Interactive metal fatigue. The interpassive transformation of democratic life
NWO research proposal for program Omstreden Democratie
Gijs van Oenen, maart 2007

The concept of interpassivity points out a crucial ambiguity in the social and personal ideal of emancipation, an ideal that finds expression in the notion of interactivity: being recognized as a full partner in the discourse on the validity of social norms (cf Habermas 1983). On the one hand, modern citizens have successfully incorporated the interactive ideals of modern society: emancipation, participation, deliberation, assertiveness.  They are proficient in the exercise of the corresponding interactive capabilities within a whole range of institutions: politics, labour, art, education, housing, family, media.  On their part, such institutions have accommodated them in these pursuits; they have willingly traded quality of representation for intensity of interactive engagement. Accordingly, interactivity became a natural part of modern (self)experience and (self)perception.
	On the other hand, the unremitting increase in interactivity produced a growing sense of discontent in citizens.  First, because the interactive promise is by its nature incapable of being fulfilled.  In contradistinction to classical representation, interactivity is boundless, it has no inherent measure of sufficient implementation. In Ankersmit’s words (1996, 47), political reality exists only due to representation. Participation, ‘public relations’, democratization, and institutional support can always be widened, improved, or made more transparent. This inherent institutional ‘lack’ structurally frustrates citizens. At the same time, a more subjective kind of discontent arises.  It is not only the institutions that fail to satisfy the growing interactive expectations; citizens themselves feel equally unable to live up both to the demands of interactivity, and to the norms that they themselves have interactively affirmed. Yet both - norms and interactivity - have become part of their selfunderstanding. The modern, emancipated citizen feels a strong commitment to norms that he has, interactively, subscribed to. But tragically, this ‘normative burden’ now appears for him too heavy to handle. A contemporary TV advertisement for a holiday resort shows public figures, being tempted to take on yet one more challenge in their already overburdened social life, replying, in Bartleby-like style: ‘Yes, but not right now, please’ (‘Ja, maar nu even niet’).
	The concept of interpassivity was first proposed in the domain of aesthetics; in the proposed research, as well as in the published work of the principal applicant, it is developed further into a diagnostic philosophical instrument suitable for an analysis of social and political developments. Slavoj Zizek (1997) and Robert Pfaller (2002) coined the notion of interpassivity to explain how works of art and media endeavour to take care of their own reception. In the well-known interactive arrangements, the artwork delegates a portion of its actualisation to the visitor; the process is in need of their participation.  In contrast, the lesser known but more advanced interpassive arrangements ‘repossess’ the role fulfilled by the visitor, namely the enjoyment, or consumption, of the artwork. The spectator or consumer is made redundant; his or her involvement in the realisation of the work has become superfluous. The visitor is now ‘actively disinterested’ in the realisation of the artwork; what is more, he seems relieved to be able to hand back, or outsource, his interactive involvement to the artwork.
	The central thesis of the proposed research is that this interpassive tendency has a broad social and political import. Ever more interactivity is being generated in many fields of social life. This is normatively welcomed by both institutions and individual citizens, but simultaneously the demands of interactivity tend to systematically overburden them. They come to suffer from interactive metal fatigue: structural interactive overload causes miniature fractures that undermine interactive abilities. As with normal metal fatigue, the process first goes unnoticed;  it is recognised only when it is too late. There is also a subjective factor involved: precisely because they attach so much value to the interactive process, overburdened institutions and citizens both tend to ignore, deny, or outsource their interactive overload, rather than admit to interactive fatigue and failure.
	To make the development from interactivity to interpassivity more tangible, consider the following symptoms in contemporary society.
	First, a loss of autonomy. The urge to become emancipated and autonomous that triggered the advent of interactive institutions paradoxically brought about the loss of autonomy.  Rather than recognising the limits of interactivity, modern citizens (and their governments) prefer to deny or outsource the interactive burden of social action.  This expresses itself both in action and in self-experience. When pressed to motivate his unruly behavior, the modern actor openly declares himself no longer able to act in accordance with norms that he himself has produced, or consented to, as a ‘lawgiver’ in the Kantian sense. As the typical defendant accused of public violence explains to the magistrate: ‘Well your honor, I just happen to be a guy with a rather short fuse’.
	This type of loss of autonomy has to a large extent been recognised by the WRR, the Scientific Council for Government Policy, in its recent report on ‘Norms, values, and the burden of behavior’ (WRR 2003). In its initiative to promote the quality of ethical life, the (then) government had asked attention for ‘norms and values’, implying the communitarian position that good citizenship depended upon personal ethical qualities. The WRR however argued that the problem lies not with a lack of interest, or even a lack of consensus, regarding norms and values; the real problem was that people no longer managed, or felt able, to act in accordance with generally recognized norms.
Secondly, and related to the first point: an outsourcement of capabilities for action in public life. The heavy burden of interactivity is being shifted elsewhere, usually  back to the very system that previously encouraged participation and the sharing of responsibility. As an example may serve the ambiguous attitude towards government displayed by many modern citizens. On the one hand, they demand a more extensive democracy, and in general stronger possibilities to influence policy; on the other hand, they keep harboring expectations that ‘politicians’ or ‘the system’ can and should come up with solutions of its own to pressing social issues. 
We may more conventionally characterize this topic as a ‘crisis of representation’, although this crisis is more complicated than sometimes recognized. The crisis of representation is usually conceived of in terms of a ‘chasm’ between citizens and the political system. The usual conclusion is either that the political system should be more responsive to citizen demand, or that the rationale of representative democracy is poorly understood by post-sixties citizens. Although Ankersmit (1996, 2002) is right that political power is constituted, not negated, through representation, the problem of interpassivity shows why it is problematic to strive for a reestablishment of distance between citizen and political system, or party. A strong sense of ‘interactive engagement’ goes together with a lack of interest in actual political results, although political dissatisfaction is often voiced in terms of what the political system apparently ‘fails to deliver’. 
This is expressed in the third symptom of interpassivity: a dialectic of engagement and detachment. Although citizens are strongly critical of many institutional arrangements, simultaneously they feel very much emotionally and discursively attached to such institutions and arrangements. From a slightly different perspective, this phenomenon has been denominated ‘normative elevation’ by Van den Brink (2004): higher expectations lead to increased dissatisfaction.
 The fourth main symptom of interpassivity is a lack of orientation, in a political, social, and perhaps even a physical sense. Many citizens do not expouse a substantial view on political, or social, topics any more. They are neither for or against, but merely ‘present’; and what they ‘present’, is merely themselves. People prefer to ‘witness’ events rather than take sides, a tendency that is obviously also influenced by the omnipresence of media. As examples may count the phenomenon of the ‘flash mob’: people who, instructed through sms, gather en masse at some urban hotspot, to linger for a few minutes and then disperse, as demonstratively as pointlessly. Or consider the strong increase in publics show of emotion, e.g. at public funerals such Lady Diana’s, or in Holland that of (folk singer) André Hazes. Again, a more conventional analysis would recognize this phenomenon but register it somewhat differently; in analyses of electoral behavior, for instance, someone suffering from a loss of orientation would classify as a ‘floating voter’. From a cultural perspective, the phenomenon of deliberately disoriented ‘wandering’ has been translated into terms of cultural psychology as ‘psychogeography’ (Coverley 2006), linking this topic to the ‘public space’ dimension of the proposed research.

