Claude Lefort is one of the leading social and political theorists in France today. This anthology of his most important work published over the last four decades makes his writing widely accessible to an English-speaking audience for the first time. With exceptional skill Lefort combines the analysis of contemporary political events with a sensitivity to the history of political thought. His critical account of the development of bureaucracy and totalitarianism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is (...) a timely contribution to current debates about the nature and shortcomings of these societies. His incisive analyses of Marx's theory of history and concept of ideology provide the backdrop for a highly original account of the role of symbolism in modern societies. While critical of many traditional assumptions and doctrines, Lefort develops a political position based on a reappraisal of the idea of human rights and a reconsideration of what "democracy" means today. The Political Forms of Modern Society is a major contribution to contemporary social and political theory. The volume includes a substantial introduction that describes the context of Lefort's writings and highlights the central themes of his work. (shrink)

Al-Jazeera and other satellite television stations have transformed Arab politics over the last decade.

Writing involves risks—the risk that one will be misunderstood, the risk of being persecuted, the risks of being made a champion for causes in which one does not believe, this risk of inadvertently supporting a reader’s prejudices, to name a few. In trying to give expression to what is true, the writer must “clear a passage within the agitated world of passions,” an undertaking that always to some extent fails: writers are never the master of their own speech. In _Writing: (...) The Political Test, _France’s leading political philosopher, Claude Lefort, illuminates the process by which writers negotiate difficult path to free themselves from the ideological and contextual traps that would doom their attempts to articulate a new vision. Lefort examines writers whose works provide special insights into this problem of risk, both literary artists and political philosophers. Among them are Salman Rushdie, Sade, Tocqueville,m Machiavelli, Leo Strauss, Orwell, Kant, Robespierre, Guizot, and Pierre Clastres. In Tocqueville, for example, Lefort finds that the author’s improvisatory and open-ended expression represents the character of the democratic experience. Orwell’s work on totalitarianism shows up the totalitarian subject’s complicity in this political regime. And Rushdie is remarkable for his solid attack on relativism. With the character and fate of the political forms of modernity, democracy, and totalitarianism a central theme, Lefort concludes with some reflections on the collapse of the Soviet Union. This intriguing and accessible exploration of literature’s political aspects and political philosophy’s literary ones will be welcomed by those who have been stymied by current efforts to bridge these two fields. Taken together, the essays in this volume also stand as an intellectual autobiography of Lefort, making it an excellent introduction to his work for less experience students of political theory or philosophy. (shrink)

Dans une lettre, Merleau-Ponty décrit ainsi l'intention qu'il a développée dans cet ouvrage, écrit pour l'essentiel en 1952 et resté depuis en chantier : «Toute grande prose est aussi une recréation de l'instrument signifiant, désormais manié selon une syntaxe neuve. Le prosaïque se borne à toucher par des signes convenus des significations déjà installées dans la culture. La grande prose est l'art de capter un sens qui n'avait jamais été objectivé jusque-là et de le rendre accessible à tous ceux qui (...) parlent la même langue. Un écrivain se survit lorsqu'il n'est plus capable de fonder ainsi une universalité nouvelle, et de communiquer dans le risque.»Le philosophe nous livre ici ses réflexions sur le langage en général, mais aussi une théorie de l'expression qui l'engage autant vers les thèmes du dialogue et du rapport à autrui, vers la problématique anthropologique de la communication, que vers l'expressivité dans l'art et dans ses premières manifestations chez l'enfant. (shrink)

The question of the oeuvre -- The concept of Machiavellianism -- Reading The prince. First signs -- The logic of force -- The social abyss and attachment to power -- Good and evil, the stable and the unstable, the real and the imaginary -- The present and the possible -- Reading The discourses. From The prince to The discourses -- Rome and the "historical" society -- Class difference -- War, and the difference of times -- Authority and the political subject (...) -- The oeuvre, ideology, and interpretation. (shrink)

The work that Maurice Merleau-Ponty planned to call _The Prose of the World,_ or _Introduction to the Prose of the World,_ was unfinished at the time of his death. The book was to constitute the first section of a two-part work whose aim was to offer, as an extension of his Phenomenology of Perception, a theory of truth. This edition's editor, Claude Lefort, has interpreted and transcribed the surviving typescript, reproducing Merleau-Ponty's own notes and adding documentation and commentary.

