Jacques Rancière Jacques Rancière (born 1940) is a French philosopher, Professor of Philosophy at European Graduate School in Saas-Fee and Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Paris (St. Denis) who came to prominence when he co-authored Reading Capital (1968), with the structural Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser.[1] Life and work[edit] Rancière contributed to the influential volume Reading Capital (though his contribution is not contained in the partial English translation) before publicly breaking with Althusser over his attitude toward the May 1968 student uprising in Paris; Rancière felt Althusser's theoretical stance didn't leave enough room for spontaneous popular uprising.[2] Since then, Rancière has departed from the path set by his teacher and published a series of works probing the concepts that make up our understanding of political discourse, such as ideology and proletariat. Influence[edit] Selected bibliography[edit] Rancière's work in English translation Further reading
Hatred of Democracy I read Ranciere's Hatred of Democracy yesterday. There is something appealing in his discussion of the scandal of democracy, although, ultimately, I'm not convinced of his underlying thesis. What's appealing? Ranciere's emphasis on chance (he gets here via a reading of Plato). The drawing of lots attests to a form of government that allows a role for chance, that is, for those with no claim to rule actually to rule. Ranciere argues, then, that democracy is well understood as a law of chance. I find this idea quite provocative, and, yes, a scandal. But, Ranciere links this chance to equality in a way I don't quite get. Their power must become a political power. Politics, it seems, requires that power be justified. [there is] no force that is imposed without having to justify itself, and hence without having to recognize the irreducibility of equality needed for inequality to function. I'm not sure I follow this. Democracy can never be identified with a juridico-political form.
A vote for anarchy The political philosopher Jacques Rancière would like to encourage the disruption of the normal order that is real democracy. Julian Baggini hears his campaign If you rage against the growth of consumerist individualism, the dumbing down of education in the name of widening participation or the shallow hedonism of modern life, you're probably just expressing a deep-rooted hatred of democracy. You'd be in good company, though. But what Plato saw as the horror of democracy was really its great virtue. "The political principle (behind democracy) is in a certain sense anarchic because there is no grounding legitimacy for any government, no specific legitimacy for any group to rule over other groups." This radical equality at the heart of democracy - the "drawing of lots" that so horrified Plato - is what strikes fear into elites, who are worried that political equality in practice means giving power to shallow, materialist drones. There is a lot of debate in many places.
The perversion of social democracy in Australia - The Drum Opinion Find More Stories The perversion of social democracy in Australia Amy Mullins The somewhat under-recognised British historian Tony Judt (1948-2010) delivered a landmark lecture in 2009 called, ‘ What Is Living and What Is Dead In Social Democracy? What is most haunting is just how closely Judt’s observations can be applied to the nebulous operation of social democracy in Australia today and its place within its local ideological home, the Australian Labor Party. I don't think I'm taking a great leap in saying we all have an intuitive feeling that Labor has a pervasive inability to communicate its policies to the public. "The Australian Labor Party is a and has , to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields." That this contemporary Labor values confusion was also plainly obvious when Prime Minister and Federal Labor Leader Julia Gillard delivered the Inaugural Whitlam Institute Oration in Western Sydney on March 31, 2011. Email Share x Digg
The Leader of Oz: No heart, no brain, no courage So after stalling on climate change, pushing boatpeople offshore and declaring billions in cuts to maintain a budget surplus at all costs, the Prime Minister has now announced a crackdown on welfare recipients . The last discernible difference between Julia Gillard and John Howard has now finally been extinguished. Of course I exaggerate: There are in fact two major differences between Gillard and Howard. 1) Howard actually believed in what he was doing; and 2) Under Howard we would have actually had an emissions trading scheme by now. So let us recalibrate our earlier position: Julia Gillard, a Labor Prime Minister who once claimed to be a socialist, now, with the help of the Greens, sits to the right of John Howard. Now that’s a thought. Gillard’s speech to the Sydney Institute this week was perhaps the most dull and lazy piece of reactionary politicking yet from a Government that has set all previous records for dull and lazy reactionary politicking over the past nine months.
Down and out in Centrelink and NewStart - The Drum Opinion Find More Stories Down and out in Centrelink and NewStart Malcolm Farnsworth The first welfare rort I ever perpetrated took place inside a Job Network provider’s office. Like all cheating, it started with a small lie, so small that it seemed churlish to resist. The justification was simple enough. I was something of an oddity at this establishment. Many of the "clients" at this place were middle-aged, unskilled men retrenched from a closed down factory. It was a confronting experience to get to this moment. My experience of social welfare had always been from a position of strength. My welfare experience had been characterised by tax concessions, rebates and deductions. But the Job Network version of welfare was different. The Centrelink worker I spoke to was considerate, courteous and, dare I say it, dignified. I departed with a card and number, a number that stays with me in perpetuity as far as I can tell. Now here I was the next day explaining my circumstances to a total stranger. x
sophia aram: Un article qui tranche ave... Voter front national, une connerie “On nous explique que ce sont des gens malheureux, qu’ils sont tristes. Du coup ils votent Le Pen pour manifester leur chagrin” S. Aram le 23 mars 2011 La vulgarisation de l’espace médiatique fait qu’en ces temps d’extrême droite dilatée, chaque commentateur émet sa petite musique dont l’objectif un peu fou consiste à endiguer ses poussées électorales. Chaque fait, détail, geste méticuleusement disséqués au regard de ce que pourrait penser l’hypothétique votant du Front National. En expert F. De plus, l’attitude consistant à sonder l’âme du gueux à la dérive, ne sachant plus à quel démon se vouer pour faire entendre ses plaintes stridulantes relève d’une analyse partielle du phénomène. Reste l’hypothèse irénique du vote protestataire, dont l’appareil frontiste servirait de réceptacle. Le front national est un produit identifié, bien marketé dont le côté subversif s’est estompé depuis 2002. S. Vogelsong – 23 mars 2011 – Paris Like this: J'aime chargement…
Front national : les “gros cons” et les “salauds”… Petite remarque à caractère historique… Hier, Sophia Aram dans sa chronique humoristique de France Inter a lancé à propos des électeurs du FN (après avoir passé un extrait sonore) : “Même si on n’a plus le droit de dire que ce sont des gros cons, c’est quand même pas mal imité, non ?” Je ne porte aucun jugement sur son propos : l’humoriste a tous les droits. En revanche, la posture a rappelé quelque chose au modeste archéologue de l’observation du Front national… “…Car si Le Pen est un salaud, ceux qui votent pour eux sont des salauds…” (à 38″). C’était en 1992. Nous serons bientôt en 2012. Dans mon livre Le Front national en politique (Balland, mars 1992) comme dans ma thèse de doctorat, je tentais d’expliquer (lassitude…) combien la ‘tactique’ qui consiste à dévaloriser, stigmatiser, insulter, diaboliser, etc., ne pouvait et ne pourrait, à terme, tenir lieu de stratégie face au Front national. Rien n’a changé. Bien au contraire. C’était vrai hier. Ça le sera toujours demain…
The 'lessons' of Breivik Monday, 23 April 2012 19:13 Written by Gavan Titley It is by now well-known that Anders Breivik regards his court appearance in Oslo as an inverted show-trial. Given that he wrote at length, in his manifesto, about the propaganda value of his potential trial and the trials of ‘patriots’ in general, there has been much debate in Norway about the decision to televise proceedings (though cameras are banned from his testimony, from the evidence of victims, and when the bomb blast footage was screened). Of course, lessons don’t walk in straight lines, and one observation on the first week of the trial is that its meaning is contested. This diagnosis has been successfully challenged, but as Aslak Sira Myhre has recently argued, the daily focus on procedural details and biographical fragments may also serve to depoliticize. In the immediate aftermath of July 22nd, Breivik’s anti-Jihad network of living citations rushed to insist that they could not be in any way associated with his actions.
Dealing with the Real Anders Breivik How, exactly, could a right-wing terrorist convince liberals he was, in fact, a right-wing terrorist? It’s a question Anders Breivik no doubt ponders. Remember, before embarking on his murderous mission, Breivik compiled and distributed a lengthy manifesto, precisely to dispel any mystery about his motivations. Now, he stands in the dock, giving military salutes and explaining, again and again and again, about why he did what he did. Yet, somehow, liberal pundits and politicians refuse to listen. That response seems itself almost pathological, an obsessive refusal to acknowledge that Breivik might represent what he claims, that he’s not a weak-minded isolate bewitched by ‘World of Warcraft’ but an experienced far-right activist acting to advance specific political goals. Most of all, the dime store diagnoses obscure just how widely Breivik’s ideas are shared. ‘This is an unconventional war. The passage might have come, word-for-word, from Breivik’s testimony. Hope not Hate explains: