Contrast: Playing Nice with Jullien

In addition to his general contrast between Western and Eastern metaphysics, Jullien presents a series of more specific contrasts between various Western and Eastern cultural entities (theorists, aesthetics, strategy). For this post, I want to focus on Part Two, or the section on art and aesthetics, which I believe most explicitly outlines the role and importance of Contrast within the notion of shi.

In his first section "Absence of Mimesis: Art Conceived as the Actualization of Universal Dynamism," Jullien explores the Chinese emergence of “an autonomous aesthetic mindset” following the disintegration of the unified empire at the close of the second century A.D. Contrasting this Eastern artistry with the West’s propensity for mimesis or representation, Jullien describes a Chinese aesthetic that simultaneously captures universality and particularity rather than merely depicting universality or particularity. He writes, “artistic activity was seen as a process of actualization, which produced a particular configuration of reality….The particular disposition that receives form can potentially express the universal dynamism” (75). In this way, the painting is not an replication of the dynamism within reality but is itself a new dynamic moment of reality. Shi innovates rather than recapitulates. Possible instruction: MOVE AWAY FROM REPETITION AND TOWARD INNOVATION. This is an instruction we know well by now, even if we do not always heed it.

As he moves to a more specific example of aesthetic shi (poetry and literature), Jullien complicates this notion of contrast as I have been presenting it as a movement from one place to another (away from X and toward Y). Instead, Jullien argues, one should “exploit the potentials of both those contrary qualities” in order to adequately reveal their essences which can only be grasped through their differences. Jullien warns, however, not to confuse this  contrast that promotes originality with the “contrariness, contradiction, and quasi-mechanical subversion” that leads to mere novelty (87). Contrast, as opposed to contradiction, strikes a balance between a subtle “tension” and an overt “saturation that permeates the tension and brings about relaxation and enjoyment.”

The important thing to glean from this example in thinking about our instructions for Contrast is to keep in mind that contrast maintains, rather than “moves away from,” differences, and not only that, but it maintains differences only to the extent to which the false resolution toward which tension inherently gravitates is forestalled by the “harmonious saturation” that makes the tension tolerable. An instruction: PUT YOUR CONTRASTS TOGETHER, BUT MAKE THEM PLAY NICE.

Two Instructions: Contrast

Ulmer brought up a few points about metaphysics last week that I think it would be useful to revisit here as I search for instructions for inventing electracy within Jullien’s text. First, Ulmer mentioned that we have no need to repeat the metaphysics of Aristotle (i.e. present a metaphysics of the “thing”), we already have one of those. What we need, according to Ulmer, is a metaphysics for electracy which, in contrast to the totalizing nature of Aristotelian metaphysics, operates at a more subjective level. Ulmer: “The claim of Internet Invention is that the wide image is a personal metaphysics.” As Ulmer pointed out in class, Jullien’s extrapolation of shi (propensity, tendency) in Chinese culture serves as a starting point for thinking about the shi of our wide image as a personal metaphysics which we can utilize for the invention process. From here, we are to use Jullien to explain the first slot in Ulmer’s  CATTt generator (Contrast).

Thus, the question guiding this blog post is: what does Jullien have to teach us about Contrast?

As a whole, Jullien’s text contrasts Western and Eastern metaphysics and, as Aaron pointed out in his email, Jullien strongly favors the Eastern notion of shi over the Western category, extrapolating shi’s general characteristics from particular cultural practices (e.g. calligraphy, landscape painting, etc.) while positing the static Western category as a general rule from the outset (13). Perhaps this bring us to our first instruction for Contrast: MOVE AWAY FROM THE GENERAL AND TOWARD THE PARTICULAR.

However, before I move to the particular, let’s stick around with the general for a second. This idea of “moving away from the general” seems like a good opportunity for a conductive puncept between General (Western abstraction) and General (army commander) considering the amount of attention Jullien gives to Chinese military tactics. As I pointed out in a previous post, Chinese Generals operated under the attitude of predestined victory: “victory is simply a predictable outcome of a balance that operates in his favor” (26). Winning a battle was not a matter of forcing one’s will upon the situation, but rather aligning one’s desired outcome with the shi of the situation.

Perhaps the Chinese General is a good figure to “move away from” due to the strong connotations of “victory” and “triumph” associated with him. What if, for electracy, “winning” is less important than “losing?” Another possible instruction for Contrast: MOVE AWAY FROM WINNING AND TOWARD LOSING.

Word Tools

In formulating instructions for the assignment, I am unsure If should focus on Jullien’s concepts or his method. The notion of shi is a very interesting one, and I think it holds great import for thinking about an electrate metaphysics due to its close attention to “the disposition of things,” as he puts it (13).

However, I also think that his etymomethodology (etymological methodology) is peculiar enough to grant equal (if not more) attention. He writes in his introduction: “I have accordingly decided to make the most of the fact that we have in shi a word that can serve as a tool, even though it may not correspond to any global, defined concept with a ready-made framework and pre established function. This fact will give us a chance to undermine the system of categories in which our Western minds are always in danger of becoming mired” (13).

Here, Jullien is rather explicit in outlining the purpose of his selection: shi is a rather ambiguous term within China’s cultural history. For this reason, and not because it is a poorly understood term that needs to be more clearly defined (i.e. put into a “category”), Jullien wants to follow it. In this way, Jullien’s methodological movement across the disparate realms of Chinese culture mirrors the concept he is trying to elucidate for the reader, which is, perhaps, the only way to actually understand shi in any genuine sense. One has to take on shi as a method (“as a tool”), not as another term to look up in a dictionary or index.

Perhaps an electrate metaphysics should take this kind of methodological approach to grasping its essential characteristics. If the electrate realm is fluid and affective, then perhaps its method must be fluid and affective as well. My question: what kind of word-tools (or image-tools, for that matter) should we follow in extrapolating an electrate metaphysics?

Forward Thinking

In The Propensity of Things: Toward a History of Efficacy in China, Francois Jullien traces the various deployments of the concept of shi in Chinese culture. Although an ultimate definition is never offered (nor desired) by Jullien, he characterizes it at one point as “the kind of potential that originates not in human initiative but instead results from the very disposition of things. Instead of always imposing our own longing for meaning on reality, let us open ourselves to this immanent force and learn to seize it” (13). Although one might initially brush this off as a typical material determinism/agency binary (which it no doubt is), Jullien quickly complicates the role of the agent in this scenario. The agent is not so much in control of the material elements of the situation, but rather the agent is in control of her position in relation to the material elements of the situation.

Since we are focused on Contrast, I want to think through the differences in Western and Eastern relationships to the material elements of a situation. Specifically, I want to explore the role of predestination within shi and how it can also be seen at work in the Western rhetoric of self-help.

In his chapter on shi in the military, Jullien writes about great Chinese generals who approached a battle with full knowledge of the events that would lead to their ultimate victory. Individual courage and bravery were less important than the dynamism that guided the entire situation. And later, in his chapter on landscape painting Jullien writes about the importance of “contour” (overall plan) over “wrinkles” (details) in the drawing of a mountain. Of the latter, Julien writes, quoting Fang Xun, “Once the shi of a mountain or a rock has been determined, ‘the aesthetic success of that mountain or rock is simultaneously guaranteed’” (99). 

In reading these approaches to various situations, I cannot help but be reminded of the trite self-help mantras that encourage us to “visualize our goals” or “imagine the reality of the success we want to attain.” To me, this doesn’t seem to be what Julien is referring to in these sections. These kind of attitudinal disposition (self help mantras) seems to posit agency back into the subject who can presumably will the situation she desires into existence. This is the moralism of Confucianism, the courage of the individual soldier.

It seems that the primary distinction between the predestination of shi and that of self help is the emphasis given to observation in the former. The general who wants to win the battle and the painter who wants to capture the landscape must not acquiesce their inner desire and force it upon the world, rather they must observe the tendency of the world itself and locate the points at which the world’s tendencies converge with their own. Shi is cartographic; self help is colonial.