In his classic essay The Gift, Marcel Mauss argued that gifts can never be truly free; rather, they bring about an expectation of reciprocal exchange. For over one hundred years, his ideas on economy, social relations, and exchange have inspired new modes of thought, none more so than what crystallized in the 1980s around an innovative group of French academics. In The Gift Paradigm, Alain Caillé provides the first in-depth, English-language introduction to La Revue du MAUSS - or, "Anti-Utilitarian (...) Movement in the Social Sciences," combining the work of anthropologists, sociologists, philosophers, and others. Today, the very idea of a "general social science" seems unthinkable, unless you count the pervasive sway of a utilitarian logic in orthodox economics, or the diffuse influence of neoliberalism. Here, Caillé offers a distinctly different reading of economy and society, inspired by Mauss - as vital now as ever. (shrink)

In this essay, Alain Caillé reconstructs the “singular history of the MAUSS (Anti-Utilitarian Movement in the Social Sciences)” from when in early 1980 a group of friends from different disciplines (sociologists, economists, philosophers, etc.) decided to found the “Bulletin du MAUSS” to counter the growing hegemony of utilitarianism and economism in the human sciences and in the philosophical disciplines themselves. The Bulletin would initially become the “Revue du MAUSS trimestrielle” from 1988 to 1992 and from 1993 to 2022 (...) the “Revue du MAUSS semestrielle” until its current anglophone extension “MAUSS International”. The author takes Marcel Mauss’ definition of the gift as a “total social fact” and explains that the gift paradigm is a “translation operator” in the sense that it is continuously enriched in interaction with existing discourses. The theoretical operation that Caillé proposes is to explicate Mauss’s discovery by moving from a simple gift paradigm, based on the perspective of simple reciprocity between giver and recipient, to an expanded gift paradigm. In this way, it can dialogue with other paradigms and other currents of thought (theory of recognition, theory of care, theory of human development, etc.). And from here to a conception of the gift as “adonnement”, i.e. the commitment of human subjects to bring something new and unprecedented into the world. (shrink)

Daniele Hervieu-Léger and Marcel Gauchet explain that today the hold that the religious dimension has always exerted over human societies is, of very recent date but definitely, slackening; that it is becoming ‘hollow’ and ceases to inspire collective action, leaving henceforth wide open the question of knowing in which name we should attempt to take our destiny in our hands and base the norms of collective being. This question at once summons up another, implicitly contained in the latter: is every (...) ethical norm (or moral norm, for we are not making a distinction between the two concepts here) ultimately religious in origin, as is most often supposed, or can one in fact conceive of sketching the outlines of a moral code that is immanent within the social relationship, a moral code that is sufficiently coherent and self-consistent to do without, at least in theory, a religious-type transcendence? Here, I should like to make a case for the second response by emphasizing that religion - whatever meaning one bestows on this notion, still undefined today - does not constitute the primary, irreducible social and historical fact that is most often supposed, but that it should itself be interpreted as the formulation of a more original and more universal formulation: the threefold obligation of giving, receiving, and repaying distinguished by Marcel Mauss in his famous Essay on the Gift. Of course, I shall not claim here to do more than sketch a few possible lines of argument. But even before formulating them, I must call to mind two prejudicial objections that my argument has encountered. (shrink)

Is it only yesterday's humanism, whether religious or secular in origin, that is dying - and is it really dying? - or is it more profoundly the very paradigm of humanity? At least it is worth asking the question. Do we not hear on every side today that everything is ‘constructed’ and ‘formated’? No inherited moral standard now seems acceptable, nor any reference to any sort of human nature or naturality. The only idea that henceforth finds acceptance is that of (...) the infinite plasticity of the human, leaving individuals free to shape themselves as they wish beyond any commonly received standard, since only defiance of the norm seems to be the source and proof of freedom. (shrink)

