Review: [untitled]

Author(s): Kathleen Marie Higgins

Reviewed work(s):
Alcyone: Nietzsche on Gifts, Noise, and Women by Gary Shapiro
Source: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Summer, 1992), pp. 263265
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The American Society for Aesthetics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/431242
Accessed: 04/10/2008 03:52
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The American Society for Aesthetics and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism.

http://www.jstor.org

Book Reviews
Among recent postmodernist readings of art history and aesthetic theory, Roberts'sapproachhas the
merit of advancinga strong characterizationof postmodernart. The last part of his book argues that the
shift from modern to postmodern art reduces the
Europeantraditionto freely disposablematerialalongside othermaterial,and it replacesthe idea of progress
with an awarenessof contingency.Robertselaborates
his characterization with elan and sophistication,
bringing it into critical dialogue with the views of
JeanBaudrillard,PeterBurger,ArthurDanto, Jiirgen
Habermas,and FredricJameson.
Unlike Adorno, whom he reads as pitting a progressive and authenticSchoenbergagainsta reactionary and inauthenticStravinsky,Robertsabandonsthe
paradigmof progress that guides modernist aesthetics. In fact, he argues that both Schoenberg and
Stravinsky are postmodern artists who simply give
"alternativeresponsesto the situationof contingency
broughtabout by the end of tradition"(p. 131). This
situation, which rendersmodernist aesthetics inadequate, an aestheticsafter Adorno must understand.
"Contingency" is a protean concept in Roberts's
book. On the one hand, it contrastswith the necessity
and continuity that Hegel and Adorno ascribe to the
historical unfolding of art. On the other hand, it
points to the freedom of postmodernartists to choose
among virtually endless options unboundedby tradition. According to Roberts, romantic irony in literature prefigures the "emancipationof contingency"
in postmodernart. After the crisis of traditionand the
shattering of progress, however, contingency becomes systemic. The critiqueof art as art has become
intrinsicto the entireenterpriseof art productionand
art reception. This "self-reflectionon the level of the
system" is a new stage in the enlightenmentof art
(p. 21).
There is something odd about such usage of terms
like "emancipation,""stage," and "enlightenment."
Their appeal seems to derive from he very paradigm
of progressthat Roberts has abandoned.Althoughhe
might esitate to call postmodern art "better" than
modernart, he at least suggests thatpostmodernart is
"good" within the largerhistoricalscheme of things.
YetI am unableto find a basis for this suggestion, and
it is hardto imagine what the basis could be, absent
some latentidea of historicalprogress.
A relatedpuzzle concerns the plausibility of Roberts's claims about the enlightened and emancipated
characterof postmodernart. He says, for example,
that "the system of art is now enlightened, fully
'rational'and self-referential,because it is no longer
blind to itself" (p. 174). While this has some merits
as a claim about art as an independentsystem, the
claim rapidlyloses plausibilitywhen one locates art at
the intersection of politics, economics, electronic
media, and the culture industry.There art seems in-

263
creasinglyless transparentand increasinglyless like a
self-containedsystem.
Indeed, one weakness of Roberts'sbook is that it
paystoo little regardto Adorno'ssocial theory andhis
critiqueof the cultureindustry.These, it seems to me,
provide more fruitful sources for a theory of postmodern art than does Philosophy of Modern Music.
At the same time, the latter work can hardly be
understoodapart from its connections with Adorno's
contemporaneouswritingson fascism, popularmusic,
and the authoritarianpersonality. Although Roberts
touches on similar topics in his brief and suggestive
sections on Jameson (pp. 104-145) and Baudrillard
(pp. 198-207), he does not employ many of the
resources available in Adorno's version of critical
theory.
The motivation for raising this criticism is not a
devotion to Adorno but a concern for the directionof
postmodernist theory. While applauding Roberts's
creative and astute proposals for a theory of postmodernart, I find myself wishing for greaterengagement with political, economic, and broadly cultural
issues. For the "crisis of tradition" has not been
limitedto art, andthe "emancipationof contingency"
now pervades the entire culture of late capitalism.
Moreover, the significance of these developments
depends on larger movements toward freedom and
justice and peace than the arts as such can provide. It
was precisely such movements, or the obstructionsto
them, that Adorno tried to disclose in the art and
culture of his time. Their disclosure in our time is a
challenge facing any theory "afterAdorno."
LAMBERT ZUIDERVAART

