Frank Chouraqui

L’analyse du pouvoir que propose Merleau-Ponty dans sa confrontation avec le Marxisme et le bolchévisme tente de penser ce paradoxe : le phénomène du pouvoir contient deux sous-phénomènes: premièrement, le pouvoir d’une entité politique (Prince, Etat, Parti etc.) est reconnu s’il est perçu comme donné (moment de reconnaissance) ; deuxièmement, le pouvoir de cette entité dépend de ladite reconnaissance (moment d’institution). Le premier moment constate le donné alors que l’autre le conteste. L’article se propose de comprendre, premièrement, dans quelle mesure le pouvoir doit être compris comme l’union de la reconnaissance et de l’institution, et deuxièmement, dans quelle mesure cette unité doit être comprise comme une matrice productrice d’histoire. La première question sera résolue par appel à la notion de foi perceptive, qui est la version ontologique d’une telle unité ; et la seconde par appel à la notion politique de représentation héritée de Machiavel et développée dans les analyses critiques du thème de la représentation du prolétariat par le Parti. Le résultat est une reconfiguration des relations entre discours de vérité (dans ce cas, l’ontologie) et action politique ; une reconfiguration de la notion de pouvoir, et une hypothèse pour rendre compte de l’unité des travaux « théoriques » et « politiques » de Merleau-Ponty.The analysis of power that Merleau-Ponty proposes in his confrontation with Marxism and Bolshevism tries to think through the following paradox. The phenomenon of power is composed of two sub-