What do you think?
Rate this book
Política, policía, democracia
En la coyuntura post 1989, el fin de un mundo cortado en dos fue saludado como el triunfo histórico definitivo de la democracia. La democracia triunfante se declaraba simplemente como el arte de lo posible. Y esta identificación se daba un nombre: el consenso.
Sin embargo, los procesos identitarios tensaron dicho consenso. Así el pensamiento democrático se encuentra atrapado entre un “liberalismo” oficial, que ha vuelto a tomar a cuenta del mercado mundial la fe marxista en la necesidad económica y el sentido irreversible de la historia, y un catastrofismo intelectual que nos anuncia que la democracia es el mal secreto que arruina los principios mismos de la filiación y de la tradición humanas. Este doble furor de los tecnócratas del progreso y los profetas de la decadencia es la ocasión para reencontrar el sentido original escandaloso del gobierno de todos y de nadie. Por ello es necesario entrar en contacto con lo esencialmente democrático de lo político.
Sin embargo, los procesos identitarios tensaron dicho consenso. Así el pensamiento democrático se encuentra atrapado entre un “liberalismo” oficial, que ha vuelto a tomar a cuenta del mercado mundial la fe marxista en la necesidad económica y el sentido irreversible de la historia, y un catastrofismo intelectual que nos anuncia que la democracia es el mal secreto que arruina los principios mismos de la filiación y de la tradición humanas. Este doble furor de los tecnócratas del progreso y los profetas de la decadencia es la ocasión para reencontrar el sentido original escandaloso del gobierno de todos y de nadie. Por ello es necesario entrar en contacto con lo esencialmente democrático de lo político.
84 pages, Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 1998
15 people are currently reading
554 people want to read
About the author
Jacques Rancière
205 books485 followersJacques 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.
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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
May 2, 2021
Rancière first became known in the late fifties and early sixties as a collaborator with, and later a left critic of, Louis Althusser. In the eighties, with the collapse of the Stalinist bureaucracies in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, he accepted, as did many European Marxists, the thesis that the collapse of Stalinism equaled the collapse of Marxism, which equaled the end of the class struggle, and the permanent domination of neo-liberal "democracy". (A view which, in the hindsight of a quarter century and the current economic crisis, seems rather naive.)
This book is an attempt to position himself slightly to the "left" of liberalism, to oppose the liberal view of democracy as "the end of politics", as simple management of a growing economy by experts who can solve all its problems given time and lack of interference by "politics", by a view which considers democracy to consist in "conflict over grievances", the periodic "verification of equality" through struggle -- provided the struggle avoids any attempt at reaching a "goal", or attempting to permanently change the "distribution of functions" (he avoids using the word "power" in this connection, which would show the problem with this whole idea.)
In other words, he wants to continue the kind of politics he is familiar with -- demonstrations, strikes, movements -- but without any overarching "telos" like socialism tying them together. As an American, I am tempted to say, "so what?", Europe is just catching up (or falling back, depending on your perspective) to what American radical politics, without mass workers parties, has always been like. But European ex-Marxist intellectuals have to appease their consciences with theory.
The book is by no means uninteresting. It consists of four papers written for other purposes (conferences, etc.) between 1986 and 1990. The first, on "The End of Politics", besides parodying the divergent liberal-conservative interpretations of what the end of politics consists in (in the French presidential elections of 1981), attempts to show the essential nature of democracy through an examination of the ancient city states (Athens, Rome) and their theories (Plato, Aristotle), history and even the etymology of various Greek and Latin political terms. Among the interesting ideas that he discusses are "the utopia of the Center" and the contrasting notions of "progress to a telos" and "progress as pure time." This is the best of the four.
The second and third essays are largely devoted to justifying the abandonment of socialist goals, and distinguishing his theories from the other very similar theories of the time; they are fairly obscure, and in the end I think they just beg the question. The final essay on "Democracy Corrected" presents his own theory in the most positive light, with the emphasis on grievances; here he draws back from the more conservative implications of the middle essays. (Actually, if you reorder the essays in the order they were written, 2, 3, 1, 4, they start with the most conservative and gradually draw back.)
Contrary to my expectations, this book doesn't break any new ground, and I'm not sure why it is included in a series of "Radical Thinkers", but it is worth reading, not only to understand current European political theory but also for the comparisons of ancient and modern democracy and the analysis of what democracy means. It's just the assumed, but never justified, counterposing of human equality and social equality which keeps it from being a good book (this was also true of the book about Jacotot, from whom he derives some of these ideas.)
This book is an attempt to position himself slightly to the "left" of liberalism, to oppose the liberal view of democracy as "the end of politics", as simple management of a growing economy by experts who can solve all its problems given time and lack of interference by "politics", by a view which considers democracy to consist in "conflict over grievances", the periodic "verification of equality" through struggle -- provided the struggle avoids any attempt at reaching a "goal", or attempting to permanently change the "distribution of functions" (he avoids using the word "power" in this connection, which would show the problem with this whole idea.)
In other words, he wants to continue the kind of politics he is familiar with -- demonstrations, strikes, movements -- but without any overarching "telos" like socialism tying them together. As an American, I am tempted to say, "so what?", Europe is just catching up (or falling back, depending on your perspective) to what American radical politics, without mass workers parties, has always been like. But European ex-Marxist intellectuals have to appease their consciences with theory.
The book is by no means uninteresting. It consists of four papers written for other purposes (conferences, etc.) between 1986 and 1990. The first, on "The End of Politics", besides parodying the divergent liberal-conservative interpretations of what the end of politics consists in (in the French presidential elections of 1981), attempts to show the essential nature of democracy through an examination of the ancient city states (Athens, Rome) and their theories (Plato, Aristotle), history and even the etymology of various Greek and Latin political terms. Among the interesting ideas that he discusses are "the utopia of the Center" and the contrasting notions of "progress to a telos" and "progress as pure time." This is the best of the four.
The second and third essays are largely devoted to justifying the abandonment of socialist goals, and distinguishing his theories from the other very similar theories of the time; they are fairly obscure, and in the end I think they just beg the question. The final essay on "Democracy Corrected" presents his own theory in the most positive light, with the emphasis on grievances; here he draws back from the more conservative implications of the middle essays. (Actually, if you reorder the essays in the order they were written, 2, 3, 1, 4, they start with the most conservative and gradually draw back.)
Contrary to my expectations, this book doesn't break any new ground, and I'm not sure why it is included in a series of "Radical Thinkers", but it is worth reading, not only to understand current European political theory but also for the comparisons of ancient and modern democracy and the analysis of what democracy means. It's just the assumed, but never justified, counterposing of human equality and social equality which keeps it from being a good book (this was also true of the book about Jacotot, from whom he derives some of these ideas.)
June 3, 2021
CENTAR - On ne označava partiju koja se nalazi u središtu između drugih partija, već je posredi generičko ime nove konfiguracije političkog prostora, slobodno ispoljavanje konsenzualne snage koja odgovara slobodnom, nepolitičkom odvijanju proizvodnje i prometa. (21)
KONSENZUALNA SAMOREGULACIJA STRASTI - Svet u kojem je svima potreban čitav svet, u kojem je dopušteno sve što se obznanjuje kao individualno uživanje, u kojem se sve meša i u kojem se svi mešaju, bio bi svet samo-pacifikovane mnoštvenosti.(41) - OKHLOS - nije neuređeno komešanje mnoštva, već mrziteljsko okupljanje oko strasti Jednog koje isključuje. (50)
...jednakost i sloboda su moći koje se rađaju iz sopstvenog čina i koje rastu njemu zahvaljujući. (71)
SUBJEKTIVACIJA - obrazovanje onog jednog koje nije sopstvo, već odnos određenog sopstva prema nekom drugom sopstvu. (90)
Svako objašnjenje je fikcija nejednakosti - Objašnjavam nekome neku rečenicu zato što pretpostavljam da je on ne bi razumeo ako mu je ne bih objasnio. To jest objašnjavam mu da on ne bi razumeo rečenicu da mu je ja nisam objasnio. Rečju, objašnjavam mu da je on manje inteligentan od mene i da zbog toga zaslužuje da bude tu gde je, kao što ja zaslužujem da budem tu gde sam. (123)
KONSENZUALNA SAMOREGULACIJA STRASTI - Svet u kojem je svima potreban čitav svet, u kojem je dopušteno sve što se obznanjuje kao individualno uživanje, u kojem se sve meša i u kojem se svi mešaju, bio bi svet samo-pacifikovane mnoštvenosti.(41) - OKHLOS - nije neuređeno komešanje mnoštva, već mrziteljsko okupljanje oko strasti Jednog koje isključuje. (50)
...jednakost i sloboda su moći koje se rađaju iz sopstvenog čina i koje rastu njemu zahvaljujući. (71)
SUBJEKTIVACIJA - obrazovanje onog jednog koje nije sopstvo, već odnos određenog sopstva prema nekom drugom sopstvu. (90)
Svako objašnjenje je fikcija nejednakosti - Objašnjavam nekome neku rečenicu zato što pretpostavljam da je on ne bi razumeo ako mu je ne bih objasnio. To jest objašnjavam mu da on ne bi razumeo rečenicu da mu je ja nisam objasnio. Rečju, objašnjavam mu da je on manje inteligentan od mene i da zbog toga zaslužuje da bude tu gde je, kao što ja zaslužujem da budem tu gde sam. (123)
Read
March 27, 2022El apartado 4 es un bombaso.
December 12, 2010
So far, this seems like the best introduction to Rancière's ideas–the essays in here are, in some ways, condensations of a couple of his other books, and give additional ways to think about a few of his core ideas.
September 3, 2021
Nothing new here or immaculate. More of a historical read in that it seems to be a somewhat valid push back against the hubris associated with the “end of history.” Offers no actual viable alternative (only grievances) which is not in fact the sole characteristic of democracy.
July 9, 2020
The unrepairable gap between the "people" as a rhetorical device and the facticity of conflict. Democracy's inherent inclination to avoid politics and conflict, to divide the body politic into the rulers and the ruled. These, Ranciere claims, are known since Plato. Yet probably it is Aristotle and Thucydides who offer us the right means to tackle the problems of technocracy, inequality, and anti-democratic sentiments today. I know that this expalins nothing, but it is enough of a reminder for me.
"I
İşler
Okudum uzandım kapı balığına baktım
Bütün gün bu dizeyi söyledim durdum.
Hava bulutluydu hava bulutlu dedim
Çıktım sonra dolaştım. Onarımı denetledim.
İşçilere surat astım. Bir taş yan düşmüştü
Bir tahta çalışmıştı: Düzelttim. Bir çocuk
ahtapotu taşlara vuruyordu. Çocuğa güldüm.
Gittim sonra kapalı bir çeşmeyi açtım
Bir kadın bir sokağı soruyordu, gösterdim.
Birden akşam denize gireceğim aklıma geldi
Tuttum üstümü değiştim. Baktım gün düşüyordu
Oturdum sonra Deniz Kitabı’ma çalıştım.
II
Üçkuyular Sokağı
Bir uzun gün denizi seyrettim. Büyük denizi.
Düşmüştü fırtınalar. Oturup bir tirandil
Oydum. Bir yol denizi yalayarak gidiyordu
Düşüyordu sonra Pazardağı’nın orda. İncecik.
Suda demirlemiş duruyordu bir Yunan gemisi
Aganta! dedim durup dururken. Deniz çınladı.
Suydu kent. Su! Bütün su! Su, su, su.
Bir yellos balığını fırlattım. Tirandil eğdi.
– Günler kısaldı, hava kağıt gibi! dedim
Kalktım sonra Üçkuyular Sokağı’na vurdum.
III
Kent
Bugün erken kalktım. Denizi uyandırdım.
Bir adam mürekkep balığı tutmuş gösteriyordu
Eğilip gözlerine baktım, masmaviydi, tortoptu.
Bir ağır işçiydi sanki öyle soluyordu.
Üç kişi oturmuş çay içip göğü okuyorlardı.