The anthropologist Marcel Mauss, in his famous exploration of the gift in "primitive" and archaic societies, showed that the essential aspect of the exchange of presents involved the establishment of a social tie that bound the parties together above and beyond any material value of the objects exchanged. He argued that these intangible mutual "debts" constituted the social fabric. Godbout and Caillé show that, contrary to the modern assumption that societies function on the basis of market exchange and the (...) pursuit of self-interest, the gift still constitutes the foundation of our social fabric. The authors describe the gift not as an object but as a social connection, perhaps the most important social connection because it creates a sense of obligation to respond in kind. They examine the gift in a broad range of cases such as blood and organ donation; volunteer work; the bonds between friends, couples, and family; Santa Claus; the interaction between performers and their audience; and the relation of the artist to society. Written in an engaging manner, The World of the Gift will appeal to anyone who is interested in how the world really operates. (shrink)

Si c'est "malgré tout" qu'il faut défendre la sociologie, c'est malgré ce qu'elle est devenue. Bien loin de ses grandes espérances initiales et des splendeurs que nous ont léguées les Durkheim, Weber, Simmel, Mead, Elias, Mauss, etc. Ce que l'on appelle sociologie s'est peu à peu recroquevillé jusqu'à apparaître comme la "science (ou la pseudo science) des restes n, la science de ce dont ne parlent ni les philosophes, ni les économistes, ni les historiens, ni les anthropologues, ni les théoriciens (...) de la littérature, etc. Éclatée en de multiples chapelles théoriques ou idéologiques, privée de colonne vertébrale paradigmatique et institutionnelle, elle ne croit plus pouvoir trouver son unité que dans une référence de plus en plus incantatoire au "terrain" et à l'empirisme, et dans ses querelles infinies sur ce qui fait la bonne méthode ou le bon terrain. La sociologie classique, celle qu'il nous faut faire revivre et actualiser, se présentait tout autrement. Elle revendiquait hautement une approche empirique de la réalité et le souci d'établir des faits, elle aussi, mais elle n'imaginait pas que ce puisse être accompli hors-théorie et sans enjeux normatifs, c'est-à-dire éthiques et politiques... Dit autrement, elle se vivait comme le lieu et le moment généraliste de la science sociale générale. C'est cette sociologie là, autrement dit la science sociale générale, qui nous fait désormais défaut et qu'on appelle ici à renaître de ses cendres. (shrink)

Il est grand temps de faire revivre le projet d ́une théorie sociale générale... et généreuse. En tant que riposte et alternative à la colonisation des sciences sociales par l ́économie néoclassique, nous proposons de reprendre en l'actualisant le projet des grands auteurs classiques, d'Aristote à Marx, de Kant à Habermas, d'Adam Smith à Durkheim et Mauss, de Schumpeter ou Keynes à Polanyi ou Braudel, etc. Contre l ́orthodoxie néoclassique des économistes et la doxa de la neutralité axiologique des sociologues, (...) nous appelons à une nouvelle synthèse de la sociologie classique, de la philosophie morale et politique et des " Studies ". Si les sciences sociales veulent poursuivre leur travail de réflexivité, il est essentiel qu'elles renouent avec la grande tradition et se conçoivent comme la continuation de la philosophie morale et politique par d'autres moyens. Si elles ne réussissent pas à se dégager de l'utilitarisme, elles risquent fort de connaître le même destin que les sociétés et les universités, elles ne seront plus une vocation, mais une profession, et en tant que telles une simple extension du Marché et de l'Etat. (shrink)

