French Political Thought

En este artículo propongo interrogar la manera en la que Claude Lefort interpreta a Maquiavelo. En primer lugar, examinaré el estatuto que adquiere, para Lefort, el conflicto y la división social en la obra del Maquiavelo. En segundo lugar, desarrollaré la manera en la que este descubrimiento conduce a Maquiavelo, tal como es leído por Lefort, a elaborar una distinción entre diversas formas de organización política que rompe con la clasificación clásica de las formas de gobierno

En estos tres artículos, que aparecen por primera vez en castellano, bosqueja el autor, junto a una teoría general de la representación política, una relectura del problema permanente de la clasificación de los regímenes. Destaca en ellos particularmente el tratamiento de la cuestión de las causas de la corrupción de todas las formas de gobierno, incluida la democracia. Maquiaveliano riguroso y consciente, Freund no esquiva ninguno de los grandes problemas que siguen dividiendo hoy a quienes se acercan --no siempre libres de prejuicios-- a la realidad tantas veces poco complaciente de la política.

Primer volumen en lengua española dedicado a la presentación de la biografía, líneas fundamentales del pensamiento y obra, mediante compilación bibliográfica exhaustiva, del filósofo de lo político y sociólogo francés Julien Freund (1921-1993), cuya obra consagrada a "La esencia de lo político" (1965), tempranamente traducida al español (Editora Nacional, Madrid 1968) es considerada con general asenso como una de las obras clave del pensamiento político europeo del pasado siglo XX. No obstante, su obra científica trasciende con mucho aquel único título, especialmente decisivo, como se intenta mostrar en estas páginas, donde se recoge un extraordinario número de registros bibliográficos adscritos a campos temáticos de enorme variedad. Inaugura este título la Colección dedicada al "Realismo político europeo" en la editorial Isabor-AVK Verlag, bajo la dirección de J. Molina Cano (Universidad de Murcia), director asimismo de la Sociedad de Estudios Políticos de la Región de Murcia, impulsora de esta publicación

The present article discusses Michel Foucault' s analyses of power, resistance and subjectivity developed in the second half of the 1970s. For this purpose, we will take into account the different forms in which his work is presented (lectures, essays, articles, books etc.) and a set of archival documents (unpublished manuscripts) from the Fonds Foucault, recently acquired by the Bibliothèque nationale de France. On the one hand, the article will explore the ethical and political attitude leading Foucault to develop new and complex analysis of power, mainly through his relation to the question of freedom and through his use of the concepts of "governmentality" and "critique". On the other hand, it will explore unpublished manuscripts on the question of the "spiritual direction" and the "government of souls" in the age of Reforms. These texts demonstrate Foucault's progressive interest, in the mid-1970s, in the political and moral history of Christianity. At the heart of complex genealogies that go back to Christian modern theology, he found a new way of thinking the relation to the self as a possibility of both conflict and freedom.

En este artículo propongo abordar el modo en el que Claude Lefort interpreta la democracia moderna como una forma de sociedad inédita en relación a los fundamentos de la ley y la legitimidad. Como veremos, Lefort es un pensador difícil de ubicar dentro de la teoría política contemporánea: a la vez que defiende a la democracia contra el marxismo, entiende que su lógica no puede ser circunscripta dentro de los límites del Estado moderno, ni debe ser interpretada en los términos de la tradición de la filosofía política. Conjuga la defensa de la democracia con una crítica radical del orden instituido o, en todo caso, identifica en la invención democrática la institución de una dinámica que habilita de derecho la crítica y la interrogación permanente de los fundamentos de la ley y la legitimidad.

This article is focused on two important figures of the French Third Republic. The first part is devoted to Étienne Vacherot, and the forthcoming second part will be dedicated to Georges Valois. Their link points at a disquieting figure of the modern times: the convert, or the political weathercock. With these two personages we will examine the republican political thought at the springtime of the French Third Republic. Moreover, we will appreciate how the acceleration of historical time had some obvious repercussions on the convictions of some of the most relevant actors at that moment.

In October, 1865, Edgar Quinet finished writing La Révolution. It is the achievement of a long-term project on the revolutionary phenomenon whose main novelty is the criticism of the revolution in the name of the revolution. Quinet undertook a critical analysis of the republican and revolutionary traditions in the nineteenth century, as he recognized that in the debate about the legacy the future is at stake. He mainly spoke to the supporters of the Terror, and he sent a message to them: the Terror is a return of despotism, and if Republicans do not abandon it, then they will be doomed to repeat the errors and to share the fate of the revolution. We will listen attentively to this message.

This is a final draft. Please cite only the published  in Gregory R. Smulewicz-Zucker and Michael J. Thompson, Radical Intellectuals and the Subversion of Progressive Politics: The Betrayal of Politics (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), pp. 211-236.

