Skip to main content
Log in

From freedom to equality: Rancière and the aesthetic experience of equality

  • Published:
Continental Philosophy Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines Rancière’s political reading of aesthetics through a historical analysis into the two aesthetic theories of freedom at work in Rancière’s philosophy; Kant’s freedom as self-governance and Schiller’s freedom as harmony. While aesthetic experience is considered morally conducive through its association with freedom, this article argues that Rancière translates such discussions of freedom into that of equality by extracting the political dimensions of aesthetic experience. Given that art has the unique ability to empower the spectator through its aesthetic experience of equality, the true political potential of art arises from its power to redistribute the sensible rather than through the overt expression of political themes. By juxtaposing Rancière’s politics of art with Kant’s beauty as the symbol of morality, this article argues that art becomes a symbol of political emancipation for Rancière in its capacity to generate the experience of equality. Inasmuch as Rancière attributes the aesthetic revolution to the eighteenth century, it becomes evident that the empowerment of the spectator has been central to art since the inauguration of the aesthetic regime.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Mecchia (2010, p. 38).

  2. Tanke (2011, p. 143). Tanke argues, “Ranciere attempts to move the aesthetic tradition away from the accounts of freedom that it reads from the aesthetic experience towards a consideration of the new relations of equality woven by the regime.” According to Tanke, the problem of freedom in traditional aesthetics is that it assumes the division between sense and intellect.

  3. Ross (1991, p. 67).

  4. Ross (1991, p. 67).

  5. May (2008, p. 2).

  6. May (2008, p. 4).

  7. Tanke (2011, p. 79).

  8. Tanke (2011, p. 79).

  9. Rancière (2002, p. 134).

  10. Ross (2010, p. 151).

  11. For this reason, Rancière criticizes Lyotard’s teleological conception of sublime art, which considers sensuous presentations inadequate to express an ethical idea.

  12. Deranty (2003, p. 137).

  13. Rancière (2002, pp. 134–135). Rancière argues on pages 134–135, “Understanding the ‘politics’ proper to the aesthetic regime of art means understanding the way autonomy and heteronomy are originally linked in Schiller’s formula.”

  14. Guyer (1996, p. 3).

  15. Rancière (2011, p. 60).

  16. Rancière (2013, p. 11).

  17. Rancière (2011, p. 13).

  18. Citton (2010, p. 30).

  19. Beiser (2005, p. 186).

  20. Rancière (2002, p. 135).

  21. Rancière (2002, p. 135–136).

  22. Schiller (2004, p. 77).

  23. Schiller (2004, p. 32).

  24. Beiser (2005, p. 186).

  25. Schiller (2004, p. 138).

  26. May (2008, pp. 70–71).

  27. Tanke (2011, p. 107).

  28. Rancière (2002, pp. 133–135). Rancière devotes the first section of the article to explain that the paradox of aesthetics is evident in Schiller’s Aesthetic Education of Man.

  29. Kant (1987, 352).

  30. Kant (1987, 354).

  31. Kant (1987, 354).

  32. Kant (1987, 269).

  33. Kant (1987, 354). Emphasis added.

  34. I do not deny the possibility that political art could induce free contemplation as long as its presentation is a work of genius in the Kantian sense, namely it has an enigmatic appearance that resists understanding. Thus, in spite of its political message, the artwork’s enigmatic presentation could induce free contemplation. Nonetheless, pedantic political art disturbs free contemplation and undermines its unique political potential because it assumes the hierarchical relationship between the artist and the spectator. By becoming overly instructive in its presentation, political art first teaches the inability of the spectator to understand the current situation and then asks her to change it.

  35. I emphasize “experience” because the unique power of aesthetics is that the spectator can have the firsthand experience of what it is like to be equal to others. As Rancière claims that what the dominated need is not the proper understanding of the current situation but the confidence to change it. The aesthetic experience can empower the spectator by giving her the experience of equality.

  36. Rancière (2009, p. 45).

  37. Rancière (2009, p. 45).

  38. In The Emancipated Spectator, Rancière explains that stultification occurs when art attempts to teach a political lesson by first assuming the inequality of intelligence between the artist and the spectator. The first chapter of the book is dedicated to establish this point by comparing stultification in education, as the teacher assumes the inequality of intelligence between the teacher and her student.

  39. Rancière (2010, p. 135).

References

  • Beiser, Frederick. 2005. Schiller as philosopher. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Citton, Yves. 2010. “The ignorant schoolmaster”: Knowledge and authority. In Jacques Rancière: Key concepts, ed. Jean-Philippe Deranty, 25–37. Durham: Acumen Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deranty, Jean-Philippe. 2003. Jacques Rancière’s contribution to the ethics of recognition. Political Theory 31: 136–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guyer, Paul. 1996. Kant and the experience of freedom. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, Immanuel. 1987. Critique of judgment. Trans. Werner Pluhar. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

  • May, Todd. 2008. The political thought of Jacques Rancière. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mecchia, Giuseppina. 2010. Philosophy and its poor: Rancière’s critique of philosophy. In Jacques Rancière: key concepts, ed. Jean-Philippe Deranty, 38–54. Durham: Acumen Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rancière, Jacques. 2002. The aesthetic revolution and its outcomes. New Left Review 14: 133–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rancière, Jacques. 2009. Aesthetics and its discontents. Trans. Steven Corcoran. Malden: Polity.

  • Rancière, Jacques. 2010. Dissensus on politics and aesthetics. Trans. Steven Corcoran. New York: Continuum.

  • Rancière, Jacques. 2011. The emancipated spectator. Trans. Gregory Elliott. New York: Verso.

  • Rancière, Jacques. 2013. Aisthesis. Trans. Zakir Paul. New York: Verso.

  • Ross, Kristin. 1991. Rancière and the practice of equality. Social Text 29: 57–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, Toni. 2010. Image, montage. In Jacques Rancière: key concepts, ed. Jean-Philippe Deranty, 151–168. Durham: Acumen Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiller, Friedrich. 2004. On the aesthetic education of man. Trans. Reginald Snell. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc.

  • Tanke, Joseph. 2011. Jacques Rancière: An introduction. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rika Dunlap.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dunlap, R. From freedom to equality: Rancière and the aesthetic experience of equality. Cont Philos Rev 48, 341–358 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-015-9333-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-015-9333-5

Keywords

Navigation