Por que o nome do um encanta? Não será porque, mesmo ao preço do mais cruel sofrimento, os homens têm nele a ilusão de guardarem sua própria nomeação e, ao mesmo tempo, permanecerem associados? La Boétie parece ensinar, assim, que os homens perdem a liberdade, mas não o desejo de se tornarem livres.

Tocqueville's judgment of the role of 18 th century men of letters in the preparation of the Revolution is well known. Under their influence, “each public passion disguised itself… in philosophy; political life was violendy forced back into the literature.” Less attention is paid to Tocqueville's reflections on the rise of new theoreticians — so-called “economists or physiocrats.” Tocqueville himself admits that they were not as influential as the philosophies, but he thinks that it is in their writings “that one (...) can best study the true nature” of the Revolution. Further: “One recognizes already in their books mis revolutionary, democratic temperament we know so well. (shrink)

If we take 1968 as a vantage point, certain ideological displacements become evident. When comparing the decade before with the one after the great tumult—which, although not a revolution, still briefly shook French society—one notices a change in the intellectual climate. It is not simply that actors have aged and sometimes changed their costumes, nor that others have come on the scene: the play itself is no longer the same. Since in the following pages I will argue that there has (...) been a renaissance in political thought, it might be useful to begin by listing the most significant ideas that have emerged during the last 50 years and to explain why they have to be interpreted differently. (shrink)

There is a tendency today to substitute the affirmation of the absolute value of peace for an earlier, fully-formulated ideal of universal peace. This formula, if I am not mistaken, bears the mark of a new exigency: how to maintain the philosophical task, that is, give a basis to the idea of peace that does not arise solely from circumstantial considerations—however imperious they may be, since they come from the knowledge of the danger that a new world war would bring (...) to entire populations—without again falling under Utopian illusions that have fed the projects of perpetual peace. However, some of the difficulties with which the present consideration will deal give a glimpse of the definition of peace as an absolute value. I think it would be wise to examine this definition briefly in order to clear a way for myself. (shrink)

In order to raise the question of a potential compatibility between the awareness of Otherness on the one hand, and a form of universality on the other, some hypotheses should first be formulated and defined. 1) How does moral relativism equate to the rejection of universal discourses? 2) Consequently, how can this rejection be understood as a result of Modernity? 3) How can Modernity be understood as recognition of Otherness? The current paper will attempt to outline some answers to these (...) questions based on a comparative reading between Kelsen and Lefort. Firstly, in order to explicate the main lines of the Kelsenian relativistic axiology it seems crucial to consider his second edition of the Pure Theory of Law, since one can find within it the grounds for a limitation of human cognition. His Farewell Lecture, “What is justice?”, is also relevant to this theme since in it he claims that the human world is a world of relative and conflicting values. The combination of these two ideas leads to the rejection of Universalist discourses – identified with the ones of Natural Law theories – in the name of science. Secondly, three of Lefort’s articles seem to be relevant. The first, “The Image of the Body and Totalitarianism”, enables us to understand his symbolic political philosophy, and more importantly, to introduce his definition of Modernity. “Dissolution of Marks and Democratic Challenge” focuses more on the concept of moral relativism, whilst interpreting it as a consistent reaction to modern indeterminacy. Finally, “Politics and Human Rights” offers a restricted concept of Human Rights, reminiscent of Hannah Arendt’s views, namely that human rights mean the rights to have rights. (shrink)

Claude Lefort's rethinking of ‘the political’ has been highly fruitful for political theory, yet its politics remain unclear. It has inspired transformative, radical-democratic projects, but has also served as a basis for more liberal conceptions. This article explores the sources and implications of this ambiguity by setting Lefort's work against the backdrop of the anti-totalitarian moment in French political thought and the trajectories of two of his students, Miguel Abensour and Marcel Gauchet. It emerges that although (...) class='Hi'>Lefort's democratic theory cannot be reduced to a defensive liberalism, neither is it as expansive as some might hope. (shrink)

