TagsUser loginPopular contentToday's: |
Deadwood, or, Agamben needs MarxIn the season one finale, with Deadwood's annexation imminent, Al Swearengen struggles to avoid an outstanding warrant charging him with murder. Coming under the jurisdiction of the US government, Al would be subject to federal laws, whereas to this point, Deadwood has operated under a peculiar structure of lawlessness, which is no doubt structured, but structured in such a way that its absence of law in large part determines the structure itself. The following conversation between Al and the US Magistrate takes place:
Originally a bribe was to take care of the warrant, but after the first payment, the magistrate extended the demand to make it an ongoing blackmail. Which is to say that though murder won't quash a warrant, money will. But the real difference between Agamben and Marx is that the former would, I take it, say that the magistrate is right because the law, having been constituted by an act of sovereignty, can't help but continue constituting its own sovereignty (the indistinguishability of constituted and constituting power). Hence, the order (a power constituted by the sovereign) can't be murdered because it constitutes its own orders (telegraph transmissions). But this is only to focus on half of the magistrate's claim. The other half needs a Marxist analysis: what ensures the transmission of orders is the people who work for "food on their table"; it is the economic relation that determines the purview of power and guarantees its effective expression. Which is why it is so important that the magistrate thinks that putting food on the table will ensure that someone else will carry out the order of the warrant even if he himself is murdered.
|
SearchSyndicate |
Re: Deadwood, or, where Agamben needs Marx
So what is the status of the law and sovereignty in Deadwood? How do we theorize its application in a geography beyond its own purview? or perhaps a geography an anticipated purview? Yes, Agamben, in what I've read of him, doesn't discuss the application of the law so that it includes corruption / economic contingencies.
Deadwood additionally requires that we discuss human compassion, which it sees, I think, as a quality beyond law and order, a "law beyond law" ("Unauthorized Cinnamon," season three).
Part of what I'm thinking about here is a comparison-contrast between Al and Cy: as much as Al claims that "numbers" are all that matters to him, he continues to participate in the civilizing stuff to an extent that he even surprises himself. Cy, on the other hand, really is all about numbers and that makes him extra ruthless. How quasi-civilized the trial at the Gem is is revealed when it's compared to the trial at the Bella Union:
Compare also Al's treatment of the Rev. Smith and Cy's of Andy: in the latter case, if one is of no economic benefit, he or she doesn't matter; if one is of negative economic benefit, they deserve death and the application of that death is rather beside the point. This can all be predicted from Al's first encounter with Cy, the one wanting to work out an arraignment, human being to human being, and the latter wishing to let the market work it out. The dark and unspoken element here is the application of raw power, which Al uses with a bit of compassion and Cy with none at all that I can think of.
compassion as motive
True, Doug, I guess I'm stretching Agamben's applicability in applying his analysis of sovereignty to a space not yet included in the sovereign jurisdiction of the United States. And of course once Deadwood is US territory, the police – motivated by duty and salary – will carry out the order of law, at which point Agamben's analysis (for instance, of the guard in the camp) will explain that the (law) officer can operate outside the law because insofar as the camp exists, the law is always already potentially in a state of suspension. But the same analysis won't explain why some officer will be always ready to hand.
Why, for instance, does Swearengen assist Alma Garrett discover the value of her claim – a gesture that guarantees she won't sell the claim to Al? When Farnham suggests killing Bullock and Alma to obtain the claim ("No Other Sons Or Daughters"), Al's answer is telling:
In other words, what keeps Al from acting on E.B.'s advice is the prospect of greater potential future income – essentially, Al's investing in Seth Bullock as a "front man." And of course in "Sold Under Sin," Bullock indeed becomes that front man (and, indeed, to what extent is Seth himself bought – or does he sell himself – when he becomes sheriff?).
Now I'm not suggesting that Al only acts in profit-driven ways or that he never acts out of compassion – that would be a strong form of economism that I find naïve. Clearly, the example you offer – Al euthanizing Rev. Smith – demonstrates compassion, though the gesture isn't quite humanitarian – as David Milch reminds us in the DVD bonus, Al's brother suffered from seizures, and Al clearly identifies the minister with his brother when after Smith's death Al says, " You go now, brother." Again, that's not to say Al's not compassionate; he clearly still harbors significant sympathy for his brother, just as the alternative to Mrs. Anderson's orphanage Al offers his prostitutes is not devoid of compassion since he knows precisely what it's like to live with "fat Mrs. Fucking Anderson."
Al is certainly a beautifully rich character, as even the compassion we see here emerges from a self-absorbed vantage point. And this ambiguity (the ambivalence of Al?) infects even your interesting choice of the two "trials." Of course, the major difference that serves your argument, Doug, is that Jack McCall is found "innocent" rather than hanged, whereas the Anderson children are tortured, "found fuckin' guilty," and killed (and Joanie's forced to kill Flora to prevent her further torture). But just how civilized is the trial at Al's place at all? Isn't it really just a parody of a "legitimate" trial? Now maybe therein lies the value, but nevertheless, why does Al have McCall freed? If his line of persuasion with the judge (Magistrate Clagett) is any indication, it's quite similar to the reason he gives up on Alma's claim:
Al sees that it's crucial that the US government view Deadwood's juridical structure as sufficient but not identical to its own. If it's sufficient, it doesn't need replacing; if it's identical, it will have to follow US law – which would basically regulate Al's business out of existence.
So the trial's quasi-civilized in its form – and its result is more humane than the one at Cy Tolliver's – but it's not clear to me that this makes Al's behavior (or Cy's for that matter) inexplicable by Marxist analysis. And yet maybe your response would be that Agamben himself isn't out to explain human behavior. To which I can only say, Fair enough.
Re: Deadwood, or, where Agamben needs Marx
Of course the geography of Deadwood is not beyond sovereign territory, it's a threshold space, somewhere between law and fact. It is in a zone of indistinction, which I think Agamben says a thing or two about.