Daniele Hervieu-Léger and Marcel Gauchet explain that today the hold that the religious dimension has always exerted over human societies is, of very recent date but definitely, slackening; that it is becoming ‘hollow’ and ceases to inspire collective action, leaving henceforth wide open the question of knowing in which name we should attempt to take our destiny in our hands and base the norms of collective being. This question at once summons up another, implicitly contained in the latter: is every (...) ethical norm (or moral norm, for we are not making a distinction between the two concepts here) ultimately religious in origin, as is most often supposed, or can one in fact conceive of sketching the outlines of a moral code that is immanent within the social relationship, a moral code that is sufficiently coherent and self-consistent to do without, at least in theory, a religious-type transcendence? Here, I should like to make a case for the second response by emphasizing that religion - whatever meaning one bestows on this notion, still undefined today - does not constitute the primary, irreducible social and historical fact that is most often supposed, but that it should itself be interpreted as the formulation of a more original and more universal formulation: the threefold obligation of giving, receiving, and repaying distinguished by Marcel Mauss in his famous Essay on the Gift. Of course, I shall not claim here to do more than sketch a few possible lines of argument. But even before formulating them, I must call to mind two prejudicial objections that my argument has encountered. (shrink)

Que reste-t-il aujourd’hui de vivant et d’universalisable de ce qui a fait la Gauche – signifiant privilégié de tous les espoirs politiques des deux siècles écoulés – et de l’idéal socialiste qui en était le cœur ? Comment reformuler celui-ci de manière plausible en ces temps de globalisation qui voient l’Europe, berceau de la Gauche et du socialisme, plonger dans l’impuissance..

Within moral and political philosophy and the social sciences, recent conceptual developments in the concept of recognition cannot be dissociated from an opposition to those theories inspired by what is commonly called rational action theory or the economic model of action. The paradigm of recognition represents the heart of those theories that are both alternative and complementary to the theory of individual action. Nonetheless, this conceptual development calls out for an alliance between political philosophy and the social sciences. We argue (...) that the paradigm of recognition can only be developed to its full potential if it is interpreted in the wake of what Marcel Mauss and the Revue du MAUSS, has called the paradigm of the gift. The gift only takes on its full sense when understood as a means, performer, and symbol of public and/or private recognition. (shrink)

This article calls for a new theoretical synthesis that overcomes the fragmentation, specialization and professionalization within the social sciences. As an alternative to utilitarianism and the colonization of the social sciences by rational choice models, it proposes a new articulation of social theory, the Studies and moral, social and political philosophy. Based on a positive anthropology that finds its inspiration in Marcel Mauss’s classic essay on the gift, it recommends a return to classical social theory and explores articulations between theories (...) of reciprocity, care and recognition. (shrink)

What steps are needed to make life better and more convivial? The Second Convivialist Manifesto has presented a short diagnosis of the current crises and sketches of a possible and desirable future. It has been a necessary work of theoretical synthesis, but preserving a viable world also requires passion. It is thus urgent to show what people would gain from a shift to a post-neoliberal and post-growth convivialist future. This volume includes a theoretical debate on convivialism which reflects dystopias and (...) shows the multiple and major obstacles that convivialism will have to face. Mainly, however, the contributors to this volume create sketches of a convivial future and collect accounts of another future world which is attractive for as many as possible. (shrink)

The article presents an overview of the intellectual trajectory of Alain Caillé, the founder and animator of the anti-utilitarian movement in the social sciences (MAUSS) in France. Going back to early influences of Claude Lefort, Karl Polanyi and Pierre Clastres, it shows the centrality of the symbolic constitution of the economy in the development of an intellectual front against rational choice. It also considers how Marcel Mauss’s famous Essay on the Gift has been developed into a ‘gift paradigm’ (...) that aims to unify the various social sciences into a comprehensive alternative to the interest paradigm. (shrink)

Is it only yesterday's humanism, whether religious or secular in origin, that is dying - and is it really dying? - or is it more profoundly the very paradigm of humanity? At least it is worth asking the question. Do we not hear on every side today that everything is ‘constructed’ and ‘formated’? No inherited moral standard now seems acceptable, nor any reference to any sort of human nature or naturality. The only idea that henceforth finds acceptance is that of (...) the infinite plasticity of the human, leaving individuals free to shape themselves as they wish beyond any commonly received standard, since only defiance of the norm seems to be the source and proof of freedom. (shrink)

