What do you think?
Rate this book
Disagreement: Politics And Philosophy
“Is there any such thing as political philosophy?” So begins this provocative book by one of the foremost figures in Continental thought. Here, Jacques Rancière brings a new and highly useful set of terms to the vexed debate about political effectiveness and “the end of politics.” What precisely is at stake in the relationship between “philosophy” and the adjective “political”? In Disagreement , Rancière explores the apparent contradiction between these terms and reveals the uneasy meaning of their union in the phrase “political philosophy”—a juncture related to age-old attempts in philosophy to answer Plato’s devaluing of politics as a “democratic egalitarian” process. According to Rancière, the phrase also expresses the paradox of politics itself: the absence of a proper foundation. Politics, he argues, begins when the “demos” (the “excessive” or unrepresented part of society) seeks to disrupt the order of domination and distribution of goods “naturalized” by police and legal institutions. In addition, the notion of “equality” operates as a game of contestation that constantly substitutes litigation for political action and community. This game, Rancière maintains, operates by a primary logic of “misunderstanding.” In turn, political philosophy has always tried to substitute the “politics of truth” for the politics of appearances. Disagreement investigates the various transformations of this regime of “truth” and their effects on practical politics. Rancière then distinguishes what we mean by “democracy” from the practices of a consensual system in order to unravel the ramifications of the fashionable phrase “the end of politics.” His conclusions will be of interest to readers concerned with political questions from the broadest to the most specific and local.
168 pages, Paperback
Published December 15, 2004
26 people are currently reading
559 people want to read
About the author
Jacques Rancière
201 books494 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 - 25 of 25 reviews
November 4, 2009
"Disagreement is not the conflict between one who says white and another who says black. It is the conflict between one who says white and another who also says white but does not understand the same thing by it or does not understand that the other is saying the same thing in the name of whiteness."
July 19, 2010
Important, illuminating, less obfuscating than some of his other works, this book is a good introduction to Ranciere's conception of politics (& thus his conception of aesthetics, the structure of which he sees as strictly parallel to that of politics). It is, however, very repetitive in such a way that the experience of reading the book sometimes felt intellectually stultifying to me.
December 22, 2022
Not his best and some stuff here is needlessly obscure, but at least, like always, he’s on to something. And I play favorites, so what.
September 10, 2014
What a babe
February 1, 2026
was rewatching an old presidential debate about a month ago and was struck by a sudden/estranging but familiar sense that what i was watching was theatre rather than politics in any meaningful sense. ranciere more than any theorist ive encountered so far provides the best language to articulate this feeling
October 20, 2025
Very interesting I honestly loved it. I think I'm lowkey into French political philosophy lol
January 28, 2009
This is one of the best books on politics that i can imagine, thought definitely not a novel! Ranciere dissects the origins and practices of politics and its intersection with philosophy poetically. It is also fascinating. Recommended for those who follow politics and philosophy
April 25, 2012
This book shook me from my philosophical slumber for a while. Remains one of my contemporary favorites.
October 24, 2025
Jacques Rancière widerspricht in "La mésentente" der Idee, dass die nachsowjetische Konsensdemokratie eine Rückkehr der Politik sei, und sieht darin vielmehr deren Liquidierung. Echte Politik definiert er als das paradoxe Eingreifen der "Anteilslosen" (sans-part) – also jener, die keinen traditionellen Anspruch auf Macht durch Geburt, Reichtum oder Wissen besitzen. Der moderne "Konsens" neutralisiert genau diesen Anteil, indem er Politik auf die bloße Verwaltung der ökonomischen Dominanz reduziert. Das Buch zeigt auf, wie diese scheinbar friedliche Verwaltung stattdessen neue Formen von Ausgrenzung, Hass und Gewalt hervorbringt, was die ungebrochene Aktualität seiner Analyse beweist.
Rancière trifft dabei eine zentrale Unterscheidung zwischen der "Politik" (la politique) als dem Moment des Streits und der "politischen Philosophie", die diesen Streit historisch (etwa als Archi-, Para- oder Meta-Politik) beenden will. Politik ist für ihn die "Mésentente" (der Zwist), bei dem die "Ungezählten" die bestehende "polizeiliche" Ordnung der Güterverteilung herausfordern und Gleichheit einfordern. Demokratie ist dabei kein Idealzustand, sondern die bloße Bedingung der Möglichkeit für Politik – also gerade keine stabile Regierungsform, sondern der disruptive Moment der Gleichheitsforderung selbst – also der Moment, in dem die Ausgeschlossenen überhaupt sprechen können.Das Paradox der konsensualen "Post-Demokratie" besteht darin, dass das Ende des politischen Streits eine neue Xenophobie oder Diskriminierung hervorbringt, da Konflikte nun auf "reale" Ursachen wie die ethnische Herkunft zurückgeführt werden.
Abschließend sei jedoch in aller Schärfe auf das Paradoxon hingewiesen, das in der (scheinbaren) Abnahme des "Anteils der Anteillosen" liegt:
Wenn die post-demokratische Ordnung den Anspruch erhebt, alle Konflikte im Konsens aufzulösen und jeden "Anteil" restlos zu verwalten, entzieht sie der Politik selbst den Boden. Politik, im Sinne Rancières, existiert nur durch das Aufbegehren derer, die ungezählt sind.
Ein Zeitalter, in dem der "Anteil der Anteillosen" stetig abzunehmen scheint, ist demnach ein Zeitalter, in dem die politische Subjektivität selbst erlischt und der fundamentale Zwist (la mésentente) dem reinen Management der "polizeilichen" Ordnung weicht. Es ist die Stille, die nach dem Ende der Politik eintritt.
Rancière trifft dabei eine zentrale Unterscheidung zwischen der "Politik" (la politique) als dem Moment des Streits und der "politischen Philosophie", die diesen Streit historisch (etwa als Archi-, Para- oder Meta-Politik) beenden will. Politik ist für ihn die "Mésentente" (der Zwist), bei dem die "Ungezählten" die bestehende "polizeiliche" Ordnung der Güterverteilung herausfordern und Gleichheit einfordern. Demokratie ist dabei kein Idealzustand, sondern die bloße Bedingung der Möglichkeit für Politik – also gerade keine stabile Regierungsform, sondern der disruptive Moment der Gleichheitsforderung selbst – also der Moment, in dem die Ausgeschlossenen überhaupt sprechen können.Das Paradox der konsensualen "Post-Demokratie" besteht darin, dass das Ende des politischen Streits eine neue Xenophobie oder Diskriminierung hervorbringt, da Konflikte nun auf "reale" Ursachen wie die ethnische Herkunft zurückgeführt werden.
Abschließend sei jedoch in aller Schärfe auf das Paradoxon hingewiesen, das in der (scheinbaren) Abnahme des "Anteils der Anteillosen" liegt:
Wenn die post-demokratische Ordnung den Anspruch erhebt, alle Konflikte im Konsens aufzulösen und jeden "Anteil" restlos zu verwalten, entzieht sie der Politik selbst den Boden. Politik, im Sinne Rancières, existiert nur durch das Aufbegehren derer, die ungezählt sind.
Ein Zeitalter, in dem der "Anteil der Anteillosen" stetig abzunehmen scheint, ist demnach ein Zeitalter, in dem die politische Subjektivität selbst erlischt und der fundamentale Zwist (la mésentente) dem reinen Management der "polizeilichen" Ordnung weicht. Es ist die Stille, die nach dem Ende der Politik eintritt.
July 5, 2025
Uni. El vaig llegir fa temps, així que no recordo gaire, però no em va encantar.
December 12, 2025
c'était bon mais très dur
January 26, 2026
not too sold on the definition of "political". But a great illustration of constructivism (a radicalized Gramsci, one might say)
December 3, 2021
“The struggle between the rich and the poor is not social reality, which politics then has to deal with. It is the actual institution of politics itself. There is politics when there is a part of those who have no part, a part or party of the poor. Politics does not happen just because the poor oppose the rich. It is the other way around: politics (that is, the interrup tion of the simple effects of domination by the rich) causes the poor to exist as an entity.”