Although it originated in the domain of aesthetics, the concept of interpassivity can fruitfully be further developed and applied as a research theme in other domains, as recent work of the principal applicant may show (Van Oenen 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2006, 2007). The proposed research aims to cover three main areas of social life, in their mutual interconnectedness: politics and public administration; labour, economy, and finance; citizenship and the public realm
	These areas are interconnected, because neither democracy nor interpassivity (which we may characterise as ‘the high tide of democracy’) can be disengaged from other transformations in society, neither institutionally nor individually. All three domains are crucially affected by the transformation of self experience of citizens in the public realm, as originally thematized by Habermas (1962) and Sennett (1977), and developed further in the transition from interactivity to interpassivity in recent decades (Van Oenen 2006). We can imagine the structure of this transformation, in broad outline, as follows. The true experience of modernity begins with the rise of the modern individual. During the sixties and seventies this experience develops into the reality of citizens as interactive, assertive participants. In the nineties, the turn towards mere ‘interpassive presence’ is being executed.
	The rise of interpassivity implies that interactivity is in danger of succumbing to its own success.  An unreflecting and undifferentiated strengthening of interactivity – or its political incarnation democracy - therefore cannot be the solution; more likely it is the problem itself. On the other hand, the solution lies neither in doing away with interactivity, if that would be a feasible option at all. More to the point seems the ability to orientate, and distinguish, oneself as an actor – thus continuing a theoretical tradition powerfully inspired by Hannah Arendt (cf. Althaus 2000), and continued in the Netherlands by e.g. Van Gunsteren (1998). In this way, the development of a theoretical framework around the notion of interpassivity aims to offer an alternative, or in certain senses a complement, to the analysis of (failures of) interactivity in terms of, e.g., ‘neue Unübersichtlichkeit’ (Habermas 1985), ‘new disorder’ (Boomkens 2006), ‘Zweite Moderne’ (Beck 1997), or ‘time of discontent’ (Verbrugge 2004).

