Conferencia introductoria de la serie de seminarios y mesas redondas titulada Utopia 13/13, “A History of the Future”, que se llevó a cabo en la Universidad de Columbia entre el segundo semestre de 2022 y el primer semestre de 2023, organizada por Bernard E. Harcourt. Traducción, Federico Correa Pose.

The Spinoza party -- The Tractatus Theologico-Politicus: a democratic manifesto -- The Tractatus Politicus: a science of the state -- The Ethics: a political anthropology -- Politics and communication.

Marxist Philosophy or Marx's Philosophy? The general idea of this little book is to understand and explain why Marx will still be read in the twenty-first ...

First published in 1994. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

Etienne Balibar, one of the foremost living French philosophers, builds on his landmark work 'Spinoza and Politics' with this exploration of Spinoza's ontology. Balibar situates Spinoza in relation to the major figures of Marx and Freud as a precursor to the more recent French thinker Gilbert Simondon's concept of the transindividual. Presenting a crucial development in his thought, Balibar takes the concept of transindividuality beyond Spinoza to show it at work at both the individual and the collective (...) level. (shrink)

European Journal of Philosophy, EarlyView.

A collection of Essays over the last 20 years, exploring different dimensions of the philosophical debate on "subjecthood" and "subjectivity" in Modernity, as it was framed by the "Controversy on the subject" from the 1960's, and showing how it is now continued in a "controversy on the Universal.".

Suite de la réflexion sur les rapports entre violence, civilité et révolution dans les sociétés contemporaines, initiée par le philosophe Etienne Balibar dans son ouvrage Violence et civilité et prolongée par un colloque international en 2014.

Major difficulties for readers of Foucault’s The Order of Things concern the historical function and the logical construction of the episteme. Our proposal is to link it with another notion, the ‘point of heresy’, less frequently addressed. This leads to asserting that irreconcilable dilemmas are in fact determined by the type of rationality governing the emergence of common objects of knowledge. It also introduces a possibility of ‘walking on two roads’: a dialogical adventure within rationality. Foucault is not content with (...) either accepting or rejecting the ‘transcendental’ question ‘What is Man?’: with the help of quasi-transcendental categories performing a ‘transdisciplinary’ function, he wants to reach the ‘heretical’ point where anthropology becomes historicity within the horizon of finitude. (shrink)

Ce travail, qui se situe dans le prolongement des idées développées par Fernando Gil dans son Traité de l’évidence, est une tentative d’analyse à l’aide des concepts introduits par F. Gil, d’un événement bien documenté de l’histoire des mathématiques, la découverte par Cantor (en 1877) de ce qu’une droite (continuum à 1 dimension) et l’espace (continuum à 3 dimensions) comportent le même nombre de points. Ayant établi la démonstration de ce résultat, Cantor écrit, étonné : “Je le vois mais je (...) ne le crois pas”. Preuve que la démonstration apodictique ne lui apparaît pas comme une indication suffisante de la “vérité” et qu’il ressent le besoin d’une forme d’engagement, d’immédiateté “où s’effacent les frontières entre le vécu et le théorique”. Preuve également que l’idée selon laquelle l’objectivité dont s’enorgueillit “la science” implique l’élimination du sujet, est une idée fausse. (shrink)

The article reflects on the present confusion between the category of enemy and that of stranger as result of a process of multiplication and reinforcement of territorial borders along ethnic and racial criteria. In particular, the text considers the external and internal borders of Europe as complex dispositivs of territorial control, which produce specific forms of foreigners as strangers and as cultural enemies. In order to analyze and stop this process, a cosmopolitan rethinking of the idea of citizenship is at (...) stake here. Transnational citizenship will be discussed in the frame of a philological model of translation between cultures and opposed to the model of an absolute untranslatability that characterizes the global civil wars. Cosmopolitics is thus conceived as a practical universalism, a progressive overcoming of the idea of the stranger in view of an idea of co-citizenship. Transnational co-citizenship does not suppress national identities but puts them in relation to all other sorts of particular identities and interests in order to create a contingent, maybe precarious but always concrete world of commons and communality. (shrink)

