The militant historian: the concept of history in the work of Alain Badiou

This thesis pivots on two suppositions: firstly, that historicism as an approach to the past remains dominant in the 21stcentury; and secondly, the work of the philosopher Alain Badiou offers an original and altogether radical riposte to this form of historiography. The work as whole is principally focused on the second of these assumptions and seeks to offer the first wide ranging analysis of Badiou’s use, development, and transformation of the concept of history. Broken into six chapters, the first five sections center on key texts in Badiou’s still developing oeuvre and examine how the growth of his philosophical ideas serve to challenge dominant conceptions of history and the role of the historian. In a hypothetical turn, the final section addresses how these ideas could transform the practices of teaching history and what it means to ‘do history’ as a meaningful endeavour. The thesis concludes by exploring what forms the ‘militant historian’ could take outside the narrow strictures of academic life

Some Notes (with Badiou and Žižek) on Event/Truth/Subject/Militant Community in Jean-Paul Sartre's Political Thought

The main object of this paper is to examine the new philosophical frame proposed by Alain Badiou and Slavoj Žižek and to show that it implies some traces of Sartre's philosophical and political heritage. According the project of Alain Badiou and Slavoj Žižek one should no longer accept today's constellation of freedom, particularistic truth and democracy, but to (re)inscribe the issues of freedom and universal truth into a political project that attempts to re-activate a thinking of revolution. Their thinking consists in the wager that it is still possible to provide a philosophical frame for this leftist emancipatory position that claims the dimension of the universal against the vicious circle of capitalist globalization-cum-particularization and, by following Marx's claim that there are formal affinities between the ambitions of emancipatory politics and the working mode of capitalism, takes up the struggle of universalism against globalization (capital). It is only through this struggle for the universal that the intertwined processes of a constant expansion of the automatism of capital and "a process of fragmentation into closed identities," accompanied by "the culturalist and relativist ideology" (Badiou) can be suspended. It is precisely this constellation of revolutionary act, universal truth, subject, and militant community, that reveal some similarities with Sartre's concepts of the subject, the revolutionary action, the militant community a.o

Atoms organised: On the orientations of theory and the theorisations of organisation in the philosophy of Karl Marx

PhDThe contemporary crisis has lead to a renewed interest in Marx's critique of political economy. But today it is hard to read Marx as the prophet of a new and better world, hiswritings on capitalism's self-destructive tendencies seem without hope: where Marxbelieved that capitalist organisation would concentrate, homogenise and organise labour and orientate it toward socialism, in today's globalised capitalism the tendency is the opposite, towards precariousness, disorganisation and competition. This raises the problematic of this thesis, that of the relation between orientation and organisation. Where capitalist organisation atomises and differentiates, the starting point for orientation cannot be capitalist organisation. The question emerges: is there a place and orientation of self-organisation in Marx – and what is its possible relation to the critique of the dynamics of capital? To answer this question, I will not focus on Marx's explicit theory of workers' organisation or the party, which is in crisis, but on his theorisation of the epochal problem of organisation under capitalism. Through a reading of some of Marx's central writings, which is sensitive to their historical context, the thesis asks: what is the orientating role of the concepts of organisation and disorganisation in Marx's theory of capital and of revolutionary, history-making practice? From Kant we learn to think the mutual implication of theory and practice through the concept of orientation. Furthermore, we show that Marx's concept of organisation was inspired by Hegel's Philosophy of Nature, which starts from the problem of atomised individuals whose reproduction is contingent. Thus, organisation, when appropriately historicised in terms of this condition of contingency, does not start from the relation between capital and labour, but from the problem of reproduction. In conclusion we arrive at a concept of struggle that starts from resistances and struggles for reproduction, and which poses the question of their combination, self-organisation, and generalisatio

'To explain the other to myself': Fanon, Ramasamy and Identity Politics

This thesis compares the identity politics of Frantz Fanon and ‘Periyar’ EV Ramasamy. After framing an interpretative paradigm through which the core ideas of Fanon could be deciphered, an interpretation of Fanon as a rigorous critic of identity politics is arrived at. Exploring Fanon’s strained relation with the particularist Black identity politics of Negritude and his own imperative for the need to transcend from particularist identity politics to a genuine, universal humanism, I seek to prove that while Fanon rejected the false universalism of European humanism, he did not support rigidly identitarian movements either. Fanon’s universalism was based on a reciprocal and respectful recognition between cultures and peoples, working towards a universal humanism. After a brief introduction to the socio-historical context of Ramasamy’s politics, I then use this Fanonist lens to critique the anti-caste political discourse of Ramasamy, especially how he articulated his concerns towards the Brahmin Other and the non-Brahmin Self, and his approach towards the untouchable Dalit castes. I argue that his fixation with the Brahmin identity as the ultimate Other responsible for the inferiorization of the non-Brahmin castes, and his consideration of this identity as immutable and irredeemable, made a lasting universality impossible. Yet, Ramasamy’s penetrating insights on the myriad ways in which native culture in the colony oppresses minorities and marginalized groups challenges Fanon’s beliefs in the redemptive power of Third World anti-colonial universality. In the conclusion, based on the dialogue between Ramasamy and Fanon, I explore the limits of particularism and the needs of universalism, making a case for a constitutive, but conditional, pluralism

Race, capital, and the politics of solidarity: radical internationalism in the 21st century

This thesis interrogates the absence of questions of race, colonialism, and their contemporary legacies in the philosophical literature on global justice and cosmopolitan ethics. What are the ethical, political, and material consequences of these “unspeakable things unspoken”, and what would it mean for cosmopolitanism to take seriously the problem of the global colour line? The thesis provides a tentative answer to these questions through a close engagement with contemporary debates about the meaning and purpose of international solidarity. It demonstrates that critical and liberal approaches often help reproduce and legitimise, rather than challenge and transcend, the current unjust and unequal racialized global order. Drawing on Cedric Robinson and the literature on racial capitalism, it interrogates how solidarity can be decolonised and reconceived so as to better attend to the materiality of the global colour line. Through a close reading of the European migrant crisis, recent forms of Black-Palestinian solidarity, and the ongoing struggle for decolonisation in South Africa, it identifies an alternative internationalist imaginary that grows out of the solidarities forged in the struggle against imperialism, patriarchy, and racial capitalism. This is a radicalised and decolonised emancipatory project which retrieves the idea of universal history and total critique, but does so without invoking Eurocentric ideas of progress and teleology. In an era of Trump, Brexit, and global fascist resurgence—where the “white working class” frequently is juxtaposed with “immigrants”, and identity politics blamed for the demise of the organised Left—such an internationalist vision is urgently needed

Control and Archaism

The presentation will delve into the relationship between control society and archaism. Deleuze’s conceptualization of control implies the reconfiguration of former spaces of discipline. While the Foucauldian model of discipline was characterized by enclosed spaces (such as prisons, armies, and churches), Deleuze’s notion of control highlights a continuous network where individuals are no longer molded but modulated. This prompts us to ponder the shift in the temporal structure that occurs during the transition from a disciplinary society to one governed by control. Specifically, this presentation aims to explore the disparities in our historical perspectives when viewed from disciplinary and control paradigms. In this context, I will explore Deleuze and Guattari's concept of ‘archaism’. According to Deleuze and Guattari, archaism is an inherent aspect of capitalism, its continual endeavor to reconstruct territoriality and replicate antiquated coding patterns. Capitalism necessitates archaism due to its lack of inherent belief structures. In essence, the system, which the duo name the ‘age of cynicism’, requires the revival of old codes to sustain its systems of subjugation and dominance. As my presentation will demonstrate, one can discern a transformation in the evolution of archaism as society shifts from discipline to control. By comparing the fascist archaism of the thirties in Germany and the archaism of contemporary alt-right movements, I will show that a disciplinary society presupposes a more centralized form of archaism, which is highly susceptible to state control and deeply ingrained in the institutional fabric of social life. Conversely, a control society implies a diversification and creativity in archaic attitudes, hinting at its potential for emancipation—a viewpoint emphasized by Deleuze and Guattari themselves in ’Anti-Oedipus’

Control and Archaism

The presentation will delve into the relationship between control society and archaism. Deleuze’s conceptualization of control implies the reconfiguration of former spaces of discipline. While the Foucauldian model of discipline was characterized by enclosed spaces (such as prisons, armies, and churches), Deleuze’s notion of control highlights a continuous network where individuals are no longer molded but modulated. This prompts us to ponder the shift in the temporal structure that occurs during the transition from a disciplinary society to one governed by control. Specifically, this presentation aims to explore the disparities in our historical perspectives when viewed from disciplinary and control paradigms. In this context, I will explore Deleuze and Guattari's concept of ‘archaism’. According to Deleuze and Guattari, archaism is an inherent aspect of capitalism, its continual endeavor to reconstruct territoriality and replicate antiquated coding patterns. Capitalism necessitates archaism due to its lack of inherent belief structures. In essence, the system, which the duo name the ‘age of cynicism’, requires the revival of old codes to sustain its systems of subjugation and dominance. As my presentation will demonstrate, one can discern a transformation in the evolution of archaism as society shifts from discipline to control. By comparing the fascist archaism of the thirties in Germany and the archaism of contemporary alt-right movements, I will show that a disciplinary society presupposes a more centralized form of archaism, which is highly susceptible to state control and deeply ingrained in the institutional fabric of social life. Conversely, a control society implies a diversification and creativity in archaic attitudes, hinting at its potential for emancipation—a viewpoint emphasized by Deleuze and Guattari themselves in ’Anti-Oedipus’

Genealogy as a Way of Building a War Machine – Critique and Resistance in “Deleuze’s Foucault”

The question of resistance has been a long-debated topic in the study of Foucault’s work. The interesting thing about this debate is that various authors came do differing conclusions, some point out that Foucault’s understanding of power leaves no space agency while others claim that his entire work can be seen as a study of possibilities for resistance. Even though this debate started in Foucault’s own lifetime it is still on going and contemporary scholarship has started dealing with new problems concerning his notions of resistance. Some of those problems are the relations between collective and individual acts of resistance and the relation between critical scholarship and political resistance. Our aim is to contribute to this debate by reinterpreting Foucault’s understanding of resistance through Deleuze’s reading of Foucault and through Deleuze’s concepts like the “war machine”, “nomadism” and others. In the first part of our presentation, we will use Deleuze’s reading of Foucault to reconstruct his notion of resistance and how it relates to other important concepts in his work, like power and the subject. In the second part we will move on to Foucault’s understanding of critique and the problem of its relation to resistance. While specifically relying on Daniele Lorenzini’s reading of this problem we will point out that Foucault’s research into various institutions of modernity (like the prison, the hospital, or the asylum) can be seen as a study of possible “lines of flight” or possibilities for resistance to technologies of government that are active within them. We will conclude by pointing out that Foucault’s understanding of critical scholarship can best be understood as an attempt to connect various subjects of resistance into a rhizomatic movement or a war machine whose structure mirrors that of the governmental dispositive