Slavoj Zizek is a contemporary political philosopher widely recognized for his aphoristic style. Contrary to many forms of more traditional theory, Zizek does not forward his arguments as a series of well-argued, logically flowing propositions, but rather as a cacophony of diagnoses running the gamut of social science and culture studies while nevertheless always slipping from one position to another, occupying at times the position of the orthodox Marxist in the face of post-modernism’s excesses, and at other times doing quite the opposite. This study proposes a reading methodology that takes aphorism and hyperbole as key elements of writing; more specifically, this study understands writing as a political intervention, and reads Zizek’s recent works in this light. Arguing that Zizek occupies a multitude of positions against a multitude of interlocutors on the post-Marxist scene, this thesis claims that it is precisely his ability to navigate between two distinct scenes which constitutes his novelty. Zizek combats conventional forms of leftism in order to open up a space for a new theoretical position, denying the coordinates of both post-Marxism and postmodernism.

Slavoj Zizek is a contemporary political philosopher widely recognized for his aphoristic style. Contrary to many forms of more traditional theory, Zizek does not forward his arguments as a series of well-argued, logically flowing propositions, but rather as a cacophony of diagnoses running the gamut of social science and culture studies while nevertheless always slipping from one position to another, occupying at times the position of the orthodox Marxist in the face of post-modernism’s excesses, and at other times doing quite the opposite. This study proposes a reading methodology that takes aphorism and hyperbole as key elements of writing; more specifically, this study understands writing as a political intervention, and reads Zizek’s recent works in this light. Arguing that Zizek occupies a multitude of positions against a multitude of interlocutors on the post-Marxist scene, this thesis claims that it is precisely his ability to navigate between two distinct scenes which constitutes his novelty. Zizek combats conventional forms of leftism in order to open up a space for a new theoretical position, denying the coordinates of both post-Marxism and postmodernism.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1983. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 447-453). Also issued in print.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1983. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 447-453).

This C-paper is a study of state practices around the anti-EU demonstrations in Gothenburg 2001. Based on Louis Althusser's recognition of repressive and ideological state apparatuses, I look at how a democratic state tries to control the political message of a demonstration, by relying on its force and ideology. My argument is that the state controls protests by locating them within a "space of sanctioned resistance." Being defined by state practices and discourse, this space becomes a part of the state system and can because of that never oppose it. This strategy of inclusion is in other words a way for the state to locate resistance under its own umbrella, thereby silenting it to become nothing but a pseudo-affirmation of the freedom of expression within the democratic state system.

Dans leurs lectures respectives de la critique marxienne de l’économie politique, Louis Althusser et Antonio Negri ont tous deux tenté de compléter cette critique par une lecture originale de la philosophie moderne de Baruch Spinoza. Notre thèse est que dans cette articulation des corpus de Marx et de Spinoza, il est possible de reconstruire une théorie originale de l’être social, ou en d’autres termes, une ontologie sociale hétérodoxe, dont la dominante peut-être caractérisée comme une prise de position « néo-spinoziste » en théorie critique. / In their respective readings of Marx’s critique of political economy, Louis Althusser and Antonio Negri have both attempted to complement this critique with an original reading of the Early Modern philosophy of Baruch Spinoza. Our claim is that in this articulation of Marx and Spinoza’s corpuses, one can reconstruct an original theory of social being, or in other words, a heterodox social ontology, whose dominant can be characterized as a “neo-Spinozist” position in critical theory.

Notre travail porte sur la conception de l’histoire d’Antonio Gramsci, appréhendée à partir du problème de la périodisation (comment discerner les distinctions pertinentes dans le cours des événements, et faire droit aux ruptures radicales comme les révolutions ?). Nous montrons que Gramsci évite l’écueil d’une philosophie de l’histoire dogmatique, qu’elle soit matérialiste ou idéaliste. Son historicisme s’accompagne d’une constante attention à la concrétude et à la complexité des pratiques, situations et acteurs historiques – loin de les homogénéiser comme Althusser le lui a reproché. Pour autant, et contrairement aux philosophies néo-idéalistes (Croce et Gentile) contre lesquelles elle se construit, sa pensée ne dissout pas l’unité et la consistance du processus historique en une multiplicité de cas absolument singuliers et contingents. Elle parvient à saisir les époques historiques comme des totalités relativement cohérentes, qualitativement distinctes les unes des autres, et à rendre leur succession intelligible. En ce sens, ses réflexions fournissent des ressources précieuses pour répondre au « refoulement » de l’histoire qui nous semble caractériser de nombreuses théories post-modernes, et en particulier le post-marxisme de Laclau et Mouffe. Gramsci propose donc une philosophie de l’histoire ouverte, lourde d’enjeux pratiques. Pour le montrer, nous étudions les concepts historico-politiques décisifs qu’il forge (rapports de force, bloc historique, hégémonie, révolution passive, crise, etc.), et les analyses qu’il consacre à des périodes et situations historiques déterminées (Renaissance, Réforme, Révolution française, Risorgimento, fascisme, américanisme, etc.). / This dissertation examines Antonio Gramsci’s conception of history, especially as developed in The Prison Notebooks, and focuses on the issue of periodisation – how to make out relevant parting lines in the course of events, what to make of radical breaks like revolutions? We show here that Gramsci steers clear of a dogmatic philosophy of history, whether materialist or idealist. His historicism is borne up by a deep attention to the complexity of things and practices, of historical situations and agents – which he is very far from homogenising, despite Althusser’s claims to the contrary. Yet, unlike Italian neo-idealist philosophy and the theories of Croce and Gentile against which Gramsci develops his own, his conception of history never dissolves the unity and consistency of the historical process into a multiplicity of isolated, contingent cases. He is able to grasp historical periods as relatively consistent wholes, intrinsically distinct from each other, and to make sense of their succession. To that extent, his reflections provide us with invaluable tools to work against the “repression” of history which characterises much post-modern thinking, especially the post-Marxism of Laclau and Mouffe. Gramsci offers instead an open-ended philosophy of history, with decisive practical implications. To highlight this, we look at the key historico-political concepts he develops in his writings (power relations, historical bloc, hegemony, passive revolution, crisis), and at his analysis of specific periods and historical situations, such as the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, the French Revolution, the Italian Risorgimento, Fascim, or Americanism and Fordism.

