Browse

Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Adam Smith are two of the foremost thinkers of the European Enlightenment, thinkers who made seminal contributions to moral and political philosophy and who shaped some of the key concepts of modern political economy. Among Smith’s first published works was a letter to the Edinburgh Review where he discusses Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Smith continued to engage with Rousseau’s work and to explore many shared themes such as sympathy, political economy, sentiment, and inequality. This collection brings together an international and interdisciplinary group of Adam Smith and Rousseau scholars to provide an exploration of the key shared concerns of these two great thinkers in politics, philosophy, economics, history, and literature.

Giorgio Agamben’s analysis of sovereignty was profoundly influential for critical theory as it grappled with issues of security and state violence in the wake of September 11 2001. Yet his work was criticised for its lack of attention to capitalism and liberal governmentality, and it was argued that he ignored the problem of political action. Issues of economy and political praxis have become even more urgent for critical theory over the past decade as it has confronted the crisis of neoliberal capitalism and an increasingly turbulent and populist politics. Agamben and Radical Politics suggests that Agamben’s work retains its urgency for understanding the issues that underpin the politics of our time. It does so by focusing on his recent work on the theological history of economy, his account of a non-sovereign politics, and his longstanding engagement with the revolutionary tradition. The book includes a newly translated essay by Agamben, entitled ‘Capitalism as Religion,’ and ten chapters that critically engage with him on issues including the genealogy of economy, the practices of monasticism and use, temporality and historical method, and his relationship to Marxism and anarchism. The volume sheds new light on Agamben’s work by focusing on his treatment of economy and poitical action and, through this, opens up new ways of thinking about politics and critical theory in an age of financial crisis and political revolts.

One of the greatest challenges Agamben presents to his readers is the vast and often bewildering range of sources he draws upon in his work. This volume is a one-stop reference for clarifying Agamben’s relationship to the many figures he engages with, providing a wide range of articles by scholars with special expertise in Agamben and the figure in question. It covers his primary interlocutors, his more occasional and secondary points of reference as well as figures who are often lurking in the background of his arguments but are seldom directly mentioned. The result is a thorough overview of Agamben’s philosophy, as illuminated by his practices of reading.

This book shows how democratic progressive politics can happen and how it is happening in very different arenas. The author takes an intensive look at a range of contemporary political movements and shows how, to one degree or another, they exemplify the political thought of Jacques Rancière. Following an overview of Rancière's thought, the author considers the following groups: the Algerian refugee movement in Montreal for citizenship, the first Palestinian intifada, the politics of equality and identity politics in relation to the Zapatista movement, a local food co-op in South Carolina and an anarchist press in Oakland. Essentially, the book shows how political theory and practice can enlighten one another, and in an age of cynicism, fear and despair, the author suggests that there is hope for the possibility of progressive democratic action.

Sovereign violence is a dominant issue in contemporary political theory and has attracted much attention from proponents of critical theory, biopolitics, post-structuralism, and deconstruction. While heterogeneous, these commentators are united in rejecting the classic-juridical conception that holds sovereignty to be indivisible and orientated towards the establishment and maintenance of juridical order. This book argues that this rejection has been based on three distinct logics, termed the radical-juridical perspective, the biopolitical one, and the bio-juridical. The first, outlined through chapters on Benjamin, Schmitt, Arendt, and Deleuze and Guattari, offers a number of increasingly radical critiques of the classic-juridical conception of sovereignty, but continues to focus the inquiry around the creation/preservation/disruption of the juridical order. The second biopolitical logic, outlined through chapters on Foucault and Agamben, goes further by undermining the primacy that the classic and radical-juridical models give to law. Instead, sovereign violence is held to be concerned with the regulation of life, with this occurring through exclusion from law. The first two critical logics do, however, set up a binary opposition between law and life: the former affirming the sovereign’s connection to the former, the latter reversing this to claim that it primarily refers to the latter. The third model—called the bio-juridical and developed from Jacques Derrida’s late work on the death penalty—is held to overcome this by developing a compatibilist understanding in which sovereign violence is placed between law and life, simultaneously creating and regulating each through the other.

