Interactive metal fatigue. The interpassive transformation of modern life 
Presentation at Studiedag Theaterwetenschap 2007 
Brakke Grond, Amsterdam, 31 August 2007

Gijs van Oenen

While it originated as a most original and innovative concept in the domain of aesthetics, I feel the concept of interpassivity is a seminal one that can, and should, fruitfully be further developed and applied in many other domains. My own proposed NWO research program more specifically aims to cover three such domains: politics, labor, and the public realm, from the specific perspective of democratic engagement, or detachment. Both democracy and interpassivity - which we may characterise as ‘the high tide of democracy’ – are centrally implicated in important transformations in society that we are witnessing at present. 
	Robert Pfaller and Slavoj Zizek 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.

As my research program hopes to show, this interpassive tendency has a broader social, cultural, 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 both. Increasingly people seem unable to act in accordance with norms that are generally accepted, even - and here’s the rub - when they themselves subscribe to these very norms. This phenomenon of, sometimes even self-declared, moral incapacitation has, ironically, been brought about exactly by a social and moral success-story, that of achieved emancipation and democracy. No one can be forced nowadays to live according to norms he or she does not rationally, and perhaps even emotionally, assent to. This, however, creates an unanticipated burden: exactly because we feel obliged to live up to all our self-imposed norms, we sometimes fail to do so. Thus we feel dissatisfied, without being able to explain this to ourselves: aren’t we now free, self-directing individuals who really do want to be ruled by self-imposed norms?
	Accordingly, the hypothesis of this research project is that modern, democratic individuals suffer from interactive metal fatigue. That is, the incessant democratic interaction and rational consent that modern society exacts from us, and that we indeed voluntarily affirm, is becoming ‘too much of a good thing’ for us. We do not manage to live up to our own promise of emancipated life. Symptoms of this condition may be called signs of interpassivity, and are now starting to show up, in the form of e.g. aversion, capsularization, detachment, disinterest and outsourcing.
	The concept of interpassivity thus 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). 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. Interactivity is boundless, it has no inherent or obvious measure of sufficient implementation. 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 Center Parks holiday resorts 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’).

	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 in court: ‘Well your honor, I just happen to be a guy with a short fuse’.
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. 
The usual conclusion here 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. The problem of interpassivity may show 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 the sociologist Gabriël van den Brink: higher expectations lead to increased dissatisfaction.
 The fourth main symptom of interpassivity is a lack of orientation, in a political, social, and even a physical sense. Many citizens do not expouse a substantial view on political, or social, topics any more. They are neither for nor 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 example 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’, linking the topic of interpassivity to ongoing discussions about how the organization of public space influences experience and subjectivity.
By way of closing off, let me give you one example from personal experience. For some time now I have been noticing that it has become accepted practice – at least in cities like Amsterdam, where I live, and Rotterdam, where I work - to cycle on the left side of the road. Mind you, not as an exception, or only when and where it doesn’t inconvenience anyone else, but without the least embarrassment and seemingly without the least idea that anyone might object to this. To take just one example from my own experience: on a dedicated cycle path in Amsterdam, an adult man cycling in the wrong direction tries to overtake two boys who are also heading in the wrong direction. The boys ride too boisterously and fall over. The man can’t avoid them altogether and also falls. I approach from the other (right) direction, am forced to brake hard, skidding over the pavement. Fortunately nobody seems to be seriously hurt. I start to scold the man, trying to get him to give some sort of account of his irresponsible actions. I half-expected him to react either aggressive, or to show remorse. In fact he did neither. He looked both more surprised and resigned. His attitude was one of: such things can happen, can’t they, and we all came off ok, didn’t we, so where’s the harm?

It seems to me that the concept of interpassivity is a most ‘timely’ concept, in that it is uncannily able to identify and explain some crucial, and interrelated, developments in contemporary society. Although it originated in the domain of aesthetics, it can fruitfully be developed further and applied as a research theme in other domains. Interpassivity can be found in art works and installations as a particular form of mediation; in traffic as a kind of loss of orientation and of self-direction; in the public realm as capsularization, and other forms of colonization of public space by private, disengaged interests; in the social realm as a yearning for security in which the responsibilities of citizenship are being outsourced; in the sphere of labor as detachment and a misguided sense of flexibility; and in the sphere of politics as an obsession with process over substance. In all cases, people seem to give themselves a certificate of Kantian incapacitation (een kantiaans brevet van onvermogen): they declare, or show, themselves unable to act on norms they themselves have subscribed to as emancipated, enlightened subjects, letting themselves slide from interactivity into the new form of social presence called interpassivity. I am grateful to Robert Pfaller for providing us with the concept of interpassivity – a concept that no doubt stands in need of further development, but which I am convinced will occupying, of not haunting, us for many years to come.