SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.14 número2Compreensão e linguagem em Heidegger: ex-sistência, abertura ontológica e hermenêuticaBAKHTIN, Mikhail. Teoria do romance II: As formas do tempo e do cronotopo. Tradução, posfácio e notas de Paulo Bezerra; organização da edição russa de Serguei Botcharov e Vadim Kójinov. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2018. 272p. índice de autoresíndice de assuntospesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados

Journal

Artigo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

Compartilhar


Bakhtiniana: Revista de Estudos do Discurso

versão On-line ISSN 2176-4573

Bakhtiniana, Rev. Estud. Discurso vol.14 no.2 São Paulo abr./jun. 2019  Epub 15-Abr-2019

https://doi.org/10.1590/2176-457337406 

ARTIGOS

Between the Sensible and the Intelligible: A Semiotic Reading of the Episode The National Anthem of the Series Black Mirror1

Translation:

Conrado Moreira Mendes* 
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3721-8578

*Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais - PUC/MG, Programa de Pós-graduação em Comunicação Social, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3721-8578; conradomendes@yahoo.com.br


ABSTRACT

This paper proposes an articulation between the theoretical models of regimes of interaction and meaning and regimes of visibility. Complementarily, it also mobilizes the concepts of union and contagion - part of Eric Landowski's sociosemiotics, aiming at understanding the relationships between the sensible and the intelligible in the engenderment of meaning in the episode The National Anthem of the British series Black Mirror. This proposition proves thereby to be fruitful, since it allows demonstrating the overlaps and passages from a regime based on the intelligible (manipulation) to a regime based on the sensible (adjustment). Based on the syntax of seeing, it introduces a new regime of interaction through the various possibilities between wanting-to-see and wanting-to-be-seen. Finally, the paper also poses the problem of the point of view regarding accident and programming. It is possible to observe that the presence of the spectator, at a given point in the syntagmatic chain, that is, being-able-to-see or being-able-not-to-see as regards these two regimes, can make emerge either one of the regimes of interaction and meaning, which are characterized, respectively, by the sensible and the intelligible.

KEYWORDS: Sociosemiotics; Regimes of interaction and meaning; Regimes of visibility; Black Mirror

RESUMO

O presente trabalho propõe uma articulação entre os modelos teóricos de regimes de interação e sentido e de regimes de visibilidade e, de forma complementar, aciona os conceitos de união e contágio - todos eles advindos da sociossemiótica de Eric Landowski - com o intuito de compreender as relações entre o sensível e o inteligível no engendramento da significação do episódio Hino nacional, do seriado britânico Black Mirror. Tal proposta revela-se profícua por demonstrar as passagens e sobreposições de um regime baseado no inteligível (manipulação) para um regime baseado no sensível (ajustamento). A partir da sintaxe do ver, instaura-se um novo regime de interação, pelas várias possibilidades entre o querer-ver/querer-ser-visto. O artigo levanta, ainda, a problemática do ponto de vista acerca do acidente e da programação. É possível observar que a presença do espectador num dado ponto da cadeia sintagmática, ou seja, o poder-ver ou o poder-não-ver, no caso desses dois regimes, pode fazer emergir um ou outro regime de interação e sentido, marcados, respectivamente, pelo sensível e pelo inteligível.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Sociossemiótica; Regimes de interação e sentido; Regimes de visibilidade; Black Mirror

First Words: From the Intelligible to the Sensible

This paper proposes an articulation between two basic sociosemiotic theoretical models, namely, regimes of interaction and meaning (LANDOWSKI, 2014) and regimes of visibility (LANDOWSKI, 1992). Complementarily, it also mobilizes the concepts of union and contagion (LANDOWSKI, 2004), related to one of the regimes of interaction, adjustment. The correlation between these theoretical models allows an analysis of the episode The National Anthem from the British series Black Mirror, aiming at understanding the articulations between the sensible and the intelligible in the engenderment of meaning in the episode.

This proposal is a sequence of another analysis undertaken about the same episode (MENDES, 2017).2 However, it differs from it because, at that time, we worked with the concept of modalizations of doing, which served as a basis to understand how intersubjective relations, anchored in subjects' modal competence, emerge in the episode The National Anthem. According to Landowski (2014), though, the regime of interaction and meaning of manipulation, which is governed by the principle of intentionality and is the core of the standard narrative grammar, does not show esthesic competence - feeling - of subjects in interaction. Thus, if elsewhere (MENDES, 2017) we privileged intelligible-based interactions, the aim of this paper is precisely to understand interaction between the sensible and the intelligible in the construction of meaning of the episode The National Anthem based on developments of sociosemiotics (LANDOWSKI, 1992, 2004, 2014).

Fiorin, in the preface of Interações arriscadas [Risky Interactions] (LANDOWSKI, 2014), states that "the system proposed by Landowski extends exponentially the conditions of applicability of the narrative theory (p.9)."3 The novelty of the model of the French semioticist - which does not depart from the Greimasian basis from which it stems, but rather contributes to the establishment of the place of the sensible (and also of chance, of the unexpected) in the semiotic theory - makes it possible to show aspects in which standard narrative grammar is not interested.4 Thus, we intend here to conjugate the sensible and the intelligible, since sense is shaped in the correlation between these two functives (ZILBERBERG, 2011), or still, to take the journey that goes from the "intelligible to the sensible" so as to pay tribute to the title of the work organized by Oliveira and Landowski (1995) about the path that Greimas' oeuvre takes: from Structural Semantics: An Attempt at a Method ([1966] 1984)5 to Da imperfeição [On Imperfection] ([1987] 2017).

Thus, the question that guides this paper is: how do the intelligible and the sensible integrate, correlate and interpenetrate in the episode The National Anthem? To answer this question, we articulate the theoretical models known as regimes of interaction and meaning (LANDOWSKI, 2014) and regimes of visibility (LANDOWSKI, 1992) and also the concepts of union and contagion (LANDOWSKI, 2004).

1 Regime of Manipulation in The National Anthem

As presented in Mendes (2017),6 The National Anthem is 44-minute episode of the British science fiction series Black Mirror. Written by Charlie Brooker and directed by Otto Bathurst, the plot presents an embarrassing impasse affecting the English prime minister, Michael Callow, when Princess Susannah, who enjoyed great popularity between Britons, is kidnapped. The kidnapper, after posting a video with images of the Princess on YouTube, blackmails Callow with a bizarre request. To free her, he demands that the chief of State of the United Kingdom have a non-simulated sexual intercourse with a female pig on that day. Besides, it must be broadcast live on national television, following all the rules of the movement Dogma 95,7 characterized especially by realistic aesthetics.

