Acting Through Inaction: The Distinction Between Leisure and Reverie in Jacques Rancière’s Conception of Emancipation

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY
A. Ross
{"title":"Acting Through Inaction: The Distinction Between Leisure and Reverie in Jacques Rancière’s Conception of Emancipation","authors":"A. Ross","doi":"10.5195/jffp.2019.890","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The classical distinction between leisure and work is often used to define features of the emancipated life. In Aristotle leisure is defined as time devoted to purposeful activity, and distinguished from the labour time expended merely to produce life’s necessities. In critical theory, this classical distinction has been adapted to provide an image of emancipated life, as purposively driven, fulfilling and meaningful activity. Aspects of this adapted definition undermine the classical leisure/work distinction to the extent that the demand for meaningful work, i.e., a leisure-work conjunction, is now used as a critical perspective on unfulfilling, oppressive labour. Ranciere, however, is critical both of this idea of an extended franchise for leisure and of its dependence on craft and artisanal labour as the model of satisfying, skilled work. Instead of Aristotelian leisure, or ‘fulfilling’ work, Ranciere identifies in the state of reverie an alternative marker for the emancipated life. The theme is consistent across the scattered archival, historiographical, philosophical, literary and aesthetic contexts his writing treats. But since reverie is defined as disengagement from action, the position raises a number of difficulties.  This article examines how Ranciere connects reverie to emancipation. It focuses on two questions: the nature of the relation between his definition of reverie and the classical, Aristotelian concept of action; and, whether, given the constitutive non-relation between reverie and action that he outlines, Ranciere’s position can address the persistent problem in critical theory of the motivation for the emancipated life. It is argued that his highlighting of the potential communicative significance of modes and scenes of emancipated life is relevant to this problem. The key argument is that rather than developing a ‘theory’, his approach to emancipation focuses on and values communicable experiences of emancipation, and that states of reverie are one such type of valued experience.","PeriodicalId":41846,"journal":{"name":"Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy","volume":"27 1","pages":"76-94"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/jffp.2019.890","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The classical distinction between leisure and work is often used to define features of the emancipated life. In Aristotle leisure is defined as time devoted to purposeful activity, and distinguished from the labour time expended merely to produce life’s necessities. In critical theory, this classical distinction has been adapted to provide an image of emancipated life, as purposively driven, fulfilling and meaningful activity. Aspects of this adapted definition undermine the classical leisure/work distinction to the extent that the demand for meaningful work, i.e., a leisure-work conjunction, is now used as a critical perspective on unfulfilling, oppressive labour. Ranciere, however, is critical both of this idea of an extended franchise for leisure and of its dependence on craft and artisanal labour as the model of satisfying, skilled work. Instead of Aristotelian leisure, or ‘fulfilling’ work, Ranciere identifies in the state of reverie an alternative marker for the emancipated life. The theme is consistent across the scattered archival, historiographical, philosophical, literary and aesthetic contexts his writing treats. But since reverie is defined as disengagement from action, the position raises a number of difficulties.  This article examines how Ranciere connects reverie to emancipation. It focuses on two questions: the nature of the relation between his definition of reverie and the classical, Aristotelian concept of action; and, whether, given the constitutive non-relation between reverie and action that he outlines, Ranciere’s position can address the persistent problem in critical theory of the motivation for the emancipated life. It is argued that his highlighting of the potential communicative significance of modes and scenes of emancipated life is relevant to this problem. The key argument is that rather than developing a ‘theory’, his approach to emancipation focuses on and values communicable experiences of emancipation, and that states of reverie are one such type of valued experience.
无为而行:雅克·朗西解放观中休闲与遐想的区别
休闲和工作之间的经典区别经常被用来定义解放生活的特征。在亚里士多德那里,闲暇被定义为用于有目的的活动的时间,而区别于仅仅用于生产生活必需品的劳动时间。在批判理论中,这种经典的区别已经被改编为提供一种解放生活的形象,作为有目的的驱动,充实和有意义的活动。这一调整定义的各个方面破坏了经典的休闲/工作区别,以至于对有意义的工作的需求,即休闲与工作的结合,现在被用作对不满足的、压迫性劳动的批判观点。然而,Ranciere对这种扩大休闲特许经营的想法以及它对工艺和手工劳动的依赖作为令人满意的、熟练的工作的模式持批评态度。与亚里斯多德的休闲或“充实”的工作不同,朗西埃在幻想状态中发现了解放生活的另一种标志。这个主题在他的作品所涉及的分散的档案、史学、哲学、文学和美学语境中是一致的。但由于遐想被定义为脱离行动,这种立场带来了许多困难。本文探讨了朗西埃是如何将幻想与解放联系起来的。它主要关注两个问题:他对幻想的定义与古典的亚里士多德的行为概念之间的关系的本质;而且,考虑到他所概述的幻想和行动之间的构成关系,朗西埃的立场是否可以解决解放生活动机的批判理论中持续存在的问题。有人认为,他强调解放生活的模式和场景的潜在交际意义与这一问题有关。关键的论点是,他的解放方法不是发展一种“理论”,而是关注和重视可传播的解放经验,而幻想状态就是这样一种有价值的经验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信