Search

This paper discusses the binomial hybris and revolution. In particular, the question of whether the excessive dominants’ arrogance, who have too much both in material and symbolic terms, is sufficient to explain the deflagration of an insurgency and the interruption of a legal order. The question will be addressed by interweaving the reflections of authors who have discussed this topic with a material collected by the author through a legal-political ethnography conducted in Chile during the revolt that broke out in October 2019 and led to a new constituent phase. Categories and definitions used in this text are partly borrowed from the course devoted to political change and revolution taught by Norberto Bobbio in the 1978/79 academic year and from Michelangelo Bovero’s lectures that took place in that course. But they are placed in dialogue with revolutionary visions and practices rooted in the Latin American continent, in particular with Paulo Freire’s thought and with the so called Mapuche «cosmovision». From this comparison, the author comes to hypothesize: a. the relevance of the intimate (epistemic and emotional) dimension of revolutions; b. the priority in the etiology of insurgencies of the subjective cause, understood as the opening of the «possibles» due to the cracking of the epistemic violence exerted by the structure of domination in charge; c. the desire for radical change as an effect rather than a cause of insurgencies; d. the non-opposition between the «accelerated time» typical of revolutionary phenomena and the slow and hardly perceptible preparatory phase of latency.

The thesis is dedicated to a comparative reading of the thought of Karl Marx and Michel Foucault. By putting these authors in to dialogue, the thesis questions the allegded divergence and the consequent alternative choice between the two theoretical frameworks that are usually associated with their thought: the divergence between the Marxian «critique of political economy» and the Foucauldian «analytics of powers». Beginning with a critical reconstruction of some contemporary attempts to articulate Marx’s and Foucault’s thoughts, the thesis defends the idea that, without a clarification of the relationship between their concepts, any articulation is necessarily aporetic. The research thus aims to make such a clarification by overcoming supposed antinomies dividing certain Foucauldian and Marxian concepts. Starting from the similarities between Foucault’s and Marx’s practices of «inquiry», we move beyond false alternatives between the concepts of «power» and «exploitation», «norms» and «ideology», «subjectification» and «alienation». To surpass theses antinomies, we deploy the notion of «points of heresy», that has been introduced by Étienen Balibar to describe the Marx-Foucault relationship. Unlike Balibar, however, we propose to use this notion not to sever but to concatenate Marxian and Foucauldian concepts. We thus argue that reading Marx’s and Foucault’s texts in light of each other allows for the identification of several «heretical» insights within their respective theories, useful within contemporary debates in political philosophy and critical theory.

The text aims to trace a genealogical itinerary of the concepts of populism and hegemony in the first part of Ernesto Laclau's work, corresponding to the phase in which his thought is still situared within a Marxist perimeter, however heterodox. Following the method of Quentin Skinner, the birth and evolution of the notions at stake are retraced, as well as the relationship with other key concepts of his theoretical scheme, such as hegemony, articulation and “the political”. At the same time, the theoretical and political stimuli that lead the Argentine thinker to formulate and revise the scope of the two notions are framed. The text also takes into consideration the years of Laclau's political-militant formation within the Peronist left and his very first writings on political economy in which the concept of populism does not appear. These first political and intellectual experiences constitute a decisive substrate for understanding Laclau's subsequent theoretical movements. Finally, taking a leap forward, an examination of the similarities and differences between the theory of populism developed in Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory of 1977 and that offered in On Populist Reason of 2005 is advanced. Ernesto Laclau; Populism; Hegemony; Post-marxism., ——— Materialismo Storico ——— Rivista di filosofia, storia e scienze umane, V. 13 N. 2 (2022): L’egemonia dopo Gramsci #3: pedagogia, teoria politica e storia (Urbino 2021)

In this chapter, the author looks for a form of belief without any dogmaticism.

The essay is part of a book that aims to rediscover and enhance Pierre Bourdieu's contribution to the legal philosophy. Clelia Bartoli's paper takes up the French sociologist's theory of the State outlined during courses held at the College de France in 1989/1990 and 1990/1992. Bourdieu eschewed an intellectual fashion of his time that pushed historians, political scientists, lawyers and sociologists to examine the causes and reasons, evolutions and epilogues of revolutions, at the expense, however, of what is happening on the background: the dull, muffled and repetitive order of things. Bourdieu believed that permanence more than change, what is obvious more than what is eccentric, the ordinary more than the extraordinary should astonish and deserve explanation. However, in the course of the lectures mentioned above, he suggests that in order to attempt the arduous task of thinking and understanding the State, it is necessary to look at the moment of its genesis or its phases of crisis, such as during revolutions. In fact, during those phases the symbolic power – of which the State is monopolist – is not stable and lends itself to being observed as the result of a process rather than in its pretended naturality and inevitability. The categories and the socio-epistemic approach à la Bourdieu are adopted by Bartoli to read the case of the Chilean uprising of 2019 and the onset of the constituent process.

The essay looks for the new forms of surveillance in our digital societies, under the perspective of the foucauldian category of Governementality.

This essay aims at inspecting the question of evil within Gilles Deleuze’s thought, focusing especially on his historical-philosophical works. I will attempt to show how, for Deleuze, the question of evil represented the most difficult issue to overcome in the construction of his vitalistic materialism, the latter established on the complete overlapping of ontology and ethics. By reconstructing the gradual composition of such «pure ontology» through Deleuze’s interpretations of Hume, Bergson, Spinoza, and Nietzsche, I will eventually define his vitalistic materialism as a biodicy that makes the question of evil ethically irrelevant for the sake of individuals’ freedom to express their vitality. The main consequence of such a biodicy is the definition of a dichotomous relationship between suffering and freedom that risks justifying natural inequalities subsisting among living beings.

The volume presented here is the result of an annual work by the Autogestita Power Library and Sapere di Palermo. It is a double “monographic” work that attempts to return to a painting I model some reflections on Italian workerism, on its impact on the social articulation, e finally on some themes deriving from the new critical edition of the works of Marx and Engels.

Il testo prende in esame due critiche al modello abitativo delle case unifamiliari dei sobborghi nordamericani del secondo dopoguerra. Da un lato, infatti, indaga le lotte per il salario al lavoro domestico per mettere in luce la critica dei processi di soggettivazione femminile che avvengono tra le pareti domestiche. Dall���altro analizza la critica della maschilit�� che emerge dalle pagine di Playboy e dal progetto della Playboy Townhouse. Infine, utilizza queste critiche per evidenziare i modi diversi in cui la casa pu�� essere considerata un luogo di lavoro e uno spazio aperto all���esterno., Scienza & Politica. Per una storia delle dottrine, V. 33 N. 65 (2021): Tema - Il domestico e il politico (a cura di Gianluca Bonaiuti e Silvia Rodeschini)

This contribution focuses on the philosophical texture of Claudio Corradetti’s pluralist and universalist theory of human rights. More precisely, the aim of these notes is to bring to light the idealistic background of Corradetti’s defence of a pluralist universalism against epistemiccognitive relativism. In his attempt to secure an appreciation of human rights as devices of the Verwirklichung of human ends, taking stock of the limitation of human experience, Corradetti finds himself facing a crucial question: that of the relation with the radical otherness of the violent, the figure that persistently refuses to acknowledge the existence of a wholly “revealed truth” – to quote Eric Weil’s Logique de la philosophie. After the reconstruction of the theoretical terrain in which the book’s arguments are carried out – referring, e.g., to the impasse affecting the Habermasian distinction between Verständigung and Einverstädnis –, I offer a critical sounding of Corradetti’s discourse. At the same time, I stress one of the fascinating philosophical challenges to which the author should now turn his attention, in order to further elaborate his elegant perspective: that of elucidating the relation between the “bodily” predetermination of the reflective dimension, and its projection towards the constitutively intersubjective domain of the “reason-giving”.

This essay aims to provide an interpretation of the relationship between subjectivity and power in Friedrich Nietzsche that differs both from the interpretations that make the «will-to-power» the instrument of the domination of the strong over the weak and from the interpretations that see in «the will-to-power» the recovery of the idea of «in - nocence of becoming». The hypothesis put forward consists in identifying in the nexus that Nietzsche poses between the birth of the subject and the will to life one of the semi- nal loci in which philosophy approaches the burning theme of voluntary servitude. The Author focus on the continuity detected between Christianity and the modern world to emphasize the complexity with which Nietzsche describes the process of subjectifica- tion that made the human animal docile and controllable, manipulable and obedient, bringing us one of the first and most powerful investigations into the link between sub- jectivity and pastoral power.

This short article discusses the issue of academic freedom: the central thesis is that its decline is the consequence of a long process of domestication of intellectuals. In the field of ideas, the loss of academic freedom matches the inexorable march of power into the lives of citizens. In order to achieve the current levels of popular obedience there is a need of a group of professional intellectuals devoted to the spread of the narrative of state, and above enthusiastically attack all those who step out of the chorus. The article analyzes a document on academic freedom, that would be considered revolutionary nowadays, signed by American luminaries in 1915. The last few pages are about a recent episode in which the present writer, professor in Milan, had to face the new Inquisition.