According to Mendes (2017), the The National Anthem was analyzed according to the concept of modalizations of doing. This is a summary of the conclusions drawn in the paper:

The episode The National Anthem of Black Mirror perfectly shows how modalizations alter subjects' modal competence in the context of the culture of convergence, emphasizing the vital role of media and technologies in contemporary social relations and in the dissemination of values. The episode is 44 minutes long and dedicates 34 minutes to the manipulation phase, which is when the addresser-manipulator "kidnapper" uses "public opinion" to grant the addressee, the "prime minister," the modal object ought-to-do. The addressee-subject, in spite of not-wanting-to-do, ought-to-do. The ought-to-do in this case goes beyond the wanting-to-do. Thus, he becomes a coerced subject who, unwillingly, had to perform, that is, "to have a sexual intercourse with a pig." It is important to underscore also that the episode breaks with the current social standard that prohibits the practice of zoophilia. In The National Anthem zoophilia goes from prohibition to prescription (MENDES, 2017, p.50).8

The analysis undertaken in Mendes (2017) certainly focuses on one of the interaction regimes: manipulation, which is governed by the principle of intentionality. Thus, according to Mendes (2017, p.49), there was a kidnapper who manipulated, i.e., made-do: firstly, he manipulated public opinion so that it would manipulate the prime minister to have a sexual intercourse with an animal, recorded on TV and broadcast live and unedited, in exchange for the release of the Princess.

One may also say that inside manipulation is the logic of junction, in which subjects are put in possession of values (conjunction) or are deprived of them (disjunction). For Landowski (2004, p.59), junction implies the "conception of an intersubjectivity systematically mediatized by objects."9 This way, as demonstrated in Mendes (2017, pp.40, 46, 49), in order to keep his position, the prime minister is modalized by an ought-to save the Princess, which required him to have sex with a female pig. His doing, therefore, was mobilized by the principle of intentionality, and the kind of manipulation, in this case, was intimidation / threat: an addresser offered a negative value-object (the death of the Princess) so that the addressee would carry out the contract proposed by this addresser: to practice zoophilia on national television. In fact, for the prime minister, "to save the Princess" was only part of the program of "keeping his position," his basic narrative program.10

Thus, in the context of the 21st century and according to science fiction, The National Anthem rebuilds - or retrieves by means of interdiscursivity - other narratives (folk, mythical, popular) of a Princess saved by a hero, who, to rescue her, needs to pass qualifying, decisive and glorifying tests, which are developed by Greimas based on the 31 Proppian functions (GREIMAS; COURTÉS, 2008, pp.394-395).

2 From Manipulation to the Other Regimes of Interaction and Meaning

As Landowski (2014, p.22) states, "to manipulate is always to interfere, in a certain degree, in the inner life of somebody (typically by means of persuasion), in the reasons the other subject may have for acting in a certain way."11 Thus, according to the logic of junction, manipulation by intimidation (and also by temptation) is anchored ultimately on reasons of economic order (LANDOWSKI, 2014, p.26). Differently from the subject of programming, who plays a thematic role and, therefore, always fulfills one sole function, what defines the subject of manipulation is "the modal competence that gives him/her, essentially, the wanting that will make him/her a 'subject'" (LANDOWSKI, 2014, p.27):12

Every subject can, thus (and that is what converts him/her in a "motivated subject" and a subject of "reason"), want, believe, know, etc. Consequently, he/she also wants the other to want (or not to want); he/she believes that the other believes, knows that the other knows etc., and makes him/her know. Shared by subjects, this properly semiotic competence enables them to "communicate" between themselves and, for that very reason, makes them manipulatable to each other. This is due to their respective motivations and reasons and is also based on calculations they make concerning the modal competence of their interlocutors (LANDOWSKI, 2014, p.28).13

In Landowski's sociosemiotic architecture (2014), manipulation is only one of the regimes of interaction and meaning. Both programming and manipulation, which is a basic concept in narrative grammar, were already part of standard semiotic theory. What the author does is to conceive two additional regimes: adjustment, which is related to the sensible, esthesia, and accident, which allows the analysis of unforeseen events. According to Landowski, however, adjustment and accident were already conceived, in an embryonic form, in Da imperfeição [On Imperfection] ([1987] 2017): "although Greimas outlines one and the other, he makes no distinction between them. On the contrary, what he calls an esthetic accident or, sometimes, esthetic event [...] superposes, condenses, confuses the two regimes" (LANDOWSKI, 2014, p.73).14

We have already discussed the manipulation regime and the programming regime briefly. Here is the place for integrating them into Landowski's (2014) conceptual architecture, which is composed of four regimes of interaction and sense: programming, manipulation, adjustment, and accident. On the left side of the ellipse (Chart 1), there are two regimes, programming and manipulation, characterized by sensibility, risk and a greater proclivity to sense production and, especially, intelligibility.

In the case of programming, "it is sufficient for an actor to rely on certain preexistent, stable and cognoscible determinations of the behavior of the other" (LANDOWSKI, 2014, p.48).15 The principle that governs programming is regularity, and it corresponds to a making-occur. In the case of manipulation, as seen before, it is a question of "undertaking persuasive procedures aiming to make the manipulated subject unable to stop being ultimately confronted by the wants of the strategist-manipulator" (LANDOWSKI, 2014, p.48).16 The principle that governs manipulation is that of intentionality and such a regime corresponds, in modal terms, to making-want. Programming and manipulation are regimes of interaction. They pose less risk and, thus, offer less potential for sense production. From the point of view of risk, it is security that characterizes the programming regime, and limited risk characterizes the manipulation regime.

On the right side of the ellipse (Chart 1), there are the regimes of accident and adjustment, characterized by sensibility, risk and the highest propensity to sense production. Interactions, in the case of adjustment, do not depend on prearranged and objectifiable laws: "it is [...] in interaction itself, based on what each participant finds and, more precisely, feels in relation to the actions of his/her partner, or adversary, that the principles of interaction come to the surface little by little" (LANDOWSKI, 2014, p.48; author's emphasis).17 Differently from the subject of manipulation, which is defined by modal competence, i.e., it is based on a cognitive/intelligible element, in the adjustment regime the subject is defined by esthesic competence, that is, feeling. Thus, if the logic of junction is subjacent to manipulation, adjustment is subsumed by the logic of union. One may say that, in this regime, subjects do not necessarily lose modal competence; what guides them is esthesic competence, i.e., mutual feeling. Thus, in modal terms, adjustment is defined especially by a making-feel; it is governed by the principle of sensibility and, from the point of view of risk, it is characterized by insecurity. In the case of adjustment, the logic of union is brought into action.