Lodosu anlatıyordu biri, lodos kılığına
girip. “Bodrum’da İsa’dan önce yalnız Salmakis
ve Zifiriya mahalleri vardı,” diyordu bir başkası.
Ben Dorları ve Büyük İskender’i düşünüyordum.
Bir de Saint-Petrum şatosunu, şövalye Naillac’ı.
Saat altıda güneş çıktı hepimiz dağıldık.
IV
Ot
Deniz kıyısındaydım, bugün birden bunu
Ansıdım. Gidip bir tepeden kente baktım:
Yıkık bir manastır yıkık duruyordu
Keşişlerini düşündüm, biraz da karılarını.
Eğilip bir otu kokladım sonra uzun uzun
Bir eşek anırdı, bir keçi meledi. Bayıldım.
Burda bir tekneyi boyuyordu bir adam,
Adamın, teknenin ortasına bir ‘Merhaba’ dedim.
Gittim bir bacanın resmini çizdim sonra
Akşama doğru baktım üstüm başım ot.
V
Doğabilim
Bitkileri öğreniyorum.Otları çiçekleri
Bir taflanı alıyorum.Taflan bu diyorum.
Başlıyorum incelemeye tutup iki ucundan.
Bir pelin yaprağını koparıyorum sonra.
Özsuyu çıkıyor elime.Bir dalı kanırtıyorum
Yininden.Uzun incecik bir söğüt dalını
Damarlarını sayıyorum bir suya bırakıyorum
Dünyanın en güzel yeşili o zaman anlıyorum.
Böyle bütün gün dolaşıp duruyorum
Sonra birden kağıda kaleme sarılıyorum."
Deniz Kitabı - İlhan Berk
"I
İşler
Okudum uzandım kapı balığına baktım
Bütün gün bu dizeyi söyledim durdum.
Hava bulutluydu hava bulutlu dedim
Çıktım sonra dolaştım. Onarımı denetledim.
İşçilere surat astım. Bir taş yan düşmüştü
Bir tahta çalışmıştı: Düzelttim. Bir çocuk
ahtapotu taşlara vuruyordu. Çocuğa güldüm.
Gittim sonra kapalı bir çeşmeyi açtım
Bir kadın bir sokağı soruyordu, gösterdim.
Birden akşam denize gireceğim aklıma geldi
Tuttum üstümü değiştim. Baktım gün düşüyordu
Oturdum sonra Deniz Kitabı’ma çalıştım.
II
Üçkuyular Sokağı
Bir uzun gün denizi seyrettim. Büyük denizi.
Düşmüştü fırtınalar. Oturup bir tirandil
Oydum. Bir yol denizi yalayarak gidiyordu
Düşüyordu sonra Pazardağı’nın orda. İncecik.
Suda demirlemiş duruyordu bir Yunan gemisi
Aganta! dedim durup dururken. Deniz çınladı.
Suydu kent. Su! Bütün su! Su, su, su.
Bir yellos balığını fırlattım. Tirandil eğdi.
– Günler kısaldı, hava kağıt gibi! dedim
Kalktım sonra Üçkuyular Sokağı’na vurdum.
III
Kent
Bugün erken kalktım. Denizi uyandırdım.
Bir adam mürekkep balığı tutmuş gösteriyordu
Eğilip gözlerine baktım, masmaviydi, tortoptu.
Bir ağır işçiydi sanki öyle soluyordu.
Üç kişi oturmuş çay içip göğü okuyorlardı.
Lodosu anlatıyordu biri, lodos kılığına
girip. “Bodrum’da İsa’dan önce yalnız Salmakis
ve Zifiriya mahalleri vardı,” diyordu bir başkası.
Ben Dorları ve Büyük İskender’i düşünüyordum.
Bir de Saint-Petrum şatosunu, şövalye Naillac’ı.
Saat altıda güneş çıktı hepimiz dağıldık.
IV
Ot
Deniz kıyısındaydım, bugün birden bunu
Ansıdım. Gidip bir tepeden kente baktım:
Yıkık bir manastır yıkık duruyordu
Keşişlerini düşündüm, biraz da karılarını.
Eğilip bir otu kokladım sonra uzun uzun
Bir eşek anırdı, bir keçi meledi. Bayıldım.
