We observe many signs of the fact that the category « racism » not only has profoundly changed its meaning, but could also have reached the limits of its historical validity, both as an instrument of theoretical analysis, and as an instrument of progressive politics. The failed World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related Intolerance in Durban (2002) was a striking indication in this respect. As a consequence, we can no longer proceed in our struggle against extreme discriminations (...) and violence without critically revisiting the origins and meaning of our notion of « racism ». The term was coined in the 30’s in its current use, but it was not before the 1950 and 1951 Declarations on race and racism, issued under the aegis of UNESCO and the UN, that it named a scientific paradigm. The article examines its logical function (to give a unitary description of the phenomena of anti-Semitism, colonialist subjection, and colour segregation), its ethical prerequisites (the « humanist » principle of the indivisibility of the Human Species), its epistemological consequences (a Copernican Revolution in the field of anthropology, and finally the alternative conceptualizations that – right from the beginning – confronted its research program with a different problematic of the community, notably in Antelme, Primo Levi, Fanon and Arendt. (shrink)

In this article, I reconstruct Étienne Balibar’s work against the background of the debate on modern universal citizenship. I argue that universal citizenship is neither fundamentally emancipatory nor fundamentally oppressive but is rather both. In order to defend this position, I build on Balibar’s concept of the “citizen subject.” First, I parse this concept, showing how it allows us to think about the contradictions of modern universal citizenship. In the second section, I elucidate its temporal logic and show (...) how it undermines the telos of modern universal citizenship. In sections three to five, I show how citizenship’s universalism clarifies both its oppressive and its emancipatory thrust. The dialectic of universal citizenship, I argue, unfolds as a conflict between and within political universals. In the conclusion, I will tie up these different strands and end with some reflections on the conditions of possibility of this dialectic. (shrink)

Philosophy & Social Criticism, Volume 48, Issue 6, Page 904-933, July 2022. In this article, I reconstruct Étienne Balibar’s work against the background of the debate on modern universal citizenship. I argue that universal citizenship is neither fundamentally emancipatory nor fundamentally oppressive but is rather both. In order to defend this position, I build on Balibar’s concept of the “citizen subject.” First, I parse this concept, showing how it allows us to think about the contradictions of modern universal (...) citizenship. In the second section, I elucidate its temporal logic and show how it undermines the telos of modern universal citizenship. In sections three to five, I show how citizenship’s universalism clarifies both its oppressive and its emancipatory thrust. The dialectic of universal citizenship, I argue, unfolds as a conflict between and within political universals. In the conclusion, I will tie up these different strands and end with some reflections on the conditions of possibility of this dialectic. (shrink)

Arendt famously pointed out that only citizenship actually confers rights in the modern world. To be a citizen is to be one who has the ‘right to have rights’. Arendt’s analysis emerges out of her recognition that there is a contradiction between this way of conferring rights as tied to the nation-state system and the more philosophical and ethical conceptions of the ‘rights of man’ and notions of ‘human rights’ like those championed by thinkers such as Immanuel Kant who understands (...) rights belonging universally to all humans as a result of facts having to do with what it means to be human. Étienne Balibar, in his recent work, adds to this by pointing out that there is a contradictory movement between this universalizing tendency in philosophical thought and the production of the citizen-subject out of the exclusionary acts of law and force. In this article, I put Balibar’s work in dialogue with the contemporary moment where we are witnessing the re-emergence of a nativist right populism. I use Balibar to help distinguish between three modes of political existence that we find today. Two of these three are more or less well understood. They are the non-citizen, who has no – or almost no – rights in a given nation-state and the citizen who enjoys the full benefit of the rights a given nation-state has to give. The third category is what I term the ‘nominal citizen’. This last category is somewhere in between full citizenship and non-citizenship. Individuals in this last category have rights in name but are largely unable to exercise them. Understanding this last category can, among other things, help us at least partially make sense of the return of right populism and also help us see the ways in which the modern category of citizenship, with its contradictions as elaborated by Balibar, can provide a means for resistance. (shrink)

This essay examines Étienne Balibar's readings of Jacques Derrida and deconstruction. The text is framed as a review of two books by Balibar: 'Equaliberty' and 'Violence and Civility'. After describing the context of those readings, I propose a broader reflection on the ambiguous relationship between 'post-Marxism' and 'deconstruction', focusing on concepts such as 'violence', 'cruelty', 'sovereignty' and 'property'. I also raise methodological questions related to the 'use' of deconstructive notions in political theory debates.

