User:Cristinac/EnjoyPoverty
Sie wissen das, dennoch tun sie es
Is cynicism the ruling ideology in the documentary ‘Enjoy Poverty' ?
“Sie wissen das nicht, aber sie tun es” or “they do not know it, but they are doing it” is the phrase from Marx’s Capital that has provided a new understanding of the concept of ideology. As put forth by Marx, ideology is a discourse that promotes a false set of ideas around a political regime. The implication here is the schismatic quality of political validity: that it can be split into false and correct. However, in humanities, it is now generally considered impossible to reach an absolute truth.
Slavoj Zizek believes this approach to ideology is outdated; we are currently in an age in which we have formed a second nature of doubting the information we are being fed by politicians and the media. The main difference between Marx and Zizek’s notion of ideology is the role of naivety in the ideological system. In the former, naivety is the main constituent, bridging the gap between what is real and what is illusory. In the latter, naivety has lost its purpose: they know it, but they are still doing it. Postmodernism’s legacy has provided us with new tools of critical reasoning, of which the sharpest ones are irony and mistrust.
“Enjoy Poverty”, the documentary made by Dutch filmmaker Renzo Martens, is a perfect illustration of a new form of ideology: the ideology of cynicism.
In “The Critique of Cynicism” by Peter Sloterdijk, cynicism is defined as “enlightened false consciousness” (Sloterdijk, 5). The paradox is an assumed comment on the new tendency to act against one’s own values: we are aware of the perils of problematic political regimes, but instead of rebelling, we resume our compliance with a sneer. Enlightenment has taught us to see the downfalls, but hasn’t taught us how to react to them.
“The characteristic odor of modern cynicism is of a more fundamental nature – a constitution of consciousness afflicted with enlightenment that, having learned from historical experience, refuses cheap optimism. New values? No thanks! With the passing of defiant hopes, the listlessness of egoisms pervades. In the new cynicism, a detached negativity comes through that scarcely allows itself any hope, at most a little irony and pity.”
On his website, Martens describes his documentary as an “epic journey”, which incidentally follows the stages of a hero’s adventure: he leaves his ordinary life behind to follow the call to Congo, he is then confronted with the rules of a new society that he needs to accommodate to. During this time, he befriends locals and sets himself the task of empowering the community by revealing to them a most valuable resource in their possession: poverty. By using everything he has learned about the situation, he attempts to employ the skills of the local photographers in the same way as the westernized media does in a struggle to reverse the gaze. His plan fails in what is the disappointing realization of the impossibility of the subjects to objectify themselves. However, the fundamental aim has been achieved: he has carefully collected information with which he will return to his ordinary life. The irony of him perpetuating the situation he is criticizing by portraying only one particular instance of the exotic “other” is not lost on him. This is reflected in the scene towards the end in which he is asked by a local whether he will show them what he has been filming and the answer is, unsurprisingly, no. It is, after all, a film by the westerners for the westerners.
Cynicism is manifested through instances of mistrust. For example, as Martens approaches the first plantation, we see a middle shot of a worker wearing a shirt strewn with the logos of the companies that own it. It is a subtle remark that passes quickly, but still lingers with the viewer over the next few minutes. Another case of salvation branding is when he criticizes the sheets that were donated to the people of the village: all of them have the logo of their benefactor imprinted on them. This problem reoccurs when the local photographers want to gain access to the hospital: they don’t have a press badge, thus they cannot enter the system. Graphic devices such as logos become symbols of status, they indicate the role each participant plays in the spectacle. By revealing this hidden meaning to the Congolese, he is transferring his intrinsic view on charitable organizations and companies to them.
The purpose of the film seems to be an effort to pass on the burden of enlightenment to the unsuspecting people of Congo. What Martens does is to slowly implement the feelings of impotence and fatigue, by encouraging the locals to “embrace poverty”. To that end, he sets up a neon coloured sign reiterating the message in a language, which, quite symbolically, is foreign to them.
“An ideology critique that does not clearly accept its identity as satire can, however, easily be transformed from an instrument in the search for truth into one of dogmatism. […] In the end, the critic of ideology stands before the opposing consciousness like one of those modern, highly specialized pathologists who can, of course, say precisely what kind of pathological disturbance the patient is suffering from, but knows nothing about appropriate therapies because that is not his specialty. Such critics, like some medicos corrupted by their profession, are interested in the diseases, not in the patients.” (Sloterdijk, 19)
The immoral aspect of the documentary “Enjoy Poverty” lays not in unmasking the wrongs of ideology, but in the fetishist approach to cynicism. Martens’ quote, “Experiencing your poverty makes me a better person”, is inaccurate in the sense that it is actually the critique of poverty that makes him what he understands to be a better person.
[I think your idea to bring in Sloterdijk is great. I think you could expand this text further, by examining what Marten's is doing from your point of view and what is the place of ideology, as you read it, in this argument.?] [add bibliography- S]