The work of Pierre Rosanvallon has increasingly found itself at the center of debates in democratic and political theory - although only few of his numerous monographs have thus far been translated from French. This interdisciplinary volume, the first comprehensive collection on his political thought in English, seeks to lay the groundwork for the study of this eminent political thinker and historian. Following a hitherto untranslated opening essay by Rosanvallon, the chapters - written from a variety of disciplinary perspectives including political theory, political science, philosophy, and history - cover a wide range of topics from the history of democracy to sovereignty, populism, and the function of the press in liberal democratic regimes.

Through its close, critical reading of the political treatises and polemical literature produced in the French religious wars, this book offers a valuable new contribution to the intellectual history of the Early Modern era. Sophie Nicholls analyses the political thought of the theologians and jurists in the Holy League as they pursued their crusade against heresy in the French kingdom.

Contemporaries portrayed the Leaguers as rebellious anarchists, who harboured dangerously democratic ideas. In contrast, Nicholls demonstrates that the intellectuals in the movement were devoted royalists, who had more in common with their moderate counterparts, the ‘politiques’, than is conventionally believed. Members of the League included the jurists Antoine Hotman, René Choppin and Jean Bodin, all of whom argued the case for a particular vision of sovereignty that subtly replenished medieval ideas of kingship and priesthood, and endeavoured to replace them with a new synthesis of intellectual tradition and political power. Nicholls argues that analysing League thought in the context of Jesuit and Second Scholastic sources further enables us to position the Leaguers in relation to innovative attempts in European Catholic circles to re-think the nature of belonging to a political community in this period.

"Elisée Reclus et Emile Masson: Prendre Conscience de Soi-Même" in J.-Didier and Marielle Giraud, Emile Masson: Prophète et Rebelle (Rennes, France: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2005), pp. 107-115. Origina lly presented at Colloque International de Pontivy, 26, 27 and 28 Sept. 2003.

Introduction to Jacques Necker, On Executive Power in Great States. Edited with an introduction and notes by Aurelian Craiutu (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2020), 448 pp.
https://www.libertyfund.org/books/on-executive-power-in-great-states

Jacques Necker (1732–1804) was a Swiss statesman and financier who played a crucial role in French political life from 1776 to 1789. Born in Geneva, he was a devout Protestant who amassed considerable wealth as a successful banker. In October 1776, he was appointed as director of the Royal Treasury and, later, in June 1777, as director general of finances of France under Louis XVI. While in charge of the finances of the kingdom, his most famous decision, in 1781, was to make public the budget of France for the first time, a novel practice in an absolute monarchy.

His work On Executive Power in Great States (1792) is arguably one of the most important texts ever written on the issue of executive power in modern society. It includes memorable formulations regarding liberty and public spirit among the English and the Americans, the relation between economic prosperity and political freedom, and the seminal influence of religion and morals on liberty. Necker provides a defense of representative government and offers an examination of the French political system, which he compares on several occasions with England and America. Before Tocqueville, Necker understood the importance of America for the Old World as the first successful example of popular self-government and free institutions.

In his book, Necker called upon French legislators to study the principles of the U.S. Constitution. His bold innovation was to replace the theory of the functional separation of powers with the “intertwining of powers” that were dependent upon the existence of effective links between the executive and the legislative. In the absence of such links, Necker maintained, “all would be contest and confusion.” Necker’s fundamental premise was that it would be impossible to establish effective cooperation between different powers solely through the exercise of constant watchfulness and mutual distrust.

Although Necker was one of the most important politicians in France before and during the French Revolution, he has been largely ignored as a political thinker. This is the first modern edition of Necker’s important work, shedding fresh light on the timely topics of executive power, constitutionalism and the rule of law, federalism, balance of power, and the dependence of liberty on morality and religion. Professor Aurelian Craiutu significantly revised and corrected the 1792 English translation and added explanatory notes, an introduction, and a select bibliography.

Third French Republic. After Louis Napoleon’s ‘coup d’état’, the republicans tried to establish strong intellectual foundations for a future republic. This needed to be a stable regime that would not repeat neither the revolutionary excesses of the Terror period, nor the authoritarian solutions of Bonapartism. Bearing this in mind, the intellectual founders of the Third Republic had to face the legacy of 1789 and, therefore, had to establish a republican memory capable of integrating all those who, during most of the nineteenth century, had been lured by the revolution; namely, the mission was to face the spectres that threatened the republics in France.

This article is focused on two important figures of the French Third Republic. Following the first part dedicated to Étienne Vacherot, this second part will deal with Georges Valois. Their link points at a disquieting figure of the modern times: the convert, or the political weathercock. With these two personages we will examine the republican political thought at the springtime of the French Third Republic. Moreover, we will appreciate how the acceleration of historical time had some obvious repercussions on the convictions of some of the most relevant actors at that moment.

