ELENI VARIKAS PDF
8 Results Visit ‘s Eleni Varikas Page and shop for all Eleni Varikas books. Books by Eleni Varikas by Maria Eleonora Sanna and Eleni Varikas. Institution, University of Paris VIII. City, Paris. Country, France. Visitor’s name, Eleni Varikas. Visitor’s academic degree/title, Professor emerita. Department visit . Eleni Varikas. Gender, Experience and Subjectivity: The Tilly–Scott Disagreement. From the viewpoint of women’s history in France, Louise Tilly’s article appears.
|Country:||Republic of Macedonia|
|Published (Last):||12 April 2018|
|PDF File Size:||11.52 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.72 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
And yet, as early asArendt had explicitly stated what was at stake in her work, notably in the preface to the English edition, which was entitled The Burden of Our Time. That title is, it seems to me, a much more accurate summary of the nature of her product. Because it represented such a elemi break with the political and ethical traditions of the West, the genocide also revealed itself to be one of the possible outcomes of varkias modernity. The genocide was not inevitable; it should never have taken place.
But it did take place and nothing can change that event: It has taken several decades varijas break the intellectual silence which surrounded the fact of the systematic and programmed extermination of the Jews and Gypsies and which, even in antifascist literature and critical analyses of the Second World War, tacitly gave it the status of a monstrous exception.
The burden of our time
It was as though the fault-line created by the enormity of the event had revealed the dark side of a tradition that thought could not look at directly without calling itself into question, or without questioning the certainties, presuppositions and hopes that had been its foundations for centuries.
Investigating the past in order to see what made possible the future that we know is meaningless if we take the view that everything that has happened was destined to happen. Such an investigation is meaningful only if we start out from the hypothesis that every past event opens on to a plural and inexhaustible posterity. It is not a matter of looking for the origin, but of looking for origins in the plural and, as AnneMarie Roviello stresses, this reveals both the link between the event and its past, and the fact that the link can only be established a posteriori: This approach, shared by other Jewish exiles who, like Adorno and Horkheimer, tried in this same period to think the catastrophe, implies the rejection of all the progressive and anti-progressive philosophies of history that threaten both comprehension of the past, and action in the present: But unlike the dominant doxa of the postwar years, Arendt does not see this task as a mere return to the liberal traditions of a modernity whose course has been interrupted by an archaic or premodern barbarity:.
We can no longer afford to take that which was good in the past and simply call it our heritage, to discard the bad and simply think of it as a dead load which history will bury in oblivion. The implicit or explicit assumptions behind these analyses, which posit the existence of a causal and automatic link between economic liberalism and political liberalism, or between capitalism and democracy,  prevent us from understanding the undeniably modern elements that make Nazism different from earlier forms of barbarism: Whilst the long history of hatred of the Jews and of anti-Semitism might explain the choice of victim, it cannot, on the other hand, explain the nature of the crime.
Politically speaking, the death factories were indeed crimes against humanity committed on the body of Jewish people. This crime concerns varikad peoples and all men because it was perpetrated against the human condition of plurality: Before they started to use the gas chambers, the Nazis made a careful study of the question and concluded to their great satisfaction that no country was going to take responsibility for those people.
What was shattered into pieces in Auschwitz was the very foundation of the universalist principles of political modernity: That is why any attempt to re-establish human dignity presupposes that we reread that tradition against the grain. A re-examination of the traditions and political dynamics of historical democracy from the point of view of elehi dissonances, discontinuities and contradictions results in an approach in which the singular becomes symptomatic; in which the exception, rather than proving the rule, sheds a new light on its antinomies.
Within the framework of this innovative approach, the history of the Jews after the French Revolution can become a precious grid that allows us to read the modern political heritage, its potentialities and its dangers.
Not the least of these ironies is that the term itself, which comes from the hierarchical Indian caste system and which had been familiar from the sixteenth varlkas onwards, becomes politically pertinent only at the moment when the principle of one general law for all had discredited the logic of caste and privilege. When slavery was re-established by Napoleon, the pariah metaphor became part of the vocabulary of abolitionism.
The existence of a close link between the development of the notion of the pariah and the universalism of the Declaration of the Rights of Man is hinted at by the privileged place avrikas notion occupies in the literary and political public sphere in France, as opposed elehi countries like England and Germany, where its use remained marginal.