L’objet de cette thèse est l’anti-hégélianisme des années 1960 en France. À travers l’étude des philosophies de Louis Althusser, de Michel Foucault et de Gilles Deleuze, nous cherchons à comprendre les raisons qui ont poussé une partie des philosophes de l’époque à critiquer Hegel de manière virulente, alors même que sa philosophie avait été fortement valorisée en France des années 1930 aux années 1950. Notre analyse de la constitution de l’anti-hégélianisme de la philosophie française des années 1960 révèle en même temps les limites de ce phénomène, dans le but de dépasser l’opposition entre hégélianisme et anti-hégélianisme et de réfléchir à l’actualité, aujourd’hui, de la pensée de Hegel. Une première partie est consacrée à l’évolution de l’œuvre d’Althusser, du mémoire sur Hegel de 1947 jusqu’à Pour Marx et Lire le Capital en 1965 ; une seconde traite de la philosophie de Foucault en cherchant à comprendre pourquoi il est passé d’un mémoire sur Hegel en 1949 à une condamnation radicale de la pensée hégélienne dans les années 1950 et 1960 ; enfin, une troisième partie montre comment Deleuze, qui n’avait rien contre Hegel au départ, a progressivement durci sa pensée jusqu’à produire l’anti-hégélianisme le plus virulent dans Nietzsche et la philosophie (1962) et Différence et répétition (1968). La conclusion cherche à ressaisir ce phénomène collectif en tant qu’il constitue une véritable constellation intellectuelle, mais elle problématise également cet anti-hégélianisme. / This thesis is about anti-Hegalianism of French philosophy during the 1960s. Focusing on Louis Althusser, Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze, its aim is to understand why a lot of philosophers, at that time, criticized Hegel even though his philosophy had been very successful in France from 1930s to 1950s. The comprehension of this phenomenon aspires also to show its limits, in order to go beyond the false opposition between anti-Hegelianism and Hegelianism and to think about the relevancy of Hegel’s philosophy today. In a first part, the text analyzes Althusser’s work from the master’s thesis on Hegel (1947) to the very anti-Hegelian books For Marx and Reading Capital (1965) ; then it studies Foucault’s thought to understand why he defended Hegel in 1949 and after became an anti-Hegelian philosopher during the 1950s and the 1960s ; finally, it searches why Deleuze evolved until developping a violent anti-Hegelianism in Nietzsche and Philosophy (1962) and in Difference and Repetition (1968). The conclusion tries to seize this collective phenomenon as an intellectual constellation, but also to problematize it.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-07-29T15:06:28Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Disseracao renan.pdf: 638334 bytes, checksum: db2f889219ce0a7b6e1d1bcefc5cce27 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009-09-28 / Louis Althusser analyzed the relationship between Economy and the State. According to him, the capitalist State is nothing more than a superstructure determined, unidirectionally, by the Economy, given that, within the mentioned relationship, in capitalism, there is a bottom-line determination [of the State] by the economic basis . (Althusser, 1968: 75) Althusser considers that the conception that the Economy determines the State clarifies and explains better Marx‟s analysis. Nevertheless, this position puts forward at least two important questions: is there, in fact, an unidirectional determination of the modern Economy upon the capitalist State in Marx‟s thought? Is the Economy, in fact, for Marx, the only category that constitutes the basis of the capitalist system as it is supposed by the Althusserian interpretation of Marx? In an effort to solve those questions, it is necessary to investigate the theoretical basis from which Althusser departed Marx‟s own writings. Only in this way it will be possible to determine whether or not his formulation of this unidirectional determination between the Economy and the State holds. / A relação entre economia e Estado foi analisada pelo filósofo francês Louis Althusser. Na perspectiva de Althusser, o Estado capitalista nada mais é do que uma superestrutura determinada unidirecionalmente pela economia, uma vez que, na relação entre Estado e economia no capitalismo, ocorre a determinação em última instância pela base econômica . (Althusser, 1968: 75, tradução nossa).1 Althusser considera que sua concepção de que a economia determina o Estado torna mais evidente e explana melhor a análise de Karl Marx. Essa posição de Louis Althusser suscita, no mínimo, duas questões importantes: há de fato uma determinação unidirecional da economia moderna sobre o Estado capitalista no pensamento do filósofo alemão Karl Marx? É, de fato, para Marx, a economia é a única categoria que compõe a base do sistema capitalista, como supõe a leitura de Louis Althusser sobre Marx? No esforço de resolver essas questões, é necessário investigar a base teórica da qual partiu Althusser, ou seja, os escritos do próprio Marx. Só assim será possível identificar em que sentido Althusser contribuiu ou não ao propor sua formulação acerca da relação que ele pensa ser determinação unidirecional entre economia e Estado em Marx.

(anglicky): Michel Foucault can be hardly described as a convinced marxist, but at the same time, marxism serves as an implicit referential framework in his works against which he shapes his own approach. Nowhere is this ambiguous relation more discernible than in the case of Foucault's former teacher, a marxist theoretician Louis Althusser, with whom he also shares a certain connection with the tradition of french historical epistemology. His revision of marxist theory often displays a curious affinity to Foucault's theoretical projects which are always beyond the limits of marxism. The subject of this thesis will be a reconstruction of the relationship of Michel Foucault towards marxism through his - often hidden - interaction with Althusser's theory. In the first part, I will focus on the period of 1960s during which both authors from anti-humanist and almost structuralist positions reflected questions of epistemology or the position of subject in history. Afterwards both authors move issues such as constitution of subject, power and the marxist conception of ideology, which they either revise (Althusser) or fully abandon (Foucault). In the final part I will focus on the questions of politics and on strategies which are in the cases of both authors provoked by the political changes of their...