Com o intuito de pensar sobre a peculiaridade dos impasses relativos à formação dos mais novos no contexto de uma sociedade de consumidores, recorremos ao que Hannah Arendt e Jacques Rancière propuseram acerca da relação entre arte e política. De acordo com Arendt, um dos desafios impostos à tarefa dos mais velhos de introduzir os recém-chegados ao mundo numa sociedade de consumidores diz respeito ao modo como temos nos relacionado com a herança cultural que o passado nos legou. Isso porque destruímos os objetos culturais que ajudam a constituir um mundo comum na medida em que os transformamos em meios de entretenimento, passíveis de serem consumidos. Se partimos da reflexão sobre o fenômeno da arte como uma das formas privilegiadas de compreender o que é esse mundo comum ao qual os adultos devem introduzir as crianças é porque, segundo Arendt, as obras de arte são os objetos culturais máximos que devem ser salvos da ruína da destruição ou do esquecimento. Rancière, por sua vez, afirma que a arte e a política podem contribuir para que possamos reconfigurar as coisas comuns, mesmo no contexto da sociedade homogênea e consensual da qual fazemos parte. Elas podem romper com a distribuição dos espaços, das competências e incompetências de acordo com o lugar que ocupamos na sociedade, contribuindo para forjarmos contra o consenso outras formas de senso comum. Podemos pensar, então, sobre um sentido formativo da arte a partir da possibilidade de reconfigurarmos outras formas de convívio que ligam sujeitos ou grupos em torno de uma outra comunidade de palavras e coisas, formas e significados. Rancière não parece acreditar, nesse sentido, apenas na destruição do que há em comum entre os homens numa sociedade marcada pela lógica do consumo. Ele afirma que a transição dos objetos e produtos do mundo da arte para a esfera da utilidade e da mercadoria pode romper com o curso uniforme do tempo, alterando o estatuto dos objetos e a relação entre os signos e as formas de arte, de modo que possamos nos apropriar ativamente do mundo comum. Nesse contexto, acreditamos que a escola pode se configurar como um recorte no tempo e no espaço da produção e do consumo, em que podemos oferecer aos recém-chegados a possibilidade de pertencerem ao comum do mundo. Talvez numa época em que as coisas mais corriqueiras podem adentrar a esfera da arte, propondo outras formas de experiência sensível, a educação tenha, mesmo num contexto de crise, a possibilidade aberta e sempre renovada de convidar os mais novos a adentrar a imensa floresta de coisas e signos que constituem o mundo comum. / In order to analyze the peculiarity of the dispute over the education of the newcomers in a consumer society, we call upon what Hannah Arendt and Jacques Rancière proposed about the relationship between art and politics. In line with Arendt, one of the challenges faced by the adults when introducing newcomers to the world in a consumer society refers to the way we deal with the cultural heritage that has been transmitted to us from the past. We destroy the cultural objects that help provide a common world as we transform them into consumable media entertainment. We begin by considering the art as a privileged way of understanding this common world in which adults introduce children because, according to Arendt, the art works are cultural objects par excellence that must be protected from ruin of destruction or oblivion. Rancière, in turn, says that art and politics support the reconfiguration of common things, even in the context of homogeneous and consensual society to which we belong. They can break with the use of spaces, the competence and incompetence with respect to our place in society, contributing to forge consensus against different forms of common sense. We can think about an educational sense of art out of the possibility of configuration of different forms of living together that bind men and groups around a different community of words and things, forms and meanings. Rancière does not seem to believe only in the destruction of what is common among men in a society ruled by the logic of consumption. He says that the transition of the objects and products from the art world to the sphere of utility and commodity may break the uniform course of time, changing the status of objects and the relationship between signs and art forms, so we can actively appropriate the common world. In this context, we believe that school can be configured as a cutout in time and space of production and consumption, in which we can offer newcomers the opportunity to belong to the common world. Perhaps in a time when the most ordinary things can enter the sphere of art, proposing other forms of sensitive experience, education has even in times of crisis the open and constantly renewed possibility to invite the young to enter the vast forest of things and signs that constitute the common world.

No description available.

Com o intuito de pensar sobre a peculiaridade dos impasses relativos à formação dos mais novos no contexto de uma sociedade de consumidores, recorremos ao que Hannah Arendt e Jacques Rancière propuseram acerca da relação entre arte e política. De acordo com Arendt, um dos desafios impostos à tarefa dos mais velhos de introduzir os recém-chegados ao mundo numa sociedade de consumidores diz respeito ao modo como temos nos relacionado com a herança cultural que o passado nos legou. Isso porque destruímos os objetos culturais que ajudam a constituir um mundo comum na medida em que os transformamos em meios de entretenimento, passíveis de serem consumidos. Se partimos da reflexão sobre o fenômeno da arte como uma das formas privilegiadas de compreender o que é esse mundo comum ao qual os adultos devem introduzir as crianças é porque, segundo Arendt, as obras de arte são os objetos culturais máximos que devem ser salvos da ruína da destruição ou do esquecimento. Rancière, por sua vez, afirma que a arte e a política podem contribuir para que possamos reconfigurar as coisas comuns, mesmo no contexto da sociedade homogênea e consensual da qual fazemos parte. Elas podem romper com a distribuição dos espaços, das competências e incompetências de acordo com o lugar que ocupamos na sociedade, contribuindo para forjarmos contra o consenso outras formas de senso comum. Podemos pensar, então, sobre um sentido formativo da arte a partir da possibilidade de reconfigurarmos outras formas de convívio que ligam sujeitos ou grupos em torno de uma outra comunidade de palavras e coisas, formas e significados. Rancière não parece acreditar, nesse sentido, apenas na destruição do que há em comum entre os homens numa sociedade marcada pela lógica do consumo. Ele afirma que a transição dos objetos e produtos do mundo da arte para a esfera da utilidade e da mercadoria pode romper com o curso uniforme do tempo, alterando o estatuto dos objetos e a relação entre os signos e as formas de arte, de modo que possamos nos apropriar ativamente do mundo comum. Nesse contexto, acreditamos que a escola pode se configurar como um recorte no tempo e no espaço da produção e do consumo, em que podemos oferecer aos recém-chegados a possibilidade de pertencerem ao comum do mundo. Talvez numa época em que as coisas mais corriqueiras podem adentrar a esfera da arte, propondo outras formas de experiência sensível, a educação tenha, mesmo num contexto de crise, a possibilidade aberta e sempre renovada de convidar os mais novos a adentrar a imensa floresta de coisas e signos que constituem o mundo comum. / In order to analyze the peculiarity of the dispute over the education of the newcomers in a consumer society, we call upon what Hannah Arendt and Jacques Rancière proposed about the relationship between art and politics. In line with Arendt, one of the challenges faced by the adults when introducing newcomers to the world in a consumer society refers to the way we deal with the cultural heritage that has been transmitted to us from the past. We destroy the cultural objects that help provide a common world as we transform them into consumable media entertainment. We begin by considering the art as a privileged way of understanding this common world in which adults introduce children because, according to Arendt, the art works are cultural objects par excellence that must be protected from ruin of destruction or oblivion. Rancière, in turn, says that art and politics support the reconfiguration of common things, even in the context of homogeneous and consensual society to which we belong. They can break with the use of spaces, the competence and incompetence with respect to our place in society, contributing to forge consensus against different forms of common sense. We can think about an educational sense of art out of the possibility of configuration of different forms of living together that bind men and groups around a different community of words and things, forms and meanings. Rancière does not seem to believe only in the destruction of what is common among men in a society ruled by the logic of consumption. He says that the transition of the objects and products from the art world to the sphere of utility and commodity may break the uniform course of time, changing the status of objects and the relationship between signs and art forms, so we can actively appropriate the common world. In this context, we believe that school can be configured as a cutout in time and space of production and consumption, in which we can offer newcomers the opportunity to belong to the common world. Perhaps in a time when the most ordinary things can enter the sphere of art, proposing other forms of sensitive experience, education has even in times of crisis the open and constantly renewed possibility to invite the young to enter the vast forest of things and signs that constitute the common world.

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.

Récemment, le débat concernant la pensée politique est en venu aborder les concepts de démocratie et de reconnaissance. Jacques Rancière est surtout connu pour ses idées sur la démocratie, mais ses recherches sur l’émancipation ouvrière au XIXe siècle en France l’ont amené à proposer des réflexions importantes sur la question de la reconnaissance. En partant de l’idée de « post-démocratie », la présente recherche remarque qu’il n’y a pas chez Rancière une « théorie » de la démocratie ou de la reconnaissance qui donnerait de ces concepts une définition complète, mais que ces deux concepts sont l’occasion d’une « intervention critique » en faveur de « la part des sans-part ». On montre également que la manière dont Rancière a développé cette intervention a pris des formes différentes. Dans sa période de la maturité, il a identifié l’espace social à la « police », en risquant ainsi de produire une dichotomie entre le social et la « politique ». Néanmoins, dans cette même période, il a pensé l’agentivité du sujet socio-politique entre le social et la politique. Ce continuum du social et du politique avait été amplement exploré dans les années 1970, à l’occasion de ses premiers écrits sur la « parole ouvrière » des années 1830-1851, qui était interprétée comme une expérience qui ré-tord ou dé-tord la non-reconnaissance par la nomination d’un sujet supplémentaire. Dans les années 1980, Rancière a changé de position en mettant au second plan l’expérience sociale et en centrant l’analyse sur l’expérience individuelle. Il a ainsi abouti à une conception « suspensive » de la reconnaissance. Pour faire ressortir les enjeux de cette transformation, cette thèse pose Rancière au cœur du débat contemporain par l’intermédiaire de confrontations critiques avec des auteurs et des traditions de pensée. La conclusion générale est qu’il faut entendre l’« intervention critique » de Rancière comme une manière de penser et d’intervenir déterminée par les expériences du tort. / Recent debates on political thought often circle around the concepts of democracy and recognition. Jacques Rancière is mostly known for his work on the former, but in his archival studies of the Nineteenth Century French workers’ movement the latter appears central. Starting from his idea of “post-democracy”, this study claims that Rancière doesn’t have a “theory” of democracy or of recognition that would provide an exact explanation of what these concepts mean. Rather, both are objects of a “critical intervention” in favour of “the part that has no part” in the political space. However, the way in which Rancière develops his intervention has taken different forms. In fact, in his mature period he classifies the social space as the “police” order in a way that risks to produce a dichotomy with “politics”. At the same time, he nonetheless thinks the agency of the socio-political subject between the domain of the social and the domain of politics. Such an interrelation has been explored extensively in the 70s, in his early writings on the “workers’ speech/voice” [parole ouvrière] of 1830-1851 as a social experience twisting the non-recognition by means of the nomination of a supplementary subject. In the 80s, Rancière changed his position moving away from the analysis of the social experience while scrutinizing more deeply the individual experience of the wrong. The goal was a “suspensive” idea of recognition. Thus, to evaluate such a transformation, this dissertation places Rancière’s work in the contemporary debate through critical confrontations with some thinkers and traditions. Finally, the study stresses that the Rancièrian “critical intervention” should be understood as a way of thinking and intervening informed by the experiences of the wrong.

Syftet med denna studie är att omformulera svenskämnets didaktiska utgångspunkt genom att utgå från filosofen Jacques Rancières radikala förståelse av vad demokrati innebär. Detta görs genom en "dekonstruktiv" läsning av ämnets styrdokument där ett alternativt sätt att förstå ämnets didaktiska beståndsdelar formuleras (vilket i sin tur görs med utgångspunkt i Laclau & Mouffes "hegemoniska strategi"). Studien kommer fram till att en oreflekterad läsning av ämnets styrdokument riskerar att leda oss lärare till en odemokratisk förståelse av ämnet. Den belyser också (1) att skolan behöver ses som en arena som rymmer olika motstridiga förståelser av verkligheten, (2) att lärare behöver problematisera demokratibegreppet så att begreppet inte reduceras till att vara intetsägande och godtyckligt, och (3) att lärare bör sträva mot att skapa en didaktik som har större demokratisk potential snarare än att sträva mot illusionen om en ideal och slutgiltig demokratisk didaktik. Slutligen visar studien på en potential i att jobba ämnes- och yrkesöverskridande med skolans demokratiuppdrag utifrån det valda teoretiska perspektivet.

La pensée politique se heurte aujourd'hui à l’impossibilité de définir la communauté politique une fois les catégories traditionnelles (Nation, Peuple, Classe) mises en déroute. À l'heure de la critique de toutes les catégories totalisantes, de toutes les essences, la tâche de penser le commun paraît ardue. Pourtant, trois auteurs de philosophie politique, Giorgio Agamben, Jean-Luc Nancy et Jacques Rancière, ont tenté, dans leurs œuvres respectives, de relever le défi. Ce mémoire passe en revue leurs propositions pour une communauté désubstantialisée, ne s'assemblant plus autour d'une particularité exclusive mais ne sombrant pas non plus dans l'universalisme abstrait. Il présente les prémisses principales sur lesquelles s'appuie cette vision de la communauté : une politique sans archè, la fin de toute téléologie et l'appropriation de l'impropriété. La dernière partie du mémoire présente la proposition de recherche qui stipule que c'est en réactivant le thème de l'exigence communiste que ces trois auteurs peuvent énoncer la communauté politique comme un partage extatique, évitant le piège du libéralisme mais aussi du communautarisme. ______________________________________________________________________________ MOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : communauté, Jacques Rancière, Jean-Luc Nancy, Giorgio Agamben, extatique, anarchie, Bataille, désœuvrement, singularité, impropriété, commun, exigence communiste.

This paper grapples with the differences between genuine and ordinary democracy within the political thought of Jacques Rancière, Sheldon Wolin, and Hannah Arendt. Each discusses the problems of ordinary democracy and offer solutions in terms of what I call genuine democracy. Ordinary democracy is the established norm of liberal democracy celebrated as the stable and a desired “end” of political action. It is what happens when politics as usual becomes the norm and shuts the people from the halls of power. Genuine politics exist within the structure ordinary democracy and seeks to achieve the continuous re-establishment of democratic processes while in the process speeding up and disrupting “politics as usual”.

This dissertation engages a very general question: what matters politically? This question is characterized as a point of heresy, as a site through which different political stances differentiate themselves from one another and account for their differences. Building on the concept of aesthetics of politics developed by Jacques Rancière, I seek to free up this concept’s critical and analytical potential by arguing that different aesthetics of politics act as prerequisites to divergent determinations of political importance. More precisely, I argue that significant formulations of how variations in distributions of political importance occur tend to presuppose particular accounts of the relationships between perception and interpretation, sensibility and understanding, or how we sense and how we make sense. While the concept of aesthetics is tied to particular histories of what has been called Western Modernity, I argue that Western political thought has been characterized by a deep concern for questions of perception since its allegedly inaugural texts in Classical Greece, and that the so-called postmodern condition continues to put into play aesthetic terms of political engagement. To test this hypothesis positing that we always already think of politics aesthetically, I map five influential aesthetics of politics: aesthetics of prevalence, aesthetics of emancipation, aesthetics of temperament, aesthetics of friction, and aesthetics of endurance. Each one is already manifold. To make sense of these multiplicities, each aesthetics of politics is studied through a fourfold engagement with the politics of one of the senses of the age-old fivefold of sight, taste, hearing, touch, and smell. The politics of each sense are engaged along a politological, an artistico-political, a polemological and a hauntological folds. I am thereby able to show the intricacies of how the problem of political importance has been and is being dealt with. / Graduate / 0615 / simonlab@uvic.ca

This dissertation engages a very general question: what matters politically? This question is characterized as a point of heresy, as a site through which different political stances differentiate themselves from one another and account for their differences. Building on the concept of aesthetics of politics developed by Jacques Rancière, I seek to free up this concept’s critical and analytical potential by arguing that different aesthetics of politics act as prerequisites to divergent determinations of political importance. More precisely, I argue that significant formulations of how variations in distributions of political importance occur tend to presuppose particular accounts of the relationships between perception and interpretation, sensibility and understanding, or how we sense and how we make sense. While the concept of aesthetics is tied to particular histories of what has been called Western Modernity, I argue that Western political thought has been characterized by a deep concern for questions of perception since its allegedly inaugural texts in Classical Greece, and that the so-called postmodern condition continues to put into play aesthetic terms of political engagement. To test this hypothesis positing that we always already think of politics aesthetically, I map five influential aesthetics of politics: aesthetics of prevalence, aesthetics of emancipation, aesthetics of temperament, aesthetics of friction, and aesthetics of endurance. Each one is already manifold. To make sense of these multiplicities, each aesthetics of politics is studied through a fourfold engagement with the politics of one of the senses of the age-old fivefold of sight, taste, hearing, touch, and smell. The politics of each sense are engaged along a politological, an artistico-political, a polemological and a hauntological folds. I am thereby able to show the intricacies of how the problem of political importance has been and is being dealt with. / Graduate / 0615 / simonlab@uvic.ca