Picture of author.

Jacques Rancière

Teoksen Aistittavan osa : esteettinen ja poliittinen tekijä

114+ teosta 3,558 jäsentä 19 arvostelua 6 Favorited

Tietoja tekijästä

Jacques Ranciere is one of the most influential philosophers writing today. He taught at the University of Paris VIII, France, from 1969 to 2000, occupying the Chair of Aesthetics and Politics from 1990 until his retirement. Steven Corcoran is a writer and translator living in Berlin. He has edited näytä lisää and/or translated several works by Jacques Rancire, including Dissensus (2010, 2016), two works by Alain Badiou, Polemics (2006) and Conditions (2008) and Alienation and Freedom by Frantz Fanon (2017). näytä vähemmän

Tekijän teokset

Aistittavan osa : esteettinen ja poliittinen (2004) 409 kappaletta, 2 arvostelua
Vapautunut katsoja (2008) 328 kappaletta, 2 arvostelua
The Future of the Image (2007) 292 kappaletta
Hatred of Democracy (2005) 276 kappaletta, 5 arvostelua
On the Shores of Politics (1995) 168 kappaletta, 1 arvostelu
Erimielisyys : politiikka ja filosofia (1995) 155 kappaletta, 1 arvostelu
The Philosopher and his Poor (1983) 110 kappaletta
The Aesthetic Unconscious (2001) 79 kappaletta
The Names of History: On the Poetics of Knowledge (1993) 76 kappaletta, 1 arvostelu
Aesthetics and Its Discontents (1994) 70 kappaletta
The Intervals of Cinema (2011) 70 kappaletta, 1 arvostelu
Film Fables (Talking Images) (2001) 68 kappaletta
Politics of Literature (2007) 47 kappaletta
Althusser's Lesson (1974) 38 kappaletta
Figures of History (2012) 33 kappaletta, 1 arvostelu
Chronicles of Consensual Times (2005) 25 kappaletta
The Edges of Fiction (2017) 21 kappaletta
Malaise dans l'esthétique (2004) 19 kappaletta
Moments Politiques (2009) 17 kappaletta
The State of Things (Verksted) (2013) 14 kappaletta
Politics and Aesthetics (2016) 9 kappaletta, 1 arvostelu
En quel temps vivons-nous ? (2017) 8 kappaletta
Ist Kunst widerständig? (2008) 6 kappaletta
MARGENS DA FICCAO , AS (2010) 5 kappaletta
Kurmacanın Kıyıları (2019) 4 kappaletta
Suskun Söz (2016) 3 kappaletta
Zehn Thesen zur Politik (2008) 3 kappaletta
Esther Shalev-Gerz (2010) 3 kappaletta
La parole ouvrière (2007) 3 kappaletta
Uzlasi Çagina Notlar (2019) 2 kappaletta
©zg©ơrle¿en seyirci (2010) 2 kappaletta
Neshoda politika a filosofie (2011) 2 kappaletta
Uncertain Times 1 kappale
Penser l'émancipation (2022) 1 kappale
Sinematografik Masal (2016) 1 kappale
Les Voyages de l'art (2023) 1 kappale
Le travail des images (2019) 1 kappale
Esztétika és politika (2009) 1 kappale
Das Verfahren der Szene (2019) 1 kappale
Lire 1 kappale
La méthode de la scène (2018) 1 kappale

Associated Works

Reading Capital: The Complete Edition (1965) — Avustaja — 471 kappaletta
Democracy in What State? (2009) — Avustaja — 106 kappaletta, 2 arvostelua

Merkitty avainsanalla

Yleistieto

Jäseniä

Kirja-arvosteluja

Dois ensaios muito simpáticos entrelaçando os temas da história com, respectivamente, o cinema e a pintura. Partindo de uma potência igualitária da filmagem (a de tudo captar e transformar tudo possivelmente em tema), o cinema é capaz de mostrar a existência sem razão, e apontar evidências de um outro mundo possível (o esplendor da insignificância e a infinidade de suas implicações). Pode tratar a história usando documentos, mas também monumentos - aquilo que conserva a memória pelo simples fato de existir, de não estar destinado a falar. Nisso o cinema se aproxima da nova história - que tece uma dialética entre ambos, por tratar tudo como histórico. Mas há o que considerar, ao filmar o banal e o povo - pois o que querem eles ao serem filmados? A câmera capta suas perguntas e ações, mas não responde às suas indagações.

