Alan Schrift

The articles in this special issue of the Journal of Speculative Philosophy were selected from revised versions of papers that were originally presented at the fifty-ninth annual meeting of the Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy in September 2021. This virtual conference took place on September 17–18 and 23–26 after the cancellation of the 2020 conference due to the COVID-19 pandemic.Bonnie Honig and Mel Y. Chen gave the SPEP 2021 Plenary Addresses and we are grateful to be able to include Honig's plenary, "Taking Back the Camera: Race and Agonism in Mr. Deeds and The Fits" in this special issue. Thinking both with and against Stanley Cavell's and Giorgio Agamben's respective readings of...

Resumo Embora se acredite amplamente que a atenção francesa a Nietzsche nos anos 1960 era uma resposta à publicação das lições de Heidegger sobre Nietzsche em 1961, defendo que o aparecimento de Nietzsche na lista de leitura do exame de agrégation de philosophie fornece a melhor explicação para a emergência do chamado “New Nietzsche” em sua associação com o pós-estruturalismo francês. Após uma breve explicação de como a agrégation funciona na cultura acadêmica francesa e sua influência nas atividades docentes e publicações dos professores, analiso o aumento do interesse na obra de Nietzsche entre filósofos, desde o fim dos anos 1950, como consequência desse exame.While it is widely believed that the French attention to Nietzsche in the 1960s was a response to the publication of Heidegger’s Nietzsche lectures in 1961, I argue that the appearance of Nietzsche on the examination reading list for the agrégation de philosophie provides the best explanation for the emergence of the so-called “New Nietzsche” associated with French poststructuralism. Following a brief explanation of how the agrégation functions within French academic culture, and the influence it has on both the teaching and publishing activities of the professoriate, I analyze the rise in interest in Nietzsche’s work among philosophers beginning in the late 1950s as a consequence of this examination.

Why Nietzsche still? These essays by a distinguished group of contributors suggest a number of answers. They show that Nietzsche still has a great deal to say to those who read him with an eye toward developing critical responses to our present and the future that will follow. Alan D. Schrift's goal in assembling these stimulating essays, all but one of them written for the volume, is to display the multifaceted nature of Nietzsche's reflections, to demonstrate Nietzsche's relevance for contemporary reflections on the dramas of culture at the start of the third millennium, and to exhibit the range of innovative and exciting Nietzsche scholarship that is being carried out across the humanities and social sciences in the English-speaking world. Whether at the aesthetic, cultural, psychological, or political level, Nietzsche's thought clearly offers a critical focus for analyzing the ongoing dramas of culture as these dramas inform and influence what today we frame as "political."

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Transvaluations: Nietzsche in France, 1872–1972 by Douglas SmithAlan D. SchriftDouglas Smith. Transvaluations: Nietzsche in France, 1872–1972. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Pp. xiii + 250. Cloth, $67.00.In a letter to his friend Heinrich Köselitz, Nietzsche described himself as “a battlefield more than a human being.” Douglas Smith appropriately frames his survey of Nietzsche’s reception in France with this image, noting that several significant transformations mark the first hundred years of Nietzsche’s French reception. Perhaps more to the point, Smith argues that the contesting readings of Nietzsche’s works represent other conflicts, both philosophical, institutional, and political. The result is an interesting, albeit selective, narrative that seeks to tell a coherent story of the twists and turns in Nietzsche’s French reception from 1872—the year The Birth of Tragedy was published—to 1972—the year of the Nietzsche conference at Cerisy that Smith takes as the apogee of the sixties Nietzsche revival. As Smith wisely notes, Nietzsche’s works lend themselves to widely divergent readings; he also implies the same may be true of the history of his reception.Several interpretive assumptions guide Smith’s narrative; three are most central. First, the “transvalutions” of Nietzsche’s works are themselves supported by Nietzsche’s own “continual interrogation of identity—of the self, of the nation, of culture” (7). As Nietzsche continually called identity into question, the identity of his own texts were contested, and Smith shows how the political and philosophical left and right exploited Nietzsche’s reliance on metaphor to give themselves the task of constructing a coherent meaning for Nietzsche’s texts, a task discharged with progressively “closer,” more “immanent” readings of those texts. [End Page 477]Smith’s second assumption concerns the shifting privilege given to Nietzsche’s two major themes, as the century witnesses a transformation from an emphasis on will to power to eternal recurrence as the central theme. This transformation is conjoined with another, as attention to the ethical questions posed by Nietzsche’s works is replaced by questions concerning Nietzsche’s relationship to the history of metaphysics as its end or reversal. For Smith, these transformations reflect a shift from Nietzsche’s early reception—framed primarily by European political events (first the Franco-Prussian War, then the two World Wars)—to his later reception, framed primarily by French responses to German philosophy. This leads to Smith’s third and guiding assumption, namely, that Nietzsche’s French reception has throughout been a response first to Hegel and then to Heidegger.Smith’s narrative unfolds in five chapters. The first focuses on the “early reception” (1872–1929) and divides neatly into two periods: an initial period emphasizing Nietzsche’s biography (as friend of Wagner, follower of Schopenhauer), and a second period dominated by questions of national interest that move from valorization of Nietzsche’s polemics against German culture to his vilification as a reflection of Prussian militarism. The second chapter discusses Nietzsche’s reception vis-à-vis National Socialism: here we see the first tension between readings centering on eternal recurrence vs. those focused on will to power, as the French right followed the vitalist Nazi emphasis on will to power, while the left (Lefebvre, Bataille) drew greater attention to eternal recurrence.The third chapter is somewhat unexpected, as it follows the Nietzsche-Hegel connection invoked by the “left” readings’ attention to contradiction to a discussion of decolonization that focuses on Sartre, Fanon, and Lévi-Strauss before concluding with an oddly situated discussion of Foucault. While much of this chapter is quite interesting, the attempt to read the disagreements between Sartre and first Fanon and then Lévi-Strauss as, in some sense, playing out a relationship between Hegel and Nietzsche (universal/particular) seems forced at times. In addition, Foucault’s reading of singularity as a way of reading Nietzsche into Fanon both mutes the substantive differences between Fanon and Sartre and insufficiently appreciates the depth of Nietzsche’s impact on Foucault’s early work (for example, there is no discussion of the role Nietzsche plays in The Order of Things).The final two chapters focus on post-1960s reception. In the fourth chapter, Deleuze’s...