Llamo marxismo después del marxismo en Balibar a la reconstrucción que este autor realiza de algunos conceptos clave del marxismo: clase obrera/lucha de clases, ideología/lucha ideológica, filosofía/materialismo y comunismo/comunistas. En el artículo, intento delinear las características principales del marxismo después del marxismo de Balibar recorriendo el examen crítico que realiza de tales conceptos. De la lectura de sus textos resultan otras nociones. Así la multitud compleja surge como la clase obrera después de la clase obrera. La rebelión ideológica (...) de masas figura como la lucha ideológica después de la ideología. El realismo de la teoría desarrolla la filosofía materialista después de la filosofía. Y los comunistas de la ciudadanía representan al comunismo después del comunismo. (shrink)

Review of Etienne Balibar's On Universals with an eye towards Balibar's Hegelianism and work on translation.

En este artículo busco repensar el concepto de transformación política con la ayuda de algunas sugerencias de la obra del filósofo Étienne Balibar. De acuerdo con esto, en primer lugar, señalo que la práctica política actualiza cierto carácter irreductible de la violencia en el interior de la coexistencia humana. En segunda instancia, argumento que dicha actualización tiene un desenvolvimiento ético que permite que las relaciones sociales estén atravesadas por la inminencia del conflicto político. Finalmente, muestro que la práctica política (...) teje unos criterios sensibles que conjuran la aparición de la extrema violencia en el mundo contemporáneo. (shrink)

Este artículo analiza los riesgos a los que está expuesta la democracia en nuestras sociedades, una vez que se constata el aumento de las actitudes antiinmigración y de los delitos de odio cometidos contra las personas migrantes. Para ello se establecerá un diálogo entre los diagnósticos de las ciencias sociales y las aportaciones de Étienne Balibar que nos permitirá mostrar que, más que en una situación de crisis coyuntural, nos encontramos ante un riesgo de retroceso democrático cuya fuente está (...) en los rasgos estructurales de la política democrática moderna y sus conflictos, siempre violentos. Por último, se mostrará que la propuesta democrática de Balibar no pretende suprimir la violencia, sino integrarla en formas políticas que tengan como horizonte la emancipación y la transformación. (shrink)

Balibar, Étienne (2021)Spinoza político: Lo transindividualTraducción de Alfonso DíezBarcelona: Gedisa, 304 p.ISBN 978-84-18525-15-5.

This article is a critique of Étienne Balibar's philosophical orientation towards Europe, construed as both an ideal and an institutional reality, in light of recent European crises. I argue that Balibar's commitment to Europe follows from his longstanding political-philosophical preference for a compromise position between political utopianism and political realism, but that this compromise is ultimately incoherent, combining the ungroundedness of utopianism with the undue self-limitation of realism.

Dentro del spinozismo francés, la lectura que ofrece Étienne Balibar se destaca por su matiz fuertemente político y su contribución a una filosofía de la política crítica del pensamiento filosófico político. Este artículo aborda los textos que Balibar destina a la obra de Baruch Spinoza con el objetivo de vislumbrar el modo en que el filósofo neerlandés abona a una teoría de la política sobre las bases de una ontología transindividual, de la democratización, del conatus emancipador, de la (...) ambivalencia propia de las masas y las formas de relación con el Estado. (shrink)

Explores the core of Balibars work since 1980This collection explores Balibars rethinking of the connections between subjection and subjectivity by tracing the genealogies of these concepts in their discursive history. The 12 essays provide an overview of Balibars work after his collaboration with Althusser. They explain and expand his framework; in particular, by restoring Arabic and Islamic thought to the conversation on the citizen subject. The collection includes two previously untranslated essays by Balibar himself on Carl Schmitt and Thomas (...) Hobbes. Key FeaturesThe first English-language edited collection to focus on BalibarPresents and explains Balibars key contributions to political theory and the history of political philosophyIncludes two essays by Balibar himself on Carl Schmitt and Thomas Hobbes: 'Schmitts Hobbes, Hobbess Schmitt' and 'The Mortal God and his Faithful Subjects: Hobbes, Schmitt and the Antinomies of Secularism'Contributors include Atienne Balibar, Nancy Armstrong, Giorgos Fourtounis, Mohamed Moulfi. (shrink)

In this response, while agreeing with Balibar’s substantive positive position, I take issue with the way he situates it. Specifically, he casts it as a via negativa in relation to all previously existing thought. I suggest that it would be more accurate to say he is positioning the notion of the transindividual as a via media between two alleged extremes, individualism and organicism. I argue that the idea that there is an opposite and equal error to individualism is mistaken, (...) and that in actuality Balibar’s concept of the transindividual is not a radical departure from a long history of anti-individualism. (shrink)

This article takes up Balibar’s treatment of fetishism as central for understanding Marx as thinker of transindividuality and to develop a materialist account of the appearance of isolated individuality. The article shows how Balibar elaborates a critique of a cryptonormativity in those accounts of transindividuality that diagnose problems of capitalism as a loss of ‘proper’ forms of individuation. I argue that this critique rests in Balibar’s rereading of commodity fetishism that foregrounds the reality of imaginative effects, which (...) is irreducible to an only psychic reality. Moreover, I explain how Balibar’s proposition of a secondary ‘fetishism of legal and moral personhood’ challenges mainstream left theoretical critiques of the subject of rights as illusory abstraction. (shrink)

In this review, I discuss Balibar’s ‘proposition of equaliberty’ with regard to its theoretical status and contribution, its relationship to other contemporary theories of radical democracy as well as to the problematic of bourgeois versus communist emancipation in Marx. The primary interest of this essay is to develop a detailed understanding of Balibar’s analytical schema, which draws a complex picture of our contemporary ‘human condition’, and to place it within his own theoretical development since his contribution toReading Capitalin (...) the 60s. On that basis, it will be possible to assess his contribution to thinking politics with and after Marx and place it more concretely within the generalised radical-democratic turn in post-Marxist theory. (shrink)

At the beginning of his essay ‘Philosophies of the Transindividual: Spinoza, Marx, Freud’, Balibar [2018] hints at some reasons why he will not be dealing with Simondon, despite agreeing with the latter’s program of going beyond ‘the metaphysics of the subject and of substance’ and towards an ‘ontology of relations’. In what follows I would like to outline Simondon’s concept of transindividuality and spell out more clearly why Balibar cannot follow Simondon’s trajectory. At the same time, I suggest (...) a number of socio-political approaches that a specifically Simondonian concept of transindividuality opens up. (shrink)

La démocratie souffre d'un curieux paradoxe : contrairement à l'aristocratie ou à la monarchie dont les contours institutionnels et symboliques peuvent être tracés avec clarté, la démocratie ne se fige jamais dans une quelconque forme et se maintient plutôt suspendue à sa réinvention permanente. Balibar n'est pas le premier à poser la question du manque d'ambition de la démocratie, mais le seul à refuser de dissocier la question de l'extension démocratique de celle de son intensité. Pages de début Introduction. (...) Le refus de la démocratie finie Race et nation, les angles morts du marxisme Les multiples dimensions du concept de politique Une anthropologie de la citoyenneté Conclusion. La contradiction infinieBibliographie des ouvrages principaux de Balibar Pages de fin. (shrink)

In this short response to Balibar’s article, I discuss what I consider to be some of the most radical implications of Balibar’s notion of transindividualism. Specifically, I argue that in his reading of Marx, Spinoza and Freud, Balibar complicates not only the categories of the individual and the mass but also even the way that these two concepts are connected, along with a more general subversion of the most fundamental building blocks of capitalism. Balibar shows that (...) communism is already present and active within the heart of alienation, materiality and dialectical relationality and in this way can neither be rooted out nor denied its aleatory presence and possibility. (shrink)

This is the Introduction to Etienne Balibar's book Identity and Difference: John Locke and the Invention of Consciousness. It begins with a brief reprise of Balibar’s main argument concerning Locke’s role in the ‘invention of consciousness’ and draws out the most important aspects of Balibar’s multi-faceted interpretation of Locke on personal identity. After a condensed overview of the main trends in the mainstream interpretation and criticism of Locke’s argument, focusing in particular on the two major objections that (...) continue to be leveled against Locke’s account, it then relocates Locke’s argument and Balibar’s interpretation of it within the context of recent work on the philosophical history of the concept of the subject. This new context for the interpretation of Locke allows us both to understand the dogged persistence of the main criticisms of Locke – from the earliest to some of his most recent ‘analytical’ critics – in a new way and to form of a connection between this part of the Essay Concerning Human Understanding and Locke’s political philosophy. (shrink)

In this interview, Balibar provides a number of reflections on the articulation of different Marxist traditions, including Italian Marxism and the Neue Marx Lektüre, to his own Althusserian position. Similarly, he comments on his relationship to the readings of French theory upon Marx’s oeuvre. He further develops an analysis of the contemporary challenges posed by capitalism – and its different crises – to critical theory, social sciences and social movements. Then, he argues that financialization and the Anthropocene are central (...) issues. He concludes with thoughts on internationalism and citizenship, which he believes to be indispensable political elements in order to conceptualize resistance in this crisis context. (shrink)