The paper, which retains a hypothetical character, argues that Spinoza's propositions referring to God (or involving the use of the name ‘God’, essentially in the Ethics), can be read in a fruitful manner apart from any pre-established hypothesis concerning his own ‘theological preferences’, as definite descriptions of three ‘ideas of God’ which have the same logical status: one (akin to Jewish Monotheism) which identifies the idea of God with the idea of the Law, one (akin to a heretic ‘Socinian’ version (...) of Christianity) which identifies it with the idea of Human Love, and one (akin to a form of Cosmotheism, rather than ‘Pantheism’) which identifies it with Nature. Evidence of this analytic tripartition can be found in the letter of the texts themselves. If accepted (at least as a thought experiment), it would carry three interesting consequences: 1) to renew our understanding of the theory of the ‘three kinds of knowledge’, which have obvious affinities with the three possible ways of understanding the idea of God; 2) to emphasize the critical move associated by Spinoza with each of the three ideas of God (passing from an anthropomorphic legislator to an impersonal command, passing from an imaginary community of similarities to a practical community of singularities, and passing from a teleological and harmonious idea of nature to a causal, even conflictual, idea of its infinite power); 3) to locate the essential ethical and political questions associated with religion on the ‘vectors’ which lead from one idea to another, and represent themselves practical conatus: obedience, utility, order. It is also assumed that such a reading enhances the relevance of Spinoza's philosophy with respect to contemporary debates about religion and secularism. (shrink)

Dans cet entretien se confrontent deux points de vue sur une question cardinale pour Marx et les traditions marxistes : la question de la nation et de l’internationalisme. L’historien et le philosophe puisent tous deux dans le marxisme pour penser la question sur la longue durée et jusqu’à nos jours, tout en divergeant sur plusieurs points. Il ressort de cette confrontation une nécessaire prise en compte non fétichiste des « classiques du marxisme », insuffisants pour penser la totalité de la (...) complexité de la persistance de la « nation », mais indispensables malgré tout pour définir une visée émancipatrice. (shrink)

Discussions around the meaning and validity of Freud’s notion of Todestrieb, as it was introduced in the essay from 1920 Beyond the Pleasure Principle, later...

On emploie ici le terme « structuralisme » dans un sens large, incluant les œuvres de Lévi-Strauss et Barthes aussi bien que celles d'Althusser, de Lacan, de Foucault. J'y vois non pas un système ou une école de pensée, mais un mouvement, et j'y inclus également le « post-structuralisme » de Derrida et de Deleuze, en tant que « négation déterminée » de certains présupposés. Je soutiens que le structuralisme ne se caractérise pas par une position objectiviste, mais par la (...) relance de la tentative pour produire une « genèse » ou une « construction » du sujet au sein de structures transindividuelles, et donc pour y voir un système d'effets au lieu d'une cause originaire. Cette conversion d'un point de vue du sujet constituant au point de vue du sujet constitué explique l'importance des modèles linguistique, psychanalytique et anthropologique, ainsi que d'une certaine interprétation du marxisme comme théorie de l'imaginaire social chez les structuralistes. Quant au post-structuralisme, il déploie un mouvement de rectification, en présentant les limites de la subjectivité, qui impliquent la dissolution de la « normalité » et la mise à jour de la violence inhérente au processus de constitution, comme des « différences » pures qui engendrent l'activité et la passivité. Ce second mouvement contribue de façon décisive à conférer au structuralisme, non seulement une portée épistémologique, mais aussi une orientation éthique. (shrink)

Il testo che qui presentiamo riproduce un articolo tratto dal volume miscellaneo Il transindividuale. Soggetti, relazioni, mutazioni, a cura di E. Balibar e V. Morfino, Mimesis, Milano 2014,.