Burda bir tekneyi boyuyordu bir adam,
Adamın, teknenin ortasına bir ‘Merhaba’ dedim.
Gittim bir bacanın resmini çizdim sonra
Akşama doğru baktım üstüm başım ot.
V
Doğabilim
Bitkileri öğreniyorum.Otları çiçekleri
Bir taflanı alıyorum.Taflan bu diyorum.
Başlıyorum incelemeye tutup iki ucundan.
Bir pelin yaprağını koparıyorum sonra.
Özsuyu çıkıyor elime.Bir dalı kanırtıyorum
Yininden.Uzun incecik bir söğüt dalını
Damarlarını sayıyorum bir suya bırakıyorum
Dünyanın en güzel yeşili o zaman anlıyorum.
Böyle bütün gün dolaşıp duruyorum
Sonra birden kağıda kaleme sarılıyorum."
Deniz Kitabı - İlhan Berk
August 5, 2021
Is this one of those books which document the retreat of the left after the fall of the Soviet Union? Perhaps some of its critics (as you can read below) have a point in stating this, but I'm not so sure.
These essays were written in a time of triumphalism in the West because of the fall of the USSR, and are a reaction to its manifestation in Francis Fukuyama's rehashing of Hegel with his proclamation of the "End of History" and its practical application in the "Death of Politics" (which is rehashing Aristotle, and is the starting point of the included essays).
Instead of positioning Ranciere in the center-left and comfortable with the status quo, I would argue these essays are an attempt to reformulate a struggle against the status quo. There is no getting around the historical fact that the left was forced onto its back foot during that era. But also it must be acknowledged that there were already those who were springing into action in order to seek the roots of the criticism and renew the debate; to start afresh and find a new path back to the realization of social equality. And I don't think it can be denied this is explicitly Ranciere's point in these pages.
And example is his essay, The Community of Equals, where he makes the case that there is an inherent incommensurability (or you could say paradox) when equality is sought in social formations (an idea he traces back to Aristotle's Politics, and is reflected in the political foundations of the modern era). The point is not to say that we must accept inequality as a natural outcome in society, it is that the struggle for equality goes on in spite of this, and is ultimately found in the struggle itself.
These essays were written in a time of triumphalism in the West because of the fall of the USSR, and are a reaction to its manifestation in Francis Fukuyama's rehashing of Hegel with his proclamation of the "End of History" and its practical application in the "Death of Politics" (which is rehashing Aristotle, and is the starting point of the included essays).
Instead of positioning Ranciere in the center-left and comfortable with the status quo, I would argue these essays are an attempt to reformulate a struggle against the status quo. There is no getting around the historical fact that the left was forced onto its back foot during that era. But also it must be acknowledged that there were already those who were springing into action in order to seek the roots of the criticism and renew the debate; to start afresh and find a new path back to the realization of social equality. And I don't think it can be denied this is explicitly Ranciere's point in these pages.
And example is his essay, The Community of Equals, where he makes the case that there is an inherent incommensurability (or you could say paradox) when equality is sought in social formations (an idea he traces back to Aristotle's Politics, and is reflected in the political foundations of the modern era). The point is not to say that we must accept inequality as a natural outcome in society, it is that the struggle for equality goes on in spite of this, and is ultimately found in the struggle itself.
September 5, 2024
Siyaset artık her türlü toplumsal özgürleşme vaadinin, her tür eskatalojik beklenti ufkunun oluşturduğu ayak bağından kurtulmuştu. Asıl doğasına, yani belli bir cemaatin (komünite) çıkarlarının akıllıca idare edilmesine geri dönmüştü.
Siyaset, insani eylemin uyuşmazlığa dayalı bir biçimidir. Demokrasi ise ne bir hükmetme biçimidir, ne de bir toplumsal yaşam tarzı; demokrasi, siyasal özneleri var eden özneleşme tarzıdır.
Ütopya adalarına yapılan kaçamak yolculuk olarak siyaset sona eriyordu. Siyaset artık gemiyi yüzdürme, dalgalara uyum sağlama sanatıyla, büyümenin doğal ve barışçıl hareketiyle özdeşleşiyordu. Siyaset artık, bir şeyleri ite kaka önünde gütme, şeyleri idare etme gündelik sanatını uzlaştıran bir üretim hareketiydi.
Her kentte siyasal sorun, geçim imkanları olmayanların oluşturduğu kitle ile bu imkana sahip olanlardan oluşan küçük zümrenin birlikte varlığı ile başlar. Siyaset sanatı, "-ile yaşama" sanatıdır. Uzlaştırılmazlarla, yani artık kıyısından geçilip gidilmesi mümkün olmayan, kentin merkezine tutunmuş bulunan fakirlerin ve zenginlerin ortak mevcudiyetiyle birlikte yaşamaktır.
Küçük düşünme, yurttaşların güvensizliği ve güçsüzlüğü; bunlar tiranlığın araçlarıdır.
Siyasetin çöktüğü, zenginlerin partisiyle fakirlerin partisinin görünüşte aynı şeyi (modernleşmeyi) söylediği yerde, üç aşağı beş yukarı aynı girişim için daha iyi kotarılmış bir reklam imajı seçmekten başka bir şeyin gerekmediği yerde, çarpıcı biçimde açığa çıkan, mutabakat değil dışlamadır. Ötekine duyulan katıksız nefret, dışlamaya yönelik bir araya gelmedir.
En arkaik olanın, her türlü yargıdan önce gelen çıplak nefretin geri dönüşü...
Siyaset, insani eylemin uyuşmazlığa dayalı bir biçimidir. Demokrasi ise ne bir hükmetme biçimidir, ne de bir toplumsal yaşam tarzı; demokrasi, siyasal özneleri var eden özneleşme tarzıdır.
Ütopya adalarına yapılan kaçamak yolculuk olarak siyaset sona eriyordu. Siyaset artık gemiyi yüzdürme, dalgalara uyum sağlama sanatıyla, büyümenin doğal ve barışçıl hareketiyle özdeşleşiyordu. Siyaset artık, bir şeyleri ite kaka önünde gütme, şeyleri idare etme gündelik sanatını uzlaştıran bir üretim hareketiydi.
Her kentte siyasal sorun, geçim imkanları olmayanların oluşturduğu kitle ile bu imkana sahip olanlardan oluşan küçük zümrenin birlikte varlığı ile başlar. Siyaset sanatı, "-ile yaşama" sanatıdır. Uzlaştırılmazlarla, yani artık kıyısından geçilip gidilmesi mümkün olmayan, kentin merkezine tutunmuş bulunan fakirlerin ve zenginlerin ortak mevcudiyetiyle birlikte yaşamaktır.
Küçük düşünme, yurttaşların güvensizliği ve güçsüzlüğü; bunlar tiranlığın araçlarıdır.
Siyasetin çöktüğü, zenginlerin partisiyle fakirlerin partisinin görünüşte aynı şeyi (modernleşmeyi) söylediği yerde, üç aşağı beş yukarı aynı girişim için daha iyi kotarılmış bir reklam imajı seçmekten başka bir şeyin gerekmediği yerde, çarpıcı biçimde açığa çıkan, mutabakat değil dışlamadır. Ötekine duyulan katıksız nefret, dışlamaya yönelik bir araya gelmedir.
En arkaik olanın, her türlü yargıdan önce gelen çıplak nefretin geri dönüşü...
November 12, 2020
Enjoyed this quite a bit more than Hatred of Democracy. Highlights were definitely section 2 and 3, and although I still don't think Ranciere necessarily breaks new ground with his political philosophy, his conception of democracy and equality is a lot more convincing in light of the historical examples he provides that raise themselves out of antiquity, and addressing what to me seemed a pervasive innateness arguments (i.e. equality and democracy are almost essentialist parts of politics, it is merely a distortion that obfuscates them) into something more constructive that at least I ended up enjoying - equality as acknowledgement and division, as an element through organisation and catching politics on its own terms, rather than the more Kropotkinesque social ontology that I am always slightly weary of.
October 12, 2024
Dry and lifeless.
October 25, 2024
I like to reference this sometimes and pretend I understood any of it
May 4, 2025
Not Rancière's best work in my opinion. The final essay is really good though.
October 5, 2021
After the so- called end of politics, we are not political enough, yet need to be. We try to solve the problems of consensus with more of the problems of consensus.
August 7, 2007
"Athens has a disease that comes from its port, from the predominance of maritime enterprise governed entirely by profit and survival.... The task of philosophy is to found a different politics, a politics of conversion which turns its back on the sea."
"Utopia is not the elsewhere, nor the future realization of an unfulfilled dream. It is an intellectual construction which brings a place in thought into conjunction with a perceived or perceptible intuitive space."
"By positing a single essence of domination as the unified principle of our time, it prohibits the giving of meaning to the Two of politics in whatever form (Nazism and social democracy, bourgeoisie and proletariat, democracy and totalitarianism)."
"Democracy does not exist simply because the law declares individuals equal and the collectivity master of itself. It still requires the force of the demos which is neither a sum of social partners nor a gathering together of differences, but quite the opposite--the power to undo all partnerships, gatherings and ordinations."
"Real democracy would presuppose that the demos be constituted as as subject present to itself across the whole surface of the social body."
"Precisely where the great models of political hope are in ruins, at a time when one no longer dares propose any rival to democracy as the good form of collective life, dogmatism has effectively outlived itself in the guise of scepticism."
"What society asks of us is simply to acquiesce: what it demands is our consent."
"The trouble is that experts in law exist whereas experts in equality do not--or, more exactly, that equality begins only when the power of the experts ceases to hold sway. Wherever the vaunted triumph of law and of the legal state takes the form of recourse to experts, democracy has been reduced to a caricature of itself--to nothing more than government by wise men."
"To reach the just from the starting-point of the expedient it is necessary to go by way of opposites...."
"Utopia is not the elsewhere, nor the future realization of an unfulfilled dream. It is an intellectual construction which brings a place in thought into conjunction with a perceived or perceptible intuitive space."
"By positing a single essence of domination as the unified principle of our time, it prohibits the giving of meaning to the Two of politics in whatever form (Nazism and social democracy, bourgeoisie and proletariat, democracy and totalitarianism)."
"Democracy does not exist simply because the law declares individuals equal and the collectivity master of itself. It still requires the force of the demos which is neither a sum of social partners nor a gathering together of differences, but quite the opposite--the power to undo all partnerships, gatherings and ordinations."
"Real democracy would presuppose that the demos be constituted as as subject present to itself across the whole surface of the social body."
"Precisely where the great models of political hope are in ruins, at a time when one no longer dares propose any rival to democracy as the good form of collective life, dogmatism has effectively outlived itself in the guise of scepticism."
"What society asks of us is simply to acquiesce: what it demands is our consent."
"The trouble is that experts in law exist whereas experts in equality do not--or, more exactly, that equality begins only when the power of the experts ceases to hold sway. Wherever the vaunted triumph of law and of the legal state takes the form of recourse to experts, democracy has been reduced to a caricature of itself--to nothing more than government by wise men."
"To reach the just from the starting-point of the expedient it is necessary to go by way of opposites...."
June 7, 2012
This has been a great read! Ranciere argues that democracy is not what it claims to be, and that those who practice it are perpetually deluded about what they are doing. The practice of democracy, he goes on, relates all democratic statements to a kind of veiled truth of inequality and exploitation. Further, in its very heterogeneity, as a regime of "multiple accommodations", it is complicit in the reign of the possessive individual, constituting a power that is the inversion of life: "He that findeth his life shall lose it"! The implication and subversion here is the collapse of the representation of another life, which does not nullify that life, but rather introduces it to a vertiginous reality, and that this reality clamors for equality. Sharing can only lead to violence. A postulation a world of meaning assumes a symbolic violence. A quote from Rilke, that "Losing to is ours" links the notion of loss with the notion of common property. In this way, democracy is lying to itself as it is made exquisitely in his analysis that it "dissimulates" equality and that inequality is its true driving principle.
July 28, 2009
A great set of papers on the problems created by a society based on democracy.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews