- This topic has 31 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Please post on discussion page and bring a question for Professor Bourg to class. Readings below.
-
Regarding the emergence of ethics in French political and social life, where does Marine Le Pen and the emergence of the National Rally party fit into that narrative?
-
In the reading, Julian Bourg mentioned the myth of May 1968. I am curious which current event would be considered the same way as May 1968, if any? And how it will be presented by historians?
-
In noting the entrance of the fifth Republic in France and increased stability after 1968 Revolution, how did the revolution contribute to it? She explains, “Yet 1968 marks the beginning of the Fifth Republic’s transition to its post Gaullist era, during which it achieved a stability by more than the force of the General’s personality?”
What did Bourg mean that France experienced a “revolution” in a different sense of the word?
-
Concerning “The Death of the Author,” since in the author using words, which can only be understood using other words, the author loses his passions, humors, sentiments, impressions, is there a means of communication more efficient and all encompassing than language? Is reading beyond and without an author limiting to a text?
After reading a section in Bourg’s piece that talked about the conditions of having an opposite sex visitor at University, I find that being a person born in 1998, when I’m reading works about or created in 1968 I impress my own experience upon them. I’m so far away from the attitudes and aura of 1968 it’s hard to understand just how revolutionary it was–how can this be put into context? How can someone thinking about 1968 today use their world experience as an advantage in reading the past?
What role did propaganda play in the occurrences of May 1968?
The Vietnam War saw an expansion of journalistic pursuit in the US, what role did film, photography, and reporting play in the riots in France of May 1968? How were news sources viewed?
Are there any more recent revolutionary cultural moments/protests that will have/ have the capacity to have as great an impact on the social fabric of the world as 1968? Could there be another 1968?
-
What would you say are the strongest examples of successful conflict today in the United States and how do these examples compare to modern unsuccessful conflicts? Do see you see any connections between these examples and the turn to ethics post-1968?
-
In Julian Bourg’s piece it is mentioned that some see the period of revolution in May 1968 as a failure, while others, such as Bourg, see May 1968 as the point that revolutionized the idea of revolution itself. Why does such disagreement between whether people see May 1968 as a failure or “success” exist?
-
There seems to be a cyclical repetition of ethical turns and “revolutions” in modern history, especially since the French revolution in the 18th century. Do you see that the ethical turn following the late 60s degrading as, in some ways ethical turns in the past have, paving the way for a future return to ethics via revolution, or do you see that most necessary lessons from the late 60s have remained ingrained within present society?
-
What do you think are the lessons learned from May 1968 that most pertain to today? What is different about the student milieu then and now? I understand the divisions in Paris/France and why those divisions fueled the events in May ’68. However, what was the determining factor that created such enthusiasm within the students? It seems like today there are similar divisions, but there does not seem to be a similar enthusiasm among students large enough to motivate them to act in as radical ways.
-
Considering that many believe that the revolution of 1968 was in fact, a failure, how did this specific revolution make such an impact in the French consciousness as opposed to other revolutions in other cultures that did have similar fortitudes in terms of unrest but do not have such a large lasting impact?
-
Regarding the distinction between an “immanent ethos” and the “transcendental law” and the sort of endless battle going between the two poles of the continuum, would there ever be a moment of possible compromise for any society such that the ethos is in fair alignment with the law? Or would it be more correct to assume that there is always some ethos that will challenge the law?
-
Since May 1968 has inherited the French Republican spirit, how do you think the revolution has echoed down to the contemporary French society, as protests are still carried out today in many other different forms? In what ways and what positive or negative effects have May 1968, besides the intellectual domain, had and influenced the general French thought about disobedience and public engagement?
-
For Bourg: What (if anything) do you think de Gaulle should have done differently to lead France before, during, and after May of 1968?
-
Lefort noted, “if we wish to conceive of a new relationship to the political, we should begin by recognizing that is is beginning to take shape before our eyes” and that “our first task is not to invent; it is to interpret, to raise to the level of reflection a practice which is not silent, of course, but which, being necessarily diffuse, is unaware of its significance in society at large” (40).
1) While this was ever so present during the Revolution to Ethics, is this still applicable to the ongoing revolution that is being had by groups deemed inferior today?
2) I feel as though the first quote has an underlying positive connotation…do you believe that our relationship is bettering or worsening?
3) How can we, as a whole, exercise the task in which Lefort has ‘challenged’ us to do? Is it realistic? -
IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE PARTI COMMUNISTE FRANCAIS (PCF) THOUGHT THE STUDENTS MIGHT HAVE HAD AN “ANARCHISTIC ‘MISINTERPRETATION’ OF THE NEEDS OF THE WORKING CLASS”. WERE THE STUDENT PROTESTS IN YOUR OPINION BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION FROM A MATTER OF SEXUAL FREEDOM ON CAMPUS TO A FULL SCALE ALIGNMENT WITH THE WORKING CLASS AND THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF FRANCE, OR WAS THAT AN ISSUE THAT TOOK ROOT AND WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE SOLID FOOTING FOR MORE LEGITIMATE GRIEVANCES TO BE AIRED?
-
For Bourg: May 1968 was a physical revolution that lived and was fought in the streets of the Latin Quarter. Do you believe a revolution of a similar scale could occur in the digital world? Could a Twitter revolt be as successful as one taken to the streets?
-
Why do you think the students in May 1968 were filled with such passion and enthusiasm for revolution. What changed? Because today, it seems that many younger people do not show up/stand up to act on their beliefs as those did during 1968.
-
Was it the aim of the student protesters in May 1968 to promote ethics or was this an unintentional byproduct of their actions?
-
You write that, regarding ethics, “the distance between rhetoric and practice remains wide.” How does a society go about decreasing that gap? Are there any societal or political changes that could help, in perhaps a structural way, or is it simply up to the personal choice of each individual?
-
You mention that the turn to ethics post 1968 does not make the revolution a failure, and ultimately seem to regard 1968 a success. If we are to regard the revolution as a success, how do we reconcile the various social justice issues (that echo the issues of ’68) that remain rampant today?
-
In the Bourg reading, it is mentioned that ethics and morality became a more conscious issue at the forefront of social discussions. In my existentialism class, we just studied Nietzsche and I can’t help but notice some similarities in Nietzsche’s idea of slave morality and those revolting against the upper class not only in Paris at the time but around the world. I do not agree with Nietzsche, but I can’t help but notice that morality sometimes becomes a weapon to make out those in the upper class as bad and those in the lower class as good. I am sure almost all of those involved in protests across the world were truly concerned with human rights and the extension of freedom, but is there any truth to the fact that maybe some people revolting were just asserting a form of their own will to power? There could be a psychological background that is not accounted for in looking at this important historical juncture.
-
A question for Bourg – you write that “the ethics of refusal was caught on a paradoxical double edged blade when ‘it is forbidden to forbid’ was applied to itself” in reference to a fear of returning to the “category” of the norm by creating new laws. Do you believe that this fear of conformity is still present in the modern day? If there is no “one norm” which defines the life of youths today, is there still the desire to rebel?
-
Question: Since when we are talking about history, the most important part of it is not that is observable but memorable. Thus, we can say that everything about history is just testimony from the past, and it cannot be absolute objective. So my question would be, what kind of position you are holding when you were writing the book.
-
In your book, you mentioned how the French have a different conceptualization of what institutions and associations are, in contrast to the North American view. How has a different understanding of these words separately shaped the development of protest movements in France when compared to those in the United States? Similarly, what role do you think language plays in the context of fostering civic engagement?
-
In your book, you value the ethical turn for taking seriously again abstract values like freedom and democracy; you also value the ethical turn for questioning and, eventually, denying the need for a violent revolution to address oppressive and exploitative political, social and economic systems. Yet there are clear incoherencies between these values and the realities in democratic countries which your book did not seem to address. Quite a few of what are called typical Western “democracies” were founded on the grounds of violent revolutions; and almost every Third World country which has achieved basic democratic freedoms today did so following a violent revolution which overthrew colonial oppressors. And “freedom” has, in every democratic country that ever existed, always been a value which has operated on a logic that values some human activities over others; the freedom to own large sums of private property in a given economic system can very well imply the freedom of others to own nothing. How do you account for these problematic realities in your thinking?
-
You talk about many people wanted to get rid of the ‘old world’ in order to usher in the ‘new world,’ but that the value system is notably vaguely defined for what it’s to be in the new world. Can you have a successful revolt or change without a clearly defined goal? Why do you think so many people strove to create change in the 1960’s when it’s unclear how the change will be beneficial for the 1970’s on forward?
-
How did the French antihumanist movement evolve in the turn towards ethics described by Bourg?
-
10/31: I particularly liked the description of the events of France in 68 as “political Rorschach test” (30); why did you choose this particular metaphor to describe the events? In what ways was France of 68 like a Rorschach test; the lack of a visible grey area? The sharp contrast between the two sides (two colors)? Or the infinite differences in observation based off individual perspective? I have my own interpretations, but would love to hear your thoughts.
-
I found your critique of ethics regarding the 1968 Paris Riots very compelling and am curious on how you think it can be translated over to to other protests of today, whether peaceful/violent, like Ferguson or the Yellow Vest Protests currently going on in France against Macron.
-
For Bourg, on Deleuze: if desire produces desire—if we desire desire—then isn’t it the case that our calls for change are an act of desire (and desiring desire)? I think the artistic and ludic element of the ’68 protests demonstrate this. But do our protests and rallies and ideologies of today operate according to this philosophical truth? Have we fetishized some sort of Good or goal that will inhibit our own salutary (at least, salutary acknowledgement of) desiring-production?
-
You say that the French and North Americans have a different view on institutions and associations, and if that is the case then there is a fundamental difference in how government is viewed in the US vs in France. How then do you think this contributed to how our governments act today and how do you think the protests in each country in 1968 contributed to the shape of America and France’s governments today, especially considering these same people who were young in 1968 are the ones running each respective government recently.
-
How do we go from talking about ethics to having an ethical way of life? Has there been a re-mystification of image and ethics? Is art, and protest after 1968 just form of conformity as opposed to subversion?
-
