H20 and the Waters of Forgetfulness E-Book

Ivan Illich

• Herausgeber: Marion Boyars
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 1986

Beschreibung

Philosopher and social analyst Ivan Illich, one of the most influential thinkers of second half of this century, directs his attention to waterm the 'stuff' of purity and the creative force of the imagination without which life in unthinkable. He deals with the dual nature of water, as life-giving material substance and as the wellspring of forml, on which are founded the most basic myths and cultural manifestations: water as cleanser, water as domestic necessity and water as a religious and spiritual force.

Leseprobe

Ideas in Progress

H2O and the Waters of Forgetfulness

IVAN ILLICH

Marion Boyars · London · New York

Contents

Title PageAbout the SeriesAcknowledgmentsH2O and the Waters of ForgetfulnessBibliographyBy the Same AuthorCopyright

About the Series

IdeasinProgress is a commercially published series of working papers dealing with alternatives to industrial society. Authors are invited to submit short monographs of work in progress of interest not only to their colleagues but also to the general public. The series fosters direct contact between the author and the reader. It provides the author with the opportunity to give wide circulation to his draft while he is still developing an idea. It offers the reader an opportunity to participate critically in shaping his idea before it has taken on a definite form. Future editions of a paper may include the author’s revisions and critical reactions from the public. Readers are invited to write directly to the author of the present volume at the following address:

Ivan Illich

Apdo. 479

Cuernavaca, Mor.

Mexico

Acknowledgments

In May 1984 Gail Thomas and her colleagues invited me to Dallas for a short lecture. I promised to correct my manuscript for publication, and it turned into this book. This book, however, is not based directly on the lecture but rather on a German version of it that Ruth Kriss-Rettenbeck has prepared. Only in another language and through her questions did I come to realize the potential that lay in my original text. I am grateful to The Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture for printing the galleys of this book in time for a seminar on the “Historical Heuristics of Body Images” that I was then conducting with Barbara Duden. Susan Hunt has revised every line of my text and Beverly Hall gave shelter and assistance while I corrected the final manuscript. I admire Scott and Susan Dupree for their ability to typeset a book from my manuscript that resembled a quilt.

What the reader will find in these pages is literally an “essay”, an attempt: a text surrounded by glosses, tangents, and marginalia that I have added in the course of many conversations.

H2O and the Waters of Forgetfulness

Dallas Town Lake

I understand that in Dallas during the last seventy years numerous citizen groups have urged the construction of a midcity lake. At the beginning of the century such a project would have amounted to a modest enterprise; now it has taken on the dimensions of an extravaganza. During 1984, yet another group of experts has been mulling over the technical feasibility and social acceptability of drowning a dozen midtown blocks. Proponents of the lake anticipate that it will irrigate business and fantasy, taxes and recreation; opponents consider the proposal an elitist misappropriation of public funds. Among the many arguments that have been raised, tabled, and warmed over for seven decades, one stands out. Both those who want to push and those who want to stop the lake imply that the natural beauty of a body of water would be morally uplifting to the civic life of Dallas.

TheNudeintheTub

The popular wisdom which holds that water possesses “natural beauty” and that this beauty has impact on civic morale is not always overtly expressed. However, you have only to poke fun at the belief in the civic magic of a body of water, and people react as if you had made a dirty joke. This, I claim, is so because water, which has always been perceived as the feminine element of nature, in the nineteenth century was tied to a new “hygienic” image of woman, which was itself a creation of the Victorian age. Only the late nineteenth century tied female nudity as a cultural symbol to the tap water of the bathroom. The proximity of suds and nude in the bath domesticated both water and flesh. Water became that stuff that circulates through indoor plumbing, and the nude became the symbol of a new fantasy of sexual intimacy defined by the newly created domestic sphere.

The evolution of the subtle ties between water and the nude can be observed, in all its complexity, in the paintings of the period. The painter found it less and less necessary to justify the nude by presenting her in religious or mythological terms. By showing her as bather he could merge woman and water as part of “nature.” Only a rare genius such as Courbet could successfully paint TheSource as a woman of incredible specificity, utterly lacking in self-consciousness yet bluntly assertive of her flesh. For the run-of-the-mill painter, this association of flesh with water served to render the feminine body innocuous. First, in the course of Ingres’s long life, the term nude became synonymous with the Turkish bath. Then the aging Degas filled his atelier with tubs, bowls, and basins in which to pose his models. His pastels offer a historical source for the domestic bath during the late nineteenth century. It is not so much the nude he paints as woman’s absorption in the relationship of her body to the water with which she sponges herself.1

The intertwining of urban water and the nude constitutes one of the strands of a taboo woven to protect the symbolism of public water use from analysis. We may, for instance, debate quite openly our selection of the architect who will dress up the stuff that runs through Dallas pipes. We feel free to criticize the way he displays it, makes it dance or sparkle. But we do not feel free to question the natural beauty of water itself because we know, yet cannot bear to acknowledge, that this “stuff” is recycled toilet flush.

TheHistoricityof“Stuff”

I want to question the beauty intrinsic to H2O because The Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture has offered to make its own telling contribution to the dispute over Town Lake. We have been invited to discuss “water and dreams” insofar as they contribute to “making the city work.” The title of this conference was taken from a book just translated and published by members of the Institute. WaterandDreams was written forty years ago by Gaston Bachelard.2 It is one of a series of essays in which he analyzes the way we imagine matter, that “stuff” to which our imagination gives shape and form. I shall continue along the lines of Bachelard’s investigation, distinguishing “stuff” and its form, and reflect on the bond the imagination creates between two kinds of stuff from which a city is made: urban space and urban water.

The interrelationship between water and space may be explored on two different levels. The first deals with form. On this level comparison focuses on the common aesthetic features a period’s imagination has given to urban water and to urban space. An epoch’s contribution to the style of their perception and representation is at the core of this approach to poetry or painting, sculpture or dreams. The question is “How did baroque art use or show water?” not “What does the epoch believe water is?” Water itself, on this first level, has no history; since “the beginning, when the earth was unsightly and unfinished,” water was H2O. According to this hypothesis all stories of creation from around the world tell about the origin of the same stuff, since the “stuff” as such is a-historical.

I do not intend to explore water in this fashion—nor, for that matter, space or the imagined bond that unites them.3 From the start I shall refuse to assume that all waters may be reduced to H2O. I will not deal with city space as though it could be universally defined in terms of Cartesian coordinates or of census criteria. For not only does the way an epoch treats water and space have a history: the very substances that are shaped by the imagination—and thereby given explicit meanings—are themselves social creations to some degree.

I want to explore the historicity of matter, the sense that an epoch’s imagination has given to the canvas on which it paints its imaginings, to the silence of a room into which it projects its music, to the space that it fills with the aura that it can taste or smell.4 The attempt to do so is not new: and the evidence that it always fails is no reason for refraining from trying again, to write the history of life’s widow as Luis de Sandoval y Zapata, a seventeenth-century Mexican, calls this “stuff” in a baroque poem translated by Samuel Beckett.

To Primal Matter

Within how many metamorphoses,

matter informed with life, hast thou had being?

Sweet-smelling snow of jessamine thou wast,

and in the pallid ashes didst endure.

Such horror by thee to thyself laid bare,

king of flowers, the purple thou didst don.

In such throng of dead forms thou didst not die,

thy deathbound being by thee immortalized.

For thou dost never wake to reason’s light,

nor ever die before the invisible

murderous onset of the winged hours.

What, with so many deaths art thou not wise?

What art thou, incorruptible nature, thou

who hast been widowed thus of so much life?

Wateras“Stuff”

The substance that is considered “water” or “fire” varies with culture and epoch. And water is always dual. It tends to stand for the original couple—more often than not for the twins who before creation lay in each other’s arms. Water envelops what exists before space was. Water is the blood that nourishes even before milk can flow. Many things can be waters: there are some cultures in which the salty ocean is as unlike blood as it is unlike the water that quenches thirst. And there are jungle cultures in which heaven and earth are perceived as just so many different manifestations of water. Among the Indians on the Venezuelan border of Brazil, even the dead turn to water after thrice seven years to return to earth as women, who are perceived as dew.

Even the border between water and fire can shift. In Vedic mythology soma is the fire that envelops all being and that flows and ebbs around the sun; it is fire that can be drunk. In Arabic alKo’hol is a fine metallic powder that is sublimated from mercury and used to embellish women; when applied as a shade to the eyelids it renders them intoxicating. Only after Paracelsus had distilled alcohol from wine was its intoxicating power ascribed to a spirit of water. Thus the very “stuff” that is watery, no less than its form, lies in the eyes of the beholder.

In making this distinction between imagination as the source of form and imagination as the wellspring of formless “stuff” I am building on a foundation established by Gaston Bachelard. In his writings he returns again and again to a fundamental contrast between two mutually constitutive aspects of imagination: a formal one and a material one. The form and matter of our imagining cannot be understood separately because one cannot exist without the other. But the fact that we cannot separate our experience of passion from the element of fire and cannot imagine fire without passion in no way implies that the two are at all times perceived as versions of the same principle. Love, the hearth, rage, war, and passion are kindled. They are set aflame by contact with a “stuff” that is imagined as fire. In each culture the line that separates the inflammable from the fireproof divides reality in a different way. In the south of Mexico there are two tribes which share the same territory: in one tribe women inflame men’s desire and in the other they liquefy men’s innards. But in both beneath the mass of images, verbal variations, moods, tactile experiences, and lights that shape water in our imagination, there is a stable, dense, slow, and fertile watery stuff that obscurely vegetates within us. It lies beyond the reach of any one of our separate senses: “its black flowers bloom in matter’s darkness” and become visible when the imagination lets them “sing reality.” The time has come for historians to begin listening to “the sonority of these dormant waters” (Bachelard) to become sensitive to the history of matter.

Following dream waters upstream, the historian will learn to distinguish the vast register of their voices. As his ear is attuned to the music of deep waters, he will hear a discordant sound that is foreign to waters, that reverberates through the plumbing of modern cities. He will recognize that the H2O which gurgles through Dallas plumbing is not water, but a stuff which industrial society creates. He will realize that the twentieth century has transmogrified water into a fluid with which archetypal waters connot be mixed. With enough money and broad powers to condemn and evict, a group of architects could very well create out of this sewage a liquid monument that would meet their own aesthetic standards. But since archetypal waters are as antagonistic to this new “stuff” as they are to oil, I fear that contact with such liquid monumentality might make the souls of Dallas’s children impermeable to the water of dreams. In voicing this fear, I am not arguing against the construction of a lake that would provide moorings for inexpensive rowboats, cool the city, and sparkle at night. Pleasure boats, temperatures, and the reflection of skyscrapers are not my concern here. I want to deal with waters and dreams. I want to explore the moral and psychological consequences that will flow from the public display of recirculated toilet flush with pretense to the aesthetic symbol of a wedding between water and urban space.

Dwelling Space: Neither Nest nor Garage

The same distinctions concerning the smell, sight, taste, and tactility of this ineffable stuff called water can also be applied to urban space. Each culture shapes its own space, the very space it engenders in becoming a culture. Space is not, as Durkheim says in one brilliant passage, the homogeneous environment that the philosophers have imagined.5 Space is a social creation which results from the all-embracing asymmetrical complementarity enshrined in each culture.