Logics of Revolt
Transcript of Logics of Revolt
-
7/31/2019 Logics of Revolt
1/6
Logics of Revolt: Theory After May 68
In his fable of the origins of postmodernism Terry Eagleton describes it as the
result of the emphatic defeat of the radical movements of the 1960s (1996: 1). Ofcourse the metonymic image of those movements, especially in relation to
postmodernism, are the events of May 68 in France. Today, the direct legacy of this
failed revolution (Jay, 1984) is a culture and a style of thinking that is obsessed with
ambiguity, indeterminacy and fragmentation; a thinking of difference, moreover, and a
celebration of cultural diversity tempered by the overriding imperative not to infringe
the rights of others (Badiou, 2001: 26-7). It is a thinking that sees its role as that of
liberating thought from the mastery of abstract theory and theoreticism, from
theoretical detours, and of disrobing it of its intellectual impostures (cf. Sokal and
Brichmont, 1997). In actual fact, what the theory closely associated with the Parisian
moment has given way to is a loose collection of pre- or post-theoretical concerns
(Bordwell and Carroll, 1996), a rehumanisation of reading against theoreticaldistortion and after theory (Cunnigham, 2001) or else a theory whose future
hinges on revisionism (Rabate, 2002) in addition to the much more established brand
of pragmatism, which retreats into the relative comfort and safety ofprivate
philosophical reflection (Rorty, 1989; Rorty et al.1996 ).
Of course, there are plenty of exceptions to the trend which set out variously to
combat the liberalisation of theory. This combat has been exemplified most
consistently in recent years by Laclau and Mouffe, whose counter-hegemonic alliance
of left wing politics and the theoretical developments around the critique of
essentialism attempts to win back the civic space of theory, currently permeated by the
instrumentalism of third way reform, in the name of radical and plural democracy
(Laclau and Mouffe, 1989). However, there remains a strong suspicion that this attempt
to reinvigorate theory through the transformation of dominant political discourse a
kind of social struggle over meaning and texts ultimately falls back on a dialectic
of theory and practice; a dialectic, moreover, that May 68 rendered so profoundly
deficient in its ability to think genuine difference, novelty and change. For the New
Left, May 68 along with la pense 68as it became known some twenty years after
the events (Ferry and Renaut, 1985) is a historical landmark for theory only in terms
of having left a theoretical legacy to be tested against contemporary liberal-democratic
criteria (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985: 176), to be revealed through its forgotten histories
(Ross, 2002), gauging its Anglophone reception (Cusset, 2003) or else simply negatingthe consistency of its putative intellectual project altogether (Dews, 1987).
Our hypothesis challenges this consensus, arguing that the key to grasping May
68 and its events is to look neither to the politics of counterculture nor to the
deconstruction of Theory with capital T. Instead, May 68 and its events mark a
decisive rupture in thinking the genuinely radical, the immanently rebellious, the
revolutionary and the new, and are marked by what we term here logics of revolt.
1
-
7/31/2019 Logics of Revolt
2/6
These logics can be detected most clearly in the work of a disparate number of French
thinkers past and present: Alain Badiou (cf. 1982; 1988), Michel Foucault (cf. 1972;
1977), Christian Jambet and Guy Lardreau (cf. 1976), Franois Laruelle (cf. 1981),
Sylvain Lazarus (cf. 1996), Jacques Rancire (cf. 1991), Phillipe Sollers (cf. 1968) and
others. Their influence can also be found in the work of non-French thinkers like Slavoj
Zizek (cf. 1999) and Antonio Negri (cf. 2003; 2004). However, they do not constitute a
separate tradition, anotherschoolof thought, or even a minority position within
theory. Instead, what is affirmed through logics of revolt would instead be the spirit of
May 68 itself and the possibilities it opens up for theory and for thinking in itself; a
thinking without limits an infinite thought (Badiou, 2003) which aims for
universality; in short, a thinking at last set free from the constraints of the social system:
the university and its State philosophy (Deleuze, 1994: 129-167; Deleuze and
Guattari, 1988: 351-473), the party, the school and the workplace, the media and their
paranoid promotion of cultural identity, along with the rest of the ideological state
apparatuses.
This special journal issue proposes to present essays that analyse the logics of
May 68, rather than the mere spectacle of its events and their historical representation,
and aims to contextualise them in relation to the current after theory debate. Firstly,
Jason Barker and Benjamin Noys offer a brief introduction to the historical and
theoretical background to these issues. There will then follow a series of essays and
critical interventions by contributors working in philosophy, social and cultural theory,
political theory, media and communications theory, and cultural studies. The
contributions will address the challenges these logics pose to the current post-theory
consensus and how the logics of revolt generate or revitalise concepts that have been
2
-
7/31/2019 Logics of Revolt
3/6
either discarded or overlooked by contemporary theory. Their inherent logics not only
challenge dominant paradigms, but strike at the very heart of the possibilities for
thinking our present reality.
Bibliography
Badiou, A. (1982) Thorie du sujet. Paris: Seuil.
_____, (1988)LEtre et lvnement. Paris: Seuil.
_____, (2001)Ethics. An Essay on the Understanding of Evil. Trans. P. Hallward.
London and New York: Verso.
_____, (2003)Infinite Thought. trans. O. Feltham and J. Clemens, London: Continuum.
Bordwell, D. and Carroll, N. (eds) (1996)Post-Theory. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Cunningham, V. (2001)Reading After Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cusset, F. (2003)French Theory: Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze et Cie, et les mutations
de la vie intellectuelle aux Etats-Unis. Paris: Dcouverte.
Deleuze, G. (1994)Difference and Repetition. Trans. P. Patton. London: Athlone.
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1988)A Thousand Plateaus, Capitalism and
Schizophrenia. Trans. B. Massumi. London: Athlone.
3
-
7/31/2019 Logics of Revolt
4/6
Dews, P. (1987)Logics of Disintegration. London and New York: Verso.
Eagleton, T. (1996) The Illusions of Postmodernism. Oxford: Blackwell.
_____, (2003)After Theory. London: Allen Lane.
Ferry, L. and Renaut, A. (1985)La pense 68. Paris.
Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge. Trans. A. Sheridan. London:
Tavistock.
_____, (1977)Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison. Trans. A. Sheridan.
London: Allen Lane.
Jambet, C. and Lardreau, G. (1976)LAnge. Paris: Grasset.
Jay, M. (1984)Marxism and Totality. Cambridge: Polity.
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985)Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso.
_____, (1989) Phronesis (Series Introduction). London: Verso.
Laruelle, F. (1981)Le principe de minorit.Paris: Aubier.
Lazarus, S. (1996)LAnthropologie du nom. Paris: Seuil.
4
-
7/31/2019 Logics of Revolt
5/6
Negri, A. (2003) Time for Revolution. Trans. M. Mandarini. London and New York:
Continuum.
____, (2004)Negri on Negri, trans. M. B. Debevoise. London and New York:
Routledge.
Rabate, J-M. (2002) The Future of Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rancire, J. (1991) The Ignorant Schoolmaster. Five Lessons in Intellectual
Emancipation. Trans. Kristin Ross. Stanford: Standford University Press.
Rorty, R. (1989) Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rorty, R., Critchley, S., Derrida, J and Laclau, E. (1996) Deconstruction and
Pragmatism. C. Mouffe (ed). London: Routledge.
Ross, K. (2002)May 68 and Its Afterlives. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Sokal, A. and Brichmont, J. (1997)Impostures intellectuelles. Paris: Odile Jacob.
Sollers, P. (1968)Logiques. Paris: Seuil.
Zizek, S (1999) The Ticklish Subject. The Absent Centre of Political Ontology, London:
Verso.
5
-
7/31/2019 Logics of Revolt
6/6
6