No description available.

Cette recherche étudie les enjeux symboliques et organisationnels de la communication managériale, envisagée comme un phénomène « composite ». En mobilisant une heuristique de l’interstice, elle interroge les rapports de pouvoir mis en jeu autour de l’unification et de l’orientation du sens dans ce projet d’encadrement de la parole des managers. Il s’agit, grâce à une approche compréhensive dans une perspective critique, d’analyser les enjeux traversant les médiations de cette méthode, des discours d’escorte aux pratiques en situations des acteurs. Cette mise en tension a permis de montrer que la rhétorique qui a pu contribuer à la fortune de cette méthode est également ce qui peut expliquer certaines des « manières de faire », voire des difficultés pragmatiques qu’elle pose aux acteurs en organisations. Ainsi, l’idéologie aconflictuelle qui travaille la communication managériale se trouve actualisée en situations par les pratiques autour de la communication portée par les managers. Ce faisant, se pose la question des conditions de représentations et d’expressions du dissensus dans des organisations tendues vers un idéal de consensualité marginalisant l’écart. / This research focuses on the symbolic and organizational stakes of managerial communication as a “composite” phenomenon. By using a heuristic of the interstice, it questions the power dynamics surrounding unification and meaning orientation in a project meant to give a frame to managers’ words. Through a comprehensive approach and in a critical perspective, we will analyze what is at stake in the mediations of this method, from appendant speech to actual practices of the participants. Applying this voluntary tension allowed us to demonstrate that the same rhetoric which contributed to the fortune of this method can also explain the way some things are done, or even the pragmatic difficulties encountered by the participants in organizations. Thus, the un-contentious ideology behind managerial communication is updated in practice by customs surrounding communication as carried out by the managers. This raises the question of how the “dissensus” is represented and expressed in organizations reaching for an ideal of “consensuality” that marginalizes difference.

Cette thèse part d’une question simple : les œuvres d’art ont-elles une influence pouvant modifier notre perception du monde, et par là, nos jugements politiques ? Poser cette question revient à se demander ce qu’est la culture, l’art, la ou le politique pour interroger les fonctionnements des humains, ce qui influe sur leurs comportements et leur capacité à désirer, à produire de l’alternative, et à nourrir leur esprit critique et leur faculté de juger. Ces fonctionnements (systèmes nerveux, affects) et milieux indiquent tout à la fois l’espoir et la difficulté de la résistance dans notre contexte culturel postmoderne où nous sommes plutôt modifiés dans le sens de la servitude volontaire que de l’émancipation. L’état esthétique du monde à l’époque du capitalisme tardif, dans ses productions et dans ses pratiques de “consommation” des produits culturels, n’augure rien en faveur de la démocratie, la vraie : celle de l’autonomos, de l’entre, du dissensus, issue de l’individuation, de l’émancipation et de la résistance des individus, celle qui permettrait le large déploiement de la responsabilité politique de l’artiste. / This PhD starts from a simple question: do the artwork influence may change our perception of the world and thus, our political judgments ? Asking this question comes down to ask what culture, art, or politics to question humans ways of working, which affects their behavior and their ability to desire, to produce alternative, and grow a critical mind and their ability to judge. These operations (nervous system, affects) and milieu indicate at once the hope and the difficulty to resist in our postmodern cultural context where we are rather modified in the sense of voluntary servitude than emancipation. The aesthetic state of the world in the era of late capitalism, in its productions and its practices of "consumption" of cultural products, does not omen in favor of democracy, the real one : the one with autonomos, with 'between’, dissensus, from individuation, emancipation and resistance of individuals, which would enable the widespread deployment of the artist's political responsibility.

