Beginning with a consideration of Castoriadis’s elucidation of autonomous thinking, both by way of the contrast he draws with the inherited tradition and in relation to his account of the demands of the political project of autonomy, we compare Plato’s story of the Cave to suggest that Castoriadis overestimates the power of questioning and of creating new social forms. We then argue that Castoriadis and Plato emerge as two extremes: whereas the first favours the power of questioning to the exclusion (...) of receiving value, the second privileges the power of receiving over creation and creativity. (shrink)

A collaborative article by the Editorial Collective of Social Imaginaries. Investigations into social imaginaries have burgeoned in recent years. From ‘the capitalist imaginary’ to the ‘democratic imaginary’, from the ‘ecological imaginary’ to ‘the global imaginary’ – and beyond – the social imaginaries field has expanded across disciplines and beyond the academy. The recent debates on social imaginaries and potential new imaginaries reveal a recognisable field and paradigm-in-the-making. We argue that Castoriadis, Ricoeur, and Taylor have articulated the most important theoretical frameworks (...) for understanding social imaginaries, although the field as a whole remains heterogeneous. We further argue that the notion of social imaginaries draws on the modern understanding of the imagination as authentically creative. We contend that an elaboration of social imaginaries involves a significant, qualitative shift in the understanding of societies as collectively and politically-instituted formations that are irreducible to inter-subjectivity or systemic logics. After marking out the contours of the field and recounting a philosophical history of the imagination, the essay turns to debates on social imaginaries in more concrete contexts, specifically political-economic imaginaries, the ecological imaginary, multiple modernities and their inter-civilisational encounters. The social imaginaries field imparts powerful messages for the human sciences and wider publics. In particular, social imaginaries hold significant implications for ontological, phenomenological and philosophical anthropological questions; for the cultural, social, and political horizons of contemporary worlds; and for ecological and economic phenomena. The essay concludes with the argument that social imaginaries as a paradigm-in-the-making offers valuable means by which movements towards social change can be elucidated as well providing an open horizon for the critiques of existing social practices. (shrink)

Castoriadis’s radical ontology of indeterminacy postulates a third term between the complete determinacy of the traditional conception of being and the absolute indeterminacy of the traditional conception of nothingness. Castoriadis himself made considerable efforts to demonstrate how ontological conceptions which equate being with determinacy fail to grasp the reality of being in all ontological regions and contexts. He did somewhat less in regard to the opposite pole of the ontological dichotomy, the identification of indeterminacy with nothingness, though he certainly recognized (...) this identification as equally suspect.This article examines the use and interpretation of the concept of nothingness in two of the most important and exemplary employments of this concept in twentieth century philosophy. Nothingness is a key concept for both Heidegger and Sartre, however they may differ in regards to its meaning and significance. In both, the concept of nothingness disguises indeterminate modes of being which both perceive but which they refuse to accord the status of being, preferring instead the stark and absolute opposition between being, which continues to be understood in traditional terms as determinacy, and nothingness, a catch-all category which absorbs and homogenizes anything falling short of the absolute determinacy predicated of true being. (shrink)

This paper argues that twentieth-century philosopher Cornelius Castoriadis’ innovative concept of imagination is closely related to his treatments of dance. More specifically, it revolves around his concept of “figure,” which thereby suggests a productive partnership with my own philosophy of dance, which I call “Figuration.” The first and second sections below review the interpretations of Castoriadis’ imagination in the two book manuscripts on him in English, Jeff Klooger’s Psyche, Society Autonomy (which supplements Castoriadis with Fichte) and Suzi Adams’ Castoriadis’ Ontology (...) (which supplements him with hermeneutics). My final section defends Castoriadis against these two critical supplements through a close reading of his magnum opus, The Imaginary Institution of Society. There I re-choreograph Castoriadis’ use of the Freudian concept of “leaning on” (Anlehnung, from the Greek anaclisis) as “bending back” (anaclasis, following Klooger’s misspelling of anaclisis). In short, the imagination is like a dancer, bending back to nature understood as “the region which resists” (to varying degrees) the social. (shrink)

Cornelius Castoriadis understood history as a self-creating order. In turn, he elaborated history in two directions: as the political project of autonomy, and as the ontological modality of the social-historical. On his account, history as self-creation was only possible through the interplay of social (or political) imaginaries and social doing. Although social imaginaries are readily situated within the non-subjective field, non-subjective modes of doing have been less explored. Yet non-subjective contexts are integral to both the “doing” and “imaginary” dimensions of (...) the human condition, and form the preconditions for concrete varieties of social and political action and politics (as la politique), more generally. The present paper begins to clear a path to reflect on social doing in its non-subjective aspects; as such, it is preparatory rather than programmatic. After briefly reviewing the field of “social imaginaries”, it reflects on Castoriadis’s elaboration of “praxis” and “teukhein”. It then considers Johann Arnason’s culturological reconfiguration of Castoriadis’s approach, and Jan Patočka’s asubjective phenomenology of the movement of human existence as different ways of engaging with the problematic of doing, instituting society and political imaginaries. Despite a gradual subordination of “doing” to “signification” in Castoriadis’s philosophical elaborations, “social doing” as a non-subjective modality does not disappear altogether from his thought – especially and explicitly in respect to the phenomenon of instituting society as a political project – and remains a point of recurring intrusion into his more explicit theoretical concerns. (shrink)

De las muchas virtudes que caben reconocerse en el pensamiento de Cornelius Castoriadis nunca podrá eludirse el valor de su singular aproximación a lo que vino en denominarse “la experiencia griega”. En este artículo trataremos de acompañar su original lectura de la Grecia antigua, retomando la pertinencia y la exactitud con la que Castoriadis se sirvió de la pólis griega para justificar algunos matices velados de nuestras intuiciones políticas. En nuestra exposición trataremos de alinearnos con su original perspectiva, sirviéndonos esencialmente (...) del uso y la recuperación del ápeiron y sus distintas interpretaciones, en Anaximandro, en Aristóteles y, naturalmente, en el propio pensamiento de Cornelius Castoriadis. La conclusión de nuestro planteamiento -y quizá este gesto no sea más que un homenaje velado- aspirará a disentir de alguna de sus propuestas sin por ello dejar de reconocer la originalidad, la valentía y la vigencia de su aportación como lector de la experiencia griega. (shrink)

This article has two mail goals. The first one, to present a synthesis of the main characteristics of Castoriadis’ sociohistorical world ontology. In other words, to expose the "theory of society" of the Greek French philosopher and its central concepts. The second is to problematize some of the key elements of this proposal, particularly the notion of social imaginary significations. Through a reflection on the idea of the site of significations, a proposal will be presented for the extension of the (...) Castorian ontology that will allow the organic inclusion in its interior of the whole of the material world. This will provide the reader with a tool for analysing the sociohistorical world, which may be the starting point for an entire programme of specific sociohistorical researchs. (shrink)

The principle of creativity constitutes a central point in the philosophical-anthropological as much as in the psychoanalytic work of the Greek philosopher Cornelius Castoriadis. In Castoriadis’s thought the creative praxis of the human being is dependent on the innate imaginary force. The purpose of this article is to elaborate the way that subjectivity and the social field are constituted and interconnected through the unfolding of two fundamental concepts of Castoriadis, the radical imagination which applies to the psyche and the social (...) imaginary significations which applies to the social. The text aims to point out that Castoriadis’s intention was to make thinkable the content of autonomy in psychoanalytic terms of an “exchange” between the conscious and the unconscious that unleashes the creative potentiality of the psyche, and also becomes a precondition of political autonomy. (shrink)

Την 9η Μαρτίου του 1985 ο Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005) και ο Κορνήλιος Καστοριάδης (1922-1997) συναντήθηκαν στο στούντιο της ραδιοφωνικής εκπομπής «Le bon plaisir» της France Culture, την οποία παρουσίαζε ο πρώτος. Ο Ρικέρ βλέπει τον ανθρώπινο κόσμο, αν όχι ως πλήρως καθορισμένο, τουλάχιστον ως ετερο-καθορίσιμο, ερμηνευτή ενός νοήματος που προσφέρεται μεν από τη δομή του κόσμου, είναι δε ανοιχτό σε άπειρες διαφορετικές επανερμηνείες. Η ανθρώπινη χρονικότητα για τον Ρικέρ είναι αφηγηματική, γιατί και το φαντασιακό είναι, τελικά, ερμηνευτικό. Ο Καστοριάδης, από (...) την άλλη, αμφισβήτησε την ερμηνευτική μέθοδο, υπογραμμίζοντας τα προτερήματά της μόνον όσον αφορά «μεμονωμένα έργα στο πλαίσιο μίας παράδοσης.» (Καστοριάδης, 2007: 86). Δεν θεωρεί, ωστόσο, ότι επαρκεί για να διαυγάσουμε το φαινόμενο της δημιουργίας, ούτε στην ευρύτερη οντολογία του Είναι-ως-Χρόνος, ούτε στην ανθρωπολογία του κοινωνικο-ιστορικού κόσμου. Αυτή η δημιουργία είναι δημιουργία απερίσταλτων, αυθαίρετων κοινωνικών φαντασιακών σημασιών, κοινωνιογένεση και ανθρωπογένεση. Ο Ρικέρ δεν ήθελε να δεχτεί μία τόσο ριζική άποψη ούτε του ανθρώπινου φαντασιακού, ούτε του περιβάλλοντος κόσμου. Ωστόσο, ο διάλογος μεταξύ Καστοριάδη και Ρικέρ κατά μία έννοια συνεχίζεται στις φιλοσοφικές αναζητήσεις του καιρού μας. Παρ’ όλες τις διαφωνίες τους, οι θεωρητικές συγκλίσεις των δύο στοχαστών στα θέματα του φαντασιακού και της χρονικότητας υπήρξαν σημαντικές και η προσωπική τους σχέση, μια σχέση, θα λέγαμε, αμοιβαίας αναγνώρισης. (shrink)