Categorizar e posicionar os sujeitos em filosofia: a controvérsia entre Derrida e Foucault compreendida de um ponto de vista discursivo

Os filósofos gostam de lidar com problemas teóricos e conceituais. No entanto, ao entrar no debate filosófico, eles utilizam a linguagem também para fins sociais. Em outras palavras, a filosofia deve ser vista como um discurso no qual os filósofos se posicionam e se categorizam uns aos outros como membros de uma comunidade. Para ilustrar o que significa participar do discurso filosófico considerado como prática social, observarei uma controvérsia entre Jacques Derrida e Michel Foucault. Em uma troca teórica sobre a maneira pela qual devemos entender a filosofia de Descartes em relação ao seu tempo, eles se dirigem um ao outro de maneira particular, precisamente como “discípulo” e como “mestre”, como “filósofo” ou “não-filósofo”... através da encenação de relações intelectuais. A análise revela, assim, as dimensões sociais de sua controvérsia, enfatizando o papel de suas posições de sujeito na comunidade intelectual parisiense dos anos 1960 e 1970. Philosophers like to deal with theoretical and conceptual problems. Yet by entering the philosophical debate, they also use language for social purposes. Philosophy, in other words, needs to be seen as a discourse where philosophers position and categorise each other as members of a community. To flesh out what it means to participate in philosophical discourse as a social practice, I will have a closer look at a controversy between Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault. In a theoretical exchange over how to understand Descartes’s philosophy in his time, both address each other in specific ways, namely as “disciple” and “teacher”, as “philosopher” or not... within a scene of intellectual relationships. Hence, the contribution reveals the social dimensions of their controversy by pointing out the role of their subject positions in the Parisian intellectual community of the 1960s and 1970

Discourse analysis in France. A Conversation.

In this interview, the linguist Dominique MAINGUENEAU sketches the history of discourse analysis in France. After discussing the intellectual background in which it emerged, he turns to certain key figures of French discourse analysis like Michel FOUCAULT and Michel PÊCHEUX. Special attention is given to the role of Michel FOUCAULT, who has crucially influenced his research on discursive scenography and self-constituting discourses. Concerning FOUCAULT's methodological impact MAINGUENEAU emphasises the problem of "enunciation". A French version of discourse pragmatics, enunciative linguistics focuses on the way texts mobilise their contexts

The celebrity logics of the academic field. The unequal distribution of citation visibility of Applied Linguistics professors in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom.

This article investigates the distribution of citation visibility of Applied Linguistics professors in France, Germany and the United Kingdom. By comparing citation counts from Google Scholar, we reveal hyperinequalities between more and less visible professors. We register strong inequalities between English-, German- and French-language scholars as well within languages, especially within the English-language community. These inequalities bear witness to the celebrity logics in academia, i.e. the hyperunequal distribution of visibility between a few >starsdiscursive capitalism<, which designates the institutional transfer of value from the many citing to the few cited members in disciplinary communities

Francis Chateauraynaud, Prospéro. Une technologie littéraire pour les sciences humaines

Les technologies informatiques ont profondément modifié notre rapport aux textes. Grâce à l’ordinateur, de grandes collections de textes sont désormais facilement accessibles. Qu’on utilise des moteurs de recherche généralistes (Google) ou des bases de données spécialisées (LexisNexis, MLA…), l’ordinateur permet de retrouver, stocker et diffuser des textes numérisés en grandes quantités. Si la technologie a considérablement facilité la gestion des données textuelles de masse, on peut en revan..

A verdade na era da pós-verdade: por um Programa Forte em Estudos do discurso

Portuguese: Os discursos contemporâneos da pós-verdade colocam à prova os fundamentos con-strutivistas dos Estudos do Discurso. De acordo com observadores críticos, os analistas do discurso têm jogado do lado de Trump, Brexit e populistas de direita, de modo a politizar o conhecimento científico e minar a ideia da verdade científica. A fim de responder a essas preocupações, este artigo delineia um Programa Forte em Estudos do Discurso. Enquanto o Programa Forte insiste em ver¬dades como construções discursivas, de modo algum afirma que todas as ideias têm o mesmo valor de verdade ou que uma ideia pode se tornar verdadeira porque alguém quer que ela seja verdadeira. O Programa Forte defende a pesquisa de discurso que é construtivista (questiona como as verdades são construídas de forma prática) sem ser relativista (nem todas as ideias têm a mesma qualidade normativa). Inspirando-se nos debates dos Estudos de Ciência e Tecnologia da década de 1970, o Programa Forte formula princípios para os pesquisadores do discurso que lidam com afirmações conflituantes da verdade. Explicações analítico-discursivas da verdade dos participantes de primei¬ra ordem e dos observadores de segunda ordem devem ser simétricas, heterogêneas, multiperspec¬tivistas e reflexivas. O programa Forte em pesquisa do discurso baseia-se nas tradições fundadoras “francesa” e “crítica” dos Estudos do Discurso que têm debatido sobre questões de verdade e reali¬dade desde o início. Enquanto questiona criticamente a herança estruturalista dessas vertentes, o Programa Forte insiste nas práticas de fazer (e desfazer) ideias por meio do uso da linguagem, não importando se elas aparecem como verdadeiras ou falsas para os participantes e observadores. Os Estudos do Discurso são encorajados a refletir criticamente sobre como as hierarquias entre os sa¬beres não são apenas representadas, mas, por meio de sua representação, também são constituídas através de práticas discursivas de atores e observadores. English: Contemporary post-truth discourses put the constructivist foundations of Dis¬course Studies to a test. According to critical observers, discourse analysts have been playing into the hands of Trump, Brexit and right-wing populists by politicising scientific knowledge and undermining the idea of scientific truth. In order to respond to these concerns, this article outlines a Strong Programme in Discourse Studies. While the Strong Programme insists on truths as discursive constructions, in no way does it claim that all ideas have the same truth value or that an idea can become true because somebody wants it to be true. The Strong Pro¬gramme makes the case for discourse research that is constructivist (it asks how truths are con¬structed practically) without being relativist (all ideas do not have the same normative quality). Taking inspiration from debates in Science and Technology Studies of the 1970s, the Strong Programme formulates principles for discourse researchers dealing with conflicting truth claims. Discourse analytical explanations of truths of first-order participants and of second-order observers should be symmetrical, heterogeneous, multi-perspectival and reflexive. The Strong Programme discourse research is grounded in the founding traditions of “French” and “Critical” Discourse Studies, which have struggled over questions of truth and reality since the beginning. While critically interrogating the structuralist heritage of these strands, the Strong Programme insists on the practices of making and unmaking ideas through language use no matter whether they appear as true or false to participants and observers. Discourse Studies are encouraged to critically reflect on how hierarchies between knowledges are not only repre¬sented but, through their representation, also constituted through discursive practices

Catégoriser et positionner les sujets en philosophie: la controverse entre Derrida et Foucault envisagée d’un point de vue sociopragmatique

FRENCH Les philosophes aiment traiter de problèmes théoriques et conceptuels. Pourtant, en entrant dans le débat philosophique ils utilisent le langage également à des fins sociales. En d'autres termes, la philosophie doit être vue comme un discours où les philosophes se positionnent et se catégorisent les uns les autres en tant que membres d'une communauté. Pour illustrer ce que signifie participer au discours philosophique considéré comme pratique sociale, je vais observer une controverse entre Jacques Derrida et Michel Foucault. Dans un échange théorique sur la manière dont il faut comprendre la philosophie de Descartes par rapport à son époque, ils s’adressent l’un à l’autre de manière particulière, précisément comme « disciple » et comme « maître », comme « philosophe » ou non... à travers la mise en scène de relations intellectuelles. L’analyse révèle ainsi les dimensions sociales de leur controverse en soulignant le rôle de leurs positions sujet dans la communauté intellectuelle parisienne des années 1960 et 1970. ENGLISH Philosophers like to deal with theoretical and conceptual problems. Yet by entering the philosophical debate, they also use language for social purposes. Philosophy, in other words, needs to be seen as a discourse where philosophers position and categorise each other as members of a community. To flesh out what it means to participate in philosophical discourse as a social practice, I will have a closer look at a controversy between Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault. In a theoretical exchange over how to understand Descartes’s philosophy in his time, both address each other in specific ways, namely as “disciple” and “teacher”, as “philosopher” or not... within a scene of intellectual relationships. Hence, the contribution reveals the social dimensions of their controversy by pointing out the role of their subject positions in the Parisian intellectual community of the 1960s and 1970s

Analyser le discours politique en Allemagne (1980-2010)

Les années soixante-dix, une période mouvementée Les années soixante-dix en Allemagne sont une période pleine de débats, de conflits et de contestation. C’est à la lumière de l’héritage des nazis, des divisions politiques et idéologiques de la Guerre froide, des nouveaux mouvements sociaux (féminisme, écologie, pacifisme…) que l’intérêt s’éveille pour l’analyse du discours politique, à l’Ouest (cf. la pragmatique du langage politique de Diekmann, 1969) pas moins qu’à l’Est (voir le modèle cyb..

Accumulating discursive capital, valuating subject positions. From Marx to Foucault

Whenever people use language, they participate in valuation practices, i.e. they give value to themselves as well as to others. To account for the construction of social inequality through discursive valuation practices, discourse theorists need Marxist theory and Marxists need discourse theory. By going from the early Marx to the late Foucault, I will revisit Marx?s value theory in light of practice-oriented approaches to social inequality. I will discuss examples from two distinct arenas, the monopolization of attention by populist leaders and the academic star system, both of which are accounted for in terms of the accumulation of discursive capital. This perspective asks how the value of subject positions is constructed and hierarchies between them are established in discursive practices. Investigating the construction of valuable subject positions in discourse communities, this perspective attempts to overcome the traditional division between language, the economic and the social. Discourse not only represents value and the social order but, through representation, it also contributes to constituting the social as a hierarchical world of more or less valued subject positions

Critique Equals Suffering Plus Society? Towards a New Approach to Critique

Herzog’s theory of social suffering brings the problem of critique back on the agenda of contemporary social theory and in ways that critical theorists can relate to no matter whether they come with a cold or hot background. While he insists on the nexus of the individuals’ critical energies with their society, the social remains precisely a placeholder that still needs to be filled. Reassessing the critical potentials of the members of society is an important step towards putting critique on the intellectual agenda again. In my contribution, I ask what can critique look like in our contemporary world where a sense of totality has been lost and critique is an activity within a social space whose heterogeneity can no longer be ignored

How to become an academic philosopher: Academic discourse as multi-leveled positioning practice [Cómo ser un filósofo académico: el discurso como práctica de posicionamiento en varios niveles]

In my contribution, I will present the power-knowledge approach to academic discourse. Drawing from poststructuralist and pragmatic developments in social theory, this model the practical challenge academic researchers have to meet in academic discourse: to secure a place in the social world of researchers. The researchers who participate in academic discourse typically need to straddle two types of positions: on the one hand they need to find their place among the many scientific communities, i.e. in the world of specialised knowledge. On the other hand, they need to be placed in a higher education institution with its status groups, hierarchies and bureaucratic rules, i.e. in the world of institutional power. If researchers want to occupy the most desirable positions in the academic field, they need to succeed in both worlds at the same time. While careers and strategies can differ widely between researchers, researchers engage in academic discourse as an ongoing, publication-based positioning practice in which symbolic positions need to be gradually turned into institutional positions. En mi artículo, presentaré una aproximación desde el saber-poder al discurso académico. Partiendo de desarrollos pragmáticos y post-estructuralistas en teoría social, este modelo teoriza el reto que los investigadores académicos deben afrontar en el discurso académico: asegurarse un lugar en el mundo social de los investigadores. Los investigadores que participan en el discurso académico generalmente deben combinar dos tipos de posiciones: por un lado, necesitan encontrar su lugar entre las múltiples comunidades científicas, i. e. en el mundo del conocimiento especializado. Por otro, necesitan situarse en una institución de educación superior, con sus grupos de estatus, jerarquías y reglas burocráticas, i. e. en el mundo del poder institucional. Si los investigadores quieren ocupar las posiciones más atractivas del campo académico, deben prosperar en ambos mundos al mismo tiempo. Aunque sus carreras, estrategias y “recetas” pueden ser muy diferentes, todos los investigadores se implican en el discurso académico, entendido como una práctica de posicionamiento continuo basada en publicaciones, en la que las posiciones simbólicas (i. e. como especialista en la Antigüedad tardía) deben transformarse gradualmente en posiciones institucionales (i. e. como catedrático de Historia Antigua)