Politics, Performance, and Non-Participation

Abstract

I would prefer not to. —Bartleby, the Scrivener (1853) Like Bartleby, the legal clerk who famously decides that he would prefer not to, this issue of Performance Paradigm investigates the politics and performance of non-participation. The figure of Herman Melville’s Bartleby appears everywhere in political theory and philosophy: in Gilles Deleuze’s “Bartleby, ou la formule” (1989); in Giorgio Agamben’s companion piece (1993; published in English 1999); in Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s Empire (2000); and in Slavoj Žižek’s The Parallax View (2010). In performance, his spirit manifests in Noor Afshan Mirza and Brad Butler’s project Museum of Non-Participation (2007) as well as in Mette Edvardsen’s Time has fallen asleep in the afternoon sunshine (2010), wherein a single performer recites Melville’s story to a single audience member for half an hour. In performance scholarship, Bartleby recently appeared in Daniel Sack’s After Live: Possibility, Potentiality and the Future of Performance (2015). Perhaps we hear him in phrases such as “don’t do it on my account” and catchphrases like “computer says no.” We might even see him, his slogan printed on a bag or a t-shirt. What are we to make of the fact that more than 160 years after Bartleby first appeared, both pizza ads and productivity coaches proclaim: “No is the new yes” (Huffington Post 2012; Kellaway 2017; Schwartz 2012)? And what is the difference between the “no” and the “non” when it comes to participation? One can choose not to participate (refuse) or one may be excluded from participation, which is altogether different. Is to refuse important in and of itself or should it build towards action; is it, in fact, more a type of action—a striking against—than non-participation? If so, then what can be said about the inaction of non-participation, for it surely produces significant effects?