Description of the (sub)projects

The research will be carried out by the principal applicant (senior researcher), a post-doc researcher, and a Ph.D. student. In all three (sub)projects the theme of interactive metal fatigue, or that of interpassivity, will function as guiding thread. 
	An initial set of research questions common to all three projects concerns the theoretical framework of interpassivity. What is the meaning of interactivity for modern society? To what extent can transformations of interactivity be considered signs of interpassivity?  What kinds of problems does this produce? To what extent do the four tendencies mentioned above play a role in this transformation?  What can count as possible indicators?  What exactly is being outsourced in interpassive behaviour: engagement, activity, passivity? And what should we think of predictions and pronouncements on ‘new commitment’ (New commitment 2003)?
	The research of the principal applicant is characterised by a systematic analysis of the issues of interactivity and interpassivity with regard to the above-mentioned domains of politics and public administration, work, economy and finance, and citizenship in the public realm. It aims to show which symptoms of interpassivity showed themselves in these respective domains, what causes can be identified, and how these causes may be related philosophically and historically. This results, firstly, in a diagnosis of contemporary social problems and tensions. Secondly, alternative diagnoses and explanations for these dynamics discussed and criticised. Thirdly, it is attempted to formulate a ‘therapy’: what social and individual arrangements might accommodate or reorient such problems and tensions? What kind of changes in self-experience would this imply, in the several domains mentioned? 
	In the domain of politics and public administration, we can establish that democracy and participation have become common practice. Moreover, expectations of politics and public administration have risen considerably; yet at the same time, there is widespread dissatisfaction with these institutions. Opinion pages and talkshows sport commentators who speak of the failure of politics, a politics that should be more responsive to citizens’ complaints and that turns a blind eye to what is going on in society. Sociologists have argued that a ‘new civilisation offensive’ is called for (Van den Brink 2004; cf. Dalrymple 2001). Political philosophers suggest that politics should exhibit more theatrical qualities. Either in the sense of citizenship as a (Sennettian or Arendtian) ‘repertoire of action’ (Van Gunsteren 1998), as a ‘spectators’ democracy’ in which the notion of ‘public’ transforms from a reasoning community into that of a noisy visitor of theatrical spectacles (De Beus 2002), or as ‘tragic governance’ in which a strong sense of interpassive disempowerment is being affirmed by both public administration and citizens as a form of postmodern ‘tragic insight’ ( De Mul 2006). Interpretation from the theoretical point of view of interpassivity here leads to a critical evaluation of such diagnoses, and to new proposals for possible remedies.
In the domain of work and economy, or more precisely monetary self-esteem, a development can be traced from strict organisation and lifetime employment, through a utopia of ‘the liberation of work’, to humanized and ‘insured’ labor in the seventies and eighties. In the last two decennia, we can witness a change towards perceptions in terms of ‘management’ of ‘human resources’. The central notion here is that of flexibility: the ‘labour factor’ can be configured and reconfigured just as quickly and effectively as other production factors. The citizen/employee tends to incorporate the values of flexibility and monetary self-esteem into his self-perception: he considers himself a – succesful – market actor, outsmarting competition by clever calculation and strategic thinking.
One of the consequences of this development is the disintegration of the public realm, caused by the relative success of individual overestimation (80% of drivers deem themselves better than average) and the relative failure of less individualist realists (cf the critique of ‘market experience’ by Lane 1991, that one might rephrase in terms of communitarianism). Moreover, flexibility and market experience tend to induce a ‘corrosion of character’: the undermining of self-esteem by the inability to relate one’s own actions to valuable, self-affirmed goals (Sennett 1998). Contemporary discussions on e.g. liberalisation, marketization and outsourcing (Frank 2000, Stiglitz 2003) can be critically evaluated and revised from this perspective.
	With regard to the public realm, we can witness a transformation from ideals of openness and mobility characteristic of modernism towards ‘commodification and spectacle’ in times of increasing consumption and mediation (Schulze 1992, Saunders 2005). The idea of creative, carefree encounters in an infinitely malleable, technology-supported public space, as projected in Constants New Babylon project (Wigley 1998), transforms into a commercialized and privatized public space, in which the encounter of citizens takes the shape of entertainment, or the shared experience of emotions. In ‘capsular civilization’ (De Cauter 2004) public experience is increasingly being privatized, being fenced off by material or virtual capsules such as automobiles, mp3-players, or mobile phones. Commercialisation, outsourcing, privatisation, and mediation all contribute to the rise of interpassivity, by thwarting the ability to orientate oneself in public space (Sennett 1977, Boomkens 2006). This perspective enables a critical view on tendencies to outsource the care for the public realm. Or, alternatively, to subject it to stricter supervision (by either employees or camera’s) that supposedly mitigates feelings of insecurity and unsafety (Boutellier 2002, Levin 2002, Van Oenen 2003).