Les interventions artistiques dans le monde des entreprises soulèvent la question de leur capacité critique, et de leur posture politique. L’artiste peut-il contribuer par son intervention à humaniser l’organisation, et diminuer l’exercice de l’autorité arbitraire qui s’y exerce ? Mes propres expériences au moyen d’un dispositif de discussion particulier, basé sur le principe « on choisit qui on écoute, on ne choisit pas à qui on parle », tentent d’instaurer un partage de la parole plus égalitaire sur les scènes ordinaires de la vie organisationnelle. En m’appuyant sur les théories de Jacques Rancière au sujet d’une esthétique politique, j’analyse deux cas où l’introduction de mon dispositif, destiné à ouvrir plus de possibilités d’écoute égalitaire, a résulté en conflits et en renforcement de l’autorité et de la confiscation de la parole. La description des logiques internes à l’expérience sensible des acteurs mène à penser une forme de dialogisme fondé non pas tant sur l’opposition entre autorité et dissensus, mais sur la prise en compte de l’autoritarisme de l’écoute elle-même. La critique de mon dispositif et de la manière dont sont activées les dimensions contradictoires du sensible de la parole, telles que les perçoivent les acteurs, ouvre sur l’art comme éducation esthétique à une forme d’écoute « dissensuelle », qui sache discerner les voix dans le bruissant de la scène de parole, tout en sachant que tout discernement est arbitraire. J’en déduis le type de responsabilité éthique que doit assumer mon approche des organisations par l’art, pour que l’esthétique au sens de Rancière rejoigne le politique en pratique. / Artistic interventions within organizations meet the issue of their political stance and their critical ability. Can the art intervention foster a humanization of the organization and lower the arbitrary and authoritarian regime? My own experiments through the mean of a discussion device and a protocol based on the rule: “you choose who you listen to, you cannot choose who you talk to”, strive at opening a more egalitarian sharing of the speech on the organizational stage. Drawing on Rancière’s aesthetic and politic theories, I investigate two cases where my intervention resulted in an increased enforcement of power and a restriction of the freedom to speak. By describing the internal logics underlying the actors’ experience of the sensible, I outline a conception of a dialogism not so much concerned with the right to speak and the claim for acknowledgement, as with the inevitable authoritarian quality of listening. The critique of my intervention and my art device and the consideration of the manners in which the actors perceive the heterogeneous dimensions of speech delineate an art form of intervention as an aesthetic education. Training a dissensual listening would mean knowing how to discern any voice among the rustling others, and knowing how discernment is arbitrary. I conclude by circumscribing which ethic responsibility I need to assume in order for my art approach towards organizations to qualify as a true political aesthetics in the sense of Rancière.

Den här uppsatsen undersöker förhållandet mellan Kants estetiska omdöme, såsom det formuleras i Kritik av omdömeskraften, och Jacques Rancières estetiska projekt, framförallt i förhållande till begreppet dissensus. Dels försöker uppsatsen spåra arvet från Kant hos Rancière och visa hur detta tar sig uttryck, dels ställer den frågan om hur Kants omdöme politiseras med Rancières dissensus. Detta sker i två kapitel, varav det första är en läsning av Kants kritik av den estetiska omdömeskraften, mot bakgrund av idén om dissensus, och det andra en genomgång av Rancières formulering av dissensus, samt relaterade begrepp såsom konstens identifikationsregimer och ”fras-bilden”. Vidare jämför det andra kapitlet Rancières dissensus med Kants idé om det ”intresselösa” i det estetiska omdömet, samt visar vilka politiska eller metapolitiska implikationer Rancière tillskriver det senare. Uppsatsen visar hur Kants estetiska omdöme är oumbärligt för Rancières estetisk-politiska filosofiska projekt och att flera av hans viktigaste begrepp vilar tungt mot Kant. Den visar också, med hjälp av Rancière, på ett möjligt sätt att ge Kants estetiska omdöme politisk betydelse, delvis i motsättning till de politiska läsningar av den tredje Kritiken som främst tar fasta på sensus communis som ett vittne om en konsensuell gemenskap. Rancière visar med sina omformuleringar av Kants intresselösa omdöme att en sådan gemenskap alltid föregås av ett visst dissensus – ett brott med de dominerande formerna för den gemensamma sinnligheten. / This paper explores the relationship between Kant's aesthetic judgment, as formulated in the Critique of Judgment, and Jacques Rancière's aesthetic project, specifically the way in which the concept of dissensus is developed in the work of Rancière. The purpose of the paper is two-fold: first, to trace the legacy of Kant in Rancière and second, to pose the question of how Kant's judgment is politicized in Rancière's reading. This is discussed in two chapters, the first of which is a reading of Kant's critique of aesthetic judgment in light of the notion of dis-sensus; the second chapter examines the concept of dissensus in Rancière, as well as other related concepts, such as the regimes of art, and the 'image-phrase'. The second chapter also offers a comparison between Rancière‟s dissensus and the notion of 'disinterestedness' in Kant's aesthetic judgment, showing how Rancière draws out from the latter a set of political or meta-political implications. Ultimately, the paper serves to underline the essential role that Kant's aesthetic judgment plays in the development of Rancière's aesthetic project, examining how several of Rancière's most important concepts lean heavily on Kant for philosophical support. With the help of Rancière, the paper also provides an alternative way to give political significance to Kant's aesthetic judgment, partly in opposition to those political readings of the third Critique that primarily focus on sensus communis as a testimony of a consensual community. By way of rearticulating Kant's disinterested judgment, Rancière shows that this community is always preceded by a certain dissensus – a break with the dominant forms of a shared sensible community.

