Manteia, Mediality, Migration

Manteia, Mediality, Migration 1. ‘Go to Croton!’ When Odysseus, on his return to Ithaca disguised as a Cretan nobleman, meets the swineherd Eumaeus, the old man will not believe inΝhisΝmaster’sΝever coming home again. For him, the king has been long since dead – probably torn to pieces by birds or beasts, swallowed by fishes, buried deep in the sand of a foreign shore. Therefore, every ‘remarkable’ evidence or account from travelers who reach the island and bring news about Odysseus seems nothing but ‘a very pretty story for a shirt and a cloak’.1 However, the ‘stranger’ provides yet another such story (and will, in fact, be rewarded a cloak): Odysseus, he declares, will return in this self same year, putting an end to his long time of exile; meanwhile he is off to Dodona ‘that heΝmightΝlearnΝJove’sΝmindΝfromΝtheΝgod’sΝhighΝoakΝtree, and know if after so long an absence he should return to Ithaca openly, or in secret’. 2 The narrative does not explain whether Odysseus has really visited the oldest known oracle of ancient Greece, situated in a valley in the north-west of the country and indeed not too far away from his native island, and whether his present disguise follows divine counsel. Although Eumaeus does not believe a single word and asks reproachfully: ‘Why should a man like you go about telling lies in this way?’,3 the protagonist’sΝclaim remains uncertain and – just like the stranger himself – on a threshold. His ‘fiction within a fiction’ may either be a reference to a preceding event that has gone untold or a tale conceived to obfuscate the identity of its teller. In any case, τdysseus’ΝreportΝaboutΝ‘his’Ν visiting the sanctuary of Dodona establishes a connection between oracular practice and spatial movement, between a certain mode of decision-making and geographical transition. HoweverΝprecariousΝtheΝ‘ontological’ΝstatusΝofΝtheΝOdyssey’sΝhypodiegeticΝinsertΝmayΝbe,ΝitsΝ linking of augury and voyage is readopted and made manifest by the myth of the Argonauts. When Jason and his crew embark on their journey to Colchis – a movement which appears as ‘enantiomorphous’ reflection of Odysseus’, inasmuch as it leads from west to east and passes through many points which are evaded by the other – they fit a plank fromΝϊodona’sΝoakΝtreeΝ into the keel of the Argo – ‘a structural addition that had the useful feature of being able to speak, to guide, or warn the Argonauts, rather like a sort of early form of GPS’.4 In this 1 The Odyssey (Butler), Book XIV, p. 184. Ibid. 189. 3 Ibid. 4 Eidinow (2007) 67. 2 1 manner, the Argonauts receive instructions about their position and course without having to read landmarks, weather conditions, wayward currents, or the stars in the night sky. In fact, visiting the oracle and seeking signs of destiny was not only necessary to prepare heroic feats, but rather common practice. At least since the eighth century and until the rise of Christianity, Dodona drew visitors from all over the Mediterranean who sought to learn the will of the gods – especially with the social, cultural and political reality of the oracle’sΝsphereΝofΝinfluenceΝbecomingΝincreasinglyΝmobileΝor mutable. It stood in the centre of widely dispersed colonizing expeditions and migrations, intercultural and technological exchange processes, circulations of goods, skills and people, new forms of expansion and connection, new routes, lines, paths. 5 Driven by the promises and horrors of an unknown future in times of general unrest and longing for guidance, warning and reassurance, many turn to the oracle. They (or the scribes in a sacerdotal reception centre) inscribe the questions, together with an occasional ‘identifying mark’, ‘initials’ or ‘reference to some aspect of the question’,6 on small leaden sheets, roll them up and file them at the sanctuary. Those tablets which have survivedΝ fromΝ ϊodona’sΝ heydayΝ and are now housed by the Archeological Museum of Ioannina reveal a range of concerns, from communal and professional matters to family life, from concrete trade issues to the delicacies of love. And not least, they address the possibility of relocation, of diasporas and migration to other parts of the country or foreign places. The questions unfold both a discourse and corresponding geographical space which, although its terrains are still in production and its borders still fluid, spreads through several regions on the mainland, along the western shores of Greece, to Acroceraunia, Epidamnos and Orikos, then traverses the Adriatic Sea and reaches the coastal areas of the colonies in southern Italy: If I emigrate, will I succeed in my craft? | Should I remain in my place of birth or move to Taras? | Ariston asks Zeus Naios and Dione whether it is better for me and if I will be able to sail to Syracuse, to the colony, later? | Nikomachos asks Zeus Naios whether he will fare better by having moved his registration from Herakleia to Taras? | Is it better for myself, my children and my wife to settle in Croton?7 5 For a history of the oracle see: ibid. 56ff. Ibid. 71. 7 ‘π λὶ ὰμ Ϋξθαμ πσ λκθ πκ αηΫπθ’Ν(2954A), Dakaris, Vokotopoulou, Christidis (2013), vol. ΙΙ, 161; ‘Θ σμ· Ἀλέ πθ ἐλπ ὸθ έα ὸθ ΝΪρκθ εαὶ ὴθ βσθ θ ἰ ζσρσθ ηκδ εαὶ ἄη θκθ εαὶ υθάκηαδ πζ θ ἰμ ΢υλαεσ αμ πλὸμ ὴθ πκδεέαθ ὕ λκθ’νΝ ‘Νδεσηαξκμ ἐλπ ῇ ὸθ έα [ ]ὸθ ΝΪρκθ ἦ πκΰλαοΪη[ ]θ[κ]μ εα ἐμ ΣΪλαθ α ἐι Ἡλαεζβέαμ ἄη δθκθ’νΝ‘Θ σμ· τξα ΰαγΪ· π λὶ παθπα έαμ εαὶ FκδεΫ δκμ ἰμ Κλ<σ> κθα ̃ ίΫζ δκθ εαὶ ἄη δθκ<θ> αὐ κῖ εαὶ ΰ θ δ εαὶ ΰυθαδεέ’Ν(ἀ4Α), ibid. vol. Ι, 12. 6 2 Not being Zeus, it certainly is difficult to gather in retrospect the reason and full meaning of each inquiry – for instance, when a certain Ariston wishes to find out whether he should travel to Syracuse ‘later’ (the word may indicate, as Esther Eidinow suggests, ‘some anxiety about the dangers of being in a first wave of colonizers or, perhaps, that he will miss out if he is not in that initial group’) or when Nikomachos, presumably a metic or ‘resident alien without citizen rights’ seems concerned with the possible advantages of changing his ‘registration’έ 8 What we do know, is that the high priest – that is, the medium which is responsible for encoding, transferring, receiving and decoding the signals coming from god – is part of a highly complex assemblage of elements. This medium, this transmitter and highfidelity receiver, conveys the message and interprets the reply in a setting of multiple human as well as non-human components, the supplicant, the socio-economic background, the religious institution of the