A growing interest in Claude Lefort is bringing to light his radical insights on modern democracy, totalitarianism, and human rights. While the notion perhaps most closely associated with Lefort is that of ‘the empty place of power,’ this article offers a reading of Lefort from a unique angle: his concept of the myth of the One. I demonstrate that to Lefort, the phantasmagorical appeal of the One – the desire for harmony, unity and stability – (...) is the force that continually endangers the democratic project, while the distinctive and unavoidable characteristic of democratic society is its ‘inability’ to name itself as One – a coherent and established social self. Thus, the main challenge of society is its symbolic self-institution. The discussion illuminates Lefort’s singular stance in the study of totalitarianism (Arendt), his rejection of the imaginary (next to Castoriadis), his debt to the structuralism scheme (Lévi-Strauss), as well as his conversation with anarchist voices (La Boétie, Clastres) and with psychoanalysis (Lacan). Ultimately, what Lefort coins ‘symbolic division’ condenses the pledge of democracy to embrace a neurotic self, a bodiless body, a nameless identity in an empty space of power. As such, Lefort’s anti-myth of the One promises to be a vexing objective. (shrink)

Este artículo propone una interpretación de la lectura que Claude Lefort realiza de la obra de Merleau-Ponty, centrándose en su comprensión de los desplazamientos del autor tanto en sus estudios sobre la percepción como en sus escritos políticos. Se explora, primero, la reflexión de Lefort sobre el pasaje de la fenomenología de la percepción al esbozo de una nueva ontología en el itinerario filosófico de Merleau-Ponty, para luego examinar su lectura crítica de la variación de la posición (...) del autor respecto al marxismo. Finalmente, se indaga cómo comprende Lefort la conexión entre ambas trayectorias, buscando esclarecer el sentido de la interrogación filosófica en su interpretación de estos desplazamientos. (shrink)

Prispevek obravnava nekatere pojme politične filozofije Clauda Leforta. Pokazati želi, da za rekonstrukcijo politične filozofije, ki se je loteva Lefort, ni toliko konstitutiven njen prelom z znanstvenim diskurzom, ampak vse prej pojem simbolnega, ime za družbeno, ki je zavezano razliki in delitvi.

RESUMO: Tendo como eixo organizador o debate acerca da noção de direitos do homem e do cidadão e a eficácia destes no que se refere à luta política por novos direitos, o artigo investiga o caráter inovador da democracia moderna. Em sua abordagem do tema, C. Lefort combate três teses: a de que a defesa de direitos humanos universais representaria um perigo à política vigorosa, instituída em Estados benevolentes; a de que esses direitos seriam a expressão mais acabada da (...) ideologia do individualismo burguês e corresponderiam a formalidades vazias, cujo sentido seria apenas o de escamotear a violência social e sacralizar privilégios; e, por fim, a tese segundo a qual as instituições democráticas visariam somente a reproduzir as relações de propriedade e força vigentes no capitalismo e não permitiriam que as contradições sociais fossem expressas ou mesmo resolvidas no campo da política. Trata-se de retomar a filosofia política proposta por C. Lefort, a qual enfatiza o caráter inédito da democracia moderna, para então explicitar, contrariando tais críticas, a perspectiva histórica de luta por direitos aberta pela invenção democrática. ABSTRACT: Having as the central theme the debate about the notion of human and citizen rights and the effectiveness of these in relation to the political struggle for new rights, this article investigates the innovative character of modern democracy. In his approach to the subject, C. Lefort argues three theses: the idea that the defense of universal human rights represents a danger to vigorous politics in benevolent States; the thesis which says that these rights would be the most complete expression of the ideology of bourgeois individualism and correspond to empty formalities whose meaning would be simply to hide social violence and enshrine privileges; and, finally, the argument that democratic institutions would aim to only reproduce the property relations and forces existing in capitalism and not allow the expression of social contradictions or their resolution in the field of politics. The article reviews the political philosophy proposed by Lefort, which emphasizes the unprecedented nature of representative democracy, and then explains the historical perspective of struggle for rights opened by the democratic invention. (shrink)

This article recovers Claude Lefort’s engagement with the issue of populism, which was inspired by the emergence of Jean-Marie Le Pen as a major figure in French politics during the late 1980s. I show how Lefort developed both an analysis of populism as a pathology of modern politics and a new vision of representative democracy as the alternative to populism. In doing so, Lefort drew upon his more familiar theory of democracy and totalitarianism, his study of (...) the history of French political thought, and his partnership with Pierre Ronsanvallon, who was also developing an analysis of populism in response to Le Pen. Lefort’s approach to populism has outlived the context in which he first expressed it. Over the last decade, a number of prominent political theorists have drawn on Lefortian themes to formulate their own accounts of populism and democracy. In many cases, their arguments are quite similar to those that Lefort was expressing in the late 1980s and 1990s. A particular version of Lefortianism, which was foreshadowed in the writings of Lefort himself, has become one of the defining democratic theories of our political moment. (shrink)