Jusqu’ici les études sur le tacitisme des XVIe et XVIIe siècles se limitaient à la théorie politique et à l’historiographie. Ce travail étend l’analyse au théâtre, dans une optique comparatiste qui confronte, à propos du principat de Tibère, les pièces anglaises et françaises : Sejanus His Fall de Ben Jonson, Claudius Tiberius Nero d’un auteur anglais anonyme, La Mort de Germanic Caesar de Bénigne Griguette, Seianus de Jean Magnon, La Victime d’Estat de Jean Le Royer de Prade, La Mort d’Agrippine de Cyrano de Bergerac, Germanicus de Dominique de Colonia, et Germanicus d’Edme Boursault. Le plan de la thèse suit l’alternance des séquences dramaturgiques de la dissimulation, des affrontements verbaux et des coups de théâtre qui intègrent la pratique juridique. L’analyse de la dissimulation est répartie entre la non-interaction (observation, silence, discours dérobé sur scène), l’interaction (discours dissimulateur symétrique et asymétrique) et la distanciation (du public, et des récepteurs internes sur scène et en coulisses). Les séquences des affrontements verbaux sont examinées en fonction des preuves, des témoins et des arbitres dans les disputes dramatiques. Enfin, les séquences des coups de théâtre font objet d’une analyse en deux temps : la juridisation des conflits dramatiques et l’esthétisation de l’effet violent. La thèse se clôt sur un examen de la construction d’exemplarité dans les tragédies du corpus et des interprétations dramatiques du principat en tant que l’institution. Dans les appendices de la thèse se trouvent les transcriptions modernisées de quatre pièces rares du corpus français, accompagnées d’un commentaire philologique, littéraire et historique. / The studies of tacitism in the 16th and 17th centuries were limited so far to political theory and historiography. Our thesis extends the scope of research to theatre, in that it explores in a comparative perspective the rewritings of the principate of Tiberius in English and French 17th century tragedy: Sejanus His Fall by Ben Jonson, Claudius Tiberius Nero by an anonymous English dramatist, La Mort de Germanic Caesar by Bénigne Griguette, Seianus by Jean Magnon, La Victime d’Estat by Jean Le Royer, La Mort d’Agrippine by Cyrano de Bergerac, Germanicus by Dominique de Colonia and Germanicus by Edme Boursault. The arrangement of topics discussed follows a dramatic movement from the sequences of dissimulation and agonistic confrontation towards dramatic turns of events covered by legal procedure. The sequences of dissimulation are analysed in terms of non-interaction (observation, silence, asides), interaction (symmetrical and asymmetrical dissimulation) and the distancing effect (in regard to internal receivers and the audience). The study of agonistic sequences focuses on dramatic functions of proofs, witnesses and arbitrators. Finally, the dramatic turns of events are considered first from the point of view of their juridical origins and specific references to the legal procedure, and then with regard to the aesthetics of violence. The closure of the thesis broadens the perspective by analysing construction of exemplarity and dramatic interpretations of the principate as an institution. The appendices offer a standard language transcription of rarely studied French pieces of our collection, accompanied by a philological, literary and historical commentary.

La pratique sexuelle hors-mariage et récompensée à Marrakech est un phénomène socialement reconnu depuis la médiatisation du tourisme sexuel. L'étude menée interroge les risques encourus pour l'équilibre psychique, dans une société où la sexualité est agie et vécue de manière profondément différente de l'occident. L'analyse psychodynamique offre un accès aux enjeux qui se trouvent mis à l'épreuve dans ce recours. Ce travail se centre sur l'analyse d'un sujet « contextualisé » (Société-Islam-Sexualité) et les résultats cliniques obtenus grâce aux propos recueillis auprès de trente six femmes marocaines ayant ou ayant eu recours à la pratique sexuelle récompensée. L'interrogation des parcours existentiels met en évidence des croyances et des mythes qui viennent garantir un équilibre de vie, et cela dans le contexte islamique. Les aménagements défensifs viennent soutenir les liens et une représentation de soi, mais à quel coût

Tous deux écrivains afro-descendants de langue anglaise, faisant partie de la « diaspora noire », Toni Morrison et Derek Walcott sont reconnus pour l’éclairage poétique qu’ils offrent sur leur histoire et sur leur culture respective : les États-Unis pour Morrison et les Caraïbes pour Walcott. Cependant dans les œuvres, à la place des normes de révélation et de visibilité, se perçoit un « non-pouvoir » voir la culture, rejoignant un « non-pouvoir » dire l’histoire à la naissance des groupes culturels représentés. Malgré leurs spécificités poétiques, tous deux donnent forme à une même poétique de la dissimulation, qui problématise le concept de culture en le soumettant aux secrets entourant l’histoire de l’esclavage et du colonialisme qui leur est commune. Bouleversant les normes énonciatives, et à travers des personnages signés par un même mal ontologique relié à la différence