“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”?...
“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.
作者简介
· · · · · ·
Jacques Rancière is professor of aesthetics at the University of Paris VIII (St. Denis). He is the author of numerous books in French, three of which have been translated into English: The Nights of Labor (1989), The Ignorant Schoolmaster (1991), and The Names of History (Minnesota, 1994).
Julie Rose is a writer and translator who lives in Australia. She has also translated wor...
Jacques Rancière is professor of aesthetics at the University of Paris VIII (St. Denis). He is the author of numerous books in French, three of which have been translated into English: The Nights of Labor (1989), The Ignorant Schoolmaster (1991), and The Names of History (Minnesota, 1994).
Julie Rose is a writer and translator who lives in Australia. She has also translated works by Paul Virilio, including The Art of the Motor (Minnesota, 1995).
Politics is about the confrontation between the policing order and the egalitarian logic; politics occurs through mechanisms of subjectification; the essential nexus of logos and wrong: politics is th...Politics is about the confrontation between the policing order and the egalitarian logic; politics occurs through mechanisms of subjectification; the essential nexus of logos and wrong: politics is the practice whereby the logic of the characteristic of equality takes the form of the processing of a wrong;(展开)
Samuel Chambers是朗西埃的研究者，他在著作《朗西埃的课程》中对Disagreement的这个译本中的两个词的翻译写了长长的吐槽，让我赧颜啊，人家读得多细致，同时也惊叹于原本一个注解就可以解决的事儿他却用了好几页…… 他的核心观点是Disagreement的译者Rose在翻译朗西埃所引用...
(展开)
原文 P88: Ce qui est vrai en revanche,c’est que l’histoire moderne des formes de la politique est liée aux mutations qui ont fait apparaître l’esthétique comme partage du sensible et discours sur le sensible. 神奇的中文翻译：“另一方面而言，现代历史...
(展开)
Pieds Glacés
麥田出版2011版
哲夫成城
西北大学出版社2015版
芳草
西北大学出版社2015版
4 有用 sonatanegra 2014-04-18 05:30:29
打破常规的定义，将politics和police order分开。politics不需要police order那样的源头，是一个边缘化个体为自己发声，打破改变固有秩序的过程，是一个不断变化流动的过程。对平等的追求是这一切发声/斗争/冲突的源头。这也是当年68学运之后朗西埃和阿尔都塞分道扬镳的原因，在朗西埃看来是politics的学运却不被阿尔都塞认可。共识对于朗西埃而言是反民主的存在，而从个体身... 打破常规的定义，将politics和police order分开。politics不需要police order那样的源头，是一个边缘化个体为自己发声，打破改变固有秩序的过程，是一个不断变化流动的过程。对平等的追求是这一切发声/斗争/冲突的源头。这也是当年68学运之后朗西埃和阿尔都塞分道扬镳的原因，在朗西埃看来是politics的学运却不被阿尔都塞认可。共识对于朗西埃而言是反民主的存在，而从个体身份认知出发忽视对universal equality的追求对于朗西埃来说也不属于politics。比如虚无主义时代的人道主义，一方面只是国际秩序的强加；另一方面将politics限制在了少数身份认知从而忽视了最重要的平等。（朗西埃对于人道主义的论点感觉切入很草率，当然人道主义本身争议就非常大） (展开)
3 有用 遗忘诗行 2020-08-12 16:49:20
Politics is about the confrontation between the policing order and the egalitarian logic; politics occurs through mechanisms of subjectification; the essential nexus of logos and wrong: politics is th... Politics is about the confrontation between the policing order and the egalitarian logic; politics occurs through mechanisms of subjectification; the essential nexus of logos and wrong: politics is the practice whereby the logic of the characteristic of equality takes the form of the processing of a wrong; (展开)
1 有用 obdw 2018-01-13 04:48:41
对不起我后面实在是看不懂了
0 有用 Whimsicat 2022-11-13 05:14:21 加拿大
不完全懂，但仍是本学期最佳阅读体验。讨论的出发点似乎依然是海德格尔对亚里士多德的重释，从logos与aisthesis两个基本概念来理解政治，由此导入对“分歧”的讨论，建立起police和politics的对立——或者说“同一”和“差异”的对立。在这个基础上特别阐发subjectivization这个不依赖属性而理解自身的主体化过程以及proletariat这个超越任何身份政治的政治身份。由此，对... 不完全懂，但仍是本学期最佳阅读体验。讨论的出发点似乎依然是海德格尔对亚里士多德的重释，从logos与aisthesis两个基本概念来理解政治，由此导入对“分歧”的讨论，建立起police和politics的对立——或者说“同一”和“差异”的对立。在这个基础上特别阐发subjectivization这个不依赖属性而理解自身的主体化过程以及proletariat这个超越任何身份政治的政治身份。由此，对政治哲学史进一步做柏拉图（archi-）、亚里士多德（para-）、霍布斯/马克思（meta-politics）的三阶段划段——从构词上看，实际上三阶段都是围绕政治这个“差异”做迂回，最终以某种程度的“同一”将其付诸实践，让politics回归某种police。贡献或是在90年代对身份政治的预见。 (展开)
0 有用 诡谲 2020-07-02 17:59:46
中文没读明白 读英文的就清楚很多 结合香港美国的情况，朗西埃一针见血