oracle, the landscape, overshadowed by Mount Tomaros, the leaden sheets, the aspect of literacy, the realm of the gods who make themselves heard through the rustling of oak leaves, the gurgling of water, cooing of doves or tinkling of bronze objects hanging from the branches like wind chimes. All this, the whole composite and diffuse flow of sounds, would then be synthesized into signs (and sometimes even into well worded hexameters)... It therefore seems rather consistent when Jordan Stein describes the oracle at Delphi as aΝ ‘primitive game of telephone’ (even if this association of prophetic practice and technological device calls for more detailed elaboration), anΝancientΝ‘χlexanderΝύraham Bell System’ that spreads from ‘Apollo to the Pythia to the priests to the paying customer, where theΝ holyΝ wordΝ wasΝ translatedΝ intoΝ humanΝ speech,Ν andΝ thenΝ onceΝ againΝ ontoΝ theΝ receiver’sΝ life’.9 Considering, however, the number of participating agents and materials in the booming industry of Delphi or Dodona, the manifold interconnected parts and their cultural significance, it is comprehensible only in the narrowest sense of a history of ‘media-based communication’Νto call this well-run apparatus ‘primitive’έ On the contrary, it presents itself as highly effective: provided that the inquirer hazards to call the beyond and the operator puts through, the process can sometimes result in a surprisingly clearΝ‘yes’ΝorΝ‘no’, written down on the metalΝsheets’Νflipside: ‘ΜΫθ [ ’: Stay! Or: ‘ θ Κλσ κθδ’: Go to Croton! 8 9 Eidinow (2007) 74. Stein (2017) 4. 3 fig. 1: Front side with human question / back side with divine answer: inscribed leaden tablet, Archaeological Museum of Ioannina, Greece10 Incidentally, this very consistent and unmistakable imperative from the other end of the telephone line demonstratesΝtheΝsanctuary’sΝgeopoliticalΝfunction and significance. Especially with respect to the important issues of expansion and emigration,Ν theΝ oracle’sΝ mediationsΝ between Zeus and a community of potential settlers and migrants encourage, initiate, command, prohibit and control specific projects of colonization.11 To a certain degree at least, they regulate the flows, times or destinations of migration. 2. Yes/No Being well aware of current conceptualizations of migration as an undecidable and desubjectivized process of becoming or directionless occupation of space,12 and also of the more fundamental statementΝ byΝ ϊeleuzeήύuattariΝ thatΝ ‘whenever a multiplicity is taken up in a structure, its growth is offset by a reductionΝinΝitsΝlawsΝofΝcombination’,13 I want to translate, in the context of this chapter, theΝoracle’sΝdifferential yes or no into a basic operation of both medium and migration, into a definition of the medium as a decision-machine in the context of migration (one will, however, notice that this binary model harbours many unexpected dynamics, inconsistencies and points of friction which open up or transcend the allegedly simple dichotomy as well as the indefinite succession of secondary dichotomies or pairs that try to constitute a poor image of multiplicity). In general, a medium could then be determined as device that prepares, supports, proclaims, documents, archives and in some cases even 10 Dakaris, Vokotopoulou, Christidis (2013) vol. I, 12. See εalkinΝ(ἀί11)ΝηημΝ‘The Greek cities, especially in the Western Mediterranean, were often connected with the oracle of Delphi, who not only had provided them with a foundation prophecy, but also functioned as an ongoing mediator between Apollo, the sending communities, the settlers and further migrants. Delphi, emerging as a major Hellenic hub in tandem with the spread of Greek colonization (eighth – seventh centuries), was also in a position to place specific colonization projects within Panhellenic contexts. Delphi provides a colonization oracleΝinΝorderΝtoΝencourageΝfurtherΝimmigrationέ’ 12 For example: Papadopoulos/Tsianos (2007). 13 Deleuze/Guattari (1987) 6. 11 4 makes a decision. In fact, media are connected to processes of decision on more than one level: First, they can serve as a tool which manages, deals with, or realizes a distinction/selection which itself appears as exterior to the medium and as itsΝ‘object’ (this is the case of Dodona, a map or the Global Positioning System which allows the user to decide withoutΝtakingΝintoΝaccountΝtheΝinstrument’sΝmannerΝofΝfunctioningΝorΝ‘inner’Νorganization). Second, a medium can incorporate the distinction/selection between two or more elements on a structural level, resulting in an interface or mode of operation that is necessarily based on choice (say, a coin toss to determine the next step of action, the sequence of mutually exclusive TV channels or – even – the hyper-spatial possibilities of internet links). And third, a medium might rely on distinction/selection on a technical level (as, for instance, the dots and dashes of binary Morse signals or the zero-one of digital code). It is obvious that these three levels are combinable; in any case, they support the proposition that a medium can essentially be seen as a selection complex. With respect to the ancient oracles of Dodona or Delphi, the decision process may of course seem somewhat erratic when every once in a while the gods do not provide a distinct imperative. One might even speculate that it is the very essence of a prophetic medium to develop a tendency of affirming and denying at the same time, or of neither affirming nor denying: Roland Barthes reminds us that the ancient soothsayer ‘speaks the locus of meaning but doesΝnotΝnameΝit’,14 in other words, the medium confirms the production of meaning and delineates its course, but it does not exhibit or designate this meaning, thus creating the conflictual source of more than one Greek tragedy. Whether the product of a divine mindset colliding with the framework of earthly demands, or a result of that odd ventriloquism which places the voice of god into the mouth of a priest – the oracular media complex always seems to carry a strong element of ambiguity and obfuscation. It never says what it means, takes the form of riddles, programmatically disguises its data and begrudges the truth, as Anne Carson would put it,15 thereby suspendingΝanyΝsimpleΝcertitudeέΝχsΝaΝ‘double-entendre’ and shifting message that invites more than one way of reading, it forces a further translation on the side of the consultant, who, called or invocated by two voices or tongues at once, still has to make the choice of this rather than that. However, all this does not interfere with the basic binary structure of distinction/selection (after all, we are still speaking of double meanings, of two sides, and there always exists a wrong way); and not every transmission generates a riddle; not every response includes ‘ambiguous, unclear, or conditioned commands, ambiguous 14 15 Barthes (1972) 219. Carson (1999) 23. 