raciale, les deux écritures donnent forme poétiquement au « problème noir » énoncé par Frantz Fanon, et « disent sans dire tout en disant » (Édouard Glissant) des secrets historiques et culturels que nous partageons. Poétique performative venant perturber les frontières linguistiques et énonciatives, la dissimulation engendre les questionnements suivants : qu’est-ce que signifie « noir », renvoyant à une différence raciale aussi bien en anglais (black) qu’en français, et aussi bien dans les textes, qu’au sein de notre contexte ? Comment passe-t-on de la différence raciale à la différence culturelle ? Comment cette différence est-elle produite ? Que signifie la « diaspora » ? Et comment les œuvres poétiques renouvellent-elles la culture, quand celle-ci apparaît problématique et négativée au départ ? / Toni Morrison and Derek Walcott, both English mother tongue writers from Afro-descendants, being part of the "black diaspora", are famous for the poetic analysis they propose about their history and their culture; the United States for Morrisson on the one hand, the Caribbean for Walcott on the other hand. However in their works, instead of the revelation and visibility standards, one can perceive a "no-power" to see culture along with a "no-power" to tell the history that gave birth to the cultural groups which are represented. Despite their poetic specificities, both give shape to the same poetics of dissimulation that puts the concept of culture into question submitting it to the secrets related to the history of slavery and colonialism that they both have in common. Shaking up the enonciation standards, using characters struck by the same ontological evil related to racial difference, both writings give shape poetically to the "black problem" enounced by Frantz Fanon and "say without saying while saying anyway" (Édouard Glissant) historical and cultural secrets that we share. As a performative poetics perturbing the linguistic and enunciative frontiers, the dissimulation produces the following questions: What does "black" mean, referring to a racial difference in English (black) as well as in French, but also in literature and within our context? How do we shift from a racial difference to a cultural difference? How is this difference produced? What does "diaspora" mean? How poetic works can renew culture when it appears problematic and negative from the very start?

Submitted by admin tede (tede@pucgoias.edu.br) on 2016-11-18T13:56:57Z No. of bitstreams: 1 ANDREA DE PAULA SOARES BOLLELLA.pdf: 780399 bytes, checksum: f57285085c4cc98840dd8e44bddb0ae4 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-11-18T13:56:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ANDREA DE PAULA SOARES BOLLELLA.pdf: 780399 bytes, checksum: f57285085c4cc98840dd8e44bddb0ae4 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-10-28 / The research brings a approach about a transgression of the protagonists living in the chaos, as aesthetic effect caused by the darkest and monstrous feelings like jealousy, selfishness, envy, among others. The objects Othello, William Shakespeare, and Black angel, Nelson Rodrigues, were chosen accurately to bring up the comparative method, concealment of the actions of the protagonists who reveal their affections and disaffected. The desire leaves the characters Othello and Ishmael tangled in his own ego. The rhythms of events are tense, with death consequences on a stage possibilities for bias of words. In the scenes, the behavior of the characters show contrasts between love and hate. The origin of the dramatic situation of the interior of the being that is lost to you and plunges into a maze with no exit. The theoretical references that gave the basis for the study were Carvalhal, Bataille, Sartre, Freud, Marvin Carlson, Bradley, Bakhtin, among others. Thus, the pieces in comparative analysis show filled stories of intrigue, betrayal, desire transgressor of feelings in an internal war scenario that suggests that reflection of the human condition. / A pesquisa traz uma abordagem da transgressão do ser vivendo em meio ao caos, como efeito estético provocado pelos sentimentos mais sombrios e monstruosos como ciúme, egoísmo, inveja, entre outros. Os objetos Otelo, de William Shakespeare, e Anjo negro, de Nelson Rodrigues, foram escolhidos de maneira acurada para trazer à baila, pelo método comparativo, a dissimulação das ações dos protagonistas que revelam seus afetos e desafetos. O desejo deixa os personagens Otelo e Ismael embaraçados em seu próprio ego. Os ritmos dos acontecimentos são tensos, com reflexos de morte, num palco de possibilidades pelo viés das palavras. Nas cenas, os comportamentos dos personagens mostram contrastes entre amor e ódio. A origem da situação dramática parte do interior do ser que se perde em si e mergulha em um labirinto sem saída. Os referenciais teóricos que nos deram base para o estudo foram Carvalhal, Bataille, Sartre, Freud, Marvin Carlson, Bradley, Bakhtin, entre outros. Assim, as peças em análise comparativa exibem estórias cheias de intrigas, traições, desejo transgressor de sentimentos, num cenário de guerra interior que sugere ser reflexo da condição humana.