I argue that Adam Smith, far from being a utilitarian as claimed by Alain Caillé, was instead a semi-sceptical philosopher who defended a pluralistic normative ethics of prudence, justice, benevolence, and, far from being the founder of the science of a system self-produced by the interaction of individual self-interests, was a sharp critic of the practices of the commercial society of his time in the name of liberty, justice, and equality. In a word, was from being the putative (...) father of Capitalism, Adam Smith was the father o a liberal left and a forefather of the present-day critics of globalization. (shrink)

All of us share the same feeling of being torn between two equally impossible attitudes, namely the absurdity of resistance and the abjectness of renunciation, that is to say a feeling of surrender to the course of events and I think that it is true that we are all more or less filled with this feeling or to revert to other terminology which I will borrow from Jacques Ellul, we all have the feeling of being swept away in a haphazard (...) process over which we no longer have any hold. In this respect, I tend to agree with Alain Caillé, that we are at the moment experiencing a shift, a transformation, a revolution - use whichever term you prefer - such as has only happened two or three times in western history and it is true that this great shift is probably comparable, to the Renaissance, say, or the fall of the Roman Empire or possibly the Enlightenment or even the Industrial Revolution in its extent, radicality and also what is enigmatic about it that for those who are experiencing it. There is a radicality in what we are experiencing which is the source of that feeling which sometimes assails us that all resistance would not only be useless but ridiculous. I intend to deconstruct, if I may so express it, this feeling of ridicule which is paralysing us and which indeed paralyses us all the more because it is exploited day after day by talk of flux in which all desires and all ethical or political voluntarism is in general described as some kind of residual archaism. (shrink)

Assimilé à la French Theory, Jean Baudrillard a été aussi célèbre, ou presque, sur les campus américains que Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Guattari ou Lacan. Mais il est loin d'avoir aujourd'hui leur diffusion mondiale. Il a même presque totalement disparu des écrans radars. Officiellement sociologue, aucun sociologue ne le cite, aucun étudiant de sociologie ne le lit. Il faut dire qu'il a tout fait pour brouiller les pistes, en se refusant à tout simulacre de réalisme pour mieux tenter de prendre la (...) réalité de vitesse, jusqu'à annoncer son évanescence dans l'hyper-réalité du virtuel. Sa pensée, fulgurante, attirait étrangement, mais on pouvait croire que cette séduction fatale tenait à un goût tout pataphysicien des paradoxes. Or, force est de se demander s'il n'avait pas au bout du compte vu plus juste et mieux anticipé que tous ses contemporains ce qu'est désormais devenu notre monde. Ce volume, qui réunit sociologues, philosophes, économistes, théoriciens de l'esthétique et des médias, permet de prendre la mesure de son œuvre inclassable. Avec des contributions de : Gérard Briche, Alain Caillé, Jean-Paul Curnier Françoise Gaillard de Serge Latouche, Chin Min, Katharina Niemeye, Nicolas Poirier, Anne de Rugy, Clara Schmelck, François Séguret, Jean-Louis Violeau. (shrink)

Ce texte a déjà paru dans la Revue du MAUSS, 2011/2, n° 38, p. 339-348. Nous remercions Benjamin Fernandez et Alain Caillé de nous avoir autorisé à le reproduire ici. « Ce que nous vendons à Coca-cola, c'est du temps de cerveau disponible. » Patrick LELAY, ancien président de la chaîne privée française TF1 (2004). La pensée moderne, héritière des Lumières, avait accouché de la figure du sujet libre : une conscience de soi, substance stable et indivisible (Descartes), (...) actrice du langage et d'un (...) - 1. Comment penser le pouvoir dans le monde contemporain ? – Nouvel article. (shrink)