5 prohibitions or warnings’. 16 And what is more, even if and especially when the message becomes ambiguous instead of giving clear instructions regarding the alternatives of our destinyΝandΝdestination,ΝthisΝincalculabilityΝattestsΝtoΝtheΝmedium’sΝbasic differential essence. In his reflections on Organization and Decision, Niklas Luhmann defines the paradox of decisions as precisely their dependency on the undecidable. Citing Gödel, he maintains that we can only decide those questions which are in principle undecidable, that undecidability is in fact the fundamental presupposition for any decision which, in turn, is the only way to dissolve a point of undecidability. What may appear like mere wordplay can in fact reveal that every decision ends a previous phase of undecidability17 (and what Luhmann thus reduces to aΝ‘problemΝofΝtime’ΝwillΝhappilyΝinsistΝinΝdeconstruction’sΝunderstandingΝofΝanΝundecidabilityΝ that cannot be solved and will survive in the heart of every decision made). With a view to both system theory and deconstruction, the oracle’sΝ equivocal answer is therefore closely interwoven with, but does never produce undecidability; it is precisely its equivocality that enables and even forces a decision between yes and no, one and zero, casting the own son out of Thebes or being killed by him (fig. 2/A). Another aspect of the medium as a decision apparatus: its inner workings, the factors that determine the reply, the decision process itself remains impenetrable (the pilgrim in Dodona has no understanding of manteia; its machinations take place behind the curtain, on the other side of the perceptible). While we may certainly speak of ‘input’ or ‘output’, while previous and following events may suggest a detectable connection between cause and effect which are linked or processed in the moment of decision, the divine computations that happen between the one and the other remain a mystery; the medium, the whole complex – including priest, nature, god, rules of communication, politics – can only be described as ‘black box’. While something enters the box from one side, and something leaves the box in a certain direction on the opposite side, the internal diversion is opaque and cannot be analyzed (fig. 2/B). In summary, a ‘medium’ is a nodal point where a process reaches a bifurcation. Here, a complex of factors (which all belong to the arrangement of the medium) participates in the distinction/selection between two or more possibilities, thus determining the further direction of the process (fig. 2/C). In Deleuzian terms, a medium would therefore be an assemblage that constantly transforms an indeterminate and uncountable set of potentialities into a concrete actuality. (The term ‘decision’ designates a ‘cutting-off’ of choices, the elimination of all the 16 17 Fontenrose (1978) 22. Luhmann (2000) 132. 6 other, not realized possibilities. Michel Serres translates this continuous process into a model of complexity reduction,Ν whenΝ ‘theΝ complicationΝ ofΝ possibility’Ν becomes ‘theΝ resolvedΝ linearityΝofΝtheΝactual’.18) And it is this concept of ‘decision’ that forms the link between medium and migration, transforms media into branching machines and delineates migration as tree diagram: when we think of Dodona (or Aleppo, or Tripoli), when we think of Zeus (or the smart phone or GPS) as locations and media of decision, it becomes obvious that migration is closely tied to the structure and use of media. In fact, migration can be conceptualized as a series of decisions concerning departure, the junctions that have to be passed, the entries and exits, the obstacles that have to be overcome, the roads that have to be taken or avoided, including all the possible detours and missed connections, and the places that can serve as future dwelling or home. Should I stay here or go to Croton? Should I take the land route or the inflatable dinghy? Via the Balkans or Lampedusa? Thus, in a very simplified and systematic way, one can conceive migration as drawing a path in a complex and multidimensional diagram whose every bifurcation is occupied by, or coupled to, a medium or decision apparatus. These media – the small metal sheet, the priest, the cell phone, the people trafficker – act as switch mechanisms which lead the migrant through the diagram. Its simultaneously technomorphic and phantasmatic structure, leading from a provisionalΝpointΝofΝ‘origin’Ν(whichΝalways turns out to be located notΝatΝtheΝ‘beginning’ΝbutΝdeep inside the manifold net of possibilities) through a parcours ofΝ nodesΝ toΝ anΝ equallyΝ provisionalΝ pointΝ ofΝ ‘arrival’, also motivates the surface movement of my own argument: it has already addressed the moment of departure, connected to the discursive machine of Dodona. The following part discusses the chain of decisions which constitutes the journey itself, left or right, by land or by sea, and unfolds inexorably into a broad manifoldness. And finally it will consider the moment of arrival, a re-foundation or rather re-invention of a ‘position’, when Odysseus thrusts his oar into the dry ground and exclaims that here his journey will end, when Oedipus dies at Colonus and thus creates a political future. Meanwhile, since I myself am not ‘medium’ enough to decide or opt for only one structure, there will emerge a second or sub-structure. The argument does not only follow the stages of migration; it also moves through an array of material elements or agents that migration invests with a certain medial quality. While I speak about departure, I also speak about certain objects, small metal panels or smart phones. My remarks on routes and migratory movements will also touch on how the landscape and geographical spaces are transformed into media in their own right. And withΝtheΝ‘arrival’ I will also turn to the body of 18 Gibson (2009) 85. 