03609nam a22004695i 4500001001800000003000900018005001700027007001500044008004100059020003700100024003500137050001400172072001600186072002300202072001500225100008500240245011200325250001800437264007900455300003300534336002600567337002600593338003600619347002400655505011400679520188500793650003502678650004202713650002802755650003502783650003302818650002802851710003402879773002602913776003602939776003602975776003603011856004603047912001403093912001503107999001703122978-3-031-59880-7DE-He21320251030112923.0cr nn 008mamaa240831s2024    sz |    s    |||| 0|eng d  a97830315988079978-3-031-59880-77 a10.1007/978-3-031-59880-72doi 4aB790-5802 7aHPC2bicssc 7aPHI0310002bisacsh 7aQDH2thema1 aF. Lane, Jeremy.eauthor.4aut4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut98328710aRancière's Counter-Sociologyh[electronic resource] :bPolitics, History, Education /cby Jeremy F. Lane.  a1st ed. 2024. 1aCham :bSpringer Nature Switzerland :bImprint: Palgrave Macmillan,c2024.  aIX, 261 p.bonline resource.  atextbtxt2rdacontent  acomputerbc2rdamedia  aonline resourcebcr2rdacarrier  atext filebPDF2rda0 a1. Introduction -- 2. Sociology -- 3. Marxism -- 4. History -- 5. Education -- 6. Populism? -- 7. Conclusion.  aJacques Rancière is almost unique amongst contemporary thinkers in his consistent hostility to sociologically informed modes of interpretation. This hostility is not limited to his detailed critiques of Pierre Bourdieu—it characterises his thinking about politics, emancipation, democracy, history, aesthetics, and social class; it extends into a rejection of Marxist or marxisant modes of analysis. For Rancière’s harshest critics, this hostility to sociology reflects an interpretative negligence on his part, an intellectual, political, or moral flaw. Even his more favorable commentators typically upbraid him for failing to specify the historical conditions of possibility of democratic emancipation. This book argues that such reactions are fundamentally mistaken and fail to grasp what is at stake in Rancière’s rejection of sociological modes of enquiry. This rejection is attributable neither to his negligence nor to some moral flaw, and nor is it merely incidental to his thought. On the contrary, Rancière understands sociology to constitute a problematic, a set of assumptions and interpretative procedures whose blind spots must be identified and thought through in order that the possibility of intellectual and political emancipation, of democracy, and of history can be thought at all. Rancière’s thought thus represents a counter-sociology and his rejection of the sociological problematic serves as the positive condition of possibility of his theory of democracy, equality, and emancipation. This new study both clarifies the nature of Rancière’s critique of the sociological problematic and shows what his counter-sociology allows him to think in the domains of politics, history, and education. Jeremy F. Lane is Professor of French & Critical Theory in the Department of Modern Languages & Cultures at the University of Nottingham, UK. 0aContinental Philosophy.966476 0aPolitical sciencexPhilosophy.957588 0aCritical theory.95808314aContinental Philosophy.96647624aPolitical Philosophy.96696424aCritical Theory.9580832 aSpringerLink (Online service)0 tSpringer Nature eBook08iPrinted edition:z978303159879108iPrinted edition:z978303159881408iPrinted edition:z978303159882140uhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59880-7  aZDB-2-REP  aZDB-2-SXPR  c62907d62907