O eixo principal que estrutura este trabalho é, num sentido amplo, a busca pelo entendimento dos modos de dominação característicos das sociedades modernas. É nessa direção que retomamos a clássica noção de ideologia cunhada em seu teor crítico pela obra de Karl Marx , pois ela aponta, no interior das sociedades capitalistas, para o processo social de produção de ideias, valores e representações cuja função é ocultar e legitimar as divisões de uma determinada ordem social. Nosso objetivo é acompanhar os desdobramentos desse debate na cena francesa do século XX, elegendo duas importantes contribuições: uma fornecida pelo filósofo Claude Lefort, outra, pelo sociólogo Pierre Bourdieu. Embora situados em campos disciplinares diferentes, os trabalhos de Lefort e Bourdieu confluem em direção a uma reformulação das bases a partir das quais os fenômenos ideológicos são tratados, ampliando as perspectivas de análise e lançando uma nova luz sobre eles. Tecida por uma relação crítica com o marxismo, a trajetória lefortiana permite acompanhar o trabalho histórico de um pensamento que busca apreender o surgimento, a especificidade, as formas e as transformações da ideologia nas sociedades modernas. Os trabalhos de Bourdieu, por sua vez, desvelam e caracterizam o modo de dominação moderno concebido enquanto violência simbólica, fenômeno baseado no acordo objetivamente orquestrado entre as estruturas sociais objetivas e as estruturas cognitivas dos agentes. Envolvendo e ultrapassando a noção de ideologia, a violência simbólica é operante na medida em que os agentes participam da dominação e conferem a ela um reconhecimento baseado no desconhecimento dos mecanismos pelos quais a ordem social se produz, reproduz e se legitima. Situando suas heranças e distanciamentos perante a tradição inaugurada por Marx, buscamos refletir sobre o alcance das concepções que esses dois pensadores nos legaram: ideologia enquanto recusa da historicidade, do conflito e da indeterminação constitutiva do político, em Lefort, e enquanto conjunto de práticas e estilos de vida fundados na dominação simbólica, em Bourdieu. / This work is structured, in a broad sense, as an attempt to understand the modes of domination characteristic of modern societies. It is in this perspective that we take into account the classical notion of ideology, as it was critically developed by Karl Marx. This term points out the social process of production of ideas, values and representations within capitalist societies, whose function consists in hiding and legitimizing the divisions of a social order. Our aim is to follow the developments of this debate in the French philosophical scene of the twentieth century, choosing two important contributions in particular: one provided by the philosopher Claude Lefort, another by the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Although located in different fields, Bourdieu and Lefort\'s works converge towards a reformulation of the bases from which the ideological phenomena are conceived, by enlarging the analytical perspectives and casting a new light on them. In a constant critical relationship with the Marxism, the lefortian trajectory allows us to follow the historical movement of a thought, which seeks to apprehend the rise as well as the specificities, forms and transformations of ideology in modern societies. The work of Bourdieu, in turn, unveils and characterizes the modern way of domination conceived as a symbolic violence; it is a phenomenon based on the agreement objectively orchestrated between social structures and the cognitive structures of agents. Involving and overcoming the notion of ideology, the concept of symbolic violence becomes effective when the agents participate in the domination. They give it a recognition based on ignorance of the mechanisms by which social order is produced, reproduced and legitimized. Considering the heritages and distances of the two thinkers with reference to a tradition inaugurated by Marx, we try to reflect on the scope of the main concepts that they leaved us: ideology as a refusal of historicity, of conflict and of political indeterminacy in Lefort, and as a set of practices and styles of life grounded in symbolic domination in Bourdieu.

Les questions sur l’existence de l’écriture en Afrique ont toujours intéressé les milieux intellectuels, entre ceux qui pensent que l’écriture sur le continent est un phénomène nouveau, issu de la colonisation et ceux qui le remettent en question. La présente thèse se propose d’analyser la présence de l’écriture dans la société traditionnelle fang et démontrer que toute société a cette volonté d’inscription du sens afin de perpétuer la mémoire collective (rites, croyances et organisation sociale). C’est à travers le masque que cette problématique sera étudiée : le masque comme ce qui permet de lire cette « pensée de l’écriture ». Le second temps de ce travail, abordera le masque dans la littérature, à ses différents niveaux d’appréhension (masque culturel et masque social) sans les considérer comme hétérogènes mais pour en souligner la complémentarité. Puis, voir également comment l’écriture littéraire s’approprie le fonctionnement du masque chez deux auteurs : Ludovic Obiang et Sami Tchak, par la dissimulation ou encore le voile. L’intérêt ici est de reconsidérer la place des motifs traditionnels dans la littérature africaine contemporaine, comme tentative de réponses aux problématiques actuelles. / Questions about the existence of writing in Africa have always interested intellectual circles, between those who think that writing on the continent is a new phenomenon resulting from colonization, and those who challenge it. The present thesis proposes to analyze the presence of the writing in the traditional Fang society, and to demonstrate that every society has that will of inscription of meaning in order to perpetuate the collective memory (rites, beliefs and social organization). It is through the mask that that problematic will be studied: the mask as the means of reading that "thought of writing". The second stage of this work, will deal with the mask in literature, through its different levels of apprehension (cultural mask and social mask) without considering them as heterogeneous, but to emphasize its complementarity. Then, this work will also highlight how the literary writing appropriates the functioning of the mask in two authors: Ludovic Obiang and Sami Tchak, through concealment or veil. The interest here is to reconsider the position of traditional symbols in contemporary African literature, as an attempt to answer to current questions.

La thèse reconstitue un débat entre Hegel et Heidegger à partir de la question sur la constitution du sens. La thèse propose une notion méthodologique de la négativité, qui soutient qu’une détermination conceptuelle est caractérisée par le paradoxe d’être simultanément révélatrice et dissimulant. Le constituant d'un phénomène se dissimule en faveur de l’immédiateté du phénomène constitué. Le rapport de tension entre sens et concept, et donc la confrontation entre Hegel et Heidegger, découle de cette conception de la négativité. Car si elle suppose que le constituant du sens est latent, il faut clarifier comment cette dimension de latence peut être révélée et articulée. Et si la détermination conceptuelle dissimule ce qu'elle révèle, se pose la question si la pensée peut conscientiser et surmonter cette tension inhérente. La dimension latente du sens est-elle une dimension non-conceptuelle ou, à l'inverse, le non-conceptuel est-il incapable d’avoir une portée dans le domaine sémantique? / My thesis maps out a debate between Hegel and Heidegger starting from the question concerning the constitution of meaning. It proposes a methodological notion of negativity, according to which a conceptual determination is characterized by the paradox of being simultaneously revealing and concealing. In other words, the constituent of a phenomenon is concealed in the immediacy of the constituted phenomenon. The tension between meaning and concept, reflected in the dispute between Hegel and Heidegger, arises from this conception of negativity. If the constituent of meaning is latent, it is necessary to clarify how this dimension of latency can be revealed and articulated. And if every conceptual determination conceals what it reveals, the question arises whether thought can become aware of this inherent tension and overcome it. Is the latent dimension of meaning non-conceptual, or is the non-conceptual irrelevant in the semantic domain?