7 the migrant, to the peculiar medialization of his or her corporeality and to the ‘mediasomatic’ quality of migration. The text migrates along two closely entangled lines, along the spatial stages of migration and through its field of actors. fig. 2: Migration and media – a relay diagram 3. Descent into the Black Box The myth of Odysseus navigates through the labyrinth of the Mediterranean – not so much by merely following a prepared path (whose bifurcations would sporadically demand a decision) as by creating that very path with every turn in the course of its movements. It charts and simultaneously writes out Bronze Age space, foreign discoveries and exchanges, proximities and exclusions, encounters with the ‘Other’, the savage and the hostis (bothΝ ‘guest’Ν and ‘enemy’)έΝ Meanwhile, and in a seemingly narrower geopolitical sense, the epos of the Odyssey can be considered the itinerary or map of all the routes, strategies and events of 8 migration which, in the eighth century of Homer, set in as an expansive colonizing movement in these same seas.19 In any case (or time), Odysseus, travelling through unknown lands, global wanderer, undocumented and shipwrecked alien, becomes the archetypical figure of the migrant and, therefore, an agent of distinction/selection who begins to striate space and installΝ‘points’ of mediation. Once Troy has been taken, destroyed and pillaged, says Michel Serres, he sets out for Ithaca after having, as far as possible, optimized his journey: ‘following this coast, then avoiding that area, taking advantage of this regular wind, entering that strait at a different point.’ 20 Deciding, however, which coast to follow and which area to avoid seems a complicated task when faced with an unknown multiplicity of perfectly disseminated, remote, impassable, unrelated places. He can hardly calculate or anticipate the dangers, landmarks, boundaries or look ahead into that expanse through which he has to journey and which presents itself as discontinuous and interrupted by splits and cracks: ‘inaccessible islands, and countries from which one cannot escape; the beach upon which the catastrophe casts you; the breaking of the waves; the shores from which one is hurled as one approaches.’21 Here, threat and crisis always lurk. ψutΝ inΝ accordanceΝwithΝ theΝtermΝ ‘crisis’ΝdesignatingΝcrashΝorΝfailure,Ν but also a moment of judgment, discretion or choice, Odysseus performs the heroic deed of implementing selection in a terrain of indifference. He becomes the element which is thrown into a non-topographical space and causes it to form alternatives: one god prohibits his return home, whereas the other commands the opposite; Odysseus’ΝshipΝcan be on the right or wrong courseνΝitΝ‘approaches Penelope and likewise moves away from her, sometimes it is on track but just as often it strays from the beaten path’.22 In short, the voyage may well appear erring, errant and disordered, a voyage randonnée, a hardly predictable and nonlinear movement in ‘spaces that are […]Ν isolated, dangerous, and at times deadly to each other’. But by sailing through this chaotic multiplicity, Odysseus must choose a passageΝ andΝ opensΝ aΝ ‘route’έΝ HeΝ beginsΝtoΝ‘connectΝtheΝcrevicesΝwhichΝrunΝacrossΝtheΝspatialΝchaosΝofΝdisconnectedΝvarieties’νΝ he produces intersections and junctions, turning intoΝ aΝ ‘proto-worker of space, the prosopopeia of topology and nodes, the Weaver who works locally to join two worlds that are ωarolΝϊoughertyΝ(ἀίί1)ΝmaintainsΝthatΝτdysseus’ΝtravelsΝcanΝbeΝreadΝasΝtheΝdangersΝandΝbenefitsΝofΝcolonialΝ venturesΝinΝtheΝ‘σewΝWorld’ΝofΝtheΝcoloniesέΝδikewise,ΝεargaretΝόosterΝ(2017) interprets the epos as a mirror of the colonial movements during the archaic period. 20 Serres (2016) 262. 21 Serres (1982b) 48. 22 Serres (2016) 262. 19 9 separatedΝ byΝ aΝ suddenΝ stoppage’έ23 In this manner, the pre-cultural topology of seams and fissures constitutes the matrix for orientation and the context for the introduction of media. For instance, Odysseus descends to the underworld (fig. 2/B) to be instructed by the second best medium of antiquity, Tiresias. What is more, the blind seer, living in the darkness of Erebus, is the very epitome of the above definition of mediality as decision – for Tiresias himself literally incorporates bifurcation, the Greek ‘X’, the ‘chi’ of chiasmus (fig. 2/A). The myth presents him as a transsexual, a man who becomes a woman who becomes a man; he/she embodies a liminal or mediating identity, a cross and a crossing of boundaries.24 And apart from the duality that he is, Tiresias does not merely offer a simple or stringent advice about how the hero shall operate in uncharted regions. Rather, he spreads out a plane of alternatives in front of Odysseus, a spatio-temporal zone of crossroads in the form of ‘either/or’: First he promises to answer all questions ‘truly’Ν– that is, like a reliable decision making machine, a well functioning medium – and then he forecasts that Odysseus cannot escape the wrath of Poseidon, but may, after much suffering and hardship, nevertheless get home: If he can restrain himself and his companions from harming the cattle belonging to the god Helios. But if he touches the flock, destruction of his ship and of his comrades will be the result. Either, or: either you commit a crime and never reach Ithaca or you comport yourself and return home. And if you come home, you will kill the suitors either cunningly and in disguise or openly with your sharp bronze weapon. Tiresias looks at the future not in terms of certainty or probability and likelihood but in terms of ‘if…then’ occurrences. His selection mechanism excludes the unexpected; it works rather categorical than hypothetical, it operates like ‘the god at Delphi or Dodona [who] givesΝhisΝoraclesΝfrequentlyΝinΝtheΝformΝofΝ“if…then”Ν statements’. 25 This binary cause-effect-structure is even more clearly demonstrated by the sorceress Circe. A medium like Tiresias, she predicts a chain of upcoming decisions or intersections. A first bifurcation: Odysseus should stay on the Island of Aeaea and not leave for Ithaca, but if he leaves – second bifurcation – his ship must either pass the wandering rocks ‘against which the deep blue waves of Amphitrite beat with terrific fury’, or it must pass between Scylla and Charybdis. Third bifurcation: Should he decide to sail close to the 23 Serres (1982b) 52; see also Gibson (2005) 90. See Ovid, Metamorphoses (Innes), ψookΝ III,Ν pέΝ κἀμΝ ‘Once, when two huge serpents were intertwining themselves in the depths of the green wood, he had struck them with his staff; from being a man he was miraculously changed into a woman, and had lived as such for seven years. In the eighth year he saw the same serpentsΝagainΝandΝsaidμΝ“IfΝthereΝisΝsuchΝpotentΝmagicΝinΝtheΝactΝofΝstrikingΝyouΝthatΝitΝchangesΝtheΝstrikerΝtoΝtheΝ oppositeΝsex,ΝIΝshallΝnowΝstrikeΝyouΝagainέ”ΝSo,ΝbyΝstrikingΝtheΝsameΝsnakes,ΝheΝwasΝrestoredΝtoΝhisΝformerΝshape,Ν and the nature with whichΝ heΝ wasΝ bornΝ returnedέ’Ν χccordingΝ toΝ PtolemaeusΝ ωhennus,Ν however,Ν Tiresias’Ν sexΝ oscillates constantly between male and female and makes him a liminal figure, androgynous and gynandrous. See Brisson (1997) 112-115. 