Both the philosophy of Deleuze and Guattari, and anarchism, have gained more academic interest over the past decades. Many authors have also recognised an anarchist sensibility in Deleuze and Guattari’s philosophy, yet there has been no sustained or explicit discussion of anarchism in their work to date. This collection aims to provide readers with a map detailing Deleuze and Guattari’s anarchistic thought and the ways in which it intersects with classic and contemporary anarchist discourse and practices found both in academia and society at large.

Deleuze was intensely aware of the need for philosophy to take an active part in shaping and critiquing the world. Philosophy, as he saw it, engages in politics by inventing new concepts and using them as weapons against opinion, the ultimate barrier to thought. Deleuze did not specify a particular political program, nor espouse a particular political dogma. For him, politics was always a matter of experimentation and invention in the search for the revolutionary path that would finally deliver us from the baleful enchantments of capitalism. This book brings together some of the most important Deleuze scholars in the field today to explore and explain Deleuze's political philosophy.

For Deleuze, sexuality is a force that can capture as well as liberate life. Its flows tend to be repressed and contained in specific forms while at the same time they retain revolutionary potential. There is immense power in the thousand sexes of desiring-machines, and sexuality is seen as a source of becoming. This book gathers prominent Deleuze scholars to explore the restricting and liberating forces of sexuality in relation to a spread of central themes in Deleuze's philosophy, including politics, psychoanalysis and friendship as well as specific topics such as the body-machine, disability, feminism and erotics.

This book is a full-length study of hospitality in the writings of Jacques Derrida. Hospitality is critically important in Derrida's writings, and his insights in this have been influential across a range of disciplines from geography, politics and sociology to literary studies and philosophy. It functions as a way of both thinking about relations between individuals, and analysing the (often inhospitable) reception of outsiders, such as refugees or migrants, by the community or state. Still also follows the thread of sexual difference in Derrida's writing in order to shed light on his exploration of the complex and delicate, strange yet familiar, political, and ethical dilemmas of how to be those impossible things, a good host and a good guest. This book sets Derrida's work in a series of contexts including the socio-political history of France, especially in relation to Algeria, and the writing on hospitality of other key thinkers, most importantly Hélène Cixous, Luce Irigaray and Emmanuel Levinas.

Against the backdrop of a series of recent political events (the Snowden Affair, the Manning Affair, Wikileaks, Clinton’s private email account, and so forth), this book argues that secrecy is a condition, rather than a negation, of the social bond – that we can only relate to one another insofar as, at the same moment, we separate from one another as well. It pursues this argument via a close consideration of Derrida’s thought, and especially his discussion of the concepts of perjury, testimony, and oath in his later work. It shows that, for Derrida, precisely because the other, or some crucial aspect of the other, remains absolutely other (unknown, opaque, a secret), every interaction presupposes an oath to say what one means and believe what the other says. Put differently, and paradoxically, our capacity for deception that compels us to trust or have faith in one another. This is an aspect of Derrida’s work that is often confused with a ‘religious’ or ‘theological turn’ in his later writings.

The book answers the question: Can the sublime be egalitarian? It gives critical studies of the main historical theories of the sublime, from Longinus, Burke, Kant, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, as well as recent secondary literature. There are also reactions to contemporary positions, from Žižek, Lyotard, Kristeva and Adorno. It is argued that the sublime has always had consequences counter to equality. In response to this, the book defends an anarchist theory of the sublime, where anarchism is part of a radical commitment to democracy and multiplicity. The book develops a new method, inspired by microhistory and by the process philosophy of signs, from my earlier book A Process Philosophy of Signs. Diagrams of the effects of definitions of the sublime are central to this method. The definition of egalitarian is made in relation to Balibar and to Rancière. This definition leads to a rejection of the technological and environmental sublimes on the basis of their failure to be egalitarian.

This book provides the first ever transnational and longue-durée intellectual history of a highly influential but largely understudied modern phrase: esprit de corps. A strong attachment and dedication among the members of a community of practice or a body politic, esprit de corps can be perceived as beneficial (collective élan) or detrimental (groupthink). As a polemical argumentative signifier, esprit de corps has played a significant role in the cultural and political history of the last 300 years: the idea was influential and debated during the European secularisation of education in the eighteenth-century, during the French Revolution, during the United States process of Independence, and the French Empire. It was praised by British colonialists, French sociologists, and during the World Wars. It was instrumental during the rise of administrative nation-states and the triumph of corporate capitalism. ‘Esprit de corps’ is today a keyword in nationalist and managerial discourses. Born in eighteenth-century France in military as well as political discourse, the phrase and its implications were over the centuries an important matter of debate for major thinkers and politicians: d’Alembert, Voltaire, Rousseau, Lord Chesterfield, Bentham, the Founding Fathers, Sieyès, Mirabeau, British MPs, Napoleon, Hegel, Tocqueville, Durkheim, Waldeck-Rousseau, de Gaulle, Orwell, Bourdieu, Deleuze & Guattari, etc. For some of them, esprit de corps is the very engine of History. In the end, this book a cautionary analysis of past and current ideologies of ultra-unified human ensembles, a recurrent historical and theoretical fabulation the author calls ensemblance.

Is Europe’s crisis merely a financial one? It has been widely understood as such, yet its scope and implications far exceed Europe’s financial markets. As the crisis deepens, and the possibility of Europe’s dissolution emerges on the horizon, the authors of this volume argue that the contemporary crisis points to a much older, more fundamental and yet not unrelated crisis: the crisis of European identity. Diagnosed two decades ago by Jacques Derrida, it is a crisis to which Europe has thus far been unable to respond, yet one to which it must respond if it is to survive. Tackling issues ranging from Europe’s legal, institutional and cultural identity to its border, citizenship and integration policies, and its legacy for the future the book interrogates the various dimensions and contours of Europe’s contemporary crisis. By revisiting Derrida’s diagnosis of the crisis of European identity, it simultaneously proposes a new direction for Europe, and an alternative response to today’s crisis.

G. W. F. Hegel's Elements of the Philosophy of Right is widely acknowledged to be one of the most important works in the history of political philosophy. It is broadly agreed that Hegel intended this work to be interpreted as a significant part of his greater system of speculative philosophy. Where disagreement occurs is on the question of the relevance of Hegel's larger philosophical system to understanding the Philosophy of Right. This is the first book on the subject to take Hegel's system of speculative philosophy seriously as an important component of any robust understanding of the Philosophy of Right. It sets out the difference between ‘systematic’ and ‘non-systematic’ readings of the text before discussing important, relevant features of Hegel's system, in particular, the unique structure of his philosophical arguments. The greater part of the book demonstrates the results of this systematic reading by exploring several areas of Hegel's political philosophy: his theories of property, punishment, morality, law, monarchy, and war. It is shown that by looking beyond the text to Hegel's larger philosophical system, we can achieve an improved understanding of the Philosophy of Right.

The book examines the writings of the Scottish Enlightenment, focusing on their conception of a commercial society. This focus captures both what the Scottish Enlightenment is now best known for as well as what contemporaneously most engaged its participants. This engagement critically involved a re-calibration of social norms and that, in turn, entailed a re-thinking of the constituents (institutions, behaviour and so on) of ‘society’. Central to this re-thinking was the Scots’ appreciation that the present had to be understood via the past. Among the book's key themes is the argument that the Scots’ idea of a commercial society represents simultaneously their diachronic analysis, where it is the latest stage in development from a society of hunter-gatherers, and their synchronic analysis of it as a society with a set of interlocking institutions. The book pays full attention to internal debates and conveys thereby some of the intellectual excitement that the development of these arguments occasioned. While the work of Adam Smith, David Hume, Adam Ferguson, John Millar, William Robertson and Lord Kames feature prominently other thinkers and pamphleteers are discussed.

