Tools and strategies of the parasite – and its closeness to the neoliberal as a chance and danger
On Parasite Art: Tools and strategies of the parasite – and its closeness to the neoliberal as a chance and danger
When confronted with the term parasite, our first impression might be a disgusting imagination, of a tic, a worm, or the immoral image of somebody living from somebody else. But if we look closer, we find many unexpected, interesting aspects and might come to see the parasite as a multilayered social figure that exists for the purpose of creating irritation. In this article Iwant to unfold on an artistic practice informed by this very perspective on the parasitic.
[GENEALOGY]
Before I dive into my practical conclusions and insights of the last few years, I want to focus on some aspects of the genealogy of the parasite. In contrast to the zoologically understood term of modernity, which involves certain images or experiences of parasites (ticks, worms, lice), the term “parasite” originally comes from antiquity, where it held a respected position. The origin of the term “parasite” lies in ancient Greece, where παράσιτος (Parásitos) referred to a “fellow eater or “eating next to someone.” In ancient Greek society, Parasitos was a servant of God who, together with the priest, ate the meal with the deity and was “para” (close) to the “sitos” (sacred grain, the food of the deity). This role described an elected temporary administrator who initiated and coordinated community projects of the temple. They lived from a small share of the grain that they had to collect for the deity and was not involved in the social economy of self-sufficiency. Later, the term parasite appeared in Rome as a role in the theater play, which created unexpected changes of plot. Afterward the term disappeared until the renaissance. Later on it was misused under the Nazi regime, with recourse to its biological/zoological level of meaning. The term parasite was only reclaimed in the 70s/80s in the poststructuralist theory and art scene; particularly by Jacques Derrida and Michel Serres, who described the parasite as a disruptor and irritant integral to society. This new discourse is part of counter-hegemonic approaches that try to challenge the capitalist paradigm.
Now I will focus on the parasite mostly in practical terms, as a figure which can give a guideline, a narrative and a practical tool for an artistic practice which stays subversive in a time of ongoing neoliberal appropriation. These insights and realizations about the parasite are rooted in my own artistic-activist experience and practice and my observation of other practitioners. For many years the figure of the parasite supplied me with a practical perspective and roadmap in my artistic practice.
[Parasite Art]
Building on this, to me, Parasite Art is a way of trying to find out how artistic practice can be rooted on a new ground, whose main receiver is not the art world, but rather the ordinary life of society. It is a practice that interferes, engages, and utilizes its own co-optation. Parasite Art irritates existing systems in their order of reproduction, not by showcasing a utopia or building solutions to systemic problems, but by simultaneously disturbing the routines of the given order and opening up niches of counter-hegemonic practice – practices which are not necessarily defined and named as such by the cultural milieu.
I chose the term Parasite Art in reference to different practical experiences and theoretical foundations. In the first place, the term harkens to French philosopher Michel Serres, who, in his 1982 book “The Parasite,” defined the parasite as a social phenomenon and developed a communication theory that builds on information and irritation. With irritation at its core, Parasite Art also refers to Chantal Mouffe and Oliver Marchart, who acknowledge the creation of conflict and counter-hegemonic methods within artistic practice. Marchart defines the aesthetic moment as the way in which an artwork creates conflict (previously described as irritation) and refers thereby to the concepts of political agonism by Mouffe, which builds up on her concept of hegemony. In the following section I will outline five tactics and strategies that characterize Parasite Art to then built a bridge to the potential of parasitic art in times of neoliberal appropriation and in connection with the ideas of Serres, Marchant and Mouffe
[Tactics and Strategies]
I have defined five tactics and strategies that characterize Parasite Art I relate my understanding to the definition of Michel de Certeau‘s notion of tactics that disrupt power structures, as well as on María Lugones’s extension to ‚tactical strategies’, which appropriate strategic spaces of power to perform tactical resistance.
The first tactic, “eating with” or/”bei jemanden essen‘ entails the artist discreetly living off and working within a host system‘s resources. “Camouflage” allows parasites to operate in their hosts‘ presence without being noticed, adapting in order to install an intervention. With the tactic of “leaving the habitat”, artists abandon familiar aesthetics, languages, and spaces dedicated to art, surprising unprepared audiences. “Hijacking” involves infiltrating systems, risking exposure, but potentially forcing assimilation of parasitic ideas. Together, these tactics amount to a dynamic range of interventions, each with unique potential for reshaping existing power dynamics.
The parasite acts as a parallel to the given systems where it interferes, and it is a phenomenon of borders, creating what is called an „irritation.“ This intentional disturbance deviates from conventional norms of communication, focusing on the systemic order it interrupts. By clandestinely occupying niches at the edge of a system, the parasite not only triggers irritation but also delineates the border itself. Existing on the tightrope between inside and outside, the parasite renders the border visible, merging the boundaries of the system with its own habitat and inhabitation.
The parasite thereby simultaneously bridges and breaks the dialectic of hegemonic orders. It lives off and from the host. It affirms and destroys. This paradoxical situation is the starting point of my research project.
Parasite Art leaves behind the endless debate between the traditional concept of the autonomy of art, on one end, and the claim towards an emancipatory practice through social and political engagement, on the other. It seems obvious that artistic value, which used to be determined by the artist’s formal and aesthetic decisions, is increasingly identified by its social value, which is determined by political and ideological decisions. That is the reason why one of my interest point of researching Parasite Art is to find an understanding of a Parasite Aesthetics which favors neither of these aesthetic and philosophical positions. Instead, parasite aesthetics takes these categories as a material to work with.
[neoliberal appropriation]
Financial capitalism, deregulated capitalism, or even Accelerationism are all about acceleration, innovation, and constantly reinventing oneself.
Thus Nancy Fraser speaks of a dangerous liaison between emancipatory practices and neoliberalism; a liaison whereby deregulation and inequality are not only supported, but legitimized as emancipatory. Can it be that neoliberal strategies incorporate parasitic practices so that they ultimately strengthen the dominant system and accelerate its development? As described above, irritation leads to adaptation and change – that is, to innovation. In the neoliberal logic, surplus is generated by reinventing the old, as this is how an enterprise fights for an edge or competitive advantage over other market actors.
How could the parasite ultimately escape the snare of neoliberal appropriation?
Regardless of any appropriation, the moment of disruption remains, which first of all contains nothing productive. According to Serres, the parasite is and remains the „last in the chain“ and therefore, after every appropriation of an innovation (a parasitic action), another parasite lines up at the end to latch onto the new system.
The notion of the parasite conceptually evades appropriation because it is understood relationally. Thus, the parasite is not the object, the actor itself, but instead a description of how actors in a system or network relate to each other.
Thus, even if a parasite is appropriated i.e. becomes part of the system or mainstream, only the signified i.e. the object itself, is appropriated in the process, not the condition of being parasite, that is, the concept itself (signifier).
To give an example: As soon as the inflatable sleeping bags of Michael Rakowitz’s paraSITE, which are heated inside by exhaust vents, no longer act as a niche instrument providing people with a warm place to sleep, but become part of an exhibition or official support strategies for the homeless, they are no longer a parasite. Instead, they become guests or hosts themselves. From that moment on, paraSITE is appropriated. The parasitic (signifier) of the paraSITE project leaves the object (signified), which mutates into a use value that serves a function but no longer generates irritation.
If the parasite is no longer considered to be a one-way relationship, then it remains to be asked what defines it at all. Wouldn‘t the parasite then be a neoliberal tool par excellence? For it is through irritation that the system ultimately reforms itself and can be maintained; this happens as the parasite generates tame irritations that lead to workable changes. We must then address the question of ideology and the extent to which the parasite is suitable as an ideological figure. Does the parasite mutate into a neoliberal concept, like diversity management or crowdfunding? It would then be a subversive guest – who is at once welcomed and abominated.
In this view, a Start-up could be considered a contemporary parasite. Start-ups seek a niche, usually appearing functionless at first, but then quickly mutate and move out of a counter-hegemonic position right into the center. They feed exclusively on the host called venture capital for the first few years, giving only a hope of success in return. They understand the camouflage or system language perfectly and usually act aggressively to prevail against competitors (e.g. grocery and meal delivery services, Uber, Lime, Gorillas) – these are all characteristics of a parasite. In doing so, they create disruption in an industry, they irritate, they gnaw at the orderly market shares and if they don’t fail, as 90% of start-ups do, they situate themselves in the market and then change sides: they become the host, the market dominator. All other start-ups, on the other hand, squander the irritation and the venture capital, as well as themselves and others, and disappear again. They operate with strategies like sweat equity or growth hacking – forms that operate with unpaid labor and public platforms and exploit their own resources to gain advantage in the market. The start-up appears as a parasite whose demise is speculated on, indeed almost reckoned with. But speculation on a parasite is already a sign of its appropriation.
Spotify, for example, began as a start-up; it was irritating, operated in a niche and ‚annoyed‘ the top dogs like iTunes or big labels, until it suddenly came out of the niche into the mainstream, lost the role of irritation and gained that of innovation, then dominant player in the market. So the recurring question is: where is the resistance in the parasite?
[conclusion]
I tried to demonstrate, that the figure of the parasite offers a bunch of new tactics and strategies which are able to even challenge the neoliberal and a system where you have the feeling it is to big to fail. On the other hand – as in the last paragraph – you can argument, that startups already perform parasitic tactics in their behavior to gain more revenue. What makes the difference is that start-ups want to become the dominant factor in the end, while parasite art, tries to continue cultivating its counter-hegemonic position. Parasite art don’t want to take over but to survive. And by surviving it creates irritation.
Bibliography
Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
Bax, Sander, Pascal Gielen, und Bram Ieven. Interrupting the city: artistic constitutions of the public sphere. Bd. no 20;no. 20.; Book, Whole. Amsterdam: Valiz, 2015.
Dillet, Benoît, und Tara Puri. The political space of art: the Dardenne brothers, Ai Weiwei, Burial and Arundhati Roy. Book, Whole. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield International, Ltd, 2016.
Fisher, Judith L. Thackeray’s Skeptical Narrative and the „Perilious [Perilous] Trade“ of Autorship / Judith L. Fisher. Nineteenth Century Series. Aldershot [u.a.], 2002.
Gage, Mark Foster. Aesthetics equals politics: new discourses across art, architecture, and philosophy. Book, Whole. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2019.
Gielen, Pascal, Niels Van Tomme, Zoe Beloff, und Jane Bemont. Aesthetic justice: intersecting artistic and moral perspectives. Bd. no. 14;no. 14.; Book, Whole. Amsterdam: Valiz, 2015.
Groys, Boris. Going Public. e-flux Sternberg Press, 2010.
Klanten, Robert, Matthias Hübner, Alain Bieber, Pedro Alonzo, Gregor M. Jansen, und Silke Krohn. Art & agenda: political art and activism. Book, Whole. Berlin: Gestalten, 2011.
Laclau, Ernesto, und Chantal Mouffe. Hegemony and socialist strategy. towards a radical democratic politics. London [u.a.]: Verso, 2001.
Lefebvre, Henri. The production of space. Malden, Mass.; Oxford [u.a.]: Blackwell, 2005.
———. The Urban Revolution. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003.
———. Writings on Cities. Cambridgbe: Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Marchart, Oliver. Conflictual aesthetics: artistic activism and the public sphere. Book, Whole. Berlin, Germany: Sternberg Press, 2019.
Mesch, Claudia. Art and politics: a small history of art for social change since 1945. Book, Whole. London;New York; I.B. Tauris, 2013.
Mezzadra, Sandro. Border as Method, or, the Multiplication of Labor / Sandro Mezzadra and Brett Neilson. Social Text Books. Durham [u. a.], 2013.
„Parasite : Political Concepts: Issue One“. Zugegriffen 25. Juli 2020. http://www.politicalconcepts.org/issue1/2012-parasite/.
Penthaus à la Parasit – raffinierte Reduktion mit grenzenloser Freiheit. Auf Immobilienscout 24., 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHd8sPvVCn8.
Rancière, Jacques. Aisthesis : Scenes from the Aesthetic Regime of Art / Jacques Rancière. 1. Engl. ed. London, 2013.
Schröder, Tim. „Gene als Schmarotzer“. Max Planck Forschung, Parasiten, 2018.
Serafini, Paula. Performance action: the politics of art activism. Book, Whole. Abingdon, Oxon;New York, New York; Routledge, 2018.
Serres, Michel. Der Parasit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1981.
———. The Parasite. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982.
Virmani, Arundhati. Political aesthetics: culture, critique and the everyday. Book, Whole. Abingdon, Oxon;New York, NY; Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business, 2015.