Departmentof Philosophy
Calvin College
SHAPIRO, GARY. Alcvone: Nietzscheon Gifts,

Noise, and Women.SUNY Press, 1991, 158 pp.,

$39.50 cloth, $12.95 paper.
Gary Shapiro sets out to reread Nietzsche's Thus
Spoke Zarathustra in terms of what Nietzsche described as its "halcyon tone." Shapiro unpacksthis
expression in terms of the myth of Alcyone, who,
while lamenting her husband's death at sea, was
turned along with her husbandinto sea birds ("halcyons") by the gods. Shapiro links the cries of Alcyone to the primordialcries andconcerns of women,
cries and concerns displaced by the Western metaphysical tradition.Nietzsche's remarkaboutthe "halcyon tone" of Zarathustraheraldsthe returnof such
repressed concerns, among them the topics of gifts,
noise, and women.
In the first essay, "On Presents and Presence,"
Shapiro links Nietzsche's emphasis on gift-giving in

264

Zarathustrawith (alleged)abandonmentof "themetaphysics of presence." Given our metaphysical and

economic history,Shapirocontends, we tend to interpret "the given" (the es gibt in German), and our
relationshipto it, in termsof relativelystatic conventions of privateproperty."Thegiven" is clear-cut,as
is its significance. In emphasizingthe activities associated with gifts, "the uncanny other of property,"
Nietzsche draws attention to the dynamics of exchange and reinterpretationof the participants'roles
thatresults.
In preferringthe economic model of giving gifts to
thatsuggestedby the modernmarketplace,Nietzsche
indicates that the identities of persons and of "the
given" in general are subject to on-going renegotiation and hermeneutic interpretation. Shapiro concludes from this that, contrary to Heidegger's reading of Nietzsche as the West's last metaphysician,
Nietzsche is alreadyinvolvedin exploding traditional
metaphysical categories. Valuation itself is transvaluedin Zarathustra'scelebrationof "the gift-giving
virtue." On this model, the meaningof what is given
is constantlyin flux.
Shapiro'sapproachis more suggestive and imagistic than exhaustive in its pursuit of particularinterpretive hints. Shapiro'sorientationis wedded to that
of certain recent French interpretersof Nietzsche,
particularlyDerrida. Shapiro'splayful appropriation
of wordsand their senses, as well as his avoidanceof
dogged argumentationin favorof a style more akin to
reverie,will be familiarto those versedin the worksof
Derridaand his proponents.
However,Shapiroalso assumes thathis audience is
well-versedin Frenchliterarycriticism and its lingo;
and he makes little effort to assist those who are not.
Moredisturbingfrom a philosophicalpoint of view is
the fact thatShapirooften assumesconclusionsdrawn
by Derrida, Michel Serres, George Bataille and others without offering reasons why the reader should
accept them. This relianceon Frenchcritics, besides
leaving many readers unpersuaded,is likely to obscurethe originalityof manyof Shapiro'sinsights.
Shapiro'ssecondessay, "ParasitesandtheirNoise,"
for example, provides a refeshing look at Zarathustra, Part IV, afforded by focusing on its abundance of noise descriptions and animal imagery.
Shapiro artfully indicates the many ways that the
motifs of noises and interruptionare employed in the
text, and he argues convincingly that Nietzsche's
manipulationsof these motifs should lead to reversals
of their significance. Zarathustra'swork, for example, is enhanced by the interruptionsthat initially
forestalledit.
Shapiro analyses the reversals involved in Zarathustra,PartIV, in termsof the image of the parasite.
Drawing on Zarathustra'sfrequentcomplaintsabout
parasites and the higher men's parasitic behavior,

The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

Shapirocontends that Part IV is an "allegory of the
parasite"(p. 62) that portraysparasitismas complex
and "completely transitive" (p. 88). Zarathustrais
parasitic on his own parasites, and ultimately the
whole relationof parasitism"becomes undecidable"
(p. 100).

