium is the message' operates a trans- fer of meaning onto the medium itself qua technological structure. "14
? ? XVI Translators' Introduction
However little they otherwise may have in common, the work of Kittler and Baudrillard is located on the same intellectual trajectory. Both recon- ceptualize the media issue in terms of recent theoretical developments commonly grouped together as "French theory. " Superficially, Kittler's work can be seen as a merger of Foucault, Lacan, and McLuhan, that is, a combination of discourse analysis, structuralist psychoanalysis, and first-generation media theory. To distinguish it from the more generic terms "media studies" and "media theory," we will call it "media dis- course analysis"15 and present it in the following discussion as a distinctly German offshoot of poststructuralism that can only be understood against the German reception in the I970S of the French triumvirate of Derrida, Foucault, and Lacan (with Virilio to be added later).
"LACANCAN AND DERRIDADA": THE FRENCH ACROSS THE RHINE
When poststructuralist theorizing crossed the Rhine from France into Germany in the late I970s, it was not received with open arms. It is per- haps unsurprising that the harshest attacks against it were directed not at the maitre penseurs themselves but at their German adepts. One outspo- ken critic chastised the work of the latter as "Lacancan and Derridada," an "unconditional and frequently uncritical adaptation to French theo- ries" afflicted by a "congestion of linguistic expressiveness" that "above all desires one thing-not to be understood. "16 One no doubt can find similar sentiments in reaction to North American appropriations of post- structuralism, but to understand what Kittler says-and why he chooses to say it with a certain panache-it is necessary to describe briefly what distinguishes the German reception of poststructuralism from its North American counterparts. 17
In Germany there was no signature event such as Derrida's presenta- tion of " Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences" at Johns Hopkins, no "Yale School," and no "deconstruction" to speak of. There was instead, in Robert Holub's words, "a coterie of scholars"- among them Kittler, the philosopher Norbert Bolz, and the Germanist Jochen Horisch-who had no "spiritual father" or "intellectual center" and at some point became intrigued with French theory. 1s Whereas in North America theory profited from a form of intellectual Reaganomics, a trickle-down effect by which the work of reputable scholars at allegedly superior institutions percolated downward and outward, its German re- ception tended to start at the academic margins-with students, junior faculty, reading groups, small publishing houses-and then gradually, and
? ? Translators' Introduction XVll
against notable resistance, move inward and upward. To a large extent re- sistance came from the Left, since what Derrida, Lacan, Foucault, and their disciples had to say seemed at first incompatible with positions in- spired by Marx or the Frankfurt School (unlike today, where so much re- search goes into showing how like-minded they are). At times the struggle that ensued was motivated less by theory than by power. As had already happened in France in the wake ofthe events of 1968, the established Left was in danger of losing ground with one of its most important constituen- cies. If structuralist and poststructuralist criticism of Marx and his prog- eny prevailed, then disenchanted students, artists, and intellectuals might no longer be at the more-or-Iess exclusive disposal of the Left. Who, for example, could take Herbert Marcuse's sanguine Freudian-Marxist brew seriously after reading Lacan? 19 Faced with this challenge, the Left, which itself had faced stiff opposition during its fight for recognition, was quick to resort to the ubiquitous Irrationalismusvorwurf-that is, it accused French-inspired theorizing of downplaying history, eradicating the subject, and conjuring up impersonal, determinist symbolic chains and networks of irrationalism. Given National Socialism's mobilization and exploitation of the strong antirational tradition in German thought, this reproach car- ries considerable weight in Germany. Kittler has acknowledged the chal- lenge: in a recent interview he described his magnum opus, Discourse Net- works, as "written in black in every sense. "20 This phrase not only refers to the book's typographical appearance or to the fact that it was written in and for the black academic market (that is, outside established schools and trends) but also alludes to the German political color coding that as- sociates black with conservatism. !