[It] concentrates not on successive junctive states, but on what happens between actants, or better, what happens esthesically and at each instant between one and the other. [In the case of union,] actants interact through the simple fact of being co-present. [...] It is a mode of interaction (and, at the same time, of sense construction) conditioned by the single material co-presence of a sensible relation between them (LANDOWSKI, 2004, p.63).18

It is still necessary to discuss the concept of contagion, which is the way in which those subjects interact between themselves. Contagion operates without the mediation of value-objects; it is not the logic of junction anymore, but that of union, which governs contagion. It still does not operate on the cognitive plane, but on the sensible plane. Landowski (2004, p.115) refers to interaction by contagion, taking laughter as an example: a subject that is contagioned by the laughter of the other without any transfer of object-value; it is a mode of interaction "based on the direct and sensible co-presence of the actants" (LANDOWSKI, 2004, p.110).19 In sum, Landowski defines contagion as "the transformation that is reciprocal, dynamic, and in the act" (2004, p.123).20

To complete the interactional construct devised by Landowski (2014), we must finally discuss the regime of accident. This regime of interaction is that which poses the highest level of risk, pure risk, based as it is on the principle of randomness. In modal terms, it corresponds to a making-befall. The regime of accident relates ultimately to chance, to events that occur without prior notice: "[in this] regime [...], the irruption of sense, or no-sense, is so disturbing that the subject is astonished or fascinated and, in any case, helpless" (LANDOWSKI, 2014, p.95).21 Chance, which characterizes the accident regime,

has no definable competence: it is not of a modal order - because it is not motivated and acts for no reason; even if it is attributed intentionality, it is not known - nor of an esthesic order: it is indeterminate, incorporeal, untouchable; even being omnipresent, it is not sensitive to anything (not even to itself) (LANDOWSKI, 2014, pp.78-79).22

Landowski (2014, p.79) creates the expression joker actant to define the actant whose role is not to have any role, nor to play all roles. Be that as it may, the regime of accident corresponds narratively to the non-intentional crossing of two trajectories: "until then the respective processes of the actant had no relation between them and only hard luck made them converge onto a specific point" (LANDOWSKI, 2014, p.96).23

Chart 1, in the form of an ellipse, illustrates the positions of each regime of meaning and interaction:

SOURCE: Adapted from Landowski (2014, p.80)

Chart 1 Regimes of Interaction and Meaning 

In Chart 1 we can observe how the passage from a regime to another happens, that is, the recursiveness between them. As Landowski (2014, p.89) shows, there are two types of recursivity: of a horizontal nature and of a vertical nature:

  • a) Horizontally (in the same two-dimensional space), a regime of interaction and meaning tends toward another regime by implication or contradiction: accident tends toward manipulation; manipulation tends toward programming; programming tends toward adjustment, and adjustment tends toward accident;

  • b) Vertically (tridimensionally), each regime may govern its own reproduction: for example, manipulation may govern another manipulation, as demonstrated in the episode in analysis, in which the kidnapper manipulates the public opinion so that it manipulates the prime minister.

In addition to recursivities, there is a type of "oblique or 'regent' recursivity whose nature allows the functioning of a certain regime to command or condition the functioning of another regime" (LANDOWSKI, 2014, p.89).24 This happen to machines programmed to try to adjust to their users or, in an intersubjective relation, when a subject tries to adjust to another in order to manipulate him/her, as the author exemplifies. The concept of oblique or regent recursivity will be used later on when we discuss the relation between the regimes of manipulation and adjustment in The National Anthem.

3 Manipulation, Adjustment and Regimes of Visibility in The National Anthem

As we stated in the introduction, for us to understand the relation between the sensible and the intelligible in The National Anthem, this paper uses the theoretical models called regimes of interaction and meaning (LANDOWSKI, 2014) and regimes of visibility (LANDOWSKI, 1992) as well as the concepts of union and contagion (LANDOWSKI, 2004), which are connected to the regime of adjustment. We intend now to connect the regime of visibility to the regimes of interaction and meaning and to demonstrate how each regime of interaction and meaning may come to govern a regime of visibility in The National Anthem. Before doing this, however, it is necessary to present the regimes of visibility.

Landowski (1992, pp.85-102) discusses the relations between the public and the private from what he names regimes of visibility, that is, from the syntax of seeing. For the author, the scopic dimension implies the existence of a relation of reciprocal presupposition between the one who sees and the one who is seen.

In this case, the (iconic or figurative) image, the object of communication, is the message that circulates between these two scopic subjects, that is, between the one who sees and the one who is seen. Landowski (1992, p.91) conventionally names S1 the actant who is in the position of being seen and S2, the actant in the position of the observer.25 In terms of modalization,26seeing may be overmodalized by wanting, and thus the author defines the elementary structure of scopic wanting in the following way, according to Chart 2:

Source: Adapted from Landowski (1992, p.91) 27

Chart 2 Elementary Structure of Scopic Wanting 

In the same way, ought to, knowing and being-able may overmodalize see, creating the possibility of six additional semiotic squares. We can still, on a third plane, consider the overmodalization of seeing / being seen for doing.

It begins with the connection of regimes of visibility to the regime of interaction and meaning of manipulation. The kidnapper, by posting the video on YouTube, asking a ransom for Princess Susannah, made-see, i. e., made the iconic message / representation of the Princess pleading for her life reach an addressee, the "public opinion." At a first moment, the addressee "public opinion" is modalized by a wanting- not-to-see (repulse), since only 28 % of the voters would watch the video of the prime minister having sex with a pig. However, after the dissemination of the images of a severed finger, supposedly Princess Susannah's, the addressee, who was modalized by wanting-not-to-see, starts to negate the state of not-wanting-not-to-see (indifference) and reaches the state of wanting-to-see (curiosity) the intercourse between the prime minister and the pig. We notice that the making-see, by the addresser, the "kidnapper," does not, at a first moment, incite a wanting-to-see by the addressee, the "public opinion."

As to the actant "prime minister," in the condition of being seen, though modalized by a wanting-not-to-be-seen, he was modalized by a ought-to-be-seen (by the public and the kidnapper) so that the Princess was released. Thus, before entering the studio, he was instructed by his advisors as to how to behave during the sex sequence with the animal (34' 01" - 34' 45'');28

We're complying with all the stipulated rules, so you'll have to keep... you have to see it through to the end. We've placed visual aids in your eyeline, which might help if you get into trouble. The suggestion we're getting from psychologists is that you should take as long as you need. If you rush, it might be misinterpreted as eagerness ... or even enjoyment.

Thus, having sex with the animal should look real and be real. The addresser "government" had put pornographic images at the prime minister's eye level to make him/her see and, with that, endow him/her with a being-able-to-do. The sexual intercourse with the animal should last longer (in the axle of the extent) and be slow (in the axle of intensity),29 since he might suggest he was enjoying having sex with the pig if he reaches orgasm too quickly. Thus, the practice of zoophilia was allowed, since it did not imply a wanting, but an ought-to. This way, modalized by an ought-to-do, the prime minister is also modalized by an ought-to-be-seen. To have sex with the pig without having the images broadcast would be innocuous and, consequently, invalid. Thus, in this case, the ought-to-do presupposes the ought-to-be-seen.

Scopic relations described so far have to do with the manipulation regime: a subject (the kidnapper) manipulated another subject (the prime minister) to do something (have sex with a pig) which contradicts the whole axiological system that prohibits the practice of zoophilia. Therefore, through the logic of concession,30 a wanting-to-see was mobilized by another subject [the public opinion] - in this case, the actant in the position of observer - even if the actant in the condition of being seen, the prime minister, was modalized not by a not-wanting-to-be-seen but by an ought-to-be-seen.

However, an interaction regime may govern another in an oblique way. In this case, the manipulation regime, in which the kidnapper makes-do the prime minister (to have sex with the pig) and the public opinion (wanting-to-see), conditions the functioning of another regime: adjustment, in which a subject endows other subject not only with a modal competence, but also and especially with an esthesic competence, a feeling, as one sees here.

The images of the live broadcast were, then, seen by the entire England. A pub full of euphoric faces curious to see the performance of the prime minister figurativizes an intense wanting-to-see31 that modalizes the collective subject "public opinion." Before the broadcast per se, the text "official announcement" appeared on a black background. It was followed by this announcement: "This is an official announcement. In a few minutes the Prime Minister will perform an indecent act on your screens. This is in accordance with the kidnappers' demands, in the hope that it will ensure the safe release of Princess Susannah."

During the announcement, people were celebrating with a long and resonant shouting "ehhh!" and they raised beer glasses (33'01'' - 33'20''). The official announcement finished this way: "After midnight, it's a criminal offence to store any recording or still image of the event. All viewers are advised to turn off their televisions immediately. The broadcast will commence after the following tone." During the execution of a sharp, almost deafening beep, images of deserted streets were shown, suggesting that all people gathered together at home, in workplaces or bars to watch the live broadcast, obviously contradicting the very request contained in the announcement (33' 20'' - 33' 59'').

The broadcast begins. Before engaging in the sexual activity with the animal, the prime minister turns to the camera and says: "I trust this will bring about the safe return of Princess Susannah. I... I love my wife. May God forgive me" (35'43'' - 36'19''). He comes near the pig and the reaction of the public is of euphoria and curiosity. In terms of the syntax of seeing, the collective subject "public opinion" is modalized by an intense wanting-to-see (36'24'' - 36'37").

The prime minister approaches the pig and lowers his pants. The public laughs facetiously. Thus, public opinion (S2), modalized by wanting-to-see, establishes a contradictory relation with the prime minister (S1), who wants not-to-be-seen. It is what Landowski (1992, p.97) calls "S2 voyeurism." S2's wanting-to-see also reveals sadistic pleasure, seeing the other suffering, because he is in a humiliating position (36'37" - 36'42").

The sexual activity between the prime minister and the pig begins. The camera focuses not on the intercourse, but on the face of people watching the broadcast. The sadistic curiosity gives place to apprehension. Apprehension, by its turn, is followed by rejection, repugnance, horror. Thus, if, syntactically, there has been a movement that goes from wanting-to-see to wanting-not-to-see, semantically we see, based on their facial expressions, passionate effects of meaning that go from sadistic curiosity to horror, as we see in Chart 3.

Chart 3 Syntax and Semantics of regimes of visibility of S2 [Public opinion]32  

Regimes of Visibility of S2 [Public Opinion]
Syntax wanting-to-see not-wanting-to-see wanting-not-to-see not-wanting- not-to-see
Semantics Curiosity Apprehension Repulse /Repugnance /Horror33 Indifference

Source: The author

Thus, Chart 3 graphically represents the content coming from the sequence of images in which S2, public opinion, goes from sadistic curiosity (wanting- to-see) to apprehension (not-wanting-to-see) and from this to rejection, repugnance and, finally, horror (wanting-not-to-see). As already mentioned, a modal arrangement can be overdetermined by a tensive category. Thus, in syntactic terms, an intense wanting-not-to-see corresponds to repulse; a more intense wanting-not-to-see corresponds to repugnance, and the saturated, maximum intensity of wanting-not-to-see corresponds, in short, to horror (36' 47" - 37' 28").

It is still interesting to mention that not-believing-to-be (uncertainty) overmodalizes wanting-to-see, i.e., the public, such as St. Thomas, who wanted to see in order to believe.34 From the moment one goes from uncertainty (not-believing-to-be) to possibility (not-believing-not-to-be) and to certainty (believing-to-be), the meaning of the regime of visibility also changes, since the collective subject S2 (public opinion) goes from wanting-to-see (curiosity) to not-wanting-to-see (apprehension) and then to wanting-not-to-see (rejection).

One may also say that The National Anthem refers, by analogy, to the moment when everyone is together for the performance of a national symbol. The unity displayed during the performance of the The National Anthem in a big event is the same that was observed during the video broadcast of the sexual intercourse between the prime minister and the pig. It is the very nation that is figurativized by those pathemized faces: at first they are skeptical, curious, euphoric, and, at the end, they believe in the unbelievable, being disgusted, horrified. Thus, amidst the subjects in the position of observers (S2), unified in the semiotic sense, that is, in a sensible co-presence, there is no exchange of value-objects, but the sharing of a pure feeling. It is in fine esthesia, which founds the being-together, the nation itself.

This way, as we are demonstrating, the manipulation regime begins to obliquely govern the adjustment regime in The National Anthem. Now the interaction happens not only by a making-believe, but especially by a making-feel. One interacts, in the adjustment regime, by the contagion between sensibilities:

It is by making feel that you want that you make the other want; you make see your own fear so you can scare the other and cause nausea by vomiting. You calm the other with his/her own calm, impel the other - without pushing - only through his/her own impulse, etc. [The regime of adjustment is characterized, then,] by a direct, somewhat immediate contact - according to the situation - between bodies that feel and bodies that are felt (LANDOWSKI, 2014, p.51).35

Thus, if the addresser [the kidnapper] made-see and if the addressee [public opinion] at a first moment turned down the contract proposed by the addresser, at the end the addressee was modalized by a wanting-to-see. From this point on, the regime of manipulation is superposed by the regime of adjustment, in which, in this case, by means of seeing, feelings, esthesia, union, and contagion between sensibilities emerge. As seen before, subjects in the position of observer do not lose modal competence, but are fundamentally endowed with esthesic competence.

Chart 4 represents two senses that may be observed in the elliptical square. The first comes from wanting-not-to-see, goes to not-wanting-not-to-see and reaches wanting-to-see. In other words, at a first moment, the public refuse to see the sex scene of the prime minister with the pig, but then it begins wanting-to-see. Thus, it comes from repulse, denies this state (indifference), and reaches curiosity. The second, on the contrary, begins with wanting-to-see, goes to not-wanting-to-see and reaches wanting- not-to-see. In this case, it comes from curiosity, reaches apprehension and, at the end, rejection, which intensifies and becomes repugnance. The latter worsens and saturates and reaches horror.

Source: The author

Chart 4 Elliptical Square of Syntax and Semantics of regimes of visibility of S2 [Public Opinion] 

Thus, as we are associating regimes of visibility with regimes of interaction and meaning, this analysis of The National Anthem has sought to demonstrate that the first meaning that is actualized in the elliptical square wanting-not-to- see> not-wanting-not-to-see> want-to-see> is characterized by the regime of manipulation so as to reach wanting-to-see.

From this point on, the opposite meaning occurs: wanting-to-see> not-wanting-to-see> wanting-not-to-see. This way, from the curiosity that is established, i.e., an intense wanting-to-see, there surfaces the regime of interaction and meaning of adjustment, in which bodies "that feel and are felt"36 - using Landowski's words (2014, p.51) - come to share non value-objects: it is not only a question of saving the Princess. What begins to unite those subjects is feeling itself, esthesia itself shared in co-presence. Thus, the second movement that goes from curiosity to apprehension and then to horror is characterized by the regime of adjustment, and the form of interaction between the spectators-subjects happens by the contagion between sensibilities. Thus, in a categorical way it is possible to say that it is the wanting-to-see as a group, the not-wanting-to-see as a group and the wanting-not-to-see as a group that define this regime of visibility characterized by adjustment, in which subjects are semiotically together.

Following, in Chart 5, we graphically show the relation between the regimes of interaction and visibility.

Chart 5 Relation between Regimes of Interaction and Meaning and Regimes of Visibility 

Regime of Visibility
(syntax)
Wanting- not-to-see Not-wanting-not-to-see Wanting-to-see Not-wanting- to-see Wanting-not- to-see
Regime of Visibility
(semantics)
Repulse Indifference Curiosity Apprehension Repulse >
Repugnance >
Horror
Regime of Interaction and Meaning Manipulation
(Principle of intentionality / logic of junction)
Adjustment
(Principle of sensibility / logic of union)

Source: The author

As regards contagion between sensibilities, such as was shown by the analysis, Landowski (2004, p.127) illustrates a similar case about a theater audience:

In theater, for example, we may frequently see whole groups of pathemic subjects - the whole audience of a play - laughing, crying, sighing in surprise or shaking with terror. They are all driven by the same impulse, in a momentary communion around the same joy or the same imagined despair, presented to them through discourse and the bodies of actors acting on a scene. With a shared esthetic and esthesic experience, the participation in the dramatic act thus establishes a kind of living community among the spectators, based on the felt closeness, uniting the bodies-subjects.37

Thus, the analysis shows two things: (1) a regime founded on the principle of intentionality, based on the intelligible, that is, manipulation, may begin to govern obliquely a regime anchored on the principle of sensibility, based on the sensible, which is adjustment. This demonstrates how the passage from the intelligible to the sensible occurs, based on the regimes of interaction and meaning. This attests to the oblique recursivity between the regimes of interaction proposed by Landowski (2014, p.89). However, this analysis demonstrates, in addition, that (2) a regime of visibility can be governed, overdetermined, by a regime of interaction and meaning. This way, from the emergence of a new regime of interaction, the meaning of a regime of visibility changes. Then, the possibility of articulating regimes of interaction and regimes of visibility showed to be proficuous because it allowed us to observe the passage and superposition of an intelligible-based regime to a sensible-based one. Based on the syntax of seeing, i.e., on scopic subjects, due to several possibilities between wanting-to-see and wanting-to-be-seen, a new regime of interaction is established, which, on the basis of the achieved theoretical articulation, presents itself as having a certain degree of novelty.

4 Point of View, Accident and Programming in The National Anthem

We must still examine the episode according to the other two interaction regimes already mentioned: accident and programming. As discussed before, in the accident regime, "the irruption of sense, or no-sense, is so disturbing that the subject is astonished or fascinated and, in any case, helpless" (LANDOWSKI, 2014, p.95).38 Based on this statement, we present the last part of this paper, which aims to relate the regimes of accident and programming with the analyzed episode.

Fontanille (2016) compares the concepts of event (ZILBERBERG, [2006] 2011), from tensive semiotics, and accident (LANDOWSKI, [2005] 2014), from sociosemiotics, with the aim of establishing the differences and similarities between them. Regarding what these concepts have in common,

they are both characterized by the fact that they "occur" without anticipation, and specially by the possibility to attribute their origin to an actant that may be identified. They are also a problem to be solved for the syntagmatic organization of the course of things, as it [accident /event] was presented before the incidence (FONTANILLE, 2016, p.36).39

In what concerns the difference between them, the author shows that a syntagmatic incidence, i.e., something that occurs in the axle of fact succession, will be an event "if it affects a viewer whose observation referential is congruent with that of the process modified by the incidence" (FONTANILLE, 2016, p.37; emphasis in original).40 In other words, the person who was affected by the sudden occurrence of an impacting and unexpected event could not had anticipated it, because he/she was at a point of the syntagmatic chain which prevented such anticipation.

Regarding the alea, which is the principle that regulates the accident and the event, Fontanille (2016, p.38) shows that, although it does not presuppose a viewer directly, it supposes "at least an epistemic interpreter [...] [who] one may confuse with the viewer of these events."41 As for the accident, Fontanille (2016, p.38) resorts to the Larousse Portuguese dictionary to define the expression: "a non-wanted, random, fortuitous event, which happens punctually in space and time, as a consequence of one or several causes, and which implies damages to persons, goods, or the environment."42 The author concludes that the accident is a particular case of event. This way, there would be two types of event to which the alea would be subjacent: (1) "those which are not predicted on account of the actors' incapability"; and (2) "those which are not predicted because nobody might do it." However, "if the alea is considered only from the point of view of reception and interpretation by the actors themselves (which is, roughly, the point of view adopted by Landowski), then the two types of event are confused in the same global effect of unpredictability" (FONTANILLE, 2016, p.38).43

Fontanille's (2016) reading of the concept of accident (and also of event) allows the retrieval of the notion of the viewer's point of view in a syntagmatic chain. Thus, as already seen, the accident is a type of "non-wanted, random, fortuitous" event (LAROUSSE apudFONTANILLE, 2016, p.38),44 which cannot be predicted on account of the actors' incapability to predict or because nobody might do it. The accident-alea, according to Fontanille's understanding (2016) about Landowski's work (2014), "is considered from the point of view of reception and interpretation by the actors themselves" (FONTANILLE, 2016, p.38).45 Thus, this is when we intend to relate the regimes of accident and programming in The National Anthem.