The least convincing aspect of this reading is

Shapiro'simportationof Serres'sviews on parasites.
Relying on Serres's contention that parasitism (not
predation) is basic to animal and human relations,
Shapirosuggests thatZarathustrapresentsparasitism
as a basic and mutually beneficial mode of human
interaction. Again, Shapiro sees Zarathustraas depicting humanexchange and reversingthe traditional
perspectiveon it.
Most likely, Shapiro is able to see so much evidence that Nietzsche is transvaluingparasitism because he has an extremely broadconception of what
the expression "parasite"means. At times, it seems
to mean nothing more than the mutually dependent
and symbiotic" (p. 67). Shapiro also is evidently
quite comfortable with the current literary critical
usage of the term, for he notes thatZarathustra,Part
IV, has often been read as "parasitic"on the first
three parts of the work. Following Serres, Shapiro
also links severalothersenses of the term:the biological sense of the animalwho feeds on but does not kill
anotheranimal; the economic sense of "humanbeings who profit, similarly,fromothers";andthe sense
prevalentin French and other romance languages of
"static or noisy interference"(p. 62). Shapiro goes
on to claim that Nietzsche intendedat least these last
three senses of parasitismin his writing: "Following
Michel Serres in The Parasite I want to demonstrate
that Nietzsche saw these apparentlydiverse senses as
partof a system" (p. 63).
Granted,Nietzsche does at times referto the same
people as "noisy" and as parasites.But the overtones
of the French term are not obviously basic to his
conception of its Germantranslation. Nevertheless,
Shapirotakes the interruptionsand noises of Part IV
as indicationsof Nietzsche's concern with parasitism
as such. The several moments in which Zarathustra
returnsfromcatchinga breathof airandinterruptsthe
higher men's activities are readas scenes in which he
is cast in the role of a parasite (albeit possibly a
"medicinal" one) (p. 61). The appearancesof animals and animal sounds are also treated as hints
regardingparasitism;and Zarathustra's
complex relationships with animals are, accordingly, interpreted
as indicationsof the complexity of the parasiterelationship. Such moves are at least methodologically
questionable.
Even more questionable-as well as startling-is
the suggestion of "Alcyone's song," Shapiro'sthird
essay: "Is the mouth of Thus SpokeZarathustrathe
mouth of a woman?" (p. 122). Shapirostresses that

