Is it only yesterday's humanism, whether religious or secular in origin, that is dying - and is it really dying? - or is it more profoundly the very paradigm of humanity? At least it is worth asking the question. Do we not hear on every side today that everything is ‘constructed’ and ‘formated’? No inherited moral standard now seems acceptable, nor any reference to any sort of human nature or naturality. The only idea that henceforth finds acceptance is that of (...) the infinite plasticity of the human, leaving individuals free to shape themselves as they wish beyond any commonly received standard, since only defiance of the norm seems to be the source and proof of freedom. (shrink)

Is it only yesterday's humanism, whether religious or secular in origin, that is dying - and is it really dying? - or is it more profoundly the very paradigm of humanity? At least it is worth asking the question. Do we not hear on every side today that everything is ‘constructed’ and ‘formated’? No inherited moral standard now seems acceptable, nor any reference to any sort of human nature or naturality. The only idea that henceforth finds acceptance is that of (...) the infinite plasticity of the human, leaving individuals free to shape themselves as they wish beyond any commonly received standard, since only defiance of the norm seems to be the source and proof of freedom. (shrink)

Is it only yesterday's humanism, whether religious or secular in origin, that is dying - and is it really dying? - or is it more profoundly the very paradigm of humanity? At least it is worth asking the question. Do we not hear on every side today that everything is ‘constructed’ and ‘formated’? No inherited moral standard now seems acceptable, nor any reference to any sort of human nature or naturality. The only idea that henceforth finds acceptance is that of (...) the infinite plasticity of the human, leaving individuals free to shape themselves as they wish beyond any commonly received standard, since only defiance of the norm seems to be the source and proof of freedom. (shrink)

Et si la domination n'etait pas la ou on la croit? Et si la facon dont nous nous representons aujourd'hui l'identite, l'humain, les genres, la nature, mais aussi la democratie, le rapport a l'etranger, le contenu meme du savoir, la finalite du droit, si tout cela ne relevait pas en realite d'un savoir objectif mais d'une - ideologie - qui projette de changer l'ordre social et politique mais surtout l'humain? C'est le propre de toute epoque que de trouver dans un (...) ordre d'idees le principe du pouvoir et de la coherence, sauf que cette ideologie se presente comme l'anti-pouvoir, le facteur d'une liberte jamais imaginee. Ce court ouvrage s'efforce d'en construire le modele et de prendre la mesure de l'ampleur de l'agenda du post-modernisme, cette pensee nee en France dans les annees 1970, redecouverte aux etats-Unis et devenue, depuis, la - langue commune - de toutes les elites du monde democratique, a travers ses multiples visages: multiculturalisme, post colonialisme, queer theory, altermondialisme, mondialisme, etc. Dans la perspective de la sociologie de la connaissance, Shmuel Trigano tente d'identifier les centres de pouvoir et l'ordre nouveau qu'installe cette ideologie pour comprendre le contexte de son developpement, notamment la decomposition de l'etat-nation europeen des suites de l'unification europeenne, grosse, selon lui d'une forme de pouvoir de type imperial. Un livre de savoir mais aussi un livre engage qui alerte face a la derniere nee des utopies politiques.". (shrink)