Most readers of Louis Althusser first enter his work through his writings on ideology. In an important new essay Étienne Balibar, friend and colleague of Althusser, offers an original reading of Althusser’s idea of ideology, drawing on both recently published posthumous writing and Althusser's work on the Piccolo Teatro di Milano. Balibar’s essay uncovers the intricate workings of interpellation through Althusser’s essays on the theater. If debates on dialectical materialism belong to a distant history, Balibar suggests, the (...) question of ideology remains crucial for thinking the present. The issue includes commentaries on Balibar’s essay from five influential scholars who engage critically with Althusser’s philosophy: Judith Butler, Banu Bargu, Adi Ophir, Warren Montag, and Bruce Robbins. This issue reanimates Althusser’s concept of ideology as an analytic tool for contemporary cultural and political critique. (shrink)

Most readers of Louis Althusser first enter his work through his writings on ideology. In an important new essay Étienne Balibar, friend and colleague of Althusser, offers an original reading of Althusser’s idea of ideology, drawing on both recently published posthumous writing and Althusser's work on the Piccolo Teatro di Milano. Balibar’s essay uncovers the intricate workings of interpellation through Althusser’s essays on the theater. If debates on dialectical materialism belong to a distant history, Balibar suggests, the (...) question of ideology remains crucial for thinking the present. The issue includes commentaries on Balibar’s essay from five influential scholars who engage critically with Althusser’s philosophy: Judith Butler, Banu Bargu, Adi Ophir, Warren Montag, and Bruce Robbins. This issue reanimates Althusser’s concept of ideology as an analytic tool for contemporary cultural and political critique. (shrink)

The article considers some explicit or implicit and yet fundamental references to Althusser in Balibar’s text about transindividuality. Of particular significance is the attempt to think of an articulation of ideology and the unconscious which brings into play the three authors Balibar evokes—Spinoza, Marx, and Freud—so as to reactivate them beyond Simondon’s own theory of transindividuality.

The issue of violence and strategies for its attenuation present perennial conundrums for those seeking to reduce the quantity of avoidable suffering in the world. Despite the best efforts of committed practitioners, activists, and scholars, violence its various forms remain rife at all levels of social life. Paradoxically and tragically, at times, the proliferation of violence accompanies those very efforts aimed at its eradication or resolution. Education – understood in its narrower sense as a set of formal institutions as well (...) in its broader sense as a ubiquitous sociocultural process – is perhaps exemplary of this paradox, being cast variously as a cause or instrument of violence on the one hand, and as a panacea to violence on the other. In this essay review of Etienne Balibar's Violence and Civility: On the limits of political philosophy (2016), I draw on the author's imaginative attempt to theorise the relationship between different forms of violence and link this to existing scholarship on violence more broadly, and studies that consider the role of education within economies of violence more specifically. (shrink)

This response focuses on Balibar’s method of thinking transindividuality through multiple figures, in their similarities as well as their productive differences. His essay ‘Philosophies of the Transindividual: Spinoza, Marx, Freud’ combines the three titular figures in order to better think the multifaceted idea of ‘classical’ transindividuality. Balibar’s method combines the three but nonetheless maintains their dissimilarities as real differences. This response attempts to test or apply that method in two ways. The first application links Balibar’s analysis of (...) Freud’s hypnotic leader with a theme Balibar does not here discuss: wonder’s connection to superstition in Spinoza. At the level of their effects, superstitious wonder and hypnosis are nearly identical transindividual processes which lead to affective mass formation. However, their causes are quite distinct. This response details the similar effects and different causes, then asks the question: does their difference render them irreconcilable or complementary? Given the prominent role Spinoza plays in Balibar’s work, and the strong overall equivalence of wonder and hypnosis, this first application of Balibar’s method of multiple combination likely presents a complementarity rather than a conflict. This response’s second application, attempting to integrate another figure into the transindividual multiple, presents greater difficulties: what role, if any, could Foucault play in Balibar’s transindividuality? With Foucault, the tensions or differences perhaps amount to fundamental and thoroughgoing incompatibilities. However, combining Foucault with ‘classical’ transindividuality potentially extends and deepens each. This response concludes with examples of these problematic tensions as well as possibly fruitful combinations. (shrink)

Resumen: En el presente trabajo intentaremos analizar cierta serie o tradi-ción de reflexiones sobre el conocimiento científico que lo caracteri-zan por su discontinuidad en relación al conocimiento ordinario osentido común. El origen de esta serie puede localizarse en la obrade Gaston Bachelard y su peculiar estudio de los actos epistemológicoscon los que se rompe con el pasado en una disciplina científica. Estosactos contrastan con lo que este autor califica como el “mitocontinuista” del empirismo. Esta posición será apropiada porAlthusser y desarrollada (...) por sus discípulos Balibar y Pêcheux. Inten-taremos mostrar que el factor común de la discontinuidad no consti-tuye una posición monolítica, sino que cabe reconocer, en las posi-ciones que consideramos, maneras diversas de entender la naturale-za de la misma. En este sentido, la revisión de las posiciones queAlthusser efectuó en su “autocrítica” constituye un punto de obser-vación privilegiado del abanico de alternativas que algunos de susdiscípulos desarrollarían sobre bases diversas. -/- Abstract In the present paper we analyze a tradition of reflections onscientific knowledge which distinguish it because of its“discontinuity” with common sense or ordinary knowledge. The beginning of this tradition can be traced back to Gaston Bachelardand his peculiar study of the epistemological acts which allows ascientific field to break with its past. The study of these acts helps toovercome what Bachelard considers is the empiricist myth ofcontinuity of knowledge. Bachelard’s views were retaken by Althusser and further developed by his students Balibar and Pêcheux.We will try to show the common commitment with discontinuity isnot an homogeneous view. Consequently we will try to showdifferences in the understanding of discontinuity. The revision of hisown positions made by Althusser in his “Self-criticism” is a specialstandpoint in order to consider the alternatives that his disciplesdeveloped on different grounds. (shrink)

The work exposed hereafter intends to examine the ambiguous character of identities according to the analyses of the French philosopher Étienne Balibar. The text will focus on his works from the late eighties, where there is a distancing from the circle formed around Althusser and an approach to the philosophies of difference of Foucault, Deleuze and Derrida. We will seek to explain how the author, through the prism of Marxist class conflicts, will denounce the echelonment process of individuals in (...) a hierarchical fashion within the capitalist world-economy based on multiple identity processes which respect the logic of maintaining the existing international social structure. The background of such analyses is the rise of xenophobic and neo-fascists movements which have not ceased to increase in today's Europe as a reaction to a profound crisis of the nation-state, its institutions and the fragmentation of ideally established communities. (shrink)

If the instance of human rights cannot ensure the protection of the rightless, as Arendt famously claimed, how can the rightless struggle for freedom and equality? In this essay, I attempt to answer this question by reconsidering Arendt’s influential critique of human rights in light of the two polar responses it evoked from contemporary French philosophers Jacques Rancière and Étienne Balibar. Rancière, who objects to Arendt’s delimiting of the political, finds her argument excluding and dangerous. Balibar, on the (...) other hand, believes that it conveys an immense potential for politics to come, as it points to the dialectical political truth of equaliberty. In the following, I show the problematics of Rancière’s ingenious formulation of rights, and the answer Balibar’s original interpretation of Arendt’s thought might suggest in response. I contend that working through Rancière’s critique of Arendt’s argument and Balibar’s affirmation of it not only highlights the merits of her critical account but also points to the fundamental relation between Arendt’s work on rights and her later discussions of the human condition of non-sovereignty and the power of promises. I believe that such a reading can contribute to our interpretation of Arendt, and pave new routes of action for non-citizens (such as refugees, stateless persons and subjects of military occupation), who cannot employ the authorities’ strength for their protection. (shrink)

Con el objetivo de contextualizar los aportes intelectuales más contemporáneos de Étienne Balibar, el presente artículo estudia la filosofía de la historia presente en su obra de madurez, es decir, la manera en la que el filósofo interpreta el cambio histórico en el campo político. En primer lugar, se aborda la significación relativamente benjaminiana que adquiere el «momento insurreccional» constitutivo del principio de la igualibertad, estableciendo los puntos de contacto y las diferencias entre la idea de Balibar y (...) la de Benjamin. En un segundo momento, se rastrean los orígenes de dicha concepción del tiempo, que remiten a los trabajos tempranos elaborados junto a Althusser. Por último, y retomando algunos argumentos de la primera parte, se explica el sentido dialéctico del par ciudadanía/democracia y su relevancia en la actualidad. (shrink)

En este trabajo se estudia la teoría del cambio revolucionario en dos autores inspirados por corrientes diferentes del marxismo. En el caso de Étienne Balibar se analiza su teoría de la violencia y la civilidad, mientras que en el de Erik Olin Wright se estudia su análisis de la depresión de transición. El artículo muestra cómo nuestros dos pensadores presentan una teoría convergente de abandono del modelo leninista de cambio social.