Considering the point of view of the audience (public opinion) and also that of the prime minister, that is, from the place of the syntagmatic chain they were occupying, the Princess' ransom video / request was received with great surprise. The unexpected, transgressive, bizarre, in short, concessive nature of the kidnapper's bizarre ransom demand (to make the prime minister have sex with a female pig, broadcast live on national televison) constitutes, from the point of view of the audience, an accident, which causes them to be bewildered, petrified, ravished. Thus, such a semiotic fact happens suddenly in an intense way, that is, it is characterized by a high degree of intensity and a low degree of extent, which for a little while prescinds from signification, since it is especially characterized by its sensible aspect. Therefore, for the subject "public opinion" (and also for the subject "prime minister"), the first regime that is established is that of accident.

Again, it is a type of non-predicted accident on account of the actor's incapability to do so, i.e., it is a type 1 accident, according to Fontanille (2016). If it could not be predicted, that is due to a programming which, from the point of view the public opinion and also of the government, was not perceptible. Thus, there was a programming prior to the accident, but one that did not seem to exist. In veridictory terms, the programming was, this way, a secret. In this sense, as Fontanille shows, "programming, if it exists, is only rebuilt from the consequences. This attests to its imprevisibility or occultation" (FONTANILLE, 2016, p.36; our emphasis).46

Near the end of the episode, a television report is shown, according to which: "in the anniversary of a year of his humiliating Mount Calvary, one apparently carefree Michael Callow appeared confident in a public apparition today with his wife Jane." The report shows that artist Carlton Bloom, a Turner Prize winner, was the one responsible for kidnapping the Princess and demanding the grotesque ransom. It also states that

As the anniversary arrived, one art critic has caused controversy by describing it as the first great artwork of the 21st Century. There's no rule that says art must be admirable or even enjoyable. The best art often unsettles us, which this certainly did. And of course, it was the single biggest artistic collaboration in history, one in which all of us took part.

Thus, the passage makes it clear that there was a kidnapper who programmed a sequence of actions: kidnapping Princess Susannah, recording and posting a video/ demand for a bizarre ransom on YouTube, and knowing that only by manipulating the public opinion would he be able to manipulate the prime minister. Based on "behavior algorithms" related to a politician who would like to stay in his position, it was predictable that the prime minister would comply with the blackmail and would have sex with a female pig broadcast live on national television. It would be still possible to predict that the public opinion would want to see the sex scene of the prime minister with the animal. It would be possible to predict, in addition, that the audience, at first impelled by a sadistic curiosity, would reach a state of rejection, repugnance, horror, not only of that scene but of themselves, because they had wanted to see it: "what kind of human being am I for enjoing seeing other people in such a vexatious situation?" Perhaps they could have questioned it. From the point of view of the kidnapper (who was an artist, as viewers find out at the end of the episode's syntagmatic chain), what existed was a programming of "the first great artwork of the 21st Century."

Thus, there is an accident for the audience and a programming for the kidnapper. Everything depends on the point of the syntagmatic chain in which the subject is. Paraphrasing Saussure, in this case, it is the point of view that creates the regime of interaction. Or still, if we associate again the regimes of visibility with the regimes of interaction, it is the being-able-to-see or the being-able-not-to-see that establishes one regime or the other.

Final Remarks

This work proposed to articulate the theoretical models regimes of interaction and meaning (LANDOWSKI, 2014) and regimes of visibility (LANDOWSKI, 1992) and to subsidiarily mobilize the concepts of union and contagion (LANDOWSKI, 2004), aiming at understanding the correlations between the sensible and the intelligible in the engenderment of meaning in the episode The National Anthem of the British series Black Mirror. After doing the analysis, it was possible to see that a regime such as manipulation, based on the principle of intentionality, may come to obliquely govern a regime anchored on the principle of sensibility, i. e., adjustment. This conclusion is in accordance with Landowski's theory (2014, p.89) regarding recursivity between regimes.

What was not predicted by the theory, however, is that a regime of visibility may be governed, overdetermined, by a regime of interaction and meaning. This way, from the emergence of a new regime of interaction, the sense of a regime of visibility changes. Such a conclusion, thanks to the possibility of articulating the above-mentioned models, constitutes a relative novelty in theoretical terms, since it allows observing the passages and superpositions of a regime based on the intelligible to a regime based on the sensible - from the syntax of seein - that is, from scopic subjects who, through the several possibilities of wanting-to-see/wanting-to-be-seen, established a new regime of interaction.

Lastly, the problematics of the point of view related to accident and programming was raised. It was possible to observe that the viewer's presence at a given point of the syntagmatic chain, i.e, the point of view - being-able-to-see or being-able-not-to-see - in the case of these two regimes, establishes either regime: accident or programming, characterized respectively by the sensible and the intelligible.

REFERENCES

BARROS, D. Sintaxe narrativa. In: OLIVEIRA, A.; LANDOWSKI, E. (Orgs.). Do inteligível ao sensível: em torno da obra de Algirdas Julien Greimas. São Paulo: Educ, 1995. p.81-97. [ Links ]

FIORIN, J. Prefácio. In: LANDOWSKI, E. Interações arriscadas. Trad. Luiza Helena Oliveira da Silva. São Paulo: Estação das Letras e Cores, 2014. p.7-10. [ Links ]

FONTANILLE, J. Um diálogo imaginário entre Claude Zilberberg e Eric Landowski: em torno do acontecimento, da álea e do acidente. In: MENDES, C.; LARA, G. (Org.). Em torno do acontecimento: uma homenagem a Claude Zilberberg. Curitiba: Appris, 2016. p.35-47. [ Links ]

GREIMAS, A. Da imperfeição. Trad. Ana Claudia Oliveira. 2. ed. São Paulo: Estação das Letras e Cores; Ed. do CPS, 2017. [ Links ]

GREIMAS, A. Sobre o sentido II: ensaios semióticos. Trad. Dilson Ferreira da Cruz. São Paulo: Nankin; Edusp, 2014. [ Links ]

GREIMAS, A. COURTÉS, J. Prova. In: Dicionário de semiótica. Trad. Alceu Dias Lima et al. São Paulo: Contexto, 2008. p.394-394. [ Links ]

GREIMAS, A. Semântica estrutural. Trad. Haquira Osakape e Izidoro Blikstein. São Paulo: Cultrix; Ed. da Univ. de São Paulo, 1973. [ Links ]

HOUAISS, A.; VILLAR, M. Dicionário Houaiss da língua portuguesa. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 2001. [ Links ]

LANDOWSKI, E. Interações arriscadas . Trad. Luiza Helena Oliveira da Silva. São Paulo: Estação das Letras e Cores , 2014. [ Links ]

LANDOWSKI, E. Passions sans nom. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2004. [ Links ]

LANDOWSKI, E. A sociedade refletida: ensaios de sociossemiótica. Trad. Eduardo Brandão. São Paulo: Educ ; Pontes, 1992. [ Links ]

MENDES, C. Modalizações do fazer no episódio "Hino nacional", do seriado Black Mirror. Significação: revista de cultura audiovisual (ECA/USP). São Paulo, v. 44, n. 48, p.32-52, jul-dez, 2017. [ Links ]

MENDES, C. Acontecimento, fidúcia e concessão: uma leitura semiótica do caso Isabella Nardoni. In: ______; LARA, G. (Org.). Em torno do acontecimento: uma homenagem a Claude Zilberberg. Curitiba: Appris, 2016. p.301-320. [ Links ]

OLIVEIRA, A.; LANDOWSKI, E. (Org.). Do inteligível ao sensível: em torno da obra de Algirdas Julien Greimas . São Paulo: Educ , 1995. [ Links ]

THE National Anthem. In: Black Mirror. Diretor: Otto Bathurst. Criação: Charlie Brooker. Inglaterra, 2011. [ Links ]

ZILBERBERG, C. Elementos de semiótica tensiva. Trad. Ivã Carlos Lopes, Luiz Tatit e Waldir Beividas. São Paulo: Ateliê, 2011. [ Links ]

1We are grateful to the Research Incentive Fund of PUC Minas (FIP/PUC-MG) for the funding granted to research project FIP-22444, from which this paper is derived.

2Thus, Mendes (2017) and this article compare (and complement) the same object, analyzing it from two different perspectives, namely, standard Greimasian semiotic and Landowsky's sociosemiotics, respectively.

3In the original: "o sistema preconizado por Landowski alarga exponencialmente as condições de aplicabilidade da teoria narrativa."

4The fact that standard Greimasian semiotics has developed a narrative grammar centered in action and privileged the intelligible over the sensible (at least until the publication of The Semiotics of Passions and Da imperfeição [On Imperfection]) is related to questions pertaining to the very constitution of the discipline. The statement above, then, is not to be taken as criticism, but as an acknowledgement that in order to develop theories one must choose among options which are possible in a certain episteme. Cf. Barros (1995), for example, on the chronological development and the stages of the narrative grammar.

5GREIMAS, A. Structural Semantics: An Attempt at a Method. Translation by Daniele McDowell, Ronald Schleifer, and Alan Velie. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1984.

6As this article is a development of Mendes (2017), we do not find it necessary to present the series in detail. For more information, cf. Mendes (2017, pp.38-40).

7Film manifesto written by Danish directors Thomas Vinterberg and Lars von Trier in 1995. Available at: [http://pov.imv.au.dk/Issue_10/section_1/artc1A.tml#i1]. Accessed on: Jul 05 2017.

8In the original: "O episódio Hino nacional, do seriado Black Mirror, mostra, de forma primorosa, como as modalizações alteram a competência modal do sujeito no contexto da cultura de convergência, destacando o papel fundamental das mídias e tecnologias nas relações sociais contemporâneas e na propagação de quadros de valores. O episódio, com 44 minutos de duração, dedica 34 minutos à fase da manipulação, que é quando o destinador-manipulador "sequestrador", por meio da "opinião pública", dota o destinatário "primeiro-ministro" do objeto modal dever-fazer. O destinatário-sujeito, apesar de não-querer-fazer, deve-fazer. O dever, nesse caso, sobrepõe-se ao querer. Constrói-se, assim, um sujeito coagido que, a contragosto, teve que realizar a performance "ter relações sexuais com um porco". É importante assinalar, ainda, que o episódio rompe com uma norma social vigente que proíbe a prática da zoofilia. Em "Hino nacional", a zoofilia passa da interdição à prescrição."

9In the original: "conception d'une intersubjectivité systématiquement médiatisée par les objets."

10For more details of the analysis of the narrative level of National Anthem, cf. Mendes (2017).

11In the Portuguese translation: "manipular é sempre imiscuir-se em certo grau na vida interior de outrem (tipicamente por meio da persuasão) nos motivos que o outro sujeito possa ter para atuar num sentido determinado."

12In the Portuguese translation: "a competência modal que lhe confere, essencialmente, o querer que fará dele 'sujeito.'"

13In the Portuguese translation: "Todo sujeito pode, assim, (e isso é o que o converte em "sujeito motivado" e de "razão") querer, ou crer, ou saber, etc., e, por consequência, também querer que o outro queira (ou não queira), crer que crê, saber que sabe etc., e fazê-lo saber. Compartilhada pelos sujeitos, essa competência propriamente semiótica os habilita para se "comunicarem" entre si e, por isso mesmo, os faz manipuláveis uns pelos outros, tanto em função de suas respectivas motivações e razões, quanto a partir de cálculos que efetuam no que concerne à competência modal de seus interlocutores."

14In the Portuguese translation: "embora Greimas esboce um e outro, não os distingue entre si. Ao contrário, o que ele chama de acidente estético, ou, às vezes, acontecimento estético [...] superpõe, condensa, confunde os dois regimes."

15In the Portuguese translation: "é suficiente que o ator se apoie em certas determinações preexistentes, estáveis e cognoscíveis do comportamento do outro."

16In the Portuguese translation: "empreender procedimentos persuasivos com o objetivo de que o sujeito manipulado não possa, finalmente, deixar de confrontar-se ao querer do estrategista-manipulador."

17In the Portuguese translation: "é [...] na interação mesma, em função do que cada um dos participantes encontra e, mais precisamente, sente na maneira de agir de seu parceiro, ou de seu adversário, que os princípios da interação emergem pouco a pouco."

18In the original: "Se concentre non pas sur les états jonctifs successifs mais sur ce qui se passe entre les actants, ou mieux, sur ce qui se passe, esthésiquement et à chaque instant, de l'un à l`autre. [ ;Dans le cas de l'union] ;, les actants interagissent entre eux du seul fait de leur coprésence [...]. C'est un mode d'interaction (et du même coup, de construction de sens] ; conditionné par la seule coprésence des actants, par la seule possibilité matérielle d'un rapport sensible entre eux."

19In the original: "fondé sur la coprésence sensible et directe des actants."

20In the original: "transformation dynamique réciproque et en acte."

21In the Portuguese translation: "[nesse] regime [...], a irrupção do sentido, ou do sem sentido, é tão perturbadora que o sujeito se encontra estupefato ou extasiado e, em todo caso, desamparado."