265

Book Reviews
the voice of Alcyone is a gendered voice, and that it
recalls the very themes that Nietzsche, throughZarathustra,forces on the West's philosophicalattention:
it speaks of "gifts. friends, lovers, and pregnancy
ratherthanof eternal meaningsand values" (p. 148).
These concerns are denouncedby the Socrates of the
Republic, who declared the imitation of women's
lamentations(when "sick or in love or in labor")to be
unworthyof men. Thus, by reinstatingthese themes,
Nietzsche again worksto undercutthe premisesof the
Westerntraditionerectedby Plato.
Shapiro'sdemonstrationof thematicfocus in Zarathustraon some of the "womanly" concerns highlighted in the Alcyone myth and derogatedby Plato is
convincing. However,Shapiroseems to place considerableimportanceon genderas such in his interpretation of Zarathustra, in ways that are rather worrisome. In the first place, Shapiro throughout the
book presupposes an extremely traditionalbifurcation of male and female roles. He remarksat one point
in his reading, "Zarathustraplays the mother here,
runningafter the crying infants, taking responsibility
for the household;and then reassuringthe criers with
a promise of food, rest and play" (p. 73). This
reading imports gender considerations of a distinctively nonprogressivenatureinto the text; it does not,
however, demonstrate that Nietzsche is concerned
with gender in the passage in question. Again, rather
oddly, Shapiroinserts into his retellingof the Alcyone
myth the parentheticalremark, "Iris is a carrier of
messages or an interpreterbetween humansand gods
by vocation, havingtasks similarto Hermes';perhaps
this complex chain is an indication of what iristics,
the feminine alternative to hermeneutics, might be
if we introduce our own antonomasia" (p. 114).
No explanation is given as to why there should be
a "feminine alternative to hermeneutics" (aside,
perhaps, from the fact that the interpretationsof
Nietzsche that Shapirochooses to discuss are almost
exclusively written by men). Shapiro seems to presuppose that "masculine" and "feminine" are clear
concepts, andconcepts in evident opposition.
This assumptionis again evident in Shapiro'squick
moves from any textual suggestion of eroticism to
heterosexualinterpretations.For example, in perusing a poem from Nietzsche's notebooks, Shapiro
concludes from the lines "the orgiastic soul-I've
seen him" that a woman is speaking. This does not
follow. The eroticismevident in Zarathustramightbe
considerablymore pronouncedif one allows for the
possibility that homoeroticismmight be involved in
the interactionsof the male characters. But Shapiro
presupposes that issues of gender and eroticism in
Zarathustrawill take a heterosexual form. Shapiro
similarly looks for a male/female duality behind
Nietzsche'sclaims thathe was "pregnant"with Zarathustra. Although "pregnancy"is a common roman-

tic metaphorfor artistic creation, Shapiroconcludes

from this image and Nietzsche's acknowledgementof
Lou Salome thathe was the motherand she the father
of the work.
What is the significance of this odd reversal?Ultimately, Shapiro wants to show that Nietzsche sees
traditional assumptions about "the given" and the
individual'splace in it as subjectto continualrenegotiation. Thus, even the sexism that Nietzsche is often
thought to epitomize is undercutin the Nietzschean
text. This is an importantandprovocativesuggestion,
for which Shapiro should be commended. He also
admirablydraws attentionto Zarathustra'sthemes of
eroticism and passionate human interaction,themes
that deserve more critical attention than they have
usually been given. Unfortunately,Shapiro'sdualistic
male and female bluntthe forcefulnessof these points.
A similarpatternis evident in the book as a whole.
Shapiro undercuts the boldness and salience of his
claims by couching them in the phraseology and
maneuvers of French literary criticism. While this
frame may delight others who work within that general area of literary criticism, it tends to make Shapiro's points appear only as legitimate as the methodology in toto. Shapiro's text, however, abounds
with ideas and refreshingleads that shouldstimulatea
broaderrange of readersthan the circle it expressly
invites.
KATHLEEN MARIE HIGGINS

Departmentof Philosophy
Universityof Texasat Austin
BANN, STEPHEN and WILLIAM ALLEN, eds.

InterpretingContemporaryArt. New York:

Harper/Collins, 1991, xix + 229 pp., 8 color +
numerousb&w illus., $35.00 cloth.
This book, a collection of ten essays by ten different
critics, each of whom writes abouta differentartist, is
described by its editors, Stephen Bann and William
Allen, in their preface, as offered to the readerwith
the best of intentions.Ratherthanrestingcontentwith
large scale theoreticalgeneralizationsabout contemporaryart, Bannand Allen have opted for a Baconian
approach.They have asked each writerto choose one
artist(mostlypaintersor installationartistsarechosen),
and to explore that artist's work in detail, the idea
being to stress individualityover typology. Such an
approachis wise because it allows the readerto have
the chance to compute these essays up for herself, to
thinkaboutfamilies of ways in which these artistsand
these critics are linked. The postmodernis offered as
a question of family resemblance, generality and
scope, not as a compactedshape. To allow for a wide
sampleof formsof criticism,the editorshaverequested