history of governmental sanctuary in San Francisco’, in R. K. Lippert and S. Rehaag (eds), Sanctuary Practices in International Perspectives: Migration, Citizenship and Social Movements (Abingdon: Routledge), 205–218.
Marrow, H. B. (2012) ‘Deserving to a point: unauthorized immigrants in San Francisco's universal access healthcare model’, Social Science & Medicine , 74:6, 846–854.
May, T. (2010) Contemporary Political Movements and the Thought of JacquesRancière: Equality in Action (Edinburgh: Edinburgh
. Rather, I take presentness to be the equivalent of a physical ‘thereness’ which is resistant to all knowledge. Presentness, in my reading, is disruptive; it sets subjectivity reeling.
In order to get to grips with the politics involved in Genet’s attempts to dislocate the audience, I supplement Lefebvre’s ideas with those of the post-Althusserian philosophers JacquesRancière and Alain Badiou. 19 According to Rancière, becoming a political subject does not mean that we identify with a pre-existing set of ideological roles (say, for instance, signing up as a party
-run. It was founded by Greek scholar and activist Maria Nikolakaki, professor at the University of Peloponnese, Greece and formerly of GCAS. It features
such scholars and academics as JacquesRancière, Étienne Balibar, Tariq Ali, John
Holloway, Raquel Gutiérrez and Peter McLaren.
CITS collaborates with institutions such as the Autonomous University of
Puebla, Mexico, for accreditation, and the California Institute of Integral Studies,
Mexico Solidarity Network, the Social Sciences Centre at Lincoln, UK, and the
Universidad de la Tierra6 at Oaxaca for its projects. This
Democratic state, capitalist society, or dysfunctional
systems. It has been
seen that the economy, in principle, is just one of those systems, and that FD
is and remains the defining feature of sociological modernity. Endowed with
the appropriate constitutions and inter-systemic mediations, FD might provide
decisive impetus for the transition from political statehood to social statehood.
1 Colin Crouch, David Held, Wolfgang Streeck, JacquesRancière, and Wendy Brown,
amongst many others, are all grappling with this question. For an analysis of the
most important questions involved, see David Gonsalves
that an aesthetics of care can be a demonstration, a showing of caring, but, more significantly, it can be the actual moment of building a more just distribution of caring and increase participants’ capacity to care and be cared for.
The understanding of aesthetics here is, on the one hand broad, signalling aesthetic in the sense of the appreciation of something crafted, artistic or beautiful. However, on the other hand, I am also using it in a more particular sense borrowed from the work of JacquesRancière and his framework of the ‘distribution of the sensible
Minnesota Press, 1978 ).
This notion of partage has been
central to the recent work of both Jean-Luc Nancy and JacquesRancière. See, for example, Nancy, The Inoperative
Community , trans. P. Connor and others (Minneapolis,
Minnesota University Press, 1991 ); La
over their interpretation quickly involve accusations of betrayal. Among those, like Alain Badiou, JacquesRancière and indeed Feenberg, who retain their conviction that willed, wholesale changes of social system in wealthy countries remain possible and desirable, 1968 stands as confirmation. As such, their collective memory is an ideological bulwark against cynicism and nihilism, both of which serve as gateway drugs to political apathy and capitulation.
This has a profound bearing on the mature thought of the philosophers of the class of ’68. Feenberg’s theory is
consequences must be joined in perception. This relationship is what
gives meaning; to grasp it is the objective of all intelligence’ (1934: 44). For Dewey,
‘with the vast extension of its scope to take in (potentially) anything and everything,
art would have lost its unity, were there not a core of common substance’, namely,
the forging of profound feeling, efficacy or consequence in the experience of making
of receiving art (1934: 191). Dewey’s claim for the categorical indiscriminateness
of art, bound by a ‘common substance’, anticipates JacquesRancière’s more recent
the importance of the written word,
both to the filmmakers’ relationship and to this particular
JacquesRancière argues that Marker is giving a lesson on
memory in this film, which involves the hierarchical organisation of word
over image (Rancière 2006 : 168–69). While we might agree with Rancière when he
says that Marker uses words to explain images, we are in fact being taught
longer defined through the old
Marxist class historicist paradigm. See Metapolitics, p. 27.
See Laclau, On Populist Reason, p. 223.
See Lacan’s discussion of the operation of the ‘Name of the Father’ as a master signifier in the understanding of psychosis, in The Seminar of Jacques Lacan. Book III: The
Psychoses 1955–1956, trans. R. Grigg (New York and London: W.W. Norton & Co.,
1997), p. 102.
Zˇizˇek, The Sublime Object of Ideology, p. 87–88.
See JacquesRancière in ‘Peuple ou multitude: question d’Eric Alliez a JacquesRancière’, Multitudes, 9 (May–June, 2002): 95