Sens – Entre – Opérations. Eléments pour une philosophie-interfaces
Guillaume Giroud · HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2023
Since the 19th century, the disciplinary use of the notion of “interface” has continued to grow. It has also been supported by the development of interfaces in our daily environment, from the “cybernetic moment” (Triclot, Wiener, Engelbart, Licklider, Sutherland, Bush...) to our time (Vial, Turkle, Johnson), marked by the so-called digital revolution. Although the “interface”, as an interactive technical object, is studied by different disciplines (HCI, architecture, design, sociology, media studies...), we intend not only to acknowledge their contributions, but above all to propose a philosophical approach according to the perspective of sense (Chazal, Nancy, Salanskis). Our objective is thus to question the relation between the sense and the interface in order to support a “philosophy-interfaces”, following the “philosophy-screens” (Carbone), itself resulting from the “philosophy-cinema” (Deleuze). We will begin by defending the idea that meaning, distinct from the meaning and non-sense of flow, is conceived as between. We will depart from the traditional conception of philosophy centered on being to think relationally this between (Serres, Nancy, Jullien). As a preposition and pre-position, the between of the inter-face challenges the idea that the interface is a type of being. Since prepositions are defined by their operations (Simondon, Mersch), we will then argue that the interface is an operator of mediation (Mersch, Latour, Aristotle, Alloa), which are characterized by the operations of transir (Neyrat, Jullien), transduce (Simondon) and translate (Cassin, Citton, Jullien, Derrida). Thereafter, we will be interested in its specific modality, namely the “face”. Neither form, nor aspect, the face (a face) is what is made (to face). The inter-face thus consists in technically making faces, that is to say in shaping dividuals (Raunig, Deleuze, Ott), and not in shaping an individual (Aristotle, Arendt) or in carrying out a taking of individualizing form (Simondon, Ingold). We will then deduce the three operations of dividuation of the interface: to control (Hookway, Maxwell, Flusser, Vernant), to modulate (Simondon, Hui, Hookway), and to machine (Deleuze). We will finally be able to deduce the effects of the interface as for the sense: 1) the interface makes it possible to locate the sense between by giving a meaning to the nonsense of the digital, and conversely (Bachimont); 2) it makes sensitive the sense, on the one hand, by approaching it by contact (Nancy) and not by touching it, on the other hand, by insisting on its interfacialization (Sloterdijk, Frontisi-Ducroux) rather than on its “visagéification” (Munster, Deleuze) ; 3) it shapes a meaning that is neither common nor universal, but in common (Nancy), making it distinguishable from the notion of device (Agamben).