“Politics exists simply because no social order is based on nature, no divine law regu lates human society.”
“Politics occurs when there is a place and a way for two heterogenous processes to meet. The first is the police process in the sense we have tried to define. The second is the process of equality.”
“the more it needs to legitimize itself through monotr -,us reiteration of the impossibility of the im possible, even if it mt.kas protecting this negative self-legitimization behind the thin barrier of the law that determines the point at which the emptiness of the truth must end, the limit that the argument of the impossibility of the impossible must not overstep.”
The part in legitimization can be traced back in parallel to Eichmann problem of illegal but legitimate acts.
“Politics exists simply because no social order is based on nature, no divine law regu lates human society.”
“Politics occurs when there is a place and a way for two heterogenous processes to meet. The first is the police process in the sense we have tried to define. The second is the process of equality.”
“the more it needs to legitimize itself through monotr -,us reiteration of the impossibility of the im possible, even if it mt.kas protecting this negative self-legitimization behind the thin barrier of the law that determines the point at which the emptiness of the truth must end, the limit that the argument of the impossibility of the impossible must not overstep.”
The part in legitimization can be traced back in parallel to Eichmann problem of illegal but legitimate acts.
to-keep-reference
October 18, 2016Discutido en el capítulo 4 de La razón populista
La trama ontológica del Imperio se construye mediante la actividad más allá de toda medida de la multitud y sus poderes virtuales. Estos poderes constitutivos, virtuales, entran en interminable conflicto con los poderes constituidos del Imperio. Y son completamente positivos puesto que su “ser-contra” es un “ser-para”, en otras palabras, una resistencia que se vuelve amor y comunidad. Estamos situados precisamente en esa bisagra de la finitud infinita que enlaza lo virtual con lo posible, comprometida con el pasaje desde el deseo a un futuro venidero.
Imperio Pág.269
Para la noción de postpolítica véase Jacques Rancière, Disagreement.
Sobre la violencia Pág.55
La trama ontológica del Imperio se construye mediante la actividad más allá de toda medida de la multitud y sus poderes virtuales. Estos poderes constitutivos, virtuales, entran en interminable conflicto con los poderes constituidos del Imperio. Y son completamente positivos puesto que su “ser-contra” es un “ser-para”, en otras palabras, una resistencia que se vuelve amor y comunidad. Estamos situados precisamente en esa bisagra de la finitud infinita que enlaza lo virtual con lo posible, comprometida con el pasaje desde el deseo a un futuro venidero.
Imperio Pág.269
Para la noción de postpolítica véase Jacques Rancière, Disagreement.
Sobre la violencia Pág.55
January 27, 2021
The butler did it.
It was important for me to remember that this was published in 1999. Policing and politics have changed since then. By my reckoning, there's more politics in Europe and especially the US.
It was important for me to remember that this was published in 1999. Policing and politics have changed since then. By my reckoning, there's more politics in Europe and especially the US.
November 14, 2023
Excellent. Ouvrage nécessaire pour tous ceux qui veulent vraiment comprendre de quoi parle J. Rancière dans son oeuvre. Ici, la mésentente, le partage du sensible, le régime de visibilité deviennent des façons de percevoir le monde esthétique et politique.
March 22, 2024
overall very good and insightful. though chapter 2 was kinda odd. he basically throws Althusser under the bus only to arrive at basically the same theory with less intuitive definitions. anyways, we fucked.
March 14, 2009
Aesthesis, what a fancy word.
March 7, 2009
A redefinition of politics as agonistic discourse independent of the "police order" which we normally take as "politics."
May 13, 2009
Pretty cool, but not all that clear at times.
May 4, 2015
It's very good.
April 26, 2018
DENSE as HELL
February 21, 2019
Das Buch ist schwierig zu lesen, aber die Mühe wert.
April 1, 2019
Sempre a mesma coisa, sempre surpreendente.
September 11, 2020
Uma ótima introdução para o pensamento de Rancière. O início me atraiu bastante.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews