Mute Speech: Literature, Critical Theory, and Politics

by Jacques Rancière, James Swenson (Translator), Gabriel Rockhill (Introduction)

Jacques Rancière has continually unsettled political discourse, particularly through his questioning of aesthetic "distributions of the sensible," which configure the limits of what can be seen and said. Widely recognized as a seminal work in Rancière's corpus, the translation of which is long overdue, Mute Speech is an intellectual tour de force proposing a new framework for thinking about the history of art and literature. Rancière argues that our current notion of "literature" is a relatively recent creation, having first appeared in the wake of the French Revolution and with the rise of Romanticism. In its rejection of the system of representational hierarchies that had constituted belles-letters, "literature" is founded upon a radical equivalence in which all things are possible expressions of the life of a people. With an analysis reaching back to Plato, Aristotle, the German Romantics, Vico, and Cervantes and concluding with brilliant readings of Flaubert, Mallarmé, and Proust, Rancière demonstrates the uncontrollable democratic impulse lying at the heart of literature's still-vital capacity for reinvention.

Genres: Philosophy, Theory

208 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1998

About the author

Jacques Rancière (born Algiers, 1940) is a French philosopher 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 Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser.

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.
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. What is ideology? What is the proletariat? Is there a working class? And how do these masses of workers that thinkers like Althusser referred to continuously enter into a relationship with knowledge? We talk about them but what do we know? An example of this line of thinking is Rancière's book entitled Le philosophe et ses pauvres (The Philosopher and His Poor, 1983), a book about the role of the poor in the intellectual lives of philosophers.

Most recently Rancière has written on the topic of human rights and specifically the role of international human rights organizations in asserting the authority to determine which groups of people — again the problem of masses — justify human rights interventions, and even war.

In 2006, it was reported that Rancière's aesthetic theory had become a point of reference in the visual arts, and Rancière has lectured at such art world events as the Freize Art Fair. Former French presidential candidate Ségolène Royal has cited Rancière as her favourite philosopher.

Reviews

[Eric Steere · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though the references in this book are somewhat beyond me (lots of Francophone literature), his critical theory on aesthetics is useful but difficult to get a hold of. He operative analysis of works of literature are in an immanent analysis of the works themselves rather than through the imposition of his conceptual framework. His analysis allows the works to draw out their own consequences and principles. He also makes a good point on the relationship of aesthetics with the development of democracy in positing "un autre idee l'egalite" at work not only in the law but in the concrete forms of life that arise as ruptures or fissures in history. He also points to a productive contradiction between the spirit of literature and the letter, "the grand obligatory writing of the spirit and the egalitarian indifferent words of hollow letters" which serve as a kind of spirit sublimation.

[Manuel Correa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Me llama la atención que la conclusión del filósofo francés no es, precisamente, una conclusión. Tiene, con todo -y sin el logro de la ficción- un final abierto. Las afirmaciones finales, después de un repaso que examina con detalle el algoritmo literario en las tres partes de su disertación, no son juicios (a la manera hermenéutico-estética) y, en mi humilde opinión, creo que es un acierto en tanto que cualquier conclusión fija es el final de sí misma.

La literatura parece que tiene una respuesta en términos de una ontología de lo literario desde los aspectos de su materialidad, al menos, como lenguaje. Algo que todavía está por saberse.

[Jeremy Allan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a difficult but important book about the aesthetic conflicts working in the background of literary "evolution." Certain aspects will be more difficult if you don't have a prior grounding in French modernist literature, but it remains within the realms of accessibility. This can be considered as a continuation of Ranciere's theories presented in Le partage du sensible but specifically as applied to literature. I was particularly interested, as a poet, in his arguments about aspirations of literature to reach the aesthetic conditions of music. Thus the title.

[Gerardo Daniel Jiménez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un ensayo fantástico sobre la evolución de la imagen de la literatura. Escrito de forma transparente y exacta. No esperaba disfrutarlo tanto.

[Hakan Sipahioğlu · Rating 4 out of 5]

https://okumadansonra.blogspot.com.tr...

[Monokl Kitap · Rating 5 out of 5]

Edebiyat üzerine yazılmış, okunması gereken bir eser.

[Andrés Plascencia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Súper interesante, pero no entendí mucho y las conclusiones se me escaparon un poco :(

[Gaëlle]

C'est un ouvrage critique aussi intéressant que compliqué. j'ai passé de longs moments face à des pages a essayer de dégager le sens des phrases, le sens du concept, à revenir en arrière, puis à avancer. C'est un livre assez hermétique et qui ne s'adresse qu'à des spécialistes.

[Derek Fenner]

Can't dive in to this level of lit-crit at this moment. Will be back soon.