Pertseva_summary (Видимость как характеристика субъекта в современной французской философии), страница 3

Rose. Minneapolis, London: University ofMinnesota Press, 1999.25Rancière J. The Politics of Literature / trans. J. Rose. Cambridge, Malden: Polity, 2011.26Basically we deal with two collected works: Rancière J. Et Tant pis pour les Gens Fatigués. Entretiens. Paris:Amsterdam, 2009 и Rancière J. The Method of Equality.

Interviews with Laurent Jeanpierre and Dork Zabunyan /trans. by J. Rose. Cambridge, Malden: Polity Press, 2016.10texts on this topic: the chapter “Larvatus pro Deo” from his Ego Sum27, the chapter“The Girl Who Succeeds the Muses” from “The Muses”28, a separate essay “TheLook of the Portrait”29 and a later one – “The Other Portrait”30. The secondaryliterature hardly covers the topic, only separate remarks in the texts by Ian James 31,Susanna Lindberg32, Jean-Pol Madou33, Helen Petrovsky34 and Nina Sosna35 couldbe found.

In her “Oblique trajectories”36, Antonia Birnbaum also makes someinsightful observations on the interrelations between Rancière’s and Nancy’ssubjects, but they need to be nuanced with regards to our topic. Nancy’s own pointof view on the question of the subject is developed in the most extended way in hislecture “Un sujet?”37. His interviews38 also prove to be useful for the purpose ofclarification of his position.Object and subject-matter of the studyThe object of our study compounds the XX-XXIst centuries French thinkers’theories of the subject.

Namely, those of Jean-Paul Sartre, Maurice Merleau-Ponty,Jacques Rancière and Jean-Luc Nancy. Its subject-matter being at that theintroduction of visibility in the capacity one of its characteristics, i.e. thetheoretical articulation of the terms “subject” and “visibility”.Study tasks and objective27Nancy J.-L. Larvatus pro Deo // Ego sum. Corpus, Anima, Fabula / trans.

by M.-E. Morin. N.Y.: FordhamUniversity Press, 2016. P. 39-64.28Nancy J.-L. The Girl Who Succeeds the Muses // Muses / trans. by P. Kamuf. Stanford: Stanford University Press,1994. P. 41-55.29Nancy J.-L. The Look of the Portrait // Portrait / trans. by S. Cliff and S. Sparks.

N.Y.: Fordham University Press,2017. P. 13-46.30Nancy J.-L. The Other Portrait // Portrait / trans. by S. Cliff and S. Sparks. N.Y.: Fordham University Press, 2017.P. 47-109.31James I. The Fragmentary demand. An introduction to the philosophy of Jean-Luc Nancy. Stanford: StanfordUniversity Press, 2006.32Lindberg S. L’inquiétant Hegel de Nancy // Europe. 2009. N. 87. P. 262-268.33Madou J.-P. Jean-Luc Nancy: Ego sum // La nouvelle revue française. 1980. N. 334.

P. 139-143.34Petrovsky H. Theory of the Image. Moscow: RGGU, 2012. P. 122-144. (in Russian)35Sosna N. The Visual, the Opaque, the Spectral. Image and Photography. Moscow: NLO, 2011. P. 71-72. (inRussian)36Birnbaum A. Trajectoires obliques. Michel Foucault, Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, Jean-Luc Nancy, JacquesRancière. Paris: Sens&Tonka, 2013.37Nancy J.-L. Un sujet? // Homme et sujet. La subjectivité en question dans les sciences humaines. Paris:L'Harmattan.

1992. P. 47-114.38In particular, with regards to our topic: Martin F., Nancy J.-L. Nium. In diessem Sinne. Point final. Valence:Ecole Regionale des beaux arts, 1993 ; Girard M., Nancy J.-L. Proprement Dit. Entretien sur le Mythe. Fécamp:lignes, 2015 ; Lèbre J., Nancy J.-L. Signaux Sensibles. Entretien à propos des Arts. Montrouge: Bayard, 2017.11The objective of our study consists in describing the theoretical articulationof the terms “subject” and “visibility” as a problem of contemporary Frenchphilosophy.

It splits into several research tasks:1. To define the pivotal theoretical challenges related to the introduction of thetopic of the subject’s visibility in contemporary philosophy2. To specify the key moments of its developments in the history ofcontemporary French philosophy3. To identify the basic strategies of the theoretical articulation of the terms“subject” and “visibility”4. To analyze these strategies: to describe them, to highlight their advances andto outline their limitationsMethodological framework of the studyIn our study, we made a choice in favor of the historico-philosophical textinterpretation drawing on the existing body of comments and combining it withhistorical conceptual analysis.

This choice is due to the specifics of the study’ssubject-matter: on the one hand, the subject’s visibility is a rather discreet topic inthe corpus of the above-named authors (i.e. we will more often than not deal withthe limited fragments from their texts), but, on the other hand, according to ourhypothesis, it involves the groundbreaking theoretical efforts.

The chosen strategywill enable us to analyze the particular theoretical solutions thanks to which theseauthors manage to make conceivable the visibility of the subject; to see how thesetheories are designed in practice in their texts; and also, to identify the areas ofconcern avoiding the excessive concentration on the separate fragments of textsand their artificial isolation.Meanwhile, at times, we will have to recourse to a more broad-scalehistorical philosophical reconstruction as an additional method. As has alreadybeen mentioned, the introduction of the topic of visibility of the subject demandsserious reorganization of the whole field of the concievable and its possibilities,12inaccessible in principle for the analysis by the method of close reading. That’swhy we will also use the notion of the “philosophical moment” introduced byFrédéric Worms in his study devoted to the contemporary French philosophy39.Worms' concept of the “philosophical moment” will make it possible for us toanalyze both radical gaps, and elements of repetitions and continuity in thisreorganization.Thus, in our study we will alternately deal with two levels of analysis: theparticular level of a textual fragment and a more general level of the philosophicalmoment.Originality of the study1.

For the first time, the topic of subject’s visibility is described a specificproblem of the contemporary French philosophy.2. The pivotal theoretical challenges related to its introduction are defined.3. The specificity of the key moments in the history of contemporary Frenchphilosophy creating particularly favorable conditions for its development aredescribed.4. The basic strategies of the theoretical articulation of the terms “subject” and“visibility” are identified and analyzed:a. The possibility of a double-reading of the Sartre’s fragment on thegaze from “Being and Nothingness” is demonstrated.

An alternativeinterpretation insisting on the description of the visibility of the Othersubject is suggested. Its inconsistency with Sartre’s basic conceptualoppositions is revealed.b. The role of the topic of the Other-subject’s visibility in the39He argues that the French philosophy of the 20th century, paying particular attention to gaps in continuity,especially often became the hostage of mutual non-recognition and disregard from various intellectual trends anddirections. But even being distinctive from one another, they nevertheless preserve an often well-hidden connectionand continuity: “It all looks, in fact, as if in this very particular case [the case of contemporary French philosophy]the sequence of separate philosophical instance were so dense, so clear that they finally came to covering, maskingeach other, so successfully that we have begun to forget their content, their importance, the relations existingbetween them, and also those with the wider, open context” (Worms.

F. La philosophie en France au XXe siècle.Moments. Paris: Gallimard, 2009. P.10).13development of the original Merleau-Pontean conception of relationsbetween perception and imagination, is shown. The treatment of thetopic of the subject’s visibility in his later unfinished texts – “TheVisible and the Invisible” and “The Cartesian ontology and theontology of today” – is elucidated. The coherence of the MerleauPonty’s approach is analyzed.c.

The novelty of Rancière’s approach to the theorization of the linkbetween “becoming visible” and “becoming subject” in his politicaltexts against the background of his contemporaries (L. Althusser, M.Foucault, H. Arendt, etc.) is brought to light. The discrepancybetween Rancière’s treatment of this topic in his political andaesthetic texts is explored.d. For the first time, an interpretation of the link between the portrait andthe subject in the Nancy’s œuvre is proposed. The strategic role of thesubject’s visibility for the transition from the Metaphysics of theSubject to the ontology of the singular plural is demonstrated.Statements to be defended1.The topic of visibility of the subject is probably a hardly perceptible,but a steady enough theme in contemporary French philosophy.2.The growing interest in the topic of visibility of the subject (s) has todo with the tendency towards the gradual refusal of the privilege of the reflexive“transparent” solipsistic subject of self-assurance in favor of an openness to othersand the world.

Once appeared in the context of Sartre's ambiguous description of aencounter with the Other-subject, this topic is developed by Merleau-Ponty withinthe framework of the encounter with the world in general (wherein the figure of theOther is leveled), to finally become an important theme in the context of theapproaches adopting the shared common experience of initially multiple subjectsas a theoretical reference point, where the experience of another becomes anintegral part of the relation of oneself-to-oneself.143.Meanwhile, the purpose of the philosophical articulation of the terms“visibility” and “subject” turns out to be difficult even for the contemporaryFrench philosophy. On the one hand, the introduction of visibility as acharacteristic of the subject presupposes the sophistications of the relationsbetween its aspects of activity and passivity. On the other hand, it entails thesophistication of the relations between the perceived, imagined, symbolical, etc., asthe visibility can become a characteristic feature of the subject only provided thatits heterogeneity, i.a.