No ensaio ao redor da pintura, há uma aplicação muito ampla da ideia de história, em quatro sentidos: "coletânea de exemplos, organização da fábula, potência história de destino necessário e comum, tecido historiado do sensível". As considerações são banhadas na lógica dos regimes de visibilidade e importância de Rancière, como a ideia do realismo como "sistema global das variações possíveis dos índices e valores de realidade". Nos dois, contra o diagnóstico Adorniano da arte pós-Auschwitz, Rancière articula como, na verdade, a arte faz jus ao testemunho histórico, por ser capaz de apresentar ausências e tornar sensível a inumanidade e o inumano. Ademais a edição apresenta a lista dos filmes mencionados, ao final, o que simplifica a procura - pois a maioria dos títulos vale a pena (e os filmes do Farocki são maravilhosos).
… (lisätietoja)
 
Merkitty asiattomaksi
henrique_iwao | Jun 26, 2024 |
Um dos exemplares está em EstSalaB3
 
Merkitty asiattomaksi
ulisin | Jun 14, 2022 |
كتاب لذيذ، استمتعت معه بقراءة نقد للديموقراطية الغربية من رجل غربي، من أنفسهم ! .. وقد بدأ الكتاب بذكر أن من يعادون الديموقراطية هم ثلاثة أصناف: من يريدون أن تكون السلطة بحكم الوراثة، ومن يريدونها أن تكون بحكم الكفاءة، والقسم الثالث هم من يجعلون قانون الوحي الإلهي هو الأساس الشرعي الوحيد لتنظيم المجتمعات البشرية.

ثم ذكر أن الكراهية الجديدة للديموقراطية -التي هو أحد ممثليها- لا تتعلق بالضبط بنموذج واحد من تلك النماذج، بل تجمع عناصر مستعارة من أوجه انتقادات هؤلاء وأولئك.

لعل أبرز ما عَلق بذهني من انتقادات المؤلف للديموقراطية - وهي انتقادات من زوايا متعددة - الآتي:

- أن قوانين ومؤسسات الديموقراطية، ما هي إلا أدوات تتم بواسطتها سيطرة طبقة معينة على مقاليد السلطة، ويُدّعى أن هذه الطبقة هي حكم الشعب نفسه بنفسه ! .. بينما اختيار الحكام في الديموقراطية هو اختيار يتم عن طريق المصادفة أو ضربة حظ، وهي لا تؤدي فحسب إلى حكم غير الأكفاء، بل تؤدي إلى أن يصل إلى السلطة= القادرون على الوصول إليها .. فليست الديموقراطية هي سلطة الشعب، ولا سلطة السكان مجتمعين، ولا الأغلبية ولا الطبقات الكادحة .. بل سلطة النخبة التي تصل إلى السلطة بما في يديها من إمبراطوريات المال والإعلام، وبقدراتها على الغش والخداع، ثم تتبادل تلك النخبة مقاعد السلطة والمعارضة فيما بينها .. فالديموقراطية هي احتكار طبقة - كان من حظها أنها تمتلك أدوات الوصول للحكم - يعطيها الشعب حق الحكم، كي تدّعي أنه هو الذي يحكم .. فالأقلية الأقوى هي التي تصل للحكم دون متاعب.

- أيضاً، فإن الديموقراطية تُذكي سطوة العامة، وتشجع على الأنانية، وتسود فيها سيطرة الرغبات اللامحدودة للأفراد، باسم الحرية .. فكل فرد - وكل فئة - يريد أن يحصل على ما يريد، وعلى أكبر قدر من المكاسب وإشباع الرغبات، دون نظر إلى الحدود التي تضعها المصلحة العامة للمجموع .. فالديموقراطية هي سيطرة الإفراط، الإفراط في الرغبة والشهوة والمطالب، وهذا من أسباب دمار الحكم والمجتمع .. فما كان يُذم بالأمس من الشمولية - إذ تسيطر الدولة على أفراد المجتمع بزعم تحقيق الصالح العام - يحدث الآن مقلوباً، إذ تسيطر أهواء ورغبات وشهوات الأفراد على الدولة - دون نظر إلى صالح المجمتع - باسم الديموقراطية

- كذلك، تصدر الديموقراطية مصطلح "المساواة" وتنشره .. فلا مجال في الديموقراطية للتفريق بين الأكفاء وغير الأكفاء، بين الحكام والمحكومين، بين النساء والرجال، بين الشباب والعجائز، بين العالم والجاهل .. فالكل يريد أن يكون له حق متساوي مع الآخر، حتى لو كان حقاً فيما ليس له فيه مجال ! .. فالمعلم يخشى التلاميذ ويطريهم، وهم من جانبهم يسخرون منه ! .. الشباب يساوون أنفسهم بالعجائز، والعجائز يحاكون الشباب، والأب يتعود على معاملة ابنه نداً لند !

ولا يجوز أن يحكم الحكماء على الجهلاء ! ، فهذا في الديموقراطية مخالف للمساواة ! .. ولا فرق بين الرجل وبين المرأة، ولا بين الشباب وبين العجائز فالديموقراطية لا تُبالي بالاختلافات الاجتماعية والفطرية .. بل الحيوانات ذاتها حرة ! ، والخيول والحمير واعية بحريتها وكبريائها !.

فالديموقراطية ليست فحسب شكلاً سيئاً للحكم، بل أسلوب حياة يتعارض مع كل حكم منظم للجماعة .. إنها على وجه الدقة: تدمير كل العلاقات التي تشكل المجتمع البشري.

