Logics of Revolt: Theory After May 68

In his fable of the origins of postmodernism Terry Eagleton describes it as the result of the emphatic defeat of the radical movements of the 1960s (1996: 1). Of course the metonymic image of those movements, especially in relation to postmodernism, are the events of May 68 in France. Today, the direct legacy of this failed revolution (Jay, 1984) is a culture and a style of thinking that is obsessed with ambiguity, indeterminacy and fragmentation; a thinking of difference, moreover, and a celebration of cultural diversity tempered by the overriding imperative not to infringe the rights of others (Badiou, 2001: 26-7). It is a thinking that sees its role as that of liberating thought from the mastery of abstract theory and theoreticism, from theoretical detours, and of disrobing it of its intellectual impostures (cf. Sokal and Brichmont, 1997). In actual fact, what the theory closely associated with the Parisian moment has given way to is a loose collection of pre- or post-theoretical concerns (Bordwell and Carroll, 1996), a rehumanisation of reading against theoretical distortion and after theory (Cunnigham, 2001) or else a theory whose future hinges on revisionism (Rabate, 2002) in addition to the much more established brand of pragmatism, which retreats into the relative comfort and safety of private philosophical reflection (Rorty, 1989; Rorty et al.1996 ). Of course, there are plenty of exceptions to the trend which set out variously to combat the liberalisation of theory. This combat has been exemplified most consistently in recent years by Laclau and Mouffe, whose counter-hegemonic alliance of left wing politics and the theoretical developments around the critique of essentialism attempts to win back the civic space of theory, currently permeated by the instrumentalism of third way reform, in the name of radical and plural democracy (Laclau and Mouffe, 1989). However, there remains a strong suspicion that this attempt to reinvigorate theory through the transformation of dominant political discourse a kind of social struggle over meaning and texts ultimately falls back on a dialectic of theory and practice; a dialectic, moreover, that May 68 rendered so profoundly deficient in its ability to think genuine difference, novelty and change. For the New Left, May 68 along with la pense 68 as it became known some twenty years after the events (Ferry and Renaut, 1985) is a historical landmark for theory only in terms of having left a theoretical legacy to be tested against contemporary liberal-democratic criteria (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985: 176), to be revealed through its forgotten histories (Ross, 2002), gauging its Anglophone reception (Cusset, 2003) or else simply negating the consistency of its putative intellectual project altogether (Dews, 1987). Our hypothesis challenges this consensus, arguing that the key to grasping May 68 and its events is to look neither to the politics of counterculture nor to the deconstruction of Theory with capital T. Instead, May 68 and its events mark a decisive rupture in thinking the genuinely radical, the immanently rebellious, the revolutionary and the new, and are marked by what we term here logics of revolt.

These logics can be detected most clearly in the work of a disparate number of French thinkers past and present: Alain Badiou (cf. 1982; 1988), Michel Foucault (cf. 1972; 1977), Christian Jambet and Guy Lardreau (cf. 1976), Franois Laruelle (cf. 1981), Sylvain Lazarus (cf. 1996), Jacques Rancire (cf. 1991), Phillipe Sollers (cf. 1968) and others. Their influence can also be found in the work of non-French thinkers like Slavoj Zizek (cf. 1999) and Antonio Negri (cf. 2003; 2004). However, they do not constitute a separate tradition, another school of thought, or even a minority position within theory. Instead, what is affirmed through logics of revolt would instead be the spirit of May 68 itself and the possibilities it opens up for theory and for thinking in itself; a thinking without limits an infinite thought (Badiou, 2003) which aims for universality; in short, a thinking at last set free from the constraints of the social system: the university and its State philosophy (Deleuze, 1994: 129-167; Deleuze and Guattari, 1988: 351-473), the party, the school and the workplace, the media and their paranoid promotion of cultural identity, along with the rest of the ideological state apparatuses.

This special journal issue proposes to present essays that analyse the logics of May 68, rather than the mere spectacle of its events and their historical representation, and aims to contextualise them in relation to the current after theory debate. Firstly, Jason Barker and Benjamin Noys offer a brief introduction to the historical and theoretical background to these issues. There will then follow a series of essays and critical interventions by contributors working in philosophy, social and cultural theory, political theory, media and communications theory, and cultural studies. The contributions will address the challenges these logics pose to the current post-theory consensus and how the logics of revolt generate or revitalise concepts that have been

either discarded or overlooked by contemporary theory. Their inherent logics not only challenge dominant paradigms, but strike at the very heart of the possibilities for thinking our present reality.

Bibliography

Badiou, A. (1982) Thorie du sujet. Paris: Seuil. _____, (1988) LEtre et lvnement. Paris: Seuil. _____, (2001) Ethics. An Essay on the Understanding of Evil. Trans. P. Hallward. London and New York: Verso. _____, (2003) Infinite Thought. trans. O. Feltham and J. Clemens, London: Continuum.

Bordwell, D. and Carroll, N. (eds) (1996) Post-Theory. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Cunningham, V. (2001) Reading After Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Cusset, F. (2003) French Theory: Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze et Cie, et les mutations de la vie intellectuelle aux Etats-Unis. Paris: Dcouverte.

Deleuze, G. (1994) Difference and Repetition. Trans. P. Patton. London: Athlone. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1988) A Thousand Plateaus, Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Trans. B. Massumi. London: Athlone.

Dews, P. (1987) Logics of Disintegration. London and New York: Verso.

Eagleton, T. (1996) The Illusions of Postmodernism. Oxford: Blackwell. _____, (2003) After Theory. London: Allen Lane.

Ferry, L. and Renaut, A. (1985) La pense 68. Paris.

Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge. Trans. A. Sheridan. London: Tavistock. _____, (1977) Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison. Trans. A. Sheridan. London: Allen Lane.

Jambet, C. and Lardreau, G. (1976) LAnge. Paris: Grasset.

Jay, M. (1984) Marxism and Totality. Cambridge: Polity.

Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso. _____, (1989) Phronesis (Series Introduction). London: Verso.

Laruelle, F. (1981) Le principe de minorit. Paris: Aubier.

Lazarus, S. (1996) LAnthropologie du nom. Paris: Seuil.

Negri, A. (2003) Time for Revolution. Trans. M. Mandarini. London and New York: Continuum. ____, (2004) Negri on Negri, trans. M. B. Debevoise. London and New York: Routledge.

Rabate, J-M. (2002) The Future of Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Rancire, J. (1991) The Ignorant Schoolmaster. Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation. Trans. Kristin Ross. Stanford: Standford University Press.

Rorty, R. (1989) Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rorty, R., Critchley, S., Derrida, J and Laclau, E. (1996) Deconstruction and Pragmatism. C. Mouffe (ed). London: Routledge.

Ross, K. (2002) May 68 and Its Afterlives. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Sokal, A. and Brichmont, J. (1997) Impostures intellectuelles. Paris: Odile Jacob.

Sollers, P. (1968) Logiques. Paris: Seuil.

Zizek, S (1999) The Ticklish Subject. The Absent Centre of Political Ontology, London: Verso.