To my mind, the most urgent current task in the social sciences is one in the context of which the unduly cut-and-dried distinctions between positive and normative, between sociology and ethics, between secular pluralism and religious spirituality, and so on, should be abandoned. I would like to reclaim the legacy of a Marxian-type dialectic by stating that the social sciences today (and I would even risk speaking of a single present-day ‘social science’) have the threefold task of (1) thinking through (...) in depth the directions of a desirable social change, (2) asking what are the ‘resources for action’ already available for this end within the totality of social actors and (3) identifying the moral capacities that need to be stimulated and/or created so that the resources for action which are not yet available, but which are desirable under point (1), may be able to take root and flourish. I defy anyone to disentangle clearly and analytically the positive and normative parts of such a task …If the somewhat acrimonious debate on the status of the gift that I have had with Alain Caillé for the last two years continues to hold my interest and if I have eventually overcome my irritation in the face of what has occasionally seemed to me a failure of understanding linked to the defence of an ‘article of local faith’, it is because our debate is a fundamental part of the worthwhile task of the social sciences. Nevertheless, I shall make it clear straight away that the expression ‘sociological gift’ hardly satisfies me, in the light of the description of this task which I have just supplied. (shrink)

Alain Badiou, one of the most powerful voices in contemporary French philosophy, shows how our prevailing ethical principles serve ultimately to reinforce an ...

The works of Gilles Deleuze -- on cinema, literature, painting, and philosophy -- have made him one of the most widely read thinkers of his generation. This compact critical volume is not only a powerful reappraisal of Deleuze's thought, but also the first major work by Alain Badiou available in English. Badiou compellingly redefines "Deleuzian, " throwing down the gauntlet in the battle over the very meaning of Deleuze's legacy. For those who view Deleuze as the apostle of desire, (...) flu, and multiplicity, Badiou's book is a deliberate provocation. Through a deep philosophical engagement with his writings, Badiou contends that Deleuze is not the Dionysian thinker of becoming he took himself to be; on the contrary, he is an ascetic philosopher of Being and Oneness. Deleuze's self-declared anti-Platonism fails -- and that, in Badiou's view, may ultimately be to his credit. "Perhaps it is not Platonism that has to be overturned, " Badiou writes, "but the anti-Platonism taken as evident throughout this entire century." This volume draws on a five-year correspondence undertaken by Badiou and Deleuze near the end of Deleuze's life, when the two put aside long-standing political and philosophical differences to exchange ideas about similar problems in their work. Badiou's incomparably attentive readings of key Deleuzian concepts radically revise reigning interpretations, offering new insights to even the veteran Deleuze reader and serving as an entree to the controversial notion of a "restoration" of Plato advocated by Badiou -- in his own right one of the most original figures in postwar French philosophy. The result is a critical tour de force that repositions Deleuze, one of the mostimportant thinkers of our time, and introduces Badiou to English-speaking readers. (shrink)

In the uprisings of the Arab world, Alain Badiou discerns echoes of the European revolutions of 1848. In both cases, the object was to overthrow despotic regimes maintained by the great powers—regimes designed to impose the will of financial oligarchies. Both events occurred after what was commonly thought to be the end of a revolutionary epoch: in 1815, the final defeat of Napoleon; and in 1989, the fall of the Soviet Union. But the revolutions of 1848 proclaimed for a (...) century and a half the return of revolutionary thought and action. Likewise, the uprisings underway today herald a worldwide resurgence in the liberating force of the masses—despite the attempts of the ‘international community’ to neutralize its power. Badiou’s book salutes this reawakening of history, weaving examples from the Arab Spring and elsewhere into a global analysis of the return of emancipatory universalism. (shrink)

"Logiques des mondes, auquel Alain Badiou travaille depuis une quinzaine d'années, est conçu comme une suite de son précédent "grand" livre de philosophie, L'être et l'évènement, paru aux Editions du Seuil en 1988".

