‘structure of feeling’ ( 1961 : 63). To flesh this out, our first task is to construct a compelling and suitably nuanced concept of democracy.
To advance my argument, therefore, in this chapter I will draw on the political theory of Ernesto Laclau, JacquesRancière and Chantal Mouffe. In conjunction, these thinkers mount a consistent and cogent challenge to the hegemonic liberal view of democracy as a procedural set of norms pertaining to the internationally recognized ‘rule of law’. The work of Jürgen Habermas is foundational in constructing and advancing this
capacity to disagree’.33 In many ways this breakdown helps us to
define the political itself, with the contrast between disagreement and agreement
operating almost as an axis around which politics can rotate. Indeed, as JacquesRancière has argued, politics is an entity that hinges upon such a distinction – the
difference between what he terms ‘dissensus’ and ‘consensus’.34 On the one
hand, a politics based on ‘consensus’ is a vacuous enterprise, in which ‘there is
no contest on what appears [or] on what is given in a situation and as a situation’;
on the other hand
while containing the potential for very different effects. I further argue that some of his
shows, or parts of them, activate in viewers ‘an awareness of the political and ideological factors underlying perception’ (Woycicki 4), while others lack critical perspective
on representational practices. I do so by bringing the existing scholarship on the effects
of his work together with several related contemporary critical strategies. Considering
Lepage’s work through affect theory and through JacquesRancière’s conceptualisation of the emancipated spectator allows us to
of earlier Godard films.
JacquesRancière in an essay on Histoire(s) points to what he calls the
central paradox of the film, namely the assertion by Godard that the
cinema failed to live up to its vocation of documenting the real of the
death camps and by such inaction betrayed itself, whereas Histoire(s) has,
on the contrary, realised what it says the cinema has not been able to do.
This apparent paradox belongs to a more comprehensive one, namely
the position taken by Histoire(s) that the cinema, in not living up to its
duties and the historical task of filming
In November 2013 Moroccan-Belgian filmmaker Nabil Ben Yadir released
his second feature film, La Marche, to commemorate the thirtieth anniversary
Out-marching exclusion and hatred 117
of the first national anti-racist movement in France. The six-week march was
a historical touchstone event that mobilized over 100,000 demonstrators.
It was described as France’s equivalent of America’s civil rights protests,
a 500-mile march from Marseille to Paris, intended to awaken France to
State racism, violence, and rampant discriminatory practices in its midst
observation made by JacquesRancières in The Night of Labor: The Workers’ Dream in Nineteenth-Century France
(Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989).
2 Meskimmon, Contemporary Art and the Cosmopolitan Imagination, p. 92.
3 Ibid., p. 92.
4 Julien, ‘Planet’, p. 176.
5 De Angelis et al., ‘Introduction: Disruptive Encounters – Museums, Art and
Postcoloniality’, p. 11.
perfect example of what French philosopher
JacquesRancière, one of several intellectual inspirations of the thinking behind the
present study, terms mésentente, or dissensus. He introduces the term to describe a
peculiar form of misunderstanding, which is
Directing scenes and senses
not the conflict between one who says white and another who says black. It is the conflict
between one who says white and another who also says white but does not understand
the same thing by it or does not understand that the other is saying the same thing in the
name of whiteness
Border images and narratives: paradoxes, spheres, aesthetics
Johan Schimanski and Jopi Nyman
been somehow magicked away, and several of the contributors to our volume set store by complexity as a corrective to simplistic narratives (see among others chapters by Brambilla; Amilhat Szary; Schimanski). Complexity can suggest alternative concepts of the border as a place of encounter rather than purely a place of division and solidification (Müller-Funk; Brambilla), and of borderscapes as spaces of plurality and polyphony (Brambilla; Nyman). Political theorists such as JacquesRancière ( 2010 : 37–9) and Chantal Mouffe ( 2013 ) emphasise another form of
Modernity ( Stanford
University Press , 1993 ).
For an account of the pathologies of secularism regarding political
engagement, see William
Connolly , Why I Am Not a Secularist ( University of Minnesota Press , 1999 ).
I use JacquesRancière’s Hatred
Refiguring childhood stages a series of encounters with biosocial power, which is a specific zone of intensity within the more encompassing arena of biopower and biopolitics. Assembled at the intersection of thought and practice, biosocial power attempts to bring envisioned futures into the present, taking hold of life in the form of childhood, thereby bridging being and becoming while also shaping the power relations that encapsulate the social and cultural world(s) of adults and children. Taking up a critical perspective which is attentive to the contingency of childhoods – the ways in which particular childhoods are constituted and configured – the method used in the book is a transversal genealogy that moves between past and present while also crossing a series of discourses and practices framed by children’s rights (the right to play), citizenship, health, disadvantage and entrepreneurship education. The overarching analysis converges on contemporary neoliberal enterprise culture, which is approached as a conjuncture that helps to explain, and also to trouble, the growing emphasis on the agency and rights of children. It is against the backdrop of this problematic that the book makes its case for refiguring childhood. Focusing on the how, where and when of biosocial power, Refiguring childhood will appeal to researchers and students interested in examining the relationship between power and childhood through the lens of social and political theory, sociology, cultural studies, history and geography.