The idea of Continental Philosophy has never been properly explained in philosophical terms. This book attempts finally to succeed where others have failed, although not by giving an account of its internal unity but by showing instead why no such account can be given. Providing a clear picture of the current state of the contemporary philosophical culture, it traces the origins and development of the idea of a distinctive Continental tradition, critiquing current attempts to survey the field of contemporary philosophy. The main argument of the book is that the very idea of a fruitfully distinguishable philosophical tradition of Continental philosophy is part of the mythological history of the movement that came to call itself analytic philosophy: the very idea of such a tradition is best thought of as an item that has its original home in the conceptual armoury of analytic philosophy. In this respect, “Continental philosophy” is less the name for another kind of philosophy than analytic philosophy, but a term that functions within analytic philosophy as the name of its own other, that part of its lexicon which represents what is not part of it: it is “the Other” of analytic philosophy.

This book identifies the original impetus and the driving force behind Deleuze's philosophy as a whole and the many concepts it creates. It seeks to extract the inner consistency of Deleuze's thought by returning to its source, or to what, following Deleuze's own vocabulary, it calls the event of that thought. The source of Deleuzian thought, the book argues, is immanence. In six chapters dealing with the status of thought itself, ontology, logic, ethics, and aesthetics, the author reveals the manner in which immanence is realised in each and every one of those classical domains of philosophy. Ultimately, he argues, immanence turns out to be an infinite task, and transcendence the opposition with which philosophy will always need to reckon.

One of the terminological constants in the philosophical work of Gilles Deleuze is the word ‘immanence’, and it has therefore become a foothold for those wishing to understand exactly what ‘Deleuzian philosophy’ is. Deleuze's philosophy of immanence is held to be fundamentally characterised by its opposition to all philosophies of ‘transcendence’. On that basis, it is widely believed that Deleuze's project is premised on a return to a materialist metaphysics. The author of this book argues that such an interpretation is fundamentally misconceived, and has led to misunderstandings of Deleuze's philosophy, which is rather one of the latest heirs to the post-Kantian tradition of thought about immanence. This will be the first book to assess Deleuze's relationship to Kantian epistemology and post-Kantian philosophy, and will attempt to make Deleuze's philosophy intelligible to students working within that tradition. But it also attempts to reconstruct our image of the post-Kantian tradition, isolating a lineage that takes shape in the work of Schelling and Wronski, and which was developed in the twentieth century by Bergson, Warrain and Deleuze.

Interpassivity is a widespread, but mostly unacknowledged form of cultural behavior. It consists in letting others (other people, or animals, machines etc.) not work, but consume in one’s place. When certain people, for example, take care that others drink their beer for them, fotocopy or print texts out instead of reading them, let recording devices watch TV programmes in their place, use ritual machines that pray or believe for them vicariously, or are happy that certain TV-comedies already laugh about themselves, we have to speak of interpassivity. These actions are based on certain subjects’ preference to delegate their enjoyment instead of having it themselves. This, obviously, raises a number of quite uncanny, fundamental questions: Why do certain people do not want to have their enjoyment? And why do they, if the do not want to enjoy, go to such great pains in order to ensure that somebody else enjoys in their place? The theory of interpassivity has had considerable impacts on several disciplines such as philosophy, art theory, psychoanalysis, media theory, political theory, anthropology, theory of religion etc. This volume assembles essays that reach from the fundamental philosophical questions, concerning the paradoxical pleasure gained from delegated enjoyment, to their most current consequences: for example concerning interactivity and participation in the arts and in politics, generosity in culture, the status of belief, ritual and magic, cultural capitalism, civilized urban role-play etc.