25 Schutz (1959) 74. 24 10 rock of Scylla, he will lose six of his men; if he comes near Charybdis, he risks losing his entire crew and ship. In this manner, the medium Circe delineates a binary geography, putting the emphasis precisely on the moment of choice. Meanwhile, she is quite categorical in her assertion that she cannot decide for Odysseus: ‘I cannot give you coherent directions as to which of the two courses you are to take; I will lay the two alternatives before you, and you must consider them for yourself.’26 Beyond this distinction of specific critical points or locations in the undifferentiated expanse of the Mediterranean, the subsequent insertion of a selective apparatus at each of these locations, and the overall re-conceptualization of the entire topography as a series of such locations or coupling of apparatuses, the prophecies in the Odyssey demonstrate yet another fundamental feature of the medium: When Roland Barthes paraphrases the Heraclitian admonition27 that manteia ‘speaks the locus of meaning butΝdoesΝnotΝnameΝit’, this invokes the peculiar double-meaningΝ ofΝ Tiresias’Ν wordsΝ regardingΝ theΝ hero’sΝ oldΝ ageΝ andΝ death: χfterΝyouΝhaveΝkilledΝtheΝsuitorsΝ[…]Νyou must take a well-made oar and carry it on and on, till you come to a country where the people have never heard of the sea […]. And when a wayfarer will meet you and will say it must be a winnowing shovel that you have got upon your shoulder; […] on this you must fix the oar in the ground and sacrifice a ram, a bull, and a boar to Neptune. […] As for yourself, death shall come to you ἐιΝ ζὸμ, and your life shall ebb away very gently when you are full of years and peace of mind.28 While most of this augury is unambiguous in its listing of potentialities, it suddenly reaches a point of vagueness with respect to the ultimate fate of Odysseus (which will happen not only after his personal journey has ended, but which also lies beyond the limits of the diegetic time of Odyssey itself). This opacity is caused by the two possible meanings of the expression ἐ ἁ ὸ , ‘from the sea’ and ‘far from the sea’, aΝ pointΝ ofΝ indecisionΝ thatΝ introducesΝ ‘parasitic noise’Ν inΝ theΝ binaryΝ systemΝ andΝ contaminates the transmitted information with the nonsignifying and non-differentiated. ιΝ ζὸμ is the uninvited guest, the ultimate parasite, as Michel Serres would suggest. Aside from being an organism that lives off another organism, ‘that takes without giving and weakens without killing’, the parasite is also ‘the static in a 26 The Odyssey (Butler), Book XII, 157. Heraclitus, fragment DK22B93. 28 The Odyssey (Butler), Book XI, 142 (translation slightly modified). 27 11 system or the interference in a channel’.29 It stops the system by introducingΝ‘an interruption, a corruption, a rupture of information’έ 30 It would, however, be an oversimplification to identify the parasite only with the loss of significance and ignore its function as operator, (thermal) exciter, producer of change and relations. The parasite marks and induces a beginning thatΝ mayΝ takeΝ theΝ formlessΝ formΝ ofΝ disorderΝ orΝ noise,Ν butΝ thisΝ ‘noise and this parasite produce a slope, a difference, a disequilibrium’μ31 they act as a generalized clinamen, a minimal deviation that transforms entropic chaos into a process of potential distinction/selection. Thus, although the noise of ἐ ἁ ὸ appears as a malfunction or error, it is an integral part and ever-present feature of the medium. It is the condition of possibility of the system and has, according to Serres, ‘at least two values […]: a value of destruction and a value of construction.’ 32 In this manner, Tiresias is an obstacle for communication, a perturbation, a parasite and at the same time remains a decision machine... The more we look at the Odyssey as an epos of mediality and migration, the more we are confronted with an overall ‘infrastructure of connectivity’, a network of human and nonhuman media which are coupled to one another. On the one hand, this coupling of media programs the narrative sequence or spatio-temporal chain of decisions that the migrant has to pass through. On the other hand, every node or station can be occupied not by a single, but by more than one medium (fig. 2/C): thus, Tiresias in the underworld and Circe on her island both provide overlapping, perhaps even conflicting information about the very same point of τdysseus’Ν journey (Hermes, claims Serres, ‘is a polytheist, is multicentered, a chain of hourglasses, a network of such chains. The angels that pass, be they gods or demons, occupy the crossroads: knots of exchange, changes, cuts, bifurcations of decision, spindles, bundles, where the many come in one single hand).33 Whether linear, cross-linked or manifold – it is the combination of various of such hourglasses, spindles and ‘blackΝ boxes’Ν whichΝ enablesΝ Odysseus to stay mobile, collect information about routes and relays, learn the tactics for survival. The Odyssey seems to suggest that migration always relies on a multitude of other persons, objects and media to take the necessary decisions and transmit the necessary knowledge. This takes up at least two aspects of what Dimitris Papadopoulos and Vassilis Tsianos in their ‘net(h)nographic analysis’ of cross-border mobility call mobile commons, the 29 Schehr (1982) x. SerresΝ(1λκἀa)ΝἁέΝ‘σoise’ΝorΝ‘static’ΝisΝtranslatedΝasΝ‘parasite’ΝinΝόrenchέ 31 Ibid. 188. 32 Ibid. 67. 33 Ibid. 44 (my emphasis). 30 12 ‘organizational ontology’34 of migratory forms. The first aspect is the ‘invisible knowledge of mobility’ that constantlyΝ circulatesΝ betweenΝ thoseΝ ‘subaltern people on the move’Ν – that is, ‘knowledge about border crossings, routes, shelters, hubs, escape routes, resting places; knowledge about policing and surveillance, ways to defy control, strategies against bio surveillance, etcέ’35 (This experienced and exchanged knowledge functions as solidarity in praxis, as affective cooperation and mutual support among migrants. It brings forth informal economies of care, even of survival.) The second aspect or connection between the Odyssey and mobile commons is even closer linked to the question of mediality: for it regards the infrastructure of connectivity ‘which is crucial to distributing these knowledges and for facilitating the circular logistics of support to stay mobile: collecting, updating and evaluating knowledge by using a wide range of platforms and media – from the embodied knowledge travelling from mouth to mouth to social networks sites, geolocation technologies and alternative databases and communication streams’. 36 Tiresias and Circe are precisely this: media that transmit and update knowledge – about the route between Scylla and Charybdis, about shelter or escape ways – which Odysseus, at the crossroads, has to collect and evaluate. 4. X Marks the Spot No one, however, is more familiar with this than Oedipus, since crossroads and media make up the very structure and topic of his tragedy. He travels from Corinth to consult the oracle of Apollo at Delphi (where, amidst hallucinogenic hydrocarbon emissions, Pythia repeats the fatal prophecy that sheΝ hasΝ alreadyΝ deliveredΝ toΝ τedipus’sΝ father). On his return trip, at the junction of Megas, the road divides, one way leading back to Corinth, the other to the city of Daulis and a third to Thebes. When he reaches the crossroads, Oedipus – obedient to what he considers the will of the gods as expressed through the oracle, and determined to avoid his alleged father and mother – intends to choose one of the two latter directions, but momentarily halts in uncertainty. For he is well aware that a bifurcation,Ν ‘a road across a ribbon that divides space’, 37 is always associated with a moment of crisis or decision; he realizes that at least two futures lie literally right before him at the crossroads, that these crossroads are the spatial or graphic form of the oracle itself or, in other words, that they chart the medium as a decision-machine. Even though it will turn out that Oedipus may be good at solving riddles, but extremely bad at reading oracular utterances, even though his 34 Papadopoulos and Tsianos (2013); see also Trimikliniotis, Parsanoglou and Tsianos (2015) 16, 53. Trimikliniotis, Parsanoglou and Tsianos (2015) 53. 36 Papadopoulos and Tsianos (2013) 191. 37 Serres (1982b), 46. 35 13 projection of the Delphian X (prophecy) onto the X of the landscape near Megas (intersection) will prove to be far from congruent, he fully understands the principle that an oracle ‘is a form of words, and the fulfillment of an oracle consists in the match – some kind of match – between those words and an event, in the future or the present or the past’.38 Only becauseΝ τedipusΝ matchesΝ theΝ oracle’sΝ warningΝ withΝ theΝ ‘wrongΝ truth’,Ν thisΝ mismatchΝ canΝ generate unforeseen relations which escape the intended dissociations, distinctions and decisions. Behind his back, the ‘X’, the bifurcating path, enables the tragic connection of the formerly unconnected and disparate, Delphi on the one hand, that is, ‘knowledge, meaning, consciousness’, and Thebes on the other, that is, ‘ignorance, blindness, the unconscious’, as Michel Serres has it39 – but also past and present or father and son, giving rise to patricide, incest, death.40 Moreover, crossroads lead on to other crossroads, other relations and media (‘a chain of hourglasses’). In fact, the series of bifurcations continues when Oedipus encounters the Sphinx who guards the entrance to the city of Thebes. Just like Tiresias, she is the bodily equivalent of chi, of X (fig. 2/A): ‘She is a chimera, half-lion and half-woman; half fourlegged, also, and half two-legged, and perhaps partly bird. She is a body sewn back together, badly sewn: two parts related by dichotomy, joined in the form of a Chi crowned by wings; she is a crossroads, with wings that protrude for one who no longer needs feet. The Sphinx is a bifurcation. And the crossroads is a chimera’. 41 This, then, is the drama of Oedipus: he repeatedly falls victim to the law of the crossroads. As honored King of Thebes, he will turn to the seer Tiresias to rid the city of the plague – and the androgynous shaman X will point to him as the cause of ‘the pollution of the country’ and also to the crime scene – ἁ α π αῖ ῖ – sending the king once again to the crossroads. Oedipus seems condemned to never pass through the parcours of decisions, but to run in an eternal loop from one bifurcation to the previous, to always return to the junction of Megas. A central notion of this myth is the inseparable link between decision and topography, the translation of distinction/selection into the landscape itself: it transforms a territory into a field of choices, micro-ramifications and tragic alternatives. And it is precisely this ‘medialization’ of the landscape throughΝtheΝprotagonist’sΝmovementΝandΝencountersΝwhichΝisΝ visualized byΝύeorgeΝHadjimichalis’ΝinstallationΝSchiste Odos – the crossroad where Oedipus killed Laius. A description and history of the journey from Thebes to Corinth, Delphi and the 38 Wood (2003) 99. Serres (1982b) 46. 40 Gibson (2009) 89. 41 Serres (1982b) 47. 39 14 return to Thebes, 1990-1997. Having identified, with the help of archaeologist Yannis Picoulas, the site of the legendary crossroads, Hadjimichalis transforms it into a multimedia work; he designs a large-scale model of the landscape made of thin steel sheets which he paints with brownish magnesium pigment. The steel panels are then engraved with τedipus’s fatal route: one can see the shore of the Corinthian gulf, some rugged hills and the mass of Mount Parnassus (home of the oracle of Apollo), the road, the crossings …ΝAfterwards, the artist takes numerous photographs of his sculptural work – as if from a satellite, the miniature hillsΝbathedΝinΝartificialΝsunlightΝthatΝisΝreflectedΝbyΝtheΝsurfaceΝofΝtheΝ‘sea’Ν– and places them around the table, mixing them with photographs not of the model but of the ‘real’ countryside (taken from a moving car) which results in a peculiar oscillation between different levels of representation and intermedia strategies. In addition, Hadjimichalis introduces aerial photographs from the archives of the Greek Army Geographical Department, maps of the terrain in which he marks the route of Oedipus, even a small oil painting and, finally, a video display, on which the visitor can follow Oedipus along his path only to find out that the screen shows nothing but the model in extreme close-up – making the viewerΝexperienceΝ‘the deception that undid Oedipus […] as a deception on the part of the medium’.42 However, Hadjimichalis’s Schiste Odos does more than ‘apply’ media technology to a landscape or point to the rivalry or complicity between myth,Ν ‘reality’,Ν painting, photography and sculpture. 