Architecture and association

Wissenschaftliches Kolloquium vom 24. bis 27. April 2003 in Weimar an der Bauhaus-Universität zum Thema: ‚MediumArchitektur - Zur Krise der Vermittlung

Revolución y repetición

Traducción de la ponencia presentada por Kojin Karatani en la FFyL de la UNAM, en la que el autor propone un tratamiento científico de la historia, con base en el estudio de estructuras repetitivas, en especial, muestra el ciclo de los tipos de intercambio, con lo que intenta completar la obra de Marx, que se centra en el ciclo de los modos de producción. El autor sostiene que el estado es un sujeto junto con el capital, y que debe considerarse en su propia autonomía, ya que es un agente activo en la recursividad del capitalismo. Además, hace una propuesta para enfrentar la etapa en curso, que ha sido ubicada dentro de la estructura repetitiva, así como los movimientos revolucionarios contra el estado y el capital. //// “Revolution and repetition” (Kojin Karatani). This paper is a translation of the lecture given by Kojin Karatani at the Philosophy Department of UNAM. The author proposes a scientifically treatment of history, founded in the study of the repetitive structures, he especially shows the Modes of Exchange cycle, trying to complete Marx’s work, that concentrates on the Modes of Production cycle. The author holds the state is a subject along with capital, it has to be considered as autonomous, because it is an active agent in the capitalism repetitiveness. In addition, he makes a proposal to face the current stage, that has been located inside the repetitive structure, as well as the revolutionary movements of revolution against state and capital.Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Méxic

Introducción a la teoría de los modos de intercambio

In The Structure of World History (2010; english edition 2014), I proposed the notion of switching “from modes of production to modes of exchange”. Here, I would like to provide a simple explanation of this. Orthodox Marxist theory, using an architectural metaphor, explains the history of social forms in terms of modes of production, which form the economic base (foundation), and of the political or ideational su-perstructures that are determined by that base. A mode of production consists of the productive forces, which arise from the relations between humans and nature, and the relations of production, which are consti-tuted by the relations between humans. I do not oppose the idea that the history of social forms is determined by the economic base, but in my view that base consists not of modes of production, but rather modes of exchange. What I call modes of exchange includes both relations be-tween nature and humans and relations between humans.En La estructura de la historia mundial (edición japonesa 2010; edición inglesa 2014), señalé la necesidad de transponer la noción central de “modos de producción” por la de “modos de intercambio”. En este trabajo quiero explicar esto. Através de una metáfora arquitectónica, la ortodoxia marxista ha explicado la historia de las formaciones sociales en términos de los modos de producción, que existen como base económica (fundamento) y por los cuales se determina la superestructura política-ideal. Un modo de producción se constituye por las fuerza productivas, que están constituidas por las relaciones entre el ser humano y la naturaleza, y las relaciones de producción, que provienen de las relaciones entre los seres humanos. Yo no me opongo a la idea de que la historia de las formas sociales está determinada por la base económica, pero, desde mi punto de vista, esta base no está en los modos de producción, sino en los modos de intercambio. Lo que yo llamo modos de intercambio incluye a ambas relaciones, entre la naturaleza y los seres humanos, y entre entre los propios seres humanos

NATIONALISM AND ÉCRITURE

In referring to Jacques Derrida's critique of Western phonocentrism, this paper argues that phonocentrism is not simply a Western phenomenon but is linked to the emergence of the modern nation-state. In this context, this paper examines the question of nationalism and é\u8ecriture in Japan, discussing the historical confrontation between Chinese characters (kanji) and phonetic signs (kana), the work of the contemporary Japanese linguist Motoki Tokieda, among other issues.Dans le sillage de Jacques Derrida et de sa critique du phonocentrisme occidental, cet essai avance que le phonocentrisme n’est pas seulement un phénomène propre à l’Ouest, mais est lié à l’émergence de l’État-Nation moderne. Dans ce contexte, cet essai examine, parmi d’autres thématiques, la question du nationalisme et de l’écriture au Japon, tout en discutant la confrontation historique entre les caractères chinois (kanji) et les signes phonétiques (kana), et enfin les écrits du linguiste japonais contemporain Motoki Tokieda

Revolution and Repetition

Conferencia: Revolution and Repetition Aula Magna de la Facutad de Filosofía y Letras, UNAM, el 11 de septiembre de 2009.This paper is the lecture given by Kojin Karatani at the Philosophy Department of UNAM. The author proposes a cientifically treatment of history, founded in the study of the repetitive structures, he especially shows the Modes of Exchange cycle, trying to complete Marx’s work, that concentrates on the Modes of Production cycle. The author holds the state is a subject along with Capital, it has to be considered as autonomous, because it is an active agent in the capitalism repetitiveness. In addition, he makes a proposal to face the current stage, that has been located inside the repetitive structure, as well as the revolutionary movements of revolution against State and Capital

La disparition des genres

[The disappearance of gender]. The attitude defined by Soseki as fundamental to the writing of shaseibun is what Freud calls "humour". On the other hand, humour qua "sense of the world" should be distinguished from the carnavalesque according to Bakhtin. For Freud, the joke, qua "contribution to the comical by means of the unconscious" must be distinguished from humour, "the contribution of the comical through the superego". For me, humour may entertain some rapport to psychosis and Soseki's shaseibun may be tied to a sort of suffering which cannot be easily cured with the help of jokes or of the tragic catharsis. It is not the suffering of neurosis, but that of psychosis. It is the suffering of the modern person. And yet it cannot wholly be told in the style of the modern novel. According to the norms of modern literature, Soseki's long novels are failures. Yet there is no reason for us to see his novels as failures. They constituted, rather, Soseki's struggle against the type of fiction through which modern literature sought to resolve and to find a synthesis for such failures.L’attitude que Sōseki a définie comme étant fondamentale à l’écriture du shaseibun est ce que Freud nomme « humour ». Par ailleurs, l’humour en tant qu’un « sens du monde » devrait être distingué du carnavalesque selon Bakhtin. Pour Freud, la plaisanterie, en tant qu’une « contribution au comique au moyen de l’inconscient », doit être différenciée de l’humour, « la contribution faite par le comique par l’intermédiaire du surmoi ». Pour moi l’humour peut entretenir quelque rapport à la psychose et le shaseibun de Sōseki peut être lié à une sorte de souffrance qui ne peut facilement guérir à l’aide de plaisanteries ou de la catharsis tragique. Ce n’est pas la souffrance de la névrose, mais de la psychose. C’est la souffrance de la personne moderne. Et pourtant elle ne peut être totalement racontée dans le style du roman moderne. Selon les normes de la littérature moderne, les longs romans de Sōseki sont des échecs. Et pourtant, il n’y a aucune raison pour nous de voir les romans de Sōseki comme des échecs. Ils ont constitué, bien plutôt, la lutte de Sōseki contre le type de fiction par laquelle la littérature moderne cherchait à résoudre et à trouver la synthèse pour de tels dérapages