Twenty years ago, Alain Badiou's first Manifesto for Philosophy rose up against the all-pervasive proclamation of the "end" of philosophy. In lieu of this problematic of the end, he put forward the watchword: "one more step". The situation has considerably changed since then. Philosophy was threatened with obliteration at the time, whereas today it finds itself under threat for the diametrically opposed reason: it is endowed with an excessive, artificial existence. "Philosophy" is everywhere. It serves as a trademark for (...) various media pundits. It livens up cafés and health clubs. It has its magazines and its gurus. It is universally called upon, by everything from banks to major state commissions, to pronounce on ethics, law and duty. In essence, "philosophy" has now come to stand for nothing other than its most ancient enemy: conservative ethics. Badiou's second manifesto therefore seeks to demoralize philosophy and to separate it from all those "philosophies" that are as servile as they are ubiquitous. It demonstrates the power of certain eternal truths to illuminate action and, as such, to transport philosophy far beyond the figure of "the human" and its "rights". There, well beyond all moralism, in the clear expanse of the idea, life becomes something radically other than survival. (shrink)

Le propos fondamental du livre d'Alain Badiou est d'établir que le noyau de toute philosophie compatible avec le marxisme est une théorie du sujet. Mais laquelle? Ni le sujet comme conscience (thèse de Sartre), ni l'hypothèse du sujet " naturel ", désirant ou substantiel, ne peuvent convenir. C'est du côté du sujet clivé tel que Lacan - notre Hegel - en fait théorie, qu'il faut chercher une issue. Alain Badiou trouve là de quoi refondre, non pas le thème, (...) forclos, d'un sujet de l'Histoire, mais celui des sujets politiques. L'opération ne se peut faire sans étendre le concept lacanien du sujet, lié dès l'abord à deux types d'effets: l'occupation d'une place vide d'un côté, l'excès sur cette place vide de l'autre. Instrument de cette distinction : le couple algèbre/topologie. Il en résulte que le réel, pensable - comme le fait Lacan - sous le concept algébrique de l'objet cause, doit également être reçu sous celui, topologique, de consistance: ontologie en partie double. Le cœur de la question est atteint quand entre en dialectique avec la notion lacanienne du manque, la catégorie nouvelle de destruction. Qu'on ne s'attende pas à ne trouver ici qu'une discussion de théories. Mallarmé y voisine abondamment avec Mao Tsé-toung, Hilderlin avec Hegel, et le théorème de Gödel avec la situation des ouvriers immigrés. (shrink)

Penser la politique, c'est d'abord réfuter le politique : le dénoncer comme illusion (imaginaire) du " faire un ", des identifications (le parti, le syndicat, la société sans classe), du fait cernable, de la prévision assurée. La politique naît, elle, de l'événement, par où 1'on entend ici le surgissement des dominés rompant l'ordre du politique et l'unité de celui-ci : un surgissement toujours précaire, dont la mise en œuvre suppose un pari et un calcul chaque fois risqués : en bref, (...) il y a la politique quand - et seulement si - une dé-liaison de la réalité propose un point de réel. Alain Badiou part de la décomposition du marxisme où il voit l'effet de ce que Marx, tout en montrant l'irruption du réel dans la réalité du politique, a continué de penser dans le politique. Et il avance un essai de recomposition centré sur l'interprétation de ce qui fait événement, dès lors que les dominés ont prononcé, au défaut de l'ordre, leur existence, et qu'il est possible de parier sur cette prononciation. (shrink)

Two eminent French philosophers discuss German philosophy—including the legacy of Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Adorno, Fichte, Marx, and Heidegger—from a French perspective. In this book, Alain Badiou and Jean-Luc Nancy, the two most important living philosophers in France, discuss German philosophy from a French perspective. Written in the form of a dialogue, and revised and expanded from a 2016 conversation between the two philosophers at the Universität der Künste Berlin, the book offers not only Badiou's and Nancy's reinterpretations of German (...) philosophers and philosophical concepts, but also an accessible introduction to the greatest thinkers of German philosophy. Badiou and Nancy discuss and debate such topics as the legacies of Kant, Hegel, and Marx, as well as Nietzsche, Adorno, Fichte, Schelling, and the unavoidable problem of Heidegger and Nazism. The dialogue is contentious, friendly, and often quotable, with strong—at times passionate—positions taken by both Badiou and Nancy, who find themselves disagreeing over Kant, for example, and in unexpected agreement on Marx, for another. What does it mean, then, to conduct a dialogue on German philosophy from a French perspective? As volume editor Jan Völker observes, “German philosophy” and “French philosophy” describe complex constellations that, despite the reference to nation-states and languages, above all encompass shared concepts and problems—although these take a range of forms. Perhaps they can reveal their essential import only in translation. (shrink)

"French philosopher Alain Badiou (b. 1937) introduces the concept of democratic materialism to refer to the belief that there are only bodies and languages, then employs a fair amount of science in what he calls a somewhat fastidious examine of it. He covers formal theory on the subject (meta-physics); the greater logics: the transcendental, the object, and relation; the four forms of change; the theory of points; what a body is; and what it is to live."--Provided by publisher.

Since the 1980s, two different paradigms have reshaped industrial societies: the Neoliberal paradigm and a Research and Innovation paradigm. Both have been conceptualized and translated into strong policies with massive economic and social consequences. They provide divergent responses to the environmental transition. The Neoliberal paradigm is based on economic models and geopolitical solutions. The Research and Innovation paradigm's goal is to manage knowledge differently in order to reorient the evolution of society. Since the mid-1990s, a version of the Research and (...) Innovation paradigm has led to the design of large-scale research and innovation policies. This book examines how these policies have evolved and how they can be extended and reformed to respond to present and future environmental constraints. It studies the transformation of the conception, organization and role of science and technology in the evolution of industrial societies and explores the future of these developments. The book offers three unique lines of enquiry. The first is to focus not specifically on economics, sociology, political science or history, but on knowledge creation from an institutional and reflexive point of view. The second is to establish a convergence between the British school of science and technology studies and the research trends opened by the work of Michel Foucault. Both introduced trans-disciplinary and policy-oriented research associating case studies, long-term perspectives and theory. The third is to consider climate change as the overwhelming challenge of our time. The book is an insightful guide for students, scholars and researchers across the humanities and social sciences, including philosophy, political science, law, economics, business and media. (shrink)

"Is it meaningful to call oneself a democrat? And if so, how do you interpret the word?" -/- In responding to this question, eight iconoclastic thinkers prove the rich potential of democracy, along with its critical weaknesses, and reconceive the practice to accommodate new political and cultural realities. Giorgio Agamben traces the tense history of constitutions and their coexistence with various governments. Alain Badiou contrasts current democratic practice with democratic communism. Daniel Bensaid ponders the institutionalization of democracy, while Wendy (...) Brown discusses the democratization of society under neoliberalism. Jean-Luc Nancy measures the difference between democracy as a form of rule and as a human end, and Jacques Rancière highlights its egalitarian nature. Kristin Ross identifies hierarchical relationships within democratic practice, and Slavoj Zizek complicates the distinction between those who desire to own the state and those who wish to do without it. -/- Concentrating on the classical roots of democracy and its changing meaning over time and within different contexts, these essays uniquely defend what is left of the left-wing tradition after the fall of Soviet communism. They confront disincentives to active democratic participation that have caused voter turnout to decline in western countries, and they address electoral indifference by invoking and reviving the tradition of citizen involvement. Passionately written and theoretically rich, this collection speaks to all facets of modern political and democratic debate. (shrink)

Gilles Deleuze exprime un besoin de philosophie apte à révolutionner les manières convenues de pratiquer la philosophie. Il souhaite mettre un terme au cycle des interprétations pour mieux expérimenter les forces impersonnelles, associe l'histoire de la philosophie à l'" agent de pouvoir " dans la pensée, et formule ce curieux désir de sortir de ta philosophie par ta philosophie. Ses monographies d'auteurs ont pourtant acquis le statut de " classiques " de la philosophie. Deleuze prend également part, à sa manière, (...) aux grands débats de son temps en situant son travail dans le courant de la métaphysique occidentale. D'où la nécessité d'interroger l'héritage philosophique de Deleuze, dix années après la disparition de fauteur. Les contributions réunies ici ouvrent de nouvelles pistes en étudiant les rapports complexes de Deleuze à notre tradition et en récusant aussi toute tentative de réduction de la pensée deleuzienne à un simple moment historique. Contributions de Manola Antonioti, Alain Beaulieu, Constantin Boundas, Olivier Fahle, Stéfan Leclercq et Arnaud Viltani. (shrink)