هذا بعض من انتقادات المؤلف للديموقراطية، وأسباب كراهيتها .. وقد أعجبني جداً نقد المؤلف لمبادئ: الحرية، والأنانية، والمساواة .. بمفهومها الليبرالي .. وهذه الثلاثة من أصول الليبرالية .. وقد ذكرني ذلك بنقد الشيخ الطريفي لها في كتابه: العقلية الليبرالية في رصف العقل ووصف النقل .. وهو كتاب قيّم ثمين .. فحبذا قراءته

أخيراً، لم يذكر المؤلف وجهة نظره فيما يكون بديلاً للديموقراطية .. ووددت لو كان فعل ذلك؛ لنتعرف على وجهة نظر غربية في هذا الموضوع.
… (lisätietoja)
 
Merkitty asiattomaksi
asellithy | 4 muuta kirja-arvostelua | Aug 31, 2021 |
A fun little polemic, which is particularly interesting to read in the US, rather than in France. Ranciere attacks French critics of democracy. His book suggests that France will be a monarchy within a few years, as everyone everywhere is constantly complaining that the masses are irresponsible, narcissistic consumers who have no interest in anything other than the next commodity. How did this happen?

"Democracy has come to be attributed with engendering both the form of social homogeneity recently accounted for by totalitarianism and the self-generating growth inherent to the logic of Capital."

In other words, everything that people used to think would happen to us thanks to totalitarianism, or used to think has happened to us because of capitalism, is now said to have happened to us because of democracy. On this argument, the "dominant intelligentsia", which can no longer use totalitarianism as an argument in favor of their conservatism (because totalitarianism isn't much of a danger), and which cannot use anti-capitalist arguments (because they've aligned themselves with neoliberalism) still need a whipping post, and that post is democracy and individualism... by which, Ranciere suggests, they mean an egalitarian society. Where radicals argue that commodification is the result of capitalism's structural requirements, the new intelligentsia argue that commodification is the result of people not being able to keep their wallet in their pants.

Ranciere then lays out his own understanding of democracy, via a critique of the history of political philosophy, in which the great Greeks mostly pooh-poohed the idea. He says, more or less, that democracy is not a *form* of government, and certainly not the form we're living with; it is the legitimating principle of government itself; it names the consent of the governed, it names the reason to accept political reasons. But consent of this kind cannot be forced, it must be given, or government must rule without it--but if a state tries to do without the consent, it will face a "democratic movement," which is anti-capitalistic and egalitarian. There is an inevitable conflict between the (bad) limitlessness of capitalism and the (good) limitlessness of democracy.

It turns out, on Ranciere's understanding, that "the evils of which our 'democracies' suffer are primarily evils related to the insatiable appetite of oligarchs," which I assume means the aforementioned limitlessness of capitalism and not, as the sentence actually says, simple greed. This oligarchical system is (supposedly) legitimated by the popular vote, and by technological competence (as Habermas predicted long ago); but the popular vote and technological competence don't really go together. So the legitimation of our states is contradictory, and the clash of democracy and oligarchy will persist.

There are some obvious formal problems with Ranciere's argument. First, and most obviously, his redefinition of democracy is incredibly abstract. In this book, at least, it seems to mean little other than "people will want what they want;" Ranciere just asserts that what people want is equality and not capitalism. But (silly example ahoy!) what if people really want to water their lawns during a drought? In the clash between the hated state expert and the democratic insurgent gardeners, the state must win, or the gardeners, like everyone else, die of thirst.

Second, he insists that democracy has no foundation and neither is nor has a subject of history; there is no development from the present to an actually existing democracy, only "singular and precarious acts" in the "here and now." Which means, of course, that his understanding of democracy is transhistorical. But if that is so, why has nobody been wise enough, before Ranciere, to understand democracy properly? What is so very special about his definition? And where did this transhistorical fact come from?

And, third, his resistance to historical thinking (in this book) and ideology critique means that he must attribute the failure of democracy to an evil cabal of intellectuals, all keeping the People down in the name of greed. That, I suggest, is not really happening anywhere.

On a different note, it's always funny to read French theorists in America--the societies, governmental structures and dominant intellectual tendencies are so very, very different. The idea that there is an epidemic of elitist intellectuals defaming democracy doesn't really hold much water in a country that altogether lacks elitist intellectuals, and has a government run by fools rather than knaves; not to mention that if anyone should suggest that democracy isn't the cure of every problem in America, s/he would be ostracised and probably forcibly deported to China so s/he could see 'what it's really like without democracy.'

But no matter what you think of Ranciere's argument, he gets in some nice jabs at other, even worse arguments--for instance, "We do not live in democracies. Neither, as certain authors assert--because they think we are all subjected to a biopolitical government law of exception--do we live in camps." He also points out some nice ironies--for instance, that in the neoliberal battle against the state, it is invariably *non*-state institutions that were set up *in the teeth* of the state that get hammered: unions, higher education, cultural bodies and so on. Actual state institutions (police, army, and so on) go on doing what they've always done.
… (lisätietoja)
 
Merkitty asiattomaksi
stillatim | 4 muuta kirja-arvostelua | Oct 23, 2020 |

You May Also Like

Associated Authors

Tilastot

Teokset
114
Also by
2
Jäseniä
3,558
Suosituimmuussija
#7,133
Arvio (tähdet)
½ 3.8
Kirja-arvosteluja
19
ISBN:t
356
Kielet
18
Kuinka monen suosikki
6

Taulukot ja kaaviot