Not that the Right and Center were any more welcoming, despite the fact that several of the German poststructuralists who later rose to promi- nence began their careers under the tutelage of well-known traditional lit- erary scholars. (Kittler, for instance, started as an assistant to Gerhard Kaiser, one of the more prominent representatives of the hermeneutic tra- dition. )21 Once again, conflict was probably unavoidable, and once again, it took on a certain edge because the opposing parties, despite their widely differing approaches and terminologies, were not that far removed from one another and were frequently concerned with identical issues. German critics of Derrida, especially those steeped in the hermeneutic tra- dition, have repeatedly claimed that he is not particularly original if read closely. His indebtedness to Heidegger is well known, and yet an assump- tion persists-explored in great detail in Manfred Frank's study What Is Neostructuralism? -that questions regarding the mediation of reference
? ? ? ? XVlll Translators' Introduction
and subjectivity by and through language were already addressed, and at least partly solved, in the writings of Schleiermacher and several post- Kantian German idealist and Romantic philosophers. 22 In short, what was good about French poststructuralism was not new, and what was
new was not good.
The poststructuralists responded with a threefold approach. First,
leaving aside the purported inferiority of French philosophers of 1950-80 to their German counterparts of 1790-1820, they argued that the very fact that French poststructuralism was posing the same questions and dealing with related issues urged for its increased reception rather than its dismissal. Second, instead of neutralizing the French poststructuralists by referring them back to their German antecedents, they proposed that the latter be radicalized by focusing on those instances where they anticipated or came close to the solutions put forward by French theorists. This strat- egy was adopted, for example, by Horisch, who plays off the brash, young (as it were, proto-French), antihermeneutic Schleiermacher against the elderly, cryptohermeneutical Schleiermacher so dear to the established German tradition. 23 It also helps to explain why, since the 1977 publica- tion of the collection Urszenen, German poststructuralism has been so drawn to "difficult" texts and writers of that era. 24 If Holderlin, Kleist, or even the long novels of Goethe are seen as inspired by, playing with, and taking apart the proto-French aesthetic and philosophic axioms of their day, then discourse analysis, Lacanian theorizing, and Derridean decon- struction become the more appropriate tools for dealing with them. 25
The third and most straightforward approach consisted in informing traditional hermeneutic scholars that they were unable to face the true di- mensions of the French theory offerings, an objection that sometimes took the shape of gleefully or defiantly confirming their worst suspicions of what poststructuralism is up to. In his critique of What Is Neostruc- turalism? Kittler honed in on Frank's fearful assumption that French the- orists were promoting the "dream of a subjectless machine. "26 Discussing Lacan's famous account of human consciousness as a camera that cap- tures and stores images even when nobody is around,27 Frank had argued that Lacan, in the final analysis, could not do without some kind of sub- ject endowed with self-reflective consciousness. Not so, Kittler responded: this mechanical Polaroid consciousness was all Lacan had in mind be- cause his technological materialism, just like Freud's, "reasoned only as far as the information machines of his era-no more and no less. "28 By emphasizing Lacan's frequent references to circuits and feedback (not to mention Lacan's refusal to discuss the subject of language with anybody
? ? ? Translators' Introduction XIX
not versed in cybernetics), Kittler moved Lacan out of the hermeneuti- cally soiled realms of old-style psychoanalysis, philosophy, and literary scholarship and into the far more appropriate posthermeneutic domain of information theory. Nowadays, Kittler noted disapprovingly, even news- papers regurgitate Lacan's famous dictum that the unconscious is the dis- course of the other, "but that this discourse of the other is the discourse of the circuit is cited by no one. "29
To associate French poststructuralism with modern media technology has become a commonplace in current North American literary theory. George Landow's Hypertext, with its programmatic subtitle, The Con- vergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology, asserts that hypertext presents an "almost embarrassingly literal embodiment" of Derrida's emphasis on de-centering and Barthes's conception of the read- erly versus the writerly text. 30 Gregory Ulmer claims that the grammato- logical works of Derrida "already reflect an internalization of the elec- tronic media, thus marking what is really at stake in the debate sur- rounding Western metaphysics. "31 Eugene Provenza and Mark Poster, in turn, link Foucault's analysis of surveillance techniques to databases and electronic control procedures. 32 It now appears that these links, analogies, and correspondences also can be projected back in time. What hypertext and hypermedia are to poststructuralism, cybernetics was to structural- ism and semiotics, and in both instances the human implication has been profound:
Without passing through linguistics at all, Norbert Wiener (inventor of cybernet- ics) had already as early as I948 defined man without reference to interiority as a communication machine, a machine for exchanging information with his enviJ ronment. The idea that all reality must be broken up in the final analysis into a set of relations between elements came together by an entirely different angle with the structural postulate, imputing every effect of meaning to a combination of mini- mal units or pertinent traits of a determinate code. While resolutely aware of it, French semiology was metaphorizing and "culturalizing" the American mechanist paradigm. 33
In a chapter entitled "Structures-Discourses-Media" in his book Philosophie nach ihrem Ende (Philosophy after its end), Bolz describes the "clear paradigm sequence" that has ruled French theory production since Saussure. First, Saussure's insight that the meaning of signs is an ef- fect of differential articulation reappears in Levi-Strauss to describe the human mind as a set of matrices for the emergence of structures, while Lacan, combining structural linguistics with cybernetic theory, "trans-
? ? ? ? ? xx Translators' Introduction
forms structural psychoanalysis into a media theory of the uncon- scious. "34 In the second stage, Foucault builds on this link to describe the relays and circuits of discursive practices. Finally, Paul Virilio's "dromo- logical" and "chronopolitical" analyses-which will be of great impor- tance to the "Film" section of Gramophone, Film, Typewriter-link the mutation of human perception to changes in military media technology. Step I : We recognize that we are spoken by language. Step 2: We under- stand that language is not some nebulous entity but appears in the shape of historically limited discursive practices. Step 3: We finally perceive that
these practices depend on media. In short, structuralism begot discourse analysis, and discourse analysis begot media theory.
Media, then, are (at) the end of theory because in practice they were already there to begin with. Accordingly, Kittler ties the emergence of structuralism to the introduction of the typewriter, and he criticizes Fou- cault for neither reflecting on the mediality of the discursive practices he analyzed nor going beyond the confines of the Gutenberg Galaxy. Thus, whereas Foucault's archives are based on the hegemony of written lan- guage, on the silent assumption that print is the primary (if not the only) carrier of signification, Kittler's archeology of the present seeks to include the technological storage and communication media of the post-print age(s). "Even writing itself, before it ends up in libraries, is a communi- cation medium, the technology of which the archeologist [Foucault] sim- ply forgot. It is for this reason that all his analyses end immediately be- fore that point in time at which other media penetrated the library's stacks. Discourse analysis cannot be applied to sound archives and tow- ersoffilmrolls" (5).
Media are the alpha and omega of theory. If media do indeed " deter- mine our situation," then they no doubt also determine, and hence con- figure, our intellectual operations. One could easily reappropriate Der- rida's much-deferred pronouncement il n'y a pas de hors-texte and sug- gest that the fundamental premise of media discourse analysis is il n'y a pas de hors-media.
DISCOURSE NETWORKS: FROM MOTHER TONGUES TO MATTERS OF INSCRIPTION
Kittler's intellectual career can be broken down into three parts, each roughly covering one decade. In the 1970s, his focus was on discourse analysis; in the 1980s, he turned his attention to the technologizing of dis- course by electric media; and in the 1990S, to its subsequent digitization.
? ? Translators' Introduction XXI
Beginning as a Privatdozent in Freiburg, he dealt with the so-called Age of Goethe (1770-1830) in most of his early work, concentrating on canonical authors like Lessing, Schiller, and Goethe himself. The influence of Foucault and Lacan is obvious-his highly demanding reading of E. T. A. Hoffmann's "The Sandman" ranks as "the most compressed and programmatic of all applications of Lacan"35-as is the attempt to fuse the two. One of his principal goals is to relate Lacanian notions of sub- ject (de)formation, specifically within the framework of the nuclear fam- ily that emerged in the second half of the eighteenth century, to the dis- cursive practices that came to regulate the new roles and relationships of mothers, fathers, and children on the one hand and authorities and sub- jects on the other. Looking back at this early work, Kittler emphasized that the nuclear family between the ages of the Enlightenment and Ro- manticism was "not a fact of social history" but a "code," a "veritable discourse machine" that produced all the secrets and intimacies that were subsequently mistaken as essential components of an equally essential hu- man nature. Hence, texts such as Lessing's family dramas or Goethe's Bil- dungsromane have to be read as instances of a cultural inscription pro- gram: German literature around 1 800, so often hailed as the apex of Ger- manic cultural output culminating in the twin peaks of Goethe and Schiller, becomes a means of programming people, part of the overall re- coding enterprise that ushered in an age that saw not only the spread of the nuclear family but also the growth of literacy, the notion of author- ship as the expression of ineffable individuality and Innerlichkeit, and the preindustrial mobilization of the modern nation state on all ideological, administrative, and military levels. 36 "The official locus of production for German Poetry was the nuclear family; scholars saw to its multiplication; and a science that claimed the title Science provided its justification. "37
The 1980s (during which Kittler moved from Freiburg to Bochum) brought a considerable broadening of his interests and increasing forays into non-German, and non-Germanist, areas. Always a prolific scholar, he produced essays on (among others) Nietzsche, Pink Floyd, Peter Handke, Dashiell Hammett, Bram Stoker, Richard Wagner, and Thomas Pyn- chon. 38 More importantly, "media"-a word rarely used in the previous decade-made a grand entry, and with good reason. If literature is pro- gramming, how exactly does it proceed? Obviously, it involves the pro- duction, circulation, and consumption of texts. Interpreting those texts, that is, isolating and forcing them to reveal something beyond the mate- rialities and orders of communication that produced them in the first place, will be of little help. Instead, discourse analysis begins by simply
? ? ? XXll Translators' Introduction
registering them as material communicative events in historically contin- gent, interdiscursive networks that link writers, archivists, addresses, and interpreters. 39 In so doing, discourse analysis does not deny interpreta- tion; it merely concentrates on something more interesting. First of all, it focuses on the brute fact that certain texts were produced-rather than not, and rather than others. Second, it shows that these texts, regardless of the variegated social practices to which they may be related, exhibit certain regularities that point to specific rules programming what people can say and write.
Third and perhaps most surprising, discourse analysis highlights the fact that, given the growing social complexity and expanding commu- nicative networks of the early 1 800s, standardized interpretation appears to have been possible and, indeed, was ever more desirable. The herme- neutic master plan seems to have been to offset increasing social com- plexity with interpretative homogenization. This plan can only work, however, if people are trained to work with language in standardized ways that downplay its changing materiality. For instance-to choose one example of importance to Kittler-people have to be trained to read the smooth and continuous flow of ink on paper as the manifestation of an equally smooth and continuous flow of personality. In Hegel's words, the essence of individuality has its "appearance and externality" in hand- writing. But people also have to be trained to disregard the change from handwriting to print. 40 This point, then, is crucial: beginning in the Age of Goethe-not coincidentally one of the formative periods of German history-stable cultural references such as authorship, originality, individ- uality, and Geist, all accessible by way of standardized interpretation prac- tices, cut through and homogenized increasing social complexity; this could only occur, however, because a naturalized language now seen as a lucid carrier of meaning cut through and homogenized the different me- dia. In short, people were programmed to operate upon media in ways that enabled them to elide the materialities of communication. But if there is any truth to what media theory, following Innis, Ong, and McLuhan, has been claiming for decades, media have their own "biases" and "mes- sages" that must be taken into account. The question of how people op- erate upon media thus has to be complemented by the equally important question of how media operate upon people. Subsequently, discourse analysis has to be expanded as well as supplemented by media theory. Scholars such as Kittler, Bolz, and Horisch, as it were, played Marx to Foucault's Hegel: they pulled discourse analysis off its textual and discur- sive head and set it on its media-technological feet.
? ? Translators' Introduction XXIlI
The new dimensions of Kittler's analysis are contained in a nutshell in the important essay "Autorschaft und Liebe" (Authorship and love), first published in 1980 as part of a volume polemically and programmati- cally entitled Austreibung des Geistes aus den Geisteswissenschaften: Pro- gramme des Poststrukturalismus (Expulsion of the Spirit from the hu- manities: programs of poststructuralism). The essay is organized around the sharp contrast between two very different body-medium links that represent two very different ways that writers evoked and readers experi- enced love. First, Kittler presents Paolo and Francesca, Dante's infernal couple, whose doomed love drastically short-circuits texts and bodies, leading them to physically (re)enact the adulterous love story they had been reading out loud. (Their narrative, in turn, manages to physically knock out their spellbound listener. ) Against this Kittler sets the equally ill-fated love recorded by Goethe of Werther and Lotte, who celebrate a far less physical but no less delirious communion by allowing their souls to share the spirit of Klopstock's beloved poetry. 41 Impassioned bodies cede to yearning souls, nameless desires communicated by an anonymous text make way for the spirit of authorship, and manuscripts to be read aloud in the company of others are replaced by printed books to be de- voured in solitary silence: the contrastive technique employed here is rem- iniscent of Foucault, whose presence is equally evident in the structural macrolevel of Discourse Networks, first published in German in 1985 (and now in its third, revised edition).
Indeed, in discussing Discourse Networks Kittler confirmed that Fou- cault, as "the most historical" of the French triumvirate, is the most im- portant to him-more important than Lacan and far more than Der- rida. 42 As David Wellbery points out in his excellent foreword to the Eng- lish translation, there are substantial affinities. In The Order ofThings, Foucault periodizes European conceptions of life, labor, and language on the basis of three generalized "epistemes": the "Renaissance," the "clas- sical," and the "modern. " Kittler, in turn, presents three historical mo- ments corresponding more or less to Foucault's: the "Republic of Schol- ars" is the approximate equivalent to Foucault's "Renaissance" and "clas- sical" epistemes; the historical datum " 1 800" correlates roughly to Foucault's "modern" period; and " 1900" designates a discourse network that matches Foucault's emergent postmodernism. 43 In Kittler's usage, "discourse network" designates "the network of technologies and insti- tutions that allow a given culture to select, store, and produce relevant data. "44 The term is very extensive: it attempts to link physical, techno- logical, discursive, and social systems in order to provide epistemic snap-
? XXIV Translators' Introduction
shots of a culture's administration of power and knowledge. Not unlike the approach taken in Jonathan Goldberg's acclaimed study Writing Mat- ter, the aim is to combine a "Foucauldian" analysis of historically con- tingent rules and regulations, which allow or force people to speak in cer- tain ways, with the examination of equally contingent physical and men- tal training programs and the analysis of the contemporary media technologies that link the two.
Although Kittler leaves his "Republic of Scholars" largely undevel- oped, the discursive field of " r 800"-the period known as German Clas- sicism, Romanticism, or the Age of Goethe-is described in terms of the spiritualized oralization of language. Kittler argues that the process of al- phabetization came to be associated with the Mother as an embodiment of Nature-more specifically, with "the Mother's mouth," now recon- ceptualized as an erotic orifice linking sound, letter, and meaning into a primary linguistic unit charged with pleasure. German children learned to read through both the physical and sexual immediacy of and proximity to the Muttermund (which in German signifies both the literal mouth of the mother as well as the opening of the uterus). By associating erotic plea- sure with the act of composition and rereading, and with Mother Nature more generally, writers of the Classical and Romantic periods understood language as a form of originary orality, a transcendental inner voice su- perior and anterior to any form of written language.