ABSTRACT
ITA: In questo articolo intendo analizzare la teoria del potere del Background offerta da John Searle nella sua ultima opera (Making the social World, 2010). Qui il filosofo statunitense critica severamente l'idea di “Biopotere” avanzata da Foucault nel corso degli anni Settanta. Secondo Searle, per rendere epistemologicamente accettabile l'idea foucaultiana di biopotere, bisogna renderla coerente con i due “vincoli” di esattezza e intenzionalità. Ma è sostenibile questa critica? Nelle pagine che seguono cercherò di dimostrare che, pur interessante, la posizione di Searle attribuisce un ruolo utopico all'uguaglianza dei soggetti nello spazio sociale, e questo si ripercutote negativamente sulla sua concezione della libertà, rendendola infine irricevibile. //

ENG: In this article I intend to analyze the theory of the power of background offered by John Searle in his last work (Making the Social World, 2010). Here the American philosopher criticizes the idea of "Biopower" advanced by Foucault in the course of the seventies. According to Searle, to make epistemologically acceptable the idea of Foucault's biopower, you have to make it consistent with the two "constraints" of exactness and intentionality. But this criticism is sustainable? In the following pages I will try to show that, while interesting, the position of Searle attributes a role utopian at the equality of the subjects in the social space, and this is ripercutote negatively on his conception of freedom, finally making it inadmissible.//

FR: Dans cet article je chercherai d'analyser la théorie du pouvoir du Background elaborée par John Searle dans son dernière oeuvre (Making the Social World, 2010). Dans ce livre le philosophe amériacain critique l'idée de “Biopouvoir” avancée par Foucault pendant les anées Soixante-dix. Selon Searle, pour rendre épistémologiquement receivible l'idée foucaultienne de biopouvoir il faut la rendre compatible avec les deux liens (ou constraintes) d'exactitude et d'intentionnalité. Mais, il faut se démander: cette critique est fondée? Dans les pages qui suivent je chercherai de démontrer que, bien qu'intéressante, la position de Searle attribue un rôle utopique à l'égalité des sujets dans l'espace social, et ce fait a des éffets negatifs sur son conception de la liberté, en la rendant enfin irrecevable.

ÉPOQUES EST UNE COLLECTION DIRIGÉE PAR JOËL CORNETTE Illustration de couverture : Jean Perréal (vers 1455-1527/29) : Portrait de Louis XII (vers 1514 ?) Château de Windsor, collections de SM la Reine d'Angleterre. © 2006, CHAMP VALLON, 01420 SEYSSEL ...

Alexis de Tocqueville is often seen as a champion of personal liberty and human greatness in the face of the conformism and mediocrity of the democratic social state. In this light, his vision of “soft despotism” anticipates familiar reservations about state managerialism and political apathy. Yet this picture risks eclipsing one of Tocqueville’s most pregnant ambiguities. Though deeply concerned by threats to liberty posed by modern mass society, Tocqueville is alive to the special need such societies have of authority, particularly moral authority, and hence of restraints to liberty itself. The freedom to decide how best to lead one’s life must become self-destructive, he contends, without a corresponding inclination to look outside oneself for prudent leadership and counsel. This paper elucidates the reasoning behind this paradoxical position. I argue that beneath the need of authority Tocqueville detects an enduring human problem, though one that takes a unique and even insuperable form under modern egalitarianism. I suggest that dwelling on this problem promises to enrich debates about the cynical nativism now menacing liberal democracies. Its origins are to be found less in economic upheaval and communication technology run amok than in the decay of civil religion and civic virtue, a trend that runs very much with the grain of democratic society and whose progress may be irrevocable.

La philosophie politique et les sciences sociales peuvent-elles travailler en bonne intelligence? Peuvent-elles aller jusqu'à s'inspirer mutuellement? Ou faut-il considérer, au contraire, qu'elles sont vouées à se défier les unes les autres, si elles veulent réussir à produire les formes de savoir qui leur sont à chacune spécifiques? Ces questions sont au centre du colloque intitulé « Les formes du politique. L’apport de la philosophie politique aux sciences sociales », qui a eu lieu les 18 et 19 juin 2015, dans la série « Sciences sociales et politique » (organisé par Sophie Marcotte Chénard (CESPRA, EHESS), Giulio de Ligio (CESPRA, EHESS) et Francesco Callegaro (LIER, EHESS)).
-------
Can political philosophy and social sciences find a common ground in studying the political ? Can they even go as far as to be mutually beneficial? Or are we to conclude that political philosophy and social sciences will remain opposed if they wish to maintain and preserve their respective specific form, aim and methods? These questions will be addressed at the conference "The forms of politics. The contribution of the political philosophy to social sciences", which will was held June 18th-19th 2015. This two-days event, which is part of the series "Social sciences and policy" was organized by Giulio de Ligio (CESPRA), Francesco Callegaro (LIER) and Sophie Marcotte-Chenard (CESPRA).