000 03809nam a22005175i 4500
001 978-3-031-59880-7
003 DE-He213
005 20251030112923.0
007 cr nn 008mamaa
008 240831s2024 sz | s |||| 0|eng d
020 _a9783031598807
_9978-3-031-59880-7
024 7 _a10.1007/978-3-031-59880-7
_2doi
050 4 _aB790-5802
072 7 _aHPC
_2bicssc
072 7 _aPHI031000
_2bisacsh
072 7 _aQDH
_2thema
100 1 _aF. Lane, Jeremy.
_eauthor.
_4aut
_4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut
_983287
245 1 0 _aRancière's Counter-Sociology
_h[electronic resource] :
_bPolitics, History, Education /
_cby Jeremy F. Lane.
250 _a1st ed. 2024.
264 1 _aCham :
_bSpringer Nature Switzerland :
_bImprint: Palgrave Macmillan,
_c2024.
300 _aIX, 261 p.
_bonline resource.
336 _atext
_btxt
_2rdacontent
337 _acomputer
_bc
_2rdamedia
338 _aonline resource
_bcr
_2rdacarrier
347 _atext file
_bPDF
_2rda
505 0 _a1. Introduction -- 2. Sociology -- 3. Marxism -- 4. History -- 5. Education -- 6. Populism? -- 7. Conclusion.
520 _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.
650 0 _aContinental Philosophy.
_966476
650 0 _aPolitical science
_xPhilosophy.
_957588
650 0 _aCritical theory.
_958083
650 1 4 _aContinental Philosophy.
_966476
650 2 4 _aPolitical Philosophy.
_966964
650 2 4 _aCritical Theory.
_958083
710 2 _aSpringerLink (Online service)
773 0 _tSpringer Nature eBook
776 0 8 _iPrinted edition:
_z9783031598791
776 0 8 _iPrinted edition:
_z9783031598814
776 0 8 _iPrinted edition:
_z9783031598821
856 4 0 _uhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59880-7
912 _aZDB-2-REP
912 _aZDB-2-SXPR
999 _c62907
_d62907