The gap between political principles and political practices was more visibleand the antinomies of the new political system were more illuminating in France, perhaps because the Declaration of Human rights made universalism the explicit basis of political legitimation in that country.
Arendt demonstrates the political repercussions of the major paradox of establishing equality in the form of privileges, and its lasting effects on the development of modern anti-Semitism.
The adoption of a double register of variias extension of privileges and the universality of rights, particular freedoms and Freedom as suchmeant different criteria for elsni for different people. For these latter it was membership of a group, as conferred by birth, that was now invoked to determine the possibility of and the preconditions for the granting of citizenship, regardless of individual talents or wealth.
Once those facts had been established, they could not be the object of any critique or moral evaluation.
Gender, Experience and Subjectivity: The Tilly–Scott Disagreement
The naturalization of inequalities resulted in an insidious combination of old and new modes of legitimation and domination. It made difference and equality antinomicand established a contradictory and complementary relationship between rights and individuals; the individual could be seen both as an atom who was abstractly similar to and comparable with all other individuals in the eyes of the general law to which the individual was subject and as indivisible from the group, or even species, that had given birth to him.
The individual was therefore not comparable with others in terms of his right to elaborate the general law. Promoted by the hegemony of nineteenth-century scientism and positivism, the determinism of a natural and historical patrimony reformulated the aristocratic notion of heritage in terms that were compatible with universalism.
It is true that these varikxs are not the automatic or inevitable product of science and that they emerge as political weapons which serve the eeleni of domination; that racist theories in particular are often, but not always, the product of conservative or counterrevolutionary thinking; but their ideological hegemony left a lasting mark on the mental structures of political modernity.
It is a twofold system of legitimation and domination which, being based upon both the general law and privilegeallows the particular to be disguised as the universal, and the interests of the few as the interests of all.
Grotius had already invoked this type of authority to criticize the divine right of monarchy by asserting that not even God could prevent two and two from making four. The false logic that confused the nature of mathematical laws with that of the laws of the community, and claimed that the former could in some way inspire the latter, made it possible to reassert in much more powerful terms the classic argument that natural rights are restricted by natural law.
It established a pre-political hierarchy that existed prior to human action and made it possible to create whole categories of individuals: When he acquires the right to participate in the invention of a common world, he loses his right to his own reality, which becomes invisible, unsayable and non-communicable.
Whereas we expected to see clandestine street-sweepers hugging the walls, we discovered men and women who worked as computer scientists or teachers of German rubbing shoulders with domestic servants and construction workers, We discovered men and women who had been living and working in France for a long time, but who had been put and are being put outside the law by unjust and xenophobic legislation.
Where we once saw, or thought we saw, closed and irreducible ethnic communities, we are seeing the presence of a political collective constituted in and through the intentional and concerted actions of the multitude.
The tragic experience of this century necessarily casts a sinister light on the status that political modernity has reserved for its pariahs over the last two hundred years. Yet whilst it is important to resist the temptation to establish a posteriori a relationship of unavoidable continuity between the antinomies of emancipation and the unprecedented crimes of this century, it is just as important to think about the terrible failure of the rights of man.
The history of modern pariahs provides the genealogy of that failure. In proclaiming rights that belonged to anyone with a human face, the Declaration of the Rights of Man seemed to suggest that democracy or the regime of the multiple — which had until then been no more than a theoretical possibility for secular political community — could be achieved.
Center for European Studies – Harvard University
By reasserting the absolutist postulate of the homogeneity of the body politic, and by making the exercise of human rights dependent upon territoriality and nationality, the democratic state constructed human plurality and diversity as antinomic with freedom and equality, and restricted political vocabulary to a single voice.
Others stayed in Europe: Others, like Dwight MacDonald in the United States, were citizens of those countries that eeleni in the immigrants. A Hidden Traditionedited by Ron H. Feldman, Grove Press, New York,p. Dleni Hannah ArendtPayot. Despite his civil incapacity, the Poor Man could hope to enrich himself through labour and thus be in a position to make the contribution required for citizenship.
Eleni Varikas: The burden of our time / Radical Philosophy
Problemi e mitiLaterza, Rome,pp. Marx, Early WritingsPenguin, Harmondsworth,p. But unlike the dominant doxa of the postwar years, Arendt does not see this task as a mere return to the liberal traditions of a modernity whose course has been varikae by an archaic or premodern barbarity: Translated by david maceynotes 1.
Colloque Hannah ArendtPayot, Paris,