L'analyse des différents commentaires de "Was ist Aufklärung ?" par Michel Foucault permet de retracer l'émergence d'une conception d'un courage des gouvernés, entre désobéissance et désassujettissement. Un courage dénué de tout psychologisme, mais qui s'affirmerait comme une attitude, une reformulation du rapport que chacun entretient avec soi-même ; un courage qui ne serait plus pensé sur le mode d'une conquête de l'autonomie, confiné aux espaces aménagés de l'obéissance ; un courage enfin qui ne serait pas une vertu de l'occasion, mais une élaboration quotidienne et patiente de soi par soi. Notre premier pas sur la voie du courage consisterait alors en un travail de déprise de soi, et de refus de l'emprise du pouvoir sur la conduite de nos existences. Or, au cœur des problématiques de gouvernement, la vérité apparaît comme le vecteur essentiel du pouvoir. Les procès de Socrate et de Galilée, ainsi que les mythes qui les entourent, laissent entrevoir la manière dont le vrai s'est progressivement imposé comme source unique de l'autorité grâce au platonisme tout d'abord, puis par l'intermédiaire du christianisme. La vérité s'est ainsi vue augmentée d'une dimension nouvelle, « kratogénétique », qui désigne la capacité d'un énoncé à produire des effets de pouvoir dans une configuration stratégique donnée. L'étude des procès de Nuremberg et celui d'Eichmann mettent en lumière l'insuffisance des traditions héroïques, hoplitiques et chrétiennes du courage à produire un appareil conceptuel qui permettrait au sujet de s'affirmer face au pouvoir de sujétion de la vérité et à la démultiplication et la diversification des régimes d'obéissance. L'urgence de notre modernité est de s'extirper du cauchemar de la docilité. C'est pourquoi nous avons dans un dernier temps choisi de faire dialoguer Hannah Arendt et Michel Foucault, à partir de leur relecture critique des concepts machiavéliens tout d'abord, puis en comparant la manière dont ils ont l'un et l'autre ont opéré un retour à l'Antiquité, et à la figure tutélaire de Socrate en particulier : revenir au sujet préchrétien afin de penser un courage sans référence à aucune transcendance, comme fidélité à soi-même et à la manifestation en soi-même de la pluralité humaine, ou comme technique de soi et stylistique de l'existence. / Studying Michel Foucault's commentaries on Kant's "Was ist Aufklärung?" allows to witness the emerging conception of a courage specific to the governed, between disobedience and de-subjection. A courage barren of any psychology, but conceived as an attitude, i.e. a reflection of someone's relationship to its self ; a courage that can't be summed-up as a conquest of autonomy, confined to cautiously designed spaces of obedience ; a courage that isn't an occasional virtue, but a daily routine of exercises by yourself and on yourself. Thus, our first step on the path to courage would translate to an abandonment of our former self, and a refusal of the power's grip on our very existences. Then, at the heart of governing techniques, truth appears as power's essential conduit. Socrates' and Galileo's trials, as well as the myths surrounding them, unveil the way truth progressively became the unique source of authority ; thanks to Platonism at first, then through Christianity. Truth gained a new dimension in the process, which we call "kratogenetic" as it points to the capacity of any proposition to generate effects of power in any given strategic configuration. Our study of the Nuremberg and Eichmann's trials exposes the inability of the heroic, hoplitic and Christian traditions of courage to produce a set of concepts that could allow the subject to assert itself in the face of the subjecting power of truth, and the multiplication and diversification of obedience regimes. The emergency of our time is to extricate ourselves from the nightmare of docility. That is why we have decided at last to initiate a dialog between Hannah Arendt and Michel Foucault, from their critical reworking of Machiavelli's concepts at first, then comparing the way they each got back to the Antiquity in general, and to Socrates as a father-figure in particular : a way to get back to a pre-Christianity subject, in order to conceive a courage without any reference to any transcendence ; a courage conceived either as a loyalty to ourselves and to the manifestation within ourselves of mankind's plurality, or as a technique of the self and a stylization of our existence.

Il contributo presenta i risultati di un progetto multi-fase che ha avuto come obiettivo la creazione di un nuovo modello di azione collettiva solidarity-based. Sviluppatosi in tre fasi conseguenti e necessarie, tale progetto mira a fornire indicazioni teoriche, metodologiche ed applicative per interventi di cittadinanza globale capaci di favorire condizioni di giustizia sociale. La prima fase consta di uno studio cross-culturale condotto in Italia, Austria e Stati Uniti volto a rilevare le rappresentazioni sociali dei concetti di obbedienza e disobbedienza in gruppi di giovani-adulti. La discussione dei risultati evidenzia similitudini e differenze cross-culturali tra le rappresentazioni e definisce, per la prima volta in letteratura, attraverso l’utilizzo di mixed methods completamente bottom-up i concetti di obbedienza e disobbedienza. Nella seconda fase è stato creato e validato uno strumento psicometrico in grado di misurare l’atteggiamento relativo alla disobbedienza pro-sociale poiché, nella terza e ultima fase, tale costrutto, insieme alle variabili ragionamento morale e valori di impegno, sono state testate come predittrici del modello EMSICA, modello esplicativo di un’azione collettiva a favore di un out-group in condizioni di svantaggio sociale. La discussione dei risultati indica la rilevanza empirica di tali variabili offrendo interessanti spunti di riflessione per i policy maker. / This dissertation presents the results of a multi-phase project whose goal was the creation of a new model of solidarity-based collective action. Developed in three consequential and necessary phases, this project aims to provide theoretical, methodological and practical guidance for interventions of global citizenship to favor conditions of social justice. The first phase consists of a cross-cultural study conducted in Italy, Austria and the United States aimed at detecting the social representations of the concepts of obedience and disobedience in young adults groups. The discussion of the results highlights the similarities and the differences between cross-cultural representations and defines the concepts of obedience and disobedience for the first time in literature, through the use of completely bottom-up mixed methods. In the second phase has been created and validated a psychometric instrument that can measure the attitude related to pro-social disobedience because, in the third and final stage, this construct, along with the variables moral reasoning and engagement values, have been tested as predictors of the EMSICA model, that explains collective action in favor of a disadvantaged out-group. The discussion of the results indicates the empirical relevance of these variables offering interesting insights for policy makers.