COSTA, Gustavo Bezerra do Nascimento. A Arte de criar a si: uma concepção de hipocrisia, à luz do pensamento de Nietzsche. 2009. 176f. – Dissertação (Mestrado) – Universidade Federal do Ceará, Programa de Pós-graduação em Filosofia, Fortaleza (CE), 2009. / Submitted by Márcia Araújo (marcia_m_bezerra@yahoo.com.br) on 2013-11-06T12:25:53Z No. of bitstreams: 1 2009-DIS-GBNCOSTA.pdf: 1302339 bytes, checksum: b7f8c9ae7c8ed3b8552d60e55f49f180 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Márcia Araújo(marcia_m_bezerra@yahoo.com.br) on 2013-11-07T10:54:14Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 2009-DIS-GBNCOSTA.pdf: 1302339 bytes, checksum: b7f8c9ae7c8ed3b8552d60e55f49f180 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2013-11-07T10:54:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 2009-DIS-GBNCOSTA.pdf: 1302339 bytes, checksum: b7f8c9ae7c8ed3b8552d60e55f49f180 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009 / O objetivo desta dissertação é o de compreender, à luz do pensamento de Nietzsche, de que maneira uma determinada concepção de hipocrisia poderia estar presente nos processos que envolvem a criação de si, ou seja, a constituição para si de um caráter. Para tanto, perseguimos três objetivos preliminares. O primeiro, o alvo dos prolegômenos, é o de definir propriamente o que estamos a tratar por hipocrisia, e de que maneira a crítica a uma compreensão meramente fenomênica do termo poderia nos indicar a possibilidade de alcançar um patamar propriamente conceitual. Para isso concorre a análise de alguns autores contemporâneos que, em maior ou menor grau, tratam da hipocrisia e de alguns termos correlatos, dentre os quais o auto-engano. O segundo objetivo, agora já com o pensamento de Nietzsche, diz respeito precisamente à possibilidade acima aventada; qual seja, a de conferir à hipocrisia uma “legitimação” filosófica. Com esse intuito, em nosso capítulo um, procuramos primeiramente investigar os diferentes registros em que hipocrisia e auto-engano aparecem nos textos nietzscheanos. A partir daí – com base em uma análise acerca da noção nietzscheana de aparência – procuramos compreender o que de propriamente filosófico poderia a tais registros subjazer. Nosso terceiro objetivo é investigar de que maneira a idéia de uma criação de si, bem como a própria noção de hipocrisia que procuramos aqui desenvolver, poderia ainda ter relevância e legitimidade após as críticas de Nietzsche às idéias de consciência e sujeito da modernidade. Tal é o intento do capítulo dois, no qual investigamos as noções nietzscheanas de máscara e interpretação que daí decorrem. Procuramos aqui compreender em que sentido poderíamos, mesmo após tais críticas, sustentar ainda a validade da constituição de um eu, muito embora apoiada em um sujeito fictício – momento no qual reinserimos a noção de hipocrisia que estamos a defender. Nosso objetivo principal, alvo do terceiro capítulo e justificado a partir daqueles três objetivos preliminares é, então, o de compreender em que sentido esta noção de hipocrisia, com o fio condutor proposto, poderia estar na base dos processos que envolvem a criação de si, ou seja, a constituição de um caráter a partir de uma segunda, ou de segundas naturezas.

Deux écrivains : Gide et Mahfouz, deux visages, l’un occidental, français, l’autre oriental, égyptien d’origine, deux univers de littérature de réputation mondiale reliés dans notre étude par un seul thème : le silence. Diverses sont les similitudes qui se présentent à travers ce thème chez les deux écrivains et dans leurs œuvres. Mais nombreuses sont aussi les divergences. Quel que soit le cas, le thème du silence gidien et mahfouzien peut refléter l’autre visage de la parole, l’art qui consiste à faire taire la parole pour laisser parler le silence.Si le silence est semblable, en apparence, chez Gide et Mahfouz, il est différent quand il s’agit de descendre en détails dans le for intérieur de l’être humain aux prises avec ses évolutions dans des environnements socio-familiaux. La divergence, bien que liée à la situation familiale et sociale, provient aussi de l’éducation des romanciers qui expriment des attitudes personnelles à l’égard d’une incompréhension ou d’une injustice qu’ils ressentent, fruits de leurs propres conditions.Dans le cours de la vie, il y a des plaisirs et des tendres engagements. Certains personnages gidiens utilisent le silence comme un jeu pour marquer leur intelligence et leur pondération face à la course vers les désirs sensuels. Le silence auquel ils ont recours n’est pas l’aveu de leur erreur, mais il reflète une protestation intérieure capable de conduire à une situation de révolte à l’encontre de diverses situations familiales ou sociales.Quant à Mahfouz, qui est avant tout un écrivain réaliste, le silence se présente comme une réalité qui s’impose à la plupart de ses personnages, surtout féminins, une réalité volontairement acceptée et amèrement admise. Dans La Trilogie, les personnages obéissent non seulement par connivence aux règles imposées, mais ils s’arrangent aussi entre eux, dans la plupart des cas, pour que le silence réponde aux conditions familiales et sociales afin de régner obligatoirement. / Two writers: Gide and Mahfouz, two faces, one western and French, the other Eastern and Egyptian of origin, two universes of literature of world reputation connected in our study by a single theme: silence. There are various similarities in the two writers and in their works. But there are also many divergences. Whatever the case, the theme of Gidian silence and Mahfouzain can reflect the other face of speech, the art of silencing speech to make the silence speak.If the silence is similar, in appearance, with Gide and Mahfouz, is different when it is a question to going down into details in the inner-self of the human being struggling with his evolutions in socio-familial environments. The divergence, although related to the family and social situation, also comes from the education of novelists, who express personal attitudes towards a misunderstanding or an injustice they feel, fruits of their own conditions.In the course of life, there are pleasures and tender engagements. Some Gidean’s characters use silence as a game to mark their intelligence and their weight in face of the race towards sensual desires. The silence they use is not the admission of their error, but it reflects an inner protest capable of leading to a situation of revolt against various family or social situations.As for Mahfouz, who is above all a realistic writer of Eastern tradition, silence presents itself as a reality which imposes itself on most of his characters, especially feminine, a reality that is deliberately accepted and bitterly admitted. In the Trilogy, the characters not only obey the imposed rules, but they also arrange themselves, in most cases, so that silence responds to family and social conditions in order to rule.

O eixo principal que estrutura este trabalho é, num sentido amplo, a busca pelo entendimento dos modos de dominação característicos das sociedades modernas. É nessa direção que retomamos a clássica noção de ideologia cunhada em seu teor crítico pela obra de Karl Marx , pois ela aponta, no interior das sociedades capitalistas, para o processo social de produção de ideias, valores e representações cuja função é ocultar e legitimar as divisões de uma determinada ordem social. Nosso objetivo é acompanhar os desdobramentos desse debate na cena francesa do século XX, elegendo duas importantes contribuições: uma fornecida pelo filósofo Claude Lefort, outra, pelo sociólogo Pierre Bourdieu. Embora situados em campos disciplinares diferentes, os trabalhos de Lefort e Bourdieu confluem em direção a uma reformulação das bases a partir das quais os fenômenos ideológicos são tratados, ampliando as perspectivas de análise e lançando uma nova luz sobre eles. Tecida por uma relação crítica com o marxismo, a trajetória lefortiana permite acompanhar o trabalho histórico de um pensamento que busca apreender o surgimento, a especificidade, as formas e as transformações da ideologia nas sociedades modernas. Os trabalhos de Bourdieu, por sua vez, desvelam e caracterizam o modo de dominação moderno concebido enquanto violência simbólica, fenômeno baseado no acordo objetivamente orquestrado entre as estruturas sociais objetivas e as estruturas cognitivas dos agentes. Envolvendo e ultrapassando a noção de ideologia, a violência simbólica é operante na medida em que os agentes participam da dominação e conferem a ela um reconhecimento baseado no desconhecimento dos mecanismos pelos quais a ordem social se produz, reproduz e se legitima. Situando suas heranças e distanciamentos perante a tradição inaugurada por Marx, buscamos refletir sobre o alcance das concepções que esses dois pensadores nos legaram: ideologia enquanto recusa da historicidade, do conflito e da indeterminação constitutiva do político, em Lefort, e enquanto conjunto de práticas e estilos de vida fundados na dominação simbólica, em Bourdieu. / This work is structured, in a broad sense, as an attempt to understand the modes of domination characteristic of modern societies. It is in this perspective that we take into account the classical notion of ideology, as it was critically developed by Karl Marx. This term points out the social process of production of ideas, values and representations within capitalist societies, whose function consists in hiding and legitimizing the divisions of a social order. Our aim is to follow the developments of this debate in the French philosophical scene of the twentieth century, choosing two important contributions in particular: one provided by the philosopher Claude Lefort, another by the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Although located in different fields, Bourdieu and Lefort\'s works converge towards a reformulation of the bases from which the ideological phenomena are conceived, by enlarging the analytical perspectives and casting a new light on them. In a constant critical relationship with the Marxism, the lefortian trajectory allows us to follow the historical movement of a thought, which seeks to apprehend the rise as well as the specificities, forms and transformations of ideology in modern societies. The work of Bourdieu, in turn, unveils and characterizes the modern way of domination conceived as a symbolic violence; it is a phenomenon based on the agreement objectively orchestrated between social structures and the cognitive structures of agents. Involving and overcoming the notion of ideology, the concept of symbolic violence becomes effective when the agents participate in the domination. They give it a recognition based on ignorance of the mechanisms by which social order is produced, reproduced and legitimized. Considering the heritages and distances of the two thinkers with reference to a tradition inaugurated by Marx, we try to reflect on the scope of the main concepts that they leaved us: ideology as a refusal of historicity, of conflict and of political indeterminacy in Lefort, and as a set of practices and styles of life grounded in symbolic domination in Bourdieu.