Neden Fransa’da Postyapısalcılık Yok?: Entelektüel Bir Neslin Teşekkülü

by Johannes Angermuller, Özge Karlık (Translator)

Fransız entelektüel alanının, bilhassa, İkinci Dünya Savaşı sonrası özgün politik ve toplumsal koşullarına odaklanan ve bu alanda üretilmiş fikri ürünler ve üreticiler arasındaki ilişkileri tarihsel bağlamına oturtarak tartışmaya açan bu çalışma pek çok açıdan ezber bozucu olma özelliğini uzun yıllar koruyacak gibi görünüyor. Angermuller’in çalışmasını sıra dışı yapan en önemli husus ise, seçtiği araştırma nesnesinden ziyade araştırdığı nesneye olan yaklaşımında gizli. Fransız sosyolog Pierre Bourdieu’nün alan kuramını arkasına alan yazar, bilhassa dünyanın İngilizce konuşulan ülkelerindeki muhtelif akademik ve entelektüel tartışmalarda sıklıkla ‘postyapısalcılık’ olarak adlandırılan olguyu mercek altına alırken bizi ‘Kuram’ın doğduğu topraklara, onun tarihsel ve toplumsal bağlamına geri götürüyor. Fakat daha da önemlisi, belki de şimdiye değin kimsenin sormayı aklına getirmediği şu ezber bozucu soruya yanıt arıyor: Neden Fransa’da postyapısalcılık yok? Angermuller, Fransız entelektüel yaşamındaki gelişmeleri ve bu gelişmelerin Fransa dışında çoğunlukla eksik, yanlı veya saptırılmış olan alımlanma tarihini birbirine paralel bir şekilde incelemekte oldukça marifetli. Muhakkak ki bu kitap, bugüne dek kendi türünde yapılmış en kapsayıcı, etraflıca araştırılmış ve konusunda yerini başkasına bırakmayacak bir referans çalışmadır.

- Christopher Norris, Felsefe Araştırmaları Ordinaryüs Profesör Cardiff Üniversitesi, Büyük Britanya

Genres: Philosophy

448 pages, Paperback

First published October 8, 2015

Reviews

[KeyForLocked · Rating 2 out of 5]

“Lévi-Strauss, who started mentioning the term only in 1972, offers the following ironic definition of ‘structuralism’: ‘It is normally understood as a Parisian fashion, as it surfaces every five years and leaves its five-year trace behind’ (cited in Ory and Sirinelli, 1992: 206, n. 1).”

1. The rise of "French Theory" in France coincided with a period of rapid expansion in higher education, while its introduction to the United States occurred during a period of contraction. As a result, in France, theorists were positioned on the margins of academia, whereas in the U.S., they found themselves at the center.

2. The student movements, stemming from the "Université X" and "Université VIII," were partially driven by the devaluation of degrees caused by the expansion of university enrollment. While theorists supported the events of 1968, it was, in fact, 1968 that led to their eventual decline. The consequences of higher education reform were the decentralization of academic power.

3. When they were considered French philosophers, the French public viewed them as responding to the conditions of the time. However, once they were recognized by Americans as "French theorists," they got a status of "eternity."

4. Whether Strauss or Bourdieu, their common adversary was *philosophy* itself. The two rebellions against philosophy, reflected in the North American context, involved a shift from high theory to low theory, that is, from textual interpretation to theoretical application.

[Kyaw Zayar Lwin · Rating 3 out of 5]

ဘယ်သူက ဘယ်လိုတွေးတယ်၊ဘယ်သူ့အတွေးအခေါ်က ဘယ်လို၊ဘယ်ကဆင်းသက်တယ်ဆိုတဲ့ အတွေးအခေါ်တွေမပါပဲ ဝန်းကျင်အခြေအနေနဲ့ ရှင်းပြထားတာပါ။ဥပမာ-အင်စတီကျုးရှင်းအပြောင်းအလဲတွေ၊ပညာရေးလောကအပြောင်းအလဲတွေနဲ့အတူ လိုက်လံပြောင်းလဲနေတဲ့ သဘောကို ပြတယ်။အဲဒီမှာမှ ပြင်သစ်နဲ့ အမေရိကန်နိုင်ငံနှစ်ခုကြား ကွာခြားပုံကိုပြတယ်။ဖူကိုးတို့ဟာ structuralismအဖြစ်ပဲ ပြင်သစ်မှာ သိကြတယ်။ပီးတော့ ၁၉၈၀လောက်ကစ သူတို့မျိုးဆက်ခေတ်မစားတော့ဘူး။အတွေးအခေါ်သစ်ဆိုတဲ့ လက်ဝဲဆန့်ကျင်ရေးသမားတွေ ခေတ်စားလာတယ်။ပေါ်ပြူလာမီဒီယာကနေ အဓိကထိုးဖောက်တယ်။ပညာရပ်နယ်ပယ်က ဒုတိယနေရာမှာ ထားလိုက်တာမျိုး။အဲဒီကာလမှာပဲ အမေရိကန်မှာကြ ပြင်သစ်သီအိုရီတခေတ်ထလာတယ်။အင်္ဂလိပ်စာဌာနတွေကနေ စခဲဲ့တဲ့ ဒါရီဒါရဲ့ High modernismကနေ နောက်ပိုင်းကြ အခြားပညာရပ်နယ်ပယ်တွေထိပါ ရောက်လာတဲ့ ဖူကိုးတို့ရဲ့ low modernismတွေ။ပီးတော့ ဖူကိုးအကြောင်း secondary literatureတွေကို ကြည့်ရင် အမေရိကကထွက်တာ ရာခိုင်နှုန်းအများဆုံးပဲ။လာကန်တယောက်သာ ပြင်သစ်ကထွက်တာ တန်းတူလောက်ရှိတာ။အဲဒီတော့ အမေရိကန်မှာ သိတဲ့ ပြင်သစ်သီအိုရီနဲ့ ပြင်သစ်နိုင်ငံက ပြင်သစ်သီအိုရီကြား နောက်ခံသိမှုဘာတွေကွာသလဲဆိုတာကို စမ်းစစ်ပြထားတာ။တခုရှိတာက ဥရောပထဲက ဗြိတိန်ကပညာရှင်တွေရဲ့ ပါဝင်မှုကို ထည့်မဖော်ပြထားတာပဲ။ဖူကိုးကိုက ဝါဝစ်တက္ကသိုလ်လိုနေရာက သူတွေရဲ့ ထည့်ဝင်မိတ်ဆက်ပေးမှုတွေအများကြီး ပါတယ်။စာအုပ်က အချက်အလက်တွေ၊ဖြစ်တည်ရာနောက်ခံသမိုင်းတွေနဲ့ နည်းနည်းတော့ ပျင်းစရာကောင်းတယ်။သီအိုရီမိတ်ဆက်လိုမျိုး ဖတ်ချင်တဲ့သူတွေအတွက်တော့ စိတ်ပျက်စရာဖြစ်မှာ အမှန်ပဲ။

[Bogdan · Rating 2 out of 5]

* partially well-informed (Cusset's better from afar);
* a good overview of the historical evolution of French intellectual/cultural institutions and their link to Foucault, Derrida & Co.;
* a way too loose use of concepts;
* last chapter? Bullshit.