I always avoided Ranciere even though I never read a word of his. But I don’t like French theorists. Lacan, Derrida, Bataille, Deleuze – yes, they are great but I never derived any use from them for my own work. Even Foucault is useless to me unless he’s being reworked by somebody Central European.
And now I’m discovering that Ranciere is actually quite useful to me. It’s quite strange that a French philosopher would talk about things that I find relevant but here you have it. Hmm.
Quelle suprise!
If there’s any two word combination that incite more immediate resistance in my mind and heart than “French theorist” it’s maybe “French philosopher” . Finding there’s one who’s neither insane, irrelevant and/or dangerous is kind of a shock….
Tell us more (he asked cautiously).
LikeLike
I know! I always have the same reaction. Whenever somebody says at a conference “My analysis is based on my reading of French theory”, there is the immediate sound of me knocking down chairs on my way to the exit.
I will be talking about Ranciere a lot on the blog because he has some really interesting ideas on how the ways in which people discuss entertainment and leisure are imbued with the 19th-century contempt for and fear of “stupid proles.”
LikeLike
too many glasses of french wine later, yes, the french excel at thought
LikeLike
Exactly. 🙂 To paraphrase, there is no such thing as a boring French theorist. There is only such a thing as not enough alcohol.
LikeLike
cheers
LikeLike
I’ll mention here that one of my favorite film directors of all time (top five, maybe top three) is Eric Rohmer, whose movies are mostly based on a fragment of a plot idea which serves as a McGuffin to get his alienated/weary/jaded characters to get involved in long drawn out conversations on the meaning of life… tremendously entertaining.
Examples include Claire’s Knee, My Night at Maud’s, the Aviator’s Wife, the Green Ray and many, many more, I lurve them to pieces.
So, I have nothing against French bloviation as such, just when they take it too seriously and think they’re being profound and seriously academic….
LikeLike
A group of Irish philosophers meets a group of French philosophers at a conference, and upon talking about their various philosophical points of view briefly, they decide to descend upon a local restaurant to continue their discussions …
Several hours later, this new group of friends discovers that none of them can trust each other, and that they are gravely concerned for their lives.
How has this calamity happened?
They’re all too drunk to decide which of them knows the correct side of the road to drive home on.
🙂
LikeLike
There are plenty of French theorists who are well off this hackneyed, over-worn, trodden-over-more-than-beaten-down path you’ve described …
You might find some of Paul Virilio’s ideas to your liking, especially the idea of “the integral accident”, and his “bunker archaeology” theories have produced some wonderfully bizarre buildings, including a church that punishes you physically (forcing your penitence) whilst worshipping in it.
Jacques Ellul might also be a bit of a surprise for you, especially “The Technological Society”, which is a bit old although the technics are still sound.
If it turns out you like this sort of connection to the hyper-modern and the “liquidity” of Bauman, you may also find Marc Augé worth checking out, and since you seemed to like Alain de Botton’s work (especially the bit about living at Heathrow, which I have also done, but for considerably longer), that may be an interesting path to follow.
Chantal Mouffe, although Belgian rather than French (but having taught extensively in France), might also be interesting for you, especially when it comes to the tensions between “classical liberalism” and the democratic state. I see reprints of her book “The Democratic Paradox” on occasion in book shops on both sides of the Atlantic.
As for the likes of Michel Foucault, you’ll find great solace in reading some of what Camille Paglia has written over the years. I remember an off-the-cuff remark of hers on the subject of what could drive you instantly mad or somesuch, with the surprising and amusing answer, “Foucault, naturellement!”
Also, perhaps Zizek enjoys his continued interrogations of Lacan because he has not embraced enough French madness in his life and that he craves more?
Some writers don’t just visit Guy Debord’s “Sinister Quarter”, they take up residence and start “monstering around” with some of the local denizens, and should you choose that “monstrous possibility”, I’m sure there’s more than enough Debord available in book shops and libraries for you …
🙂
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment