As a collection of "occasional pieces" (newspaper articles, magazine interviews, radio broadcasts), this book feels fragmented, without clear, solid argumentation. I was able to construct an impression of Ranciere's views from isolated tidbits but I don't feel at all confident that it's an accurate impression.
The theme that resonated most with me is how the categories we use to classify people -- immigrants, citizens, working class, and so on -- arise as part of a problem statement instead of being naturalistic, and that frequently all sides in a political debate implicitly agree to the classifications. (Ranciere refers to this as "consensus," even when parties disagree violently about how to address the problem.)
The theme that resonated most with me is how the categories we use to classify people -- immigrants, citizens, working class, and so on -- arise as part of a problem statement instead of being naturalistic, and that frequently all sides in a political debate implicitly agree to the classifications. (Ranciere refers to this as "consensus," even when parties disagree violently about how to address the problem.)
I was marked in my youth by Satrean existentialism, and there received the impression that every identity is an imprisonment in a role. ("Politics and Identity")Ranciere indulges in plenty of Continental philosophical jargon ("an activist as a subject faithful to collective decision, who works as a member of a kind of collective interiority"). However, his ideas frequently come through clearly; I highlighted numerous aphorisms throughout the book.
No comments:
Post a Comment