par Zamora Vargas, Daniel 
Référence Foucault, Neoliberalism, and Beyond, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc., page (53-72)
Publication Publié, 2019-01
Référence Foucault, Neoliberalism, and Beyond, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc., page (53-72)
Publication Publié, 2019-01
Partie d'ouvrage collectif
| Résumé : | We live perhaps at the end of politics. Because, if it is true that politics is a field which has been opened by the existence of the revolution, and if the question of the revolution cannot arise in these terms anymore, then politics risk to disappear. [1]“Non au sexe roi” (Foucault interview with Bernard-Henri Lévy), Le nouvel observateur, no. 644 (March 1977): 92–130. In his 1977 movie, A Grin Without a Cat, the famous French filmmaker Chris Marker gives his own account of the struggles that took place between 1967 and 1977 and, more generally, of the hopes of an entire generation in the aftermath of May 1968. Marker’s movie was an attempt to understand the birth of a French “new left” and how it reshaped conceptions of politics and contestation. Rather than reproducing the classic oppositions of postwar politics, Marker suggested that May 1968 transformed the terms through which one could think about politics. “A new kind of problematic emerged, ” he wrote, delivering “staggering blows in every field of orthodoxy, right or left.” As the movie puts it: “There was the police blockade—this was an order—and there were unions’ security services—that was another order. In between there was a space to be taken. This meant a new kind of struggle.” The first order obviously represented the Gaullist power and its repressive state and culture. But another kind of order was also increasingly seen as an obstacle to real social transformation: the postwar left and its state-centered understanding of politics and social transformation. From this perspective, for many intellectuals after 1968, the communist opposition, the unions, and later, the union of the left (the coalition of the French Communist Party, the Radical Party, and the Socialist party under the “common program”) was no less problematic than the Gaullist power. To a certain extent, both were seen as functioning within the same logic and replacing certain masters with others (what do we win by replacing “the employers’ arbitrary will with a bureaucratic arbitrary will?” asked the famous Marxist and ecological thinker André Gorz). This centrality of the state in political parties of the left and right was what Pierre Rosanvallon and Patrick Viveret referred to as the dominant “political culture.” Such a culture—either “from the left or the right […] and for which the central element is the state, considered at the same time as the object of the struggle and the space of social transformation”—had become, since the war, the underlying paradigm for all political discussion. For Rosanvallon and Viveret, May 1968 marked the birth of a “new political culture” that sought to transform not only the left, but also a general understanding of what politics could be about.. |