43 It medializes the landscape itself. It makes visible how decision processes contaminate physical space, how a decision finds itself inscribed in the forking of a path, how that forking is the decision. The tragedy of Oedipus is included in and conveyed by the landscape and its media qualities, by his and its spatial accidents, bifurcations and catastrophes. 5. The Migrant Is the Medium After addressing the media of departure, direction and detour, after correlating metal sheets and smart phones, oracles and GPS, Odysseus and rubber dinghies on the Mediterranean, there are perhaps a few words to say about the migrant’sΝarrival (although always precarious and ‘in-definite’) and about her or his bodily self becoming a medium. To Vilém Flusser, the migrant is the one who throws off the ‘fluffy, muffling blanket of the habitually settled’, who sets a life of connections against thoseΝwhoΝ‘try to maintain the mysteries within which they 42 43 Seemann (2001) 14. Gore (2001) 78. 15 are enshrouded’.44 In this manner, he conceives of the migrant as an issue of cultural as well as political perception; the migrant offers or, rather, is a disturbing window, a window on the world, and at the same time a mirror reflecting those who are enveloped by the selfperpetuating mysteries of ‘Heimat’: the migrant opens up a field of possibilities that includes new insights or new bonds. And not only can migration interconnect and modulate images of self and other; beyond that it presents their relation and, therefore, itself as a decision between existential concepts, it is the fundamental alternative – the migrant is a medium, too. I want to think further in this direction and point to the subjectivity and corporeality of the migrant, to the migratory body as something which does not so much depend on so many media as it is itself turned into an agent of transference. In his essay Of Hospitality, Jacques Derrida retells the story of that other Oedipus, Oedipus at Colonus, the central myth of migration and the absolute foreigner, as he claims. Shortly before his death, Oedipus – an alien and a sort of ‘illegal immigrant’45 – reaches the village of Colonus. Here, he enters the sacred ground of the Furies and recalls that this grove was indicated by the oracle as the ‘respite’ from all his misfortunes and location of his life’sΝ final chapter. The citizens – the chorus – demand from the stranger to leave before he brings ruin to the city, but concede to wait for the sovereign Theseus’Νjudgment. When he arrives, he not only welcomes the dethroned, blind and half-mad Oedipus in full awareness of his crimes, but also suggests that this ιΫθκμ might teach him: ‘Teach me ( έ α ε ). For I know myself what it means to be raised in exile, like you, and in foreign lands, I wrestled with many hazards, more than any other man. So there is no stranger, as you are now, from whom I would turn away or fail to help.’ 46 Oedipus agrees to give the desired lesson ( δ Ϊιπ) to Theseus, who understands the experience of exile and willingly receives theΝ‘polluted’ man, and reward him for his unconditional hospitality by revealing the location of his blessed final resting place – only, however, after enjoining the king to keep the secret, particularly from his sisters/daughters, for he wishes to remain forever unfindable. ‘Gift for gift’, ‘protection in exchange for protection’. 47 Yet, he does not tell the secret before his dying hour: instead TheseusΝ ‘will find out for himself, and will thenceforth have to keep hidden, by accompanying him right to his last dwelling place, his last stay, his last habitat’.48 Indeed, knowing the place of the ‘ungrave’ΝwithΝ‘no fixed address for death’ will oblige Theseus to guard that knowledge and hand it down. It is precisely this contract, the oath between two 44 Finger (2015) 278. Derrida (2000) 103. 46 Sophocles, in translation of McCoy (2013) 54f. 47 McCoy (2013) 57f. 48 Derrida (2000) 97. 45 16 foreigners, which, according to Derrida, becomes the founding act of the polis and the confirmation of its political community: Tradition will be guaranteed at this price: good tradition, the one that will rescue the city, the one that will guarantee the political safety of the city, it is said that it will be borne […]Νthrough the transmission of a secret. Not just any living secret, but a secret concerning the clandestine site of a death, namely, the death of Oedipus. Secret knowledge, […]Νwhere dies the great transgressor, the outlaw, the blind anomos.49 It would seem, then, that the stranger guarantees the existence of a political community through death and the secret of a grave; that she or he ‘is transformed into a positive power to the city’.50 Obviously, this concept of mediation – the migrant becoming the possibility of communication, communing and community by insisting specifically on the indistinct, undecided, withdrawn – deviates from the initial and rather straightforward notion of media as decision-machines. However, Oedipus – embodiment of decision and bifurcation – may carry this concept into the polis not to mark anΝ‘end’ΝofΝdistinctionήselection,ΝbutΝtoΝreachΝitsΝmost foreign extreme in the relation of knowledge/location and ignorance/placelessness. Only on theΝgroundΝofΝthisΝ‘ungrave’ΝcanΝaΝtradition and politics in the form of a branching continuum of generations, discourses, social claims, inclusions and exclusions be instituted. Thus, concludes Derrida, any society might in fact begin with the secret absence/presence of the foreign. In this respect, the placelessness of the grave of Oedipus – just like the indelible uncertainty of ἐ ἁ ὸ , the reason and placeΝ ofΝ τdysseus’Ν death – constitutes the condition also of our politics. This, of course, does not imply a cynical necessity for the polis or state to condone the death of others; it does not ennoble or justify the shameful fact that we keep producing so many placeless bodies. On the contrary, it re-inscribes the foreign and the other as a perpetual absence into our political founding acts. Theseus, for his part, understands the ‘lesson’ of Oedipus and conceives of the political community as a work of the other – as PlutarchΝclaimsμΝ‘Farther yet designing to enlarge his city, he invited all strangers to come and enjoy equal privileges with the natives, and it is said that the common form, “Come hither all ye people,”Νwas the words that Theseus proclaimed when he thus set up a commonwealth, in a manner, for all nations’.51 (χndμΝwithΝtheΝhelpΝofΝtheΝmigrant’sΝX,Νone might in the end even 49 Derrida (2000) 99. McCoy (2013) 59. 