This master’s thesis presents a study which proposes that debate and conflict in any planning process highlight a separation between actors and their interests. This is examined through the concept of them/us. Existing theory of urban and regional planning describes a recurrent misunderstanding in planning practice where debate and conflict are interpreted as destructive. Through governing, actors with power have a tendency to suggest that all involved actors should reach a consensus in order to overcome expressed differences. However, this kind of governing does not encourage dissent and therefore leads to unfair planning processes. The aim of the study is to develop an understanding of them/us and to study how the acknowledgement of this concept can contribute to planning processes by addressing the following research question; How can the concept of them/us contribute to the planning process? The interdisciplinary study is conducted with support from a literature review and a case study, and the conclusion highlights that them/us contribute to the planning process by acknowledging the richness of diversity. / Detta examensarbete presenterar en studie som föreslår att debatt och konflikt i planeringsprocessen belyser en separation mellan aktörer och deras intressen. Detta studeras genom konceptet dom/oss. Befintlig teori om samhällsplanering beskriver ett återkommande missförstånd i planeringspraktiken där debatt och konflikt tolkas som destruktivt. Genom styrning tenderar aktörer med makt föreslå att samtliga berörda aktörer ska nå samförstånd i syfte att övervinna uttryckta skillnader. Denna form av styrning uppmuntrar dock inte oliktänkande och leder därmed till orättvisa planeringsprocesser. Syftet med studien är att utveckla en förståelse för dom/oss samt att studera hur erkännandet av detta koncept kan bidra till planeringsprocessen genom att undersöka följande frågeställning; Hur kan konceptet dom/oss bidra till planeringsprocessen? Den tvärvetenskapliga studien genomförs med stöd från en litteraturstudie och en fallstudie, och slutsatsen belyser att dom/oss bidrar till planeringsprocessen genom att erkänna mångfaldens rikedom. / Urban Form and Social Behavior

Ce mémoire présente une interprétation et une explication critique des propositions principales de l’ouvrage posthume de Bill Readings, The University in Ruins (Harvard, 1996). L’auteur vise à introduire la pensée de Readings en tant que translation du différend lyotardien vers les débats autour de la crise des curricula et des « guerres culturelles » américaines. Deuxièmement, ce travail mobilise le dialogue qui l’a opposé au projet pédagogique de Gerald Graff, lequel trouvait dans la notion de « Conflit » elle-même le ciment d’une nouvelle communauté universitaire. La communauté du « dissensus » chez Readings apparaît en comparaison dans toute sa radicalité. En renonçant à l’idéologie de l’émancipation du sujet caractéristique de la modernité, Readings envisageait la scène de l’enseignement depuis un mode éthique hétéronome, et caractérisait la pédagogie comme relation asymétrique et infinie à autrui. Enfin, il s’agit d’exposer comment la communauté du dissensus préserve comme aporie la question de l’identité collective autant que celle de la nature du lien social dans l’université « déréférentialisée ». Pour ce faire, ce mémoire propose sur ces idées un éclairage nouveau en les rapprochant de la pensée dialogique et anthropologique bakhtiniennes. / This master’s thesis offers a critical interpretation and exploration of the main proposals of Bill Readings’ posthumous book, The University in Ruins (Harvard, 1996). I situate Readings’ provocative thoughts as a translation of Lyotard’s notion of differend into American pedagogical debates within the literary crisis upon the curricula and the so-called “Culture Wars”. The study expands on the dialogue which opposed Readings to Graff, where the latter sought to posit the notion of “Conflict” as the locus of a renewed academic community. In contrast to Graff, the radicalism of Readings’ “community of dissensus” becomes more salient. While renouncing the emancipatory ideals of Modernity, Readings suggested an understanding of education as a space of heteronomous ethics, and pedagogy as an infinite and asymmetrical relationship to others. Finally, I show that the “community of dissensus” maintains as a permanent question the aporetic nature of its identity as well as of the nature of the social bond within the “post-historical” university. By doing so, this work provides an original contribution which underlines a kinship between Readings’ most controversial statements and Mikhail Bakhtin’s dialogism and anthropological ideas.

The following research presents a study of communication in requirement elicitation meetings. Achieving consensus of requirements is difficult in mostsituations, but even more so in requirement elicitation meetings. This report proposes and validates questions regarding requirement elicitation meetings between different stakeholders by modelling their subjective perspectives using the conceptual metaphor theory. Through a case study, qualitative data was collected from project managers and communicators from 5 Swedish companies. The result shows that misunderstanding is not detected until further into the process as a result of carrying different notions behind terms. The importance of shared experiences of words presents itself, and the use of metaphorisation is suggested as a useful approach to reach consensus.

[pt] Este trabalho busca fazer um estudo da polêmica no campo expandido das artes, como ato performativo e lugar de potência. Ao contrário da ideia recorrente de polêmica como algo depreciado e carregado de negatividade, - ideia essa reforçada pelos meios de comunicação como desacordo improdutivo-, a polêmica é tratada aqui como fenômeno discursivo e motor de movimentação cultural. A tese investiga a genealogia da polêmica por meio da análise de sua manifestação em diferentes contextos dentro do campo cultural: como gênero amplamente difundido nos periódicos do final do século XIX até os anos 1920; como performance, radicalização estética e fenômeno midiático. A parte final da tese é dedicada à análise dos principais obstáculos para a convivência no dissenso, e a possíveis caminhos de coexistência, recolocando a polêmica não apenas como motor da democracia mas como uma das condições para sua manutenção. / [en] The aim of this thesis is to study polemics, or public controversy, in the expanded field of art, as a performative act and a place of strength. Contrary to the recurrent idea of polemics as something depreciated and filled with negativity - an idea reinforced by the media of controversy as an unproductive disagreement -, polemics, or public controversy is approached here as a discourse phenomenon and as a means, an engine, for cultural movement. The thesis investigates the genealogy of polemics through the analysis of its occurrence in different contexts within the cultural field: as a literary genre largely spread in periodicals of the late 19th century until the 1920 s; as performance and aesthetic radicalization; and as a media phenomenon. The final part of the thesis is dedicated to the analysis of the main obstacles for coexistence in dissensus, and possible ways to overcome them, replacing polemics not only as an engine to democracy but as a condition for its existence.

[pt] Esta dissertação tem por objetivo pensar o feminismo como política dissensual, a partir do filósofo Jacques Rancière, considerando a política como um desentendimento com a ordem hegemônica – nesse caso, o patriarcado. No século XIX a entrada na cena pública das mulheres como agentes, apesar de não serem autorizadas a fazê-lo, promoveu um dano que fez aquilo que era ruído se tornar palavra. Palavra essa que abriu espaço para sensibilidades que não estavam dadas de antemão. Apesar de Rancière não falar diretamente de feminismo, é possível fazer seus conceitos, tais como dissenso, parte dos sem parte e emancipação, operarem em diálogo com uma epistemologia feminista. Ademais, entendendo que a política, nesses termos, é vinculada a um campo sensível, há nela uma dimensão estética. Quando pensamos em estética como arte assumimos que, para Rancière, no Regime Estético, há uma condição de indeterminação nela, na arte, que abre um campo de possibilidades para tornar algo visível ou dizível. Nesse sentido, a pesquisa também se desdobra para pensar o feminismo nas artes e o modo como estética e política se entrelaçam. / [en] This dissertation aims to think feminism as a dissensual politics, from philosopher Jacques Rancière s theory, considering politics as a disagreement with the hegemonistic order - in this case, patriarchy. In the 19th century women entering the public scene as agents, although not allowed to, promoted a wrong that made what was noise to become a word. A word which opened space for sensibilities that were not given beforehand. Even though Rancière did not speak directly about feminism, it is possible to make his concepts, such as dissensus, part of those who have no part and emancipation, operate in dialogue with a feminist epistemology. Furthermore, understanding that politics, in these terms, is connected to an invisible field, there is an aesthetic dimension in it. While we think of aesthetics as art, we assume that, for Rancière, in the Aesthetic Regime there is a condition of indetermination in art, which opens a field of possibilities to turn something visible or sayable. In this sense, this research also develops to think feminism in art and the way aesthetics and politics intertwine.