Résumé Nombre de personnages d’ À la recherche du temps perdu font preuve de ce que Proust appelle « distinction morale » : non la moralité même (le contenu bon ou moral d’une action ou d’une pensée), mais l’apparence de moralité que l’on manifeste en présence d’autrui. Cette apparence de moralité est-elle fidèle ou trompeuse, est-elle une marque de sincérité ou de duplicité morale? Ni simple extériorisation d’un contenu moral intérieur, ni faux-semblant ou simulation de moralité, la distinction morale n’adhère (...) au sentiment intérieur et n’est sincère que dans la mesure où elle suppose une part de dissimulation. (shrink)

étienne Balibar has been one of Europe's most important philosophical and political thinkers since the 1960s. His work has been vastly influential on both sides of the Atlantic throughout the humanities and the social sciences. In We, the People of Europe?, he expands on themes raised in his previous works to offer a trenchant and eloquently written analysis of "transnational citizenship" from the perspective of contemporary Europe. Balibar moves deftly from state theory, national sovereignty, and debates on multiculturalism (...) and European racism, toward imagining a more democratic and less state-centered European citizenship. Although European unification has progressively divorced the concepts of citizenship and nationhood, this process has met with formidable obstacles. While Balibar seeks a deep understanding of this critical conjuncture, he goes beyond theoretical issues. For example, he examines the emergence, alongside the formal aspects of European citizenship, of a "European apartheid," or the reduplication of external borders in the form of "internal borders" nurtured by dubious notions of national and racial identity. He argues for the democratization of how immigrants and minorities in general are treated by the modern democratic state, and the need to reinvent what it means to be a citizen in an increasingly multicultural, diversified world. A major new work by a renowned theorist, We, the People of Europe? offers a far-reaching alternative to the usual framing of multicultural debates in the United States while also engaging with these debates. (shrink)

Philosophy and the Frontiers of the Political is the title of a biographical-theoretical interview between Emanuela Fornari and Étienne Balibar. The interview falls into three parts. The first part retraces the theoretical and intellectual climate in which Balibar received his education in the early 1960s: in this context the study of classical thinkers such as Spinoza went hand in hand with a radical rethinking of the relations between politics and philosophy, conducted in the context of an attempt to (...) provide a critical reconstruction of Marxism that drew upon the revolutionary perspective of structuralism. Through his friendship and association with his teacher Louis Althusser, Balibar developed a specific conception of philosophy as a "Kampfplatz," or battle-field, where we must struggle to forge a significant relationship between theory and practice, or between philosophy and politics. The second part of the interview focusses on questions of European nationalism and "neo-racism," and the way in which these questions come to explode the classical perspective of Marxism. In this context Balibar discusses his intellectual relations with Jacques Derrida and with Immanuel Wallerstein, and his attitude to the latter's theory of the "system-world." Balibar explains how his own conception of the relation between ideological formations and processes of accumulation can be described as a disjunctive synthesis: as a heterogeneous union of problems that have no determining "final instance." Finally, the third part of the interview is dedicated to a discussion of "cosmopolitics" and the role of Europe in the transition from the modern system of nation states to the new transnational and postnational constellation. Balibar's approach essentially undertakes to reactivate, in the context of global modernity, a Machiavellian conception of "conflictual democracy" which identifies the very core of the democratic principle in the constant interaction between the logic of conflict and the logic of institutions. (shrink)

Answering a question of B. Karsenti on the relation between ontology and politics, E. Balibar reaffirms the irreducible character of politics, including the most philosophical objects. Between the two ontological and transcendental poles of politics, it appears in order to articulate the political and the anthropological. The social relations, functioning by introducing differences in the species, are constitutive of the question of violence that is at the heart of the it-reducibility of politics.

Qu'appelons-nous " modernité "? Cette question est travaillée selon une triple orientation philologique, épistémologique et historique, en prenant pour fils conducteurs l'auto-énonciation du sujet, la constitution du " nous " communautaire, l'aporie de l'institution judiciaire. L'interprétation défendue pose que les processus opposés du devenir-citoyen du sujet et du devenir-sujet du citoyen en viennent à se recouvrir. C'est aussi le moment où le rapport du commun à l'universel devient un écart politique au sein de l'universel lui-même. Le " jugement des autres (...) " doit être rapporté à un " jugement de soi-même " attestant pour chacun sa propre normalité. Dès lors, l'humain ne peut coïncider avec l'institution du politique qu'à la condition de se retrancher de soi-même, dans la forme des " différences anthropologiques ". Le citoyen-sujet ne peut se comprendre indépendamment de son envers, qui le conteste et le défie. (shrink)