LLe terme ' évaluation ' est porteur d'une ambiguïté dès l'origine car son contenu sémantique est double : donner un prix, ou une mesure, mais aussi ' donner une valeur ' entendu d'un point de vue éthique, la valeur dont parle Weber. Or la fascination pour la mesure occulte le fait que le choix des éléments à mesurer est subjectif et qu'en aucun cas la scientificité ne vient directement de l'observation de l'objet. Cette caractéristique subjective est tout simplement ignorée dans (...) le domaine de l'évaluation des effets induits par le développement technologique. Le mode de fonctionnement de ce sophisme scientifique qu'est l'évaluation est très différent suivant la catégorie d'objets mesurés. Je vais donc dégager trois grandes catégories qui nous font passer du plus concret au plus abstrait, du plus simple au plus compliqué dans le sophisem: la description du ' progrès ' technique à parti de l'évolution d'objets simples, couteau et automobile, l'histoire quantitative d'un fait naturel, le réchauffement climatique, la chronique d'un indicateur qui est lui-même un concept, l'empreinte écologique. Chacune de ces catégories pose un problème d'interprétation spécifique. (shrink)

Résumé La fascination pour la mesure, que représente l’évaluation quantitative dans le domaine écologique, occulte le fait que le choix des éléments à mesurer est subjectif et qu’en aucun cas la scientificité ne vient directement de l’observation de l’objet. J’en donnerai la preuve dans trois catégories qui regroupent l’ensemble du sophisme scientifique que constitue l’évaluation : le suivi d’un objet technique simple, avec l’exemple du progrès mesuré dans l’évolution du couteau et d’autres objets, l’histoire quantitative d’un fait naturel, le réchauffement (...) climatique, la chronique d’un indicateur qui est lui-même un concept, l’empreinte écologique. L’évaluation est bien un mode privilégié de connaissance de la technocratie « info-com ». Et la question environnementale a mis ce mode au centre du débat. Fondée sur la recherche obsessionnelle de la mesure, elle fait partie des instruments de connaissance qui nous enferment dans le monde techno-scientifique et participe à la fabrication de la modernité dans toute sa puissance aliénante, celle de l’hypersauvage contemporain. (shrink)

Résumé La notion de la « personne » est devenue aujourd’hui une notion très floue. D’une certaine manière, il s’agit d’une notion qui paraît n’avoir d’autre pertinence que l’usage qui en est fait pour légitimer, ou invalider, telle ou telle position concernant des problèmes éthiques contemporains. Mais un tel usage s’avère insatisfaisant, faute de pouvoir interroger vraiment la relation que cette notion entretient avec celle de « nature », que l’on précise au besoin comme étant humaine. Or, dans l’histoire du (...) monde, il existe un étant, Jésus de Nazareth, dont il est affirmé que, pour lui, le rapport entre nature et personne ne va pas de soi, comme cela semble être le cas pour les autre hommes. Ce rapport est posé d’une manière très singulière par la théologie catholique, plus précisément par le Concile tenu à Chalcédoine en 451. L’interrogation de ce texte conciliaire peut, dans un premier temps, inquiéter la philosophie en rendant délicat, voire incertain, le rapport entre « nature » et « personne ». Mais nous pensons qu’en se laissant inquiéter de la sorte, la philosophie peut trouver une voie nouvelle pour penser la « personne », au-delà des masques qui, traditionnellement, en tiennent lieu. (shrink)