51 Plutarch, Lives, (Dryden) vol. I, 23. 50 17 be able to cross out these all too self-assuredΝ terms,Ν theΝ ‘commonwealth’,Ν theΝ ‘nation’,Ν thatΝ seem to come from the Roman citizen Plutarch rather than the priest at Delphi. With X, one might be able to no longer think ofΝ admission,Ν inclusion,Ν ‘integration’,Ν butΝ ofΝ theΝ uncircumventable ground of the foreign...) REFERENCES Barthes, Roland (1972), ‘The Structuralist Activity’,Ν translatedΝ by Richard Howard, in: Critical Essays (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press), pp. 213-220. Brisson, Luc (1997), δe sexe incertain. Androgynie et hermaphrodisme dans l’Antiquité gréco-romaine (Paris: Les Belles Lettres). Carson, Anne (1999), Economy of the Unlost (Reading Simonides of Keos with Paul Celan) (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press). Deleuze, Gilles, Félix Guattari (1987): A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia, translated by Brian Massumi (Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press). Derrida, Jacques (2000) Of Hospitality. Anne Defourmantelle invites Jacques Derrida to respond, translated by Rachel Bowlby (Stanford: Stanford University Press). Dakaris, Sotirios, Ioulia Vokotopoulou and Anastasios Christidis (2013), Τα χ η ά αα η Αλξαδκζκΰδεά ω ώ η ω α α αφώ . υαγγ η (Athens: Η α θ Αγάθαδμ αδλ έα), Vol. I and II. Dougherty, Carol (2001), The Raft of Odysseus: The Ethnographic Imagination of Homer's Odyssey (New York: Oxford University Press). Eidinow, Esther (2007), Oracles, Curses, and Risk among the Ancient Greeks (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Eliade, Mircea (1972), Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy, translated by Willard R. Trask (Princeton: Princeton University Press, Bollingen Series LXXVI, 1964-1974). όinger,Ν χnkaΝ (ἀί1η),Ν ‘εigration’,Ν inμΝ SiegfriedΝ ZielinskiΝ etέΝ alΝ (edsέ),Ν Flusseriana. An Intellectual Toolbox (Minneapolis: Univocal Publishing), p. 278. Fontenrose, Joseph Eddy (1978), The Delphic Oracle, Its Responses and Operations with a Catalogue of Responses (Berkeley: University of California Press). 18 Foster, Margaret (2017), The Seer and the City. Religion, Politics, and Colonial Ideology in Ancient Greece (Oakland, California: University of California Press). Gibson, Andrew (2005),Ν ‘SerresΝ atΝ theΝ ωrossroads’,Ν inμΝ Mapping Michel Serres, edited by Niran Abbas (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press), pp. 84-98. Gore, Frederic (2001), ‘The Landscape in the New Enlightment’, in: Im Spiegel der Freiheit. Ausgewählte Positionen griechischer Kunst im 20. Jahrhundert (Schirn Kunsthalle Frankfurt), pp. 75-78. Heraclitus, fragment DK22B93 (1979), in: The Art and Thought of Heraclitus, edited by Charles H. Kahn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Homer: The Odyssey (1900), translated by Samuel Butler, < https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Odyssey_(Butler)> [last accessed: 20 June, 2018]. Luhmann, Niklas (2000), Organisation und Entscheidung (Opladen/Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag). McCoy, Marina Berzins (2013), Wounded Heroes: Vulnerability as a Virtue in Ancient Greek Literature and Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press). Malkin, Irad (2011), A Small Greek World: Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Naas, Michael (2015), The End of the World and Other Teachable Moments. Jacques Derrida’s Final Seminar (New York: Fordham University Press). Ovid, Metamorphoses (1955), translated, with an introduction by Mary M. Innes (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books). Papadopoulos, Dimitris and Vassilis S. Tsianos (2013), ‘After Citizenship: Autonomy of migration, organizational ontology and mobile commons’, in: Citizenship Studies, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Routledge), pp. 178-196. Plutarch, Lives, n.d. Vol. I, translated by J. Dryden with revisions by A. H. Clough (New York: A. L. Burt). Seemann, Hellmut Th. (2001), ‘Einführung’, in: Im Spiegel der Freiheit. Ausgewählte Positionen griechischer Kunst im 20. Jahrhundert (Schirn Kunsthalle Frankfurt), pp. 715. Schehr, Lawrence R. (1λκἀ),Ν ‘Translator’sΝ Introduction’,Ν inμΝ εichelΝ Serres, The Parasite, translated, with notes, by Lawrence R. Schehr (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press), p. ix-x. Serres, Michel (1982a) The Parasite, translated, with notes, by Lawrence R. Schehr (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press). 19 Serres, Michel (1982b), ‘Language and Space: From Oedipus to Zola’, in: Hermes. Literature, Science, Philosophy, edited by Josué V. Havari and David F. Bell (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press), pp. 39-53. Serres, Michel (2016), The Five Senses: A Philosophy of Mingled Bodies, translated by Margaret Sankey and Peter Cowley (London, New York: Bloomsbury). Schauerte, Eva (2014),Ν‘Der Fall des Ödipus – antike Beratung zwischen Transzendenz und Immanenz’,Νin: Rat geben: Zu Theorie und Analyse des Beratungshandelns, edited by Michael Niehaus and Wim Peeters (Bielefeld: transcript), pp. 199-217. Schutz, Alfred (1959), ‘Tiresias, or our Knowledge of Future Events’, in: Social Research, Vol. 26, No. 1 (The Johns Hopkins University Press), pp. 71-89. Sophocles, Oedipus Rex, in The Oedipus Cycle: An English Version, translated by Dudley Fitts and Robert Fitzgerald, (San Diego, New York, London: A Harvest/HBJ Book of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1939-1977). Stein, Jordan (2017), If not Apollo, the Breeze (Online Guiding Catalogue of the Exhibition If not Apollo, the Breeze (October 11 to December 16, 2017), Kadist Gallery, San Francisco), <http://kadist.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/KADIST_If-Not- Apollo_WEB.pdf> [last accessed: 24 Juli 2-18]. Trimikliniotis, Nikos, Dimitris Parsanoglou and Vassilis S. Tsianos (2015), Mobile Commons, Migrant Digitalities and the Right to the City (London, New York: Palgrave Macmillan). Tsianos, Vassilis S. (2015), ‘Feldforschung in denΝεobileΝωommons’,ΝinμΝZfM, Zeitschrift für Medienwissenschaft, Heft 1, pp. 115-125. Tsianos, Vassilis, and Dimitris Papadopoulos (2007): ‘The Autonomy of Migration: The Animals of Undocumented Mobility’, in: Deleuzian Encounters. Studies in Contemporary Social Issues (London, New York: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 223-235. Wood, Michael (2003), The Road to Delphi: The Life and Afterlife of Oracles (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux). 20