The Ph.D. project aims at a specific analysis of the issues of interactivity and interpassivity specifically with regard to the first domain mentioned: that of politics, public administration, and – more generally – democratic engagement. It will analyze the state of contemporary democracy at three levels: current theoretical insights in the field of political philosophy, current discussions in public fora, and current social practices as analyzed by sociology and political science. The emphasis here is on the latter two levels, and their interconnection. 
	The interconnection between the several levels is inevitably also determined by national traditions and particularities. Part of the Ph.D. project is therefore to investigate to what extent the phenomenon of interpassivity in political life is a peculiarly Dutch affliction. A focused comparison with a structurally comparable political culture would seem to be the best approach, e.g. that of Belgium (more specifically Vlaanderen) or (a specific part of) Germany. 

The post-doc project will focus on an analysis of democracy from the perspective of cultural and political philosophy. The emphasis here is on history and the humanities, relating (transformations in) democratic culture to such topics such as: modernism versus postmodernism, self-experience versus institutional sustenance, subjectivity versus intersubjectivity, plurality versus monoculturalism, individuality versus commonality, public poverty versus private affluence, private engagement versus public detachment, and finally a tragic versus a resentful experience of interpassivity. 
	This (sub)project seeks to be in touch with, profit from, and critically relate to both the (international) professional literature on the institutional and personal consequences of modern democratic life, and the institutional reception and translation into policy recommendations in the rich literature that, especially in recent years, has issued from governmental advisory agencies such as the WRR (2003, 2004), the RMO (2000, 2003a, 2003b), and others.

Societal relevance 

The societal and political relevance of the projects makes itself felt all the way from their substantial core to their diverse forms of realization. In their core, because the main idea behind the research, the notion of interpassivity, was intended precisely (in the work of the principal researcher) to explain certain new phenomena in political and social life. In fact, the notion itself is brand new, emerging only because of the developments it aims to express and explain; in that sense, it is an attempt to ‘comprehend its time in thought’, in Hegel’s terms. Its forms of realization intend to express this social and political commitment as well. Besides publications in international and national academic and professional journals, the researchers intend to be active in a broad variety of fora in the public domains, through discussion fora, opinion articles, lectures, and other kinds of public interventions. The post-doc and Ph.D. researchers will be selected also with an eye to this purpose. The principal applicant has a long track record of such public activity, in addition to publications in a variety of journals in different fields, both professional and academic, national and international.

