Votre recherche

Se défendre. Une philosophie de la violence Conférence d’Elsa DORLIN En 1685, le Code noir défendait « aux esclaves de porter aucune arme offensive ni de gros bâtons » sous peine de fouet. Au XIXe siècle, en Algérie, l’État colonial interdisait les armes aux indigènes, tout en accordant aux colons le droit de s’armer. Aujourd’hui, certaines vies comptent si peu que l’on peut tirer dans le dos d’un adolescent noir au prétexte qu’il était « menaçant ». Une ligne de partage oppose historiquement les corps « dignes d’être défendus » à ceux qui, désarmés ou rendus indéfendables, sont laissés sans défense. Ce « désarmement » organisé des subalternes pose directement, pour tout élan de libération, la question du recours à la violence pour sa propre défense. Des résistances esclaves au ju-jitsu des suffragistes, de l’insurrection du ghetto de Varsovie aux Black Panthers ou aux patrouilles queer, Elsa Dorlin retrace une généalogie de l’autodéfense politique. Sous l’histoire officielle de la légitime défense affleurent des « éthiques martiales de soi », pratiques ensevelies où le fait de se défendre en attaquant apparaît comme la condition de possibilité de sa survie comme de son devenir politique. Cette histoire de la violence éclaire la définition même de la subjectivité moderne, telle qu’elle est pensée dans et par les politiques de sécurité contemporaines, et implique une relecture critique de la philosophie politique, où Hobbes et Locke côtoient Frantz Fanon, Michel Foucault, Malcolm X, June Jordan ou Judith Butler.

The literature on epistemic injustice currently displays a logocentric or propositional bias that excludes people with intellectual disabilities from the scope of epistemic agency and the demands of epistemic justice. This paper develops an account of epistemic agency and injustice that is inclusive of both people with and people without intellectual disabilities. I begin by specifying the hitherto undertheorized notion of epistemic agency. I develop a broader, pluralist account of epistemic agency, which relies on a conception of knowledge that accounts not only for propositional knowing, but also for other types of knowing that have been largely neglected in debates on epistemic injustice and agency. Based on this pluralist account of epistemic agency, I then show that people with intellectual disabilities qualify as epistemic agents and therefore as subjects of epistemic justice. Finally, I argue that this pluralist account of epistemic agency pushes us to revisit the current conception of epistemic injustice and to expand its taxonomy in two important ways.

Françoise Collin a fait entrer le féminisme dans la philosophie, et la philosophie dans le féminisme. Figure marquante des lettres francophones, originale, radicalement plurielle, sa pensée nous rappelle que le féminisme n’est pas qu’une théorie ou une action politique. Il est une façon d’être au monde. Dans ces textes, elle explore les notions d’héritage, de filiation et de transmission entre les générations de féministes. Un puissant antidote à la division et à la démission. « Françoise Collin était une féministe in-comparable et une philosophe du politique. L’une n’allait pas sans l’autre. Toujours à l’affût dans le présent de ce qui interpelle, interroge, bégaye, balbutie. Avec le culot de l’interpréter, avec rigueur mais sans prétention, pour l’ouvrir à ce qui innove. » — Marie-Blanche Tahon

We want to know what gender is. But metaphysical approaches to this question solely have focused on the binary gender kinds men and women. By overlooking those who identify outside of the binary–the group I call ‘genderqueer’–we are left without tools for understanding these new and quickly growing gender identifications. This metaphysical gap in turn creates a conceptual lacuna that contributes to systematic misunderstanding of genderqueer persons. In this paper, I argue that to better understand genderqueer identities, we must recognize a new type of gender kind: critical gender kinds, or kinds whose members collectively destabilize one or more pieces of dominant gender ideology. After developing a model of critical gender kinds, I suggest that genderqueer is best modeled as a critical gender kind that destabilizes the ‘binary axis’, or the piece of dominant gender ideology that says that the only possible genders are the binary, discrete, exclusive, and exhaustive kinds men and women.

Comment reprendre corps? Comment nous rapporter au corps, cet objet éminemment historique, domestiqué, violenté, pathologisé? Silvia Federici répond: écoutons le langage du corps, sa fragilité et ses imperfections, afin de retrouver, par-delà ses frontières, la continuité magique qui nous relie aux autres êtres vivants qui peuplent la Terre. Mais surtout, identifions la plaie: les rapports sociaux de genre, de classe et de race. Dans cet ouvrage accessible et personnel, en dialogue avec les mouvements féministes contemporains, Silvia Federici entreprend d’extirper nos corps des pouvoirs et des dispositifs technologiques qui les aliènent et les transforment. Politiques de l’identité, chirurgie de transformation des corps, nouvelles technologies reproductives, ce livre examine avec lucidité ces questions brûlantes qui traversent le champ féministe.

"This is one of the first books to offer a comprehensive philosophical treatment of microaggressions. Its aims are to provide an intersectional analysis of microaggressions that cuts across multiple groups and dimensions of oppression and marginalization, and to engage a variety of perspectives that have been sidelined within the discipline of philosophy. The volume gathers a diverse group of contributors: philosophers of color, philosophers with disabilities, philosophers of various nationalities and ethnicities, and philosophers of several genders and gender identities. Their unique frames of analysis articulate both how the concept of microaggressions can be used to clarify and sharpen our understanding of subtler aspects of oppression and how analysis, expansion, and reconceiving the notion of a microaggression can deepen and extend its explanatory power. The essays in the volume are divided into four thematic parts. The essays in Part I seek to defend microaggressions from common critiques and to explain their impact beyond the context of college students. In Part II the contributors set forth a framework for legitimizing microaggressions research that takes into account issues of measurement, scale, and replication. Part III explores the harms of microaggressions. The chapters show how small slights can accumulate to produce significant harm at the macro level, demonstrate how microaggressions contribute to epistemic harm, and establish novel understandings of racial and accent-triggered microaggressions. Finally, Part IV addresses issues of disability and ableism within the context of microaggressions. It includes commentary on transgender athletes, disciplinary techniques for bodily nonconformity, ableist exceptionalism, and deafness. Microaggressions and Philosophy features cutting-edge research on an important topic that will appeal to a wide range of students and scholars across disciplines. It includes perspectives from philosophy of psychology, empirically informed philosophy, feminist philosophy, critical race theory, disability theory, philosophy of language, philosophy of science, and social and political philosophy"-- Provided by publisher.

This paper is broadly concerned with the question of what epistemic decolonization might involve. It is divided into two parts. The first part begins by explaining the specifically epistemic problem to which calls for epistemic decolonization respond. I suggest that calls for decolonization are motivated by a perceived epistemic crisis consisting in the inadequacy of the dominant Eurocentric paradigm to properly theorize our modern world. I then discuss two general proposals, radical and moderate, for what epistemic decolonization might involve. In the second part, I argue that the inadequacy of Eurocentric epistemic resources constitutes a hermeneutical injustice caused by an irreducible form of epistemic oppression. I then argue that addressing this form of epistemic oppression requires thinking ‘outside’ of the Eurocentric paradigm because the paradigm might fail to reveal and address the epistemic oppression sustaining it. This lends further plausibility to the radical proposal that epistemic decolonization must involve thinking from ‘outside’ the Eurocentric paradigm, but also accommodates the moderate proposal that adopting critical perspectives on Eurocentric thought is an important part of epistemic decolonization.