30 09 13

Dildrone Manifesto (ENG)

In Moscow, on May 17, 2008, a flying, radio control­led cock-and-balls, hen­ce­forth known as a dil­drone, bar­ged into a hall where a press confe­rence was taking place. In fact as ear­ly as 2006, a swarm of dil­drones had alrea­dy dis­tur­bed a pre­sen­ta­tion by a vir­tual real estate agent in Second Life. Regardless of the seve­ral poli­ti­cal mes­sages it expres­sed whe­re­ver, the irrup­tion of the dil­drone, on its own or mul­ti­plied, has ins­pi­red us to the fol­lo­wing decla­ra­tion.

For us the dil­drone is a sort of anhy­po­the­ti­cal prin­ciple for any speech situa­tion, a prin­ciple whose value lies in its capa­ci­ty to regu­late dis­course and action in a broad sense. If it were not a giant flying cock, it would just be ano­ther buz­zing trope in the junk­shop of eve­ry­day menace (cf. Damocles). But as it stands, the dil­drone bears a double effi­cien­cy :

— Actually, as a defa­ming machine.
— Potentially, as a flu­sher-out of sym­bo­lic domi­na­tions.

***

Actually, the dil­drone comes into direct com­pe­ti­tion with dis­course, by cove­ring it with a trea­so­nous bom­bi­na­tion. Its contes­ta­tion of a dra­ma­tur­gy of speech acts makes it a defa­ming machine (dis- + fama is the ori­gin of the legal notion of defa­ma­tion, defi­ned as an inju­ry to repute). The dil­drone defames, dis­ho­nours, in that it endan­gers those dis­courses which bet eve­ry­thing on the audien­ce’s sim­ply assen­ting to a dis­play of repute at work. It inter­rupts any com­placent « per­for­mance of sta­tus » which hopes to reduce the dis­course to its attri­butes of social pene­tra­tion.

Dildrone spins the wheel. Dildrone sweeps the field.

The ins­ti­tu­tio­nal legi­ti­mi­cy of place (cf. the height of the cei­ling) is tur­ned into the ally of a suc­cess­ful dil­drone irrup­tion. Height in buil­dings is a form of archi­tec­tu­ral inti­mi­da­tion, known to cog­ni­tive anthro­po­lo­gy as « han­di­cap signals ». These, the dil­drone scrambles and neu­tra­lises. Its mean­de­ring fre­quen­ta­tion of moul­dings and alloyed false cei­lings makes it a par­ti­cu­lar­ly tri­cky indi­vi­dual to show the door to.

***

O dil­drone, orga­nesque fly,
Half shaft, half drone, when seen from side
Like a sal­mon in the Rhône, or tired trout mousse.
O Hero.
Once, at the Creamlin, the dild did tilt -
Point !
Not the Creamlin. He. Helicious beast !
Drone sla­shed from air, pran­cing in risible
Fritters in front
Of the enno­bled bubbles.

***

Potentially, the dil­drone iden­ti­fies that which exerts such indi­mi­da­tion in a given dis­course, and strips it of it. Political dis­course is obvious­ly the arche­type of an object cal­ling for dil­dro­nic inter­ven­tion – poli­ti­cal dis­course waits for the dil­drone. But on the mez­za­nine level, where rhe­to­ric has moved over onto the couch, the phal­lus is a func­tion that owf­fyedn­fll regu­lates the degrees of sym­bo­lic inten­si­ty within a dis­course.

The dil­drone, being pros­the­tic, naive, bom­bi­na­ting, sau­cy, and a tad mora­lis­tic, unseats pos­tures that sly­ly tigh­ten the screws while playing down the appea­rance of autho­ri­ty, those that come on the scene in the guise of eman­ci­pa­to­ry dis­courses with their own accom­pa­nying dil­dremes in tow, that is to say, dis­cur­sive tropes that dis­place the assent onto their per­for­mance of accep­table sta­tus.

The dil­drone flies in to peck at, and the­re­by reveal, these anti­ci­pa­to­ry arro­ga­tions of its own effec­ti­ve­ness. Not in the sligh­test a jea­lous re-clai­ming of the upper hand, the dil­drone is rather always alrea­dy rea­dy to pull out the rub­ber duck of mat­ter and ridi­cule from under the self-secure bath of clean public speech ; it does not stand being sat down on for long. The real­ly pusil­la­ni­mous clai­mer of dis­cur­sive power will always find, at the end the forest-path of assent, a dil­dro­nic bri­gand who lies in wait to strip all spu­rious­ly gathe­red medals.

Considering the above, we hen­ce­forth place all of our wri­ting beneath the aspect of the dil­drone. Any dis­course into which the irrup­tion of a dil­drone could be dama­ging is, for us, dis­qua­li­fied. Any dis­course which hap­pens to be threa­te­ned by this irrup­tion doesn’t exist for us (any more).

August 31st 2013, Berlin
Antoine Hummel, Jacques Praillon (aug­men­ted trans­la­tion Sam Langer)

 

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

W’e’ve sub­mit­ted the rea­ding of seve­ral wri­ters to the irrup­tion of the dil­drone. Despite the temp­ta­tion to cele­brate Rabelais, we’ve exclu­ded him from this ran­king, since dil­drones, in his works, can pro­li­fe­rate like car­bon nano­tubes and exist like an ordi­na­ry fau­na of bloo­mers amid­st the dai­sies.

Gombrowicz and the dil­drone, + + +
Bataille and the dil­drone, + +
Proust and the dil­drone, +

Dante and the dil­drone, 0 (sta­le­mate)

Roubaud and the dil­drone, -
Valéry and the dil­drone, – -
Blanchot and the dil­drone, – - -