Literature
- Althaus, Claudia, Erfahrung denken. Hannah Arendts Weg von der Zeitgeschichte zur politischen Theorie. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2000
- Ankersmit, Frank, Aesthetic politics. Political philosophy beyond fact and value. Stanford university press 1996
- Ankersmit, Frank, Political representation. Stanford university press 2002
- Beck, Ulrich (hgb.), Kinder der Freiheit. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 1997
- Beus, Jos de, Na de beeldenstorm. Langhout & De Vries, Heerde 2002
- Boomkens, René, De nieuwe wanorde. Van Gennep, Amsterdam 2006
- Boutellier, Hans, De veiligheidsutopie. Boom Juridische uitgevers, Den Haag 2002
- Brink, Gabriël van den, Schets van een beschavingsoffensief. Amsterdam university press 2004
- Cauter, Lieven de, The capsular civilization. NAi, Rotterdam 2004
- Coverley, Merlin, Psychogeography. Pocket essentials, Harpenden 2006
- Dalrymple, Theodore, Life at the bottom. Ivan R. Dee, London 2001
- Frank, Thomas, One market under God. Extreme capitalism, market populism, and the end of economic democracy. Anchor, New York 2000
- Gunsteren, Herman van, A theory of citizenship. Westview, Boulder (Co.) 1998
- Habermas, Jürgen, Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Luchterhand, Darmstadt 1962
- Habermas, Jürgen, Moralbewußtsein und kommunikatives Handeln. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 1983
- Habermas, Jürgen, Die neue Unübersichtlichkeit. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 1985
- Lane, Robert, The market experience. Cambridge university press 1991
- Levin, Thomas E. a.o. (eds.), Ctrl[Space]. Rhetorics of surveillance from Bentham to Big Brother. ZKM/MIT press 2002
- Mul, Jos de, De domesticatie van het noodlot. Klement, Kampen 2006
- New commitment, in architecture, art, and design. NAi, Rotterdam 2003 
- Oenen, Gijs van (red.), Surplus van illegaliteit. De Balie, Amsterdam 2002
- Oenen, Gijs van, ‘The art of unsettling: mobile architecture and its political surplus value’. In: Liesbeth Melis (ed.), Parasite paradise, NAi/SKOR, Rotterdam 2003, 14-19
- Id., ‘”Hit me with your rhythm-stick!” De moderne burger vraagt om straf.’ In: Filosofie & Praktijk, 25/5, 2004a, 50-62
- Id., ‘Finding cover. Legal trauma and how to take care of it.’ In: Law & Critique, 15/2, 2004b, 139-158
- Id., ‘Languishing in securityscape. The interpassive transformation of the public sphere’. In: Open. Cahier on art and the public domain. no.9, 2004c, 6-16
- Id., ‘A machine that would go of itself. Interpassivity and its impact on political life.’ In: Theory & Event, 9/2, 2006
- Id., De interpassieve burger en het gezag van de politie. In: Kees van der Vijver en Frits Vlek (red.), De legitimiteit van de politie onder druk? Beschouwingen over grondslagen en ontwikkelingen van legitimiteit en legitimiteitstoekenning. Politie&Wetenschap & Elsevier Overheid, Den Haag 2007, p. 263-280
- Pfaller, Robert, Die Illusionen der anderen. Über das Lustprinzip in der Kultur. Suhrkamp, Frankf/Main 2002
- RMO, Medialogica Den Haag 2003a
- RMO, Bevrijdende kaders. Den Haag 2003b
- RMO, Aansprekend burgerschap, Den Haag 2000
- Saunders, William (ed.), Commodification and spectacle in architecture. Un. of Minnesota press, Minneapolis 2005
- Schulze, Gerhard, Die Erlebnisgesellschaft. Campus, Frankfurt & New York 1992
- Sennett, Richard, The fall of public man. Faber&Faber, London 1977
- Sennett, Richard, The corrosion of character. W.W. Norton, New York 1998
- Stiglitz, Joseph, The roaring nineties. Penguin 2003
- Verbrugge, Ad, Tijd van onbehagen. SUN, Amsterdam 2004
- Wigley, Mark, Constant’s New Babylon. The hyper-architecture of desire. 010, Rotterdam 1998
- WRR, Waarden, normen en de last van het gedrag. Amsterdam university press 2003
- WRR, De staat van de democratie. Democratie voorbij de staat. Amsterdam university press 2004
- Zizek, Slavoj, The plague of fantasies, Verso, London 1997