No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Distant Immediacy: Badiou and Rancière on May ’68 and its Consequences
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 June 2020
Abstract
This article on the French May ’68 addresses the gap between the immediacy of the event and the series of consequences that are supposed to have followed from it. In the eyes of the critics of May ’68 from all sides of the political spectrum, the events in France have been considered as having no consequence at all, as having no political but merely cultural consequences, or as producing political consequences that were opposite to the intentions of their actors. To these interpretations, which all account for the distance between the event and its consequences by means of completely disjointing the latter from the former, the article opposes two reflections on May ’68 – those by Alain Badiou and Jacques Rancière – that attempt to examine the consequences of the very immediacy of the politics practised by the actors of the events, a politics that operates at a distance from mediation, representation and postponement. Badiou and Rancière propose some similar conclusions, but also two very different ways of reading the immediacy of the event.
- Type
- Focus: May ’68 and Its Philosophers: Paris, Beijing, Ljubljana
- Information
- Copyright
- © 2020 Academia Europaea
References
Aron, R (1969) The Elusive Revolution: Anatomy of a Student Revolt. Translated by Clough, G. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Badiou, A (2010) May ’68 revisited, 40 years on. In Badiou, A, The Communist Hypothesis. Translated by Macey, D and Corcoran, S. London: Verso, pp. 43–67.Google Scholar
Badiou, A (2011) Second Manifesto for Philosophy. Translated by Burchill, L. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Badiou, A (2013) ‘Thinking the emergence of the event’. In Badiou, A, Cinema. Translated by Spitzer, S. Cambridge: Polity, pp. 105–128.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, A (2018) Decentring or recentring proletarian politics? A paradox of French Maoism. Conference Paper, May ’68 at 50, Yugoslavia at 75, ZRC SAZU Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies, 12 October 2018.Google Scholar
Blanchot, M (2010a) Affirming the rupture. In Blanchot, M, Political Writings, 1953–1993. Translated by Paul, Z. New York: Fordham University Press, pp. 88–89.Google Scholar
Blanchot, M (2010b) On the movement. In Blanchot, M, Political Writings, 1953–1993. Translated by Paul, Z. New York: Fordham University Press, pp. 106–109.Google Scholar
Blanchot, M (2010c) Letter to a representative of Yugoslav Radio-Television. In Blanchot, M, Political Writings, 1953–1993. Translated by Paul, Z. New York: Fordham University Press, pp. 82–84.Google Scholar
Boltanski, L and Chiapello, È (2005) The New Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Elliott, G. London: Verso.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobsbawm, E (1995) Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991. London: Abacus.Google Scholar
Rancière, J (2012) La méthode de l’égalité: entretien avec Laurent Jeanpierre et Dork Zabunyan. Montrouge: Bayard.Google Scholar
Ross, K (2002) May ’68 and Its Afterlives. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar