An ambitious, interdisciplinary exploration of the emergence of the urban phenomenon and its social, political and cultural dynamic.

Tandis que les biens matériels sont relativement aisés à évaluer parce qu’ils sont tangibles et quantifiables, les biens immatériels (ou « intangibles ») demandent une méthode plus complexe d’évaluation. Ainsi en va-t-il des savoirs, des services, des productions de l’esprit et de la culture en général. Il existe en effet un marché de tels biens et cela depuis qu’il existe des échanges marchands. Trois opérations le permettent : l’évaluation par unités mesure, le formatage des activités, l’échange ou le partage de (...) ces biens. Mais au-delà de ces biens immatériels évaluables sur un marché, il y a des biens ou plutôt des valeurs qui ne le sont pas et ne le seront jamais ; ils ont rapport au talent, au don, à la confiance, à la dignité – bref à l’inestimable. (shrink)

Structuralism was the major intellectual concern of French philosophy during the 1960s and 1970s. Elsewhere it was not, except in circles influenced by French thought. Lévi‐Strauss seemed to embody this theoretical trend; actually, he was simply its most outstanding figure. That situation was a strange one, in several respects: Lévi‐Strauss was not the initiator of structuralism as such, nor did he aim to cause any upheaval in the field of philosophy. But it is undeniable that most of the thinkers who (...) were (often wrongly and against their will) deemed to be structuralists, or post‐structuralists, or neo‐structuralists, such as derrida (see Article 50), althusser (Article 48), foucault (Article 49), deleuze (Article 51), Serres, lyotard (Article 52), Barthes, lacan (Article 47), Marin, entertained a special relationship with structural linguistics and with Lévi‐Strauss's anthropology. This is what needs to be understood. Thus the following sets of questions will be addressed: (1) Why, and because of what methodological requirements, did Lévi‐Strauss seek explanatory models for some anthropological problems in structural linguistics? (2) How and why did this choice made by Lévi‐Strauss have a decisive influence upon some of the major philosophers in France at that time? What were the fruits, and what were the limits and misunderstandings of the structuralist inspiration, particularly in its anthropological version, in philosophy. In other words, what assessment can be made today of the relationships between philosophy and Lévi‐Strauss's anthropology? (shrink)