Le rire et le théâtre dans la Lettre à M. d’Alembert

Often interpreted as a field of contradictions and fragmentation, the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau presents an inner unity. This inner unity, though, is structured around regulated contradictions. I will examine here the distribution of those regulated contradictions by focusing on the preface to the Lettre à M. d’Alembert sur les spectacles and the relations between the Lettre and the Essai sur l’origine des langues. What Rousseau rejects as agents of corruption—theater and laughter—constitute at the same time the principles of his argument. The values of representation and technique implied by theater and laughter come to compose with those of presence and nature. Taking as a point of departure the work of Jacques Derrida on Rousseau, but also engaging it polemically, I will show in the analysis of the preface to the Lettre the distribution of regulated contradictions as well as the essential difference between language and theater in Rousseau throughout his reflection on the origin of theater and language.     

Causalité Historique et Contemporanéité Relative: De la Relativité Einsteinienne aux Sciences Historiques

The construction of historical frame of reference based on the distinction between and articulation of phenomenological and chronological times. As it relativises the notion of simultaneity and inverts its relation to causality, the special theory of relativity can induce analogous modes of reflection on the themes of “contemporaneity” in the history of art (Panofsky) and in epistemology (Bachelard). This “relativist” method, often misunderstood, sheds light on both historical and presentist methods.     

La Parité en débat au-delà de Versailles

Referring mainly to texts published after the passage of the constitutional bill on gender parity in politics, this article asks theoretical questions about how French intellectuals understand the issue of 'women and politics'. It raises questions about 'differentialism' and 'discrimination', two notions that keep recurring in critiques of parity. By continuously emphasising the differentialism of parity advocates, 'republican feminists' may end up reinforcing and popularising this notion. Furthermore, parity critics' constant references to 'discrimination' may (intentionally or not) encourage the view that women are just another 'minority'. Do these two mutally reinforcing developments point to a 'socialisation of politics'? Is such a trend unavoidable when thinking about the links between 'women' and 'politics'?