In the series" How disqualify you an author in three lines ", here is an example of beauty:
" The thesis P.-A. Taguieff converges very well with that of a disciple and friend of Mr Gauci, the sociologist Paul Yonnet, which denounces in his pamphlet against SOS Racism, Journey to the Center of the French malaise , the very serious responsibility of the sixty-eighters in hatred of the nation, focusing on the slogan: "We are all German Jews! Even if the judge P.-A. Taguieff about P. Yonnet too controversial, the orientation is similar as that of Shmuel Trigano, which provides an argument against the anti-globalization movement, accused of collusion with radical Islam: "We are now witnessing a return to the surface of ideological positions that were common in the 1970s, in the nebula and leftist Third World. As in P. Yonnet or S. Trigano, criticism continues the legacy of May 1968 by Taguieff hollow shape his conception of the nation and republicanism. It is inseparable from the first issues raised in his first field of specialization: Anti-Semitism and far right. "
These lines are taken from a book by Serge Audier, Thought anti-68. essay on the origins of intellectual restoration , La Découverte, 2008 (p. 336). This is the only mention of the work of P. Yonnet, a brief mention in a chapter P.-A. Taguieff. It seems difficult, if one is rather close, an ideological point of view, the general line Editions La Découverte and if we do not know Yonnet, not to infer from these lines it is "even more right "that P.-A. Taguieff also empathize with the Zionist shock Trigano, and fiercely anti-68 as well as Marcel Gauchet, which is the" disciple "(?) and" friend. "
Yonnet That name, I read with interest, is coupled with that of Taguieff revisionist or denier Trigano does not irritate me more than that, I discovered from reading the same book S. Audier there may be some interesting things in the texts of the least controversial former. What is troublesome is that amalgam, which is not even sure whether voluntary, which will range ipso facto an author in one category, finally nothing less than "those-that-do- must-not-read. "
I'm not exaggerating: according to an old technique Stalinist found too often in the books or the Discovery of Manufactures, misuse qualifiers as "very right-handed", "Catholic ultratraditionnaliste" comes regularly in the book of S. Audier blacken the authors studied and affect the overall analysis, which is what it's worth, but that would have won very clearly not to "restore" (a reference to the subtitle depreciation) a permanent yellow line to do not cross between good and evil. Reflected in these revealing lines:
"A first obvious tension lies in the contrast between the normative choices posted by P.-A. Taguieff - the Republic and its motto," Liberty, Equality, Fraternity "- Conceptual frameworks and mobilized to defend democratic modernity. This difficulty, we saw it was already that Mr Gauci, whose paradigms are largely from the anthropology Dumont, marked by accents traditionalists whose sources go back to Guenon and his critique of modernity . '(p. 341)
There are two levels: if, as Taguieff P.-A., the authors used anti-democrats like Guenon, Nietzsche or Sorel, while proclaiming himself a Republican, the reader should be clarification on the possibility that there, not "want to reconcile postmortem former enemies, "as written in a form revealing S. Audi (p. 342), but to reconcile ideas which are or are not reconcilable. The requirement of theoretical consistency of S. Audier is perfectly legitimate, but do see is the other level, the issue is more general? As a reader of Gauchet and Guénon as a "disciple," let's go over big words, Dumont, I'm obviously affected by these lines, designed to prevent the study of what S. Audier, in a passage where he still evokes Guénon and Gauci, called the "exceptionality problem of modern Western societies "(p. 326), is made from a different perspective than that of the exceptionality. Schématisons: if Castoriadis, often cited in this book, J. Rancière and A. Brossat explain why democracy is different from other schemes, it's interesting because they are for democracy. If it's Guenon or Dumont does, watch out ...
I do not know if P.-A. Taguieff sheds light on this subject, but it is not very complicated yet to reach a position that is moreover, that many writers - reread The antimodern Antoine Compagnon: one can be very doubtful, more or less reasoned, more or less subjective, the real benefits of democratic regimes, while recognizing that these schemes are best suited to today's humanity and that, at least for now does not draw anything much better in the distance. I do not even say that this is my point of view, assuming that I may have a definite on this issue, I say simply that such a position has nothing inconsistent and regretted that a book 370 pages is not able to give him citizenship.
Moreover, to finish at least today, on this Thought anti-68, one can only emerge from such a book and wondering why it is trustworthy. Beyond the natural limits of such books, S. Audier being much more interesting when talking about Aaron, he knows that when it ventures into lands unknown to him, to the point, Errare humanum is true, but how revealing, write Rule Game for The Great Game (p. 326), beyond this natural limit, we can only be achieved by seeing how the theories of Jean-Claude Michea or poorly Francois Ricard presented - I'm talking about authors I read in the text - an overall impression doubtful if I'm S. Audier at fault on this case I know first hand, why give him credit on such other cases for which his analysis seems credible, but where I do not have the tools to judge its validity? And at the same time, criticism of Marcel Gauchet for example, are often relevant.
short, back to the texts ...
... and in this regard, The anti-68 thought I at least have an idea - the grist for Paul Yonnet here. Page 180, quoting Tocqueville Serge Audier:
"Individualism is a mature and calm feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate themselves from the mass of his fellows and to draw apart with his family and friends so that, having created a small company for its use, he willingly leaves society at large it own. "(From the Democratic America, Vol. II, Part II, ch. 2:" individualism in democratic countries. ")
Issues a chapter to the city famous and nausea by French liberals of the 80s, including his late twilight ("Not only does democracy make every man forget his ancestors, but it hides his descendants and separates his contemporaries, she continually returns to itself and threatened to confine him entirely within the solitude of his own heart. "), chapter to replay dizzy as previews to rub shoulders with admirable reckless generalizations, these lines, just cons other parts of this chapter, propose a flexible definition of individualism, which includes the permanent support of the individual, during its existence, the "small company" of "his Family and Friends. "filiation becomes individualistic," I wrote recently placing me in the context of Paul Yonnet, Tocqueville in these lines confirms brilliantly, before you forget this idea, or at least hide it in the final sentence of his chapter: no, the modern individual is not alone (it is however separated), he very hard to be alone, the modern individual lives with and is funded by a "small company".
What also Facebook, in its most common use (excluding use in professional, political or promotional work, etc..) Unambiguously clear, since there continues ad nauseam the existence of this company 'friends', which predates - and is then reinforced in its consistency - To update it via the Internet. Spend time on it, not fight against loneliness in the sense that we would be alone and abandoned if it was not on Facebook, since we found it again and still have friends that are has, however, is fighting against the possibility of being a bit lonely from time to time with "his own heart," Tocqueville would say - as if it was so scary.
0 comments:
Post a Comment