In this paper, I discuss the Agrégation de Philosophie—the French national examination that certifies philosophy teachers for both lycée and university instruction—in terms of the role it has played in the intellectual formation of all French philosophers and, as a corollary, its impact on developments in 20th-century French philosophy. Following a recounting of the history and structure of the examination, I discuss how the examination reveals that a thorough grounding in the history of philosophy, especially pre-1800 philosophy, is a necessary condition for employment as an instructor of philosophy. After discussing the connections between the examination and the teaching activities of the Sorbonne’s Department of Philosophy, I analyze the content of the exam, showing how it offers important insights into the French philosophical tradition and how it differs from the English language and German philosophical traditions. I conclude by examining in detail the appearances of Comte, Plotinus, and Nietzsche on the examination, showing how their appearances correlate with publication trends as well as the careers of influential philosophers.

As its title indicates, Allison’s text offers readings of four of Nietzsche’s most important books. The title also hearkens back to Allison’s groundbreaking 1977 anthology, The New Nietzsche, which for many served as their first introduction to the new styles of interpreting Nietzsche’s texts that were taking place in France and would become associated with the work of Derrida, Deleuze, Kofman, Blanchot, Klossowski, and others. Less obvious, but no less important to Allison’s interpretation, is his familiarity with Nietzsche’s biography; in fact, one of the primary features distinguishing this book from most other recent works on Nietzsche is the way Allison brings events in Nietzsche’s life to bear on the philosophical views he puts forward in his works. The other welcome feature of this volume is that Allison refrains from expounding in general on the basic themes in Nietzsche’s philosophy, choosing instead to explore specific themes as they are expressed in the particular books he examines. Such an approach stands in refreshing contrast to what has been the norm in Nietzsche studies until quite recently, where Nietzsche’s philosophy is explicated by drawing passages rather randomly from the corpus as a whole in order to articulate the metaphysical, epistemological, or ethical themes that “Nietzsche’s philosophy” supposedly expressed. By choosing to read Nietzsche’s books as books in terms of situating the formulation of various themes within the context of a carefully constructed work, what results is less a wide-ranging interpretation of Nietzsche’s philosophy than a careful explication of these four books that is informed by Nietzsche’s biography, the historical and personal context in which these books were written, and the work of French and German philosophers who were influenced by Nietzsche and have reflected that interest back on Nietzsche’s own philosophical views.

ABSTRACT Following the publication of Derrida's Given Time (1991), a great deal of philosophical attention was devoted to gifts and gift exchange as well as Marcel Mauss's Essay on the Gift. But after a certain formalization of the possible/impossible aporia of the gift (the gift's conditions of possibility are its conditions of impossibility), interest in Mauss's Essay among philosophers has largely disappeared. I return to Mauss's Essay and in particular to its moral, economic, and political conclusions to argue that Mauss makes several observations that relate directly to the current political dysfunction of the U.S. government.

"Poststructuralism and Critical Theory's Second Generation" analyses the major themes and developments in a period that brought continental philosophy to the forefront of scholarship in a variety of humanities and social science disciplines and that set the agenda for philosophical thought on the continent and elsewhere from the 1960s to the present. Focusing on the years 1960-1984, the volume examines the major figures associated with poststructuralism and the second generation of critical theory, the two dominant movements that emerged in the 1960s: Althusser, Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida, Lyotard, Irigaray, and Habermas. Influential thinkers such as Serres, Bourdieu, and Rorty, who are not easily placed in "standard" histories of the period, are also covered. Beyond this, thematic essays engage with issues as diverse as the Nietzschean legacy, the linguistic turn in continental thinking, the phenomenological inheritance of Gadamer and Ricoeur, the influence of psychoanalysis, the emergence of feminist thought and a philosophy of sexual difference, the renewal of the critical theory tradition, and the importation of continental philosophy into literary theory