of misinterpellation. We see here that, given such subject positions, it is possible both to be bound by the phantasmagoria in one sense even as it is resisted in another. It is this ability to both in and thwart such an ideological system that is the focus of this “believe” paper. Wall makes one other point that is helpful for thinking about resistance that is both part of and subversive to the phantasmagoria. He notes that: the “Haiti present[s] actual revolt of the objects themselves. Haiti is a slave revolt, as such it is ‘the property’ itself that is challenging the Here, at least in symbolic terms, we see ‘property system.’” the idea that can revolt against the idolatry that they are part of. “objects” (i.e. slaves) This is consistent with own idea that objects are both sources of fetishism and Benjamin’s the means by which that fetishism is overcome. He tells us, for example, in the Origin of that of the baroque is constantly convulsed by German Tragic Drama “[t]he language rebellion on the part of the elements which make it in general is replete up.” His work with instances of how objects thwart the representational phantasms we foist on them, allowing the failure of idolatry to always be legible to us. In the specific case of Haiti, we are not, of course, dealing with literal objects but with human beings who have been objectified but in any case, for Benjamin, under conditions of phantasmagoria, human beings, as much as anything else can be, and are, objectified and commodified; they too can be a source and a site of fetishism. And, by the same token, human beings too can serve to reveal the failure of that fetishism; this is why we are capable of misinterpellation in the first place. While for Benjamin such acts of resistance and subversion are a constant force in the as world (a “weak messianic power” he puts it), as I will argue further in the conclusion to this paper, in the case of the Haitian
of misinterpellation. We see here that, given such subject positions, it is possible both to be bound by the phantasmagoria in one sense even as it is resisted in another. It is this ability to both “believe” in and thwart such an ideological system that is the focus of this paper. Wall makes one other point that is helpful for thinking about resistance that is both part of and subversive to the phantasmagoria. He notes that: “Haiti present[s] the actual revolt of the objects themselves. Haiti is a slave revolt, as such it is ‘the property’ itself that is challenging the ‘property system.’” Here, at least in symbolic terms, we see the idea that “objects” (i.e. slaves) can revolt against the idolatry that they are part of. This is consistent with Benjamin’s own idea that objects are both sources of fetishism and the means by which that fetishism is overcome. He tells us, for example, in the Origin of German Tragic Drama that “[t]he language of the baroque is constantly convulsed by rebellion on the part of the elements which make it up.” His work in general is replete with instances of how objects thwart the representational phantasms we foist on them, allowing the failure of idolatry to always be legible to us. In the specific case of Haiti, we are not, of course, dealing with literal objects but with human beings who have been objectified but in any case, for Benjamin, under conditions of phantasmagoria, human beings, as much as anything else can be, and are, objectified and commodified; they too can be a source and a site of fetishism. And, by the same token, human beings too can serve to reveal the failure of that fetishism; this is why we are capable of misinterpellation in the first place. While for Benjamin such acts of resistance and subversion are a constant force in the world (a “weak messianic power” as he puts it), as I will argue further in the conclusion to this paper, in the case of the Haitian