22In the Portuguese translation: "não tem competência definível: nem de ordem modal - porque ou não é motivado, e age sem razão, ou, ou se lhe é atribuída uma intencionalidade, esta não é conhecida -, nem de ordem estésica: indeterminado, incorpóreo, intocável, mesmo que onipresente, não é sensível a nada (nem a si mesmo)."

23In the Portuguese translation: "os respectivos percursos dos actantes não tinham até então nada a ver entre si e apenas o azar fez com que convergissem num ponto preciso."

24In the Portuguese translation: "oblíquo, ou 'regente', de natureza tal que o funcionamento de um regime determinado comanda ou condiciona o funcionamento de outro regime."

25The author reminds us that these two actants may be subsumed by only one, as Narcissus, or by two distinct actors.

26On the theory of modalities, from which Landowski's (1992)regimes of visibility stem, cf. Greimas, 2014, pp.79-101.

27 Landowski's (1992) scopic wanting semiotic structure was adapted to the form of an elliptical square, according to the most recent works by the author (esp. 2014). It aimed to make dynamic relations established therein and also to ratify the relations of regimes of visibility with relations of regimes of interaction and meaning.

28The images analyzed throughout this article will have, when referenced, the respective minutes and seconds as they appear in the episode.

29For Zilberberg, intensity and extent are the terms of the category tensivity. The crossing of the dimension or axle of intensity with the dimension or axle of extent generates a tensive space. The first refers to soul states and is constituted by the subdimensions of tempo and tonicity; the second is constituted by the subdimensions of temporality and spatiality.

30For Zilberberg (2011, p.242), concession is defined as "the product of the sub-valences of tempo and tonicity when they reach a paroxysm, that is, an excess" [in the original: "o produto das subvalências de andamento e de tonicidade quando atingem o paroxismo, ou seja, a desmedida"]. Differently from implicative logic "if x, then y," concessive logic, which is at the core of the notion of event, refers to the idea of "in spite of x, y", i.e., concession refers precisely to something which is unexpected, but happens; something that occurs without our being prepared for it.

31We understand, based on Zilberberg (2011), that the category of tensivity may affect modalities, and there could be more or less intense wanting, ought-to.

32It is important to point out that Chart 3 is a horizontal representation of Landowski's elliptical square. It aims at making the ratification of a syntax term with a semantic term more didactic. Thus, wanting-not-to-see (repulse) will be followed by not-wanting-not-to-see (indifference), which will be followed by wanting-to-see (curiosity), and so forth.

33The online Cambridge Dictionary defines these words as follows: repulse – “the act of pushing someone or something unwanted away or of refusing him, her, or it”; repugnance – “a feeling of disgust caused by behaviour or beliefs, etc. which are very unpleasant”; horror – “an extremely strong feeling of fear and shock, or the frightening and shocking character of something.” Available at [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/].

34In Mendes (2016), we relate the concepts of fiduciary contract and concession to explain the relation between the fiduciary dimension of belief (to believe vs. not to believe) and event. He demonstrated that "concession acts, thus, as hypotyposis. It exaggerates, and makes veridiction more intense, sensorial, and esthesic. In these terms, concession brings veridiction to its apex, by intensifying it. This way, 'believing in the unbelievable' leads to the image of the subject of stupor, of fright" (MENDES, 2016, p.304). In the original: "a concessão atua, assim, à maneira da hipotipose, carregando nas tintas, tornando mais intenso, sensorial, estésico o caráter da veridicção. Nesses termos, a concessão eleva a veridicção a seu ápice, intensificando-a. Assim, 'crer no inacreditável' conduz à figura do sujeito do estupor, do espanto."

35In the Portuguese translation: "Fazer sentir que se deseja para fazer desejar, deixar ver seu próprio medo e, por esse fato mesmo, amedrontar, causar náusea vomitando, acalmar o outro com sua própria calma, impulsionar - sem empurrar - só por seu próprio ímpeto, etc. [O regime do ajustamento é marcado, então,] por um contato direto, mais ou menos imediato, conforme o caso, entre corpos que sentem e corpos sentidos."

36In the Portuguese translation: "que sentem e corpos sentidos."

37In the original: "au théâtre par exemple, on peut couramment voir des groupes entiers de sujets pathémiques - tous les spectateurs d'un soir - rire, pleurer, haleter de surprise ou trembler d'effroi tous ensemble d'un même allégresse ou dans un même désespoir figuré devant eux à travers de discours e le corps des acteurs jouant sur la scène. Expérience esthétique et esthésique partagée, la participation à l'acte dramaturgique instaure alors une sorte de communauté vivante entre spectateurs, fondée sur une proximité ressentie unissant les corps-sujets."

38In the Portuguese translation: "a irrupção do sentido, ou do sem sentido, é tão perturbadora que o sujeito se encontra estupefato ou extasiado e, em todo caso, desamparado."

39In the original: "tanto um quanto outro se caracterizam pelo fato de que 'ocorrem' sem que se possa antecipá-los, de que é particularmente atribuir sua origem a um actante passível de identificação e de que eles constituem um problema a ser resolvido para a organização sintagmática do curso das coisas, tal como ele [acidente/acontecimento] se mostrava antes da incidência."

40In the original: "se ela abala um espectador cujo referencial de observação é congruente com aquele do processo modificado pela incidência."

41In the original: "ela prevê, porém, ao menos um intérprete [...] epistêmico [que] pode se confundir com o espectador desses acontecimentos."

42In the original: "um acontecimento não desejado, aleatório, fortuito, que aparece pontualmente no espaço e no tempo, em consequência de uma ou várias causas, e que implica danos a pessoas, a bens ou ao ambiente".

43In the original: "aqueles que não são previstos em razão da incapacidade dos atores"; "aqueles que não são previstos porque ninguém poderia fazê-lo"; "se, entretanto, a álea for considerada apenas do ponto de vista da recepção e da interpretação dos próprios atores (é, grosso modo, o ponto de vista adotado por Landowski), então os dois tipos de acontecimento se confundem no mesmo efeito global de imprevisão."

44In the original: "não desejado, aleatório, fortuito."

45In the original: "considerada apenas do ponto de vista da recepção e da interpretação dos próprios atores."

46In the original: “a programação, se ela existe, não é portanto reconstruída senão a partir das consequências, o que é um atestado de imprevisão ou de ocultação.”

Translated by Adail Sobral - adail.sobral@gmail.com

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank for reading the text's semifinal version to Jaqueline Schiavoni and Paolo Demuru, who contributed for the reflections here undertaken. I also would like to thank Jocyare Souza for revising the article in Portuguese.

Received: May 18, 2018; Accepted: February 17, 2019

Creative Commons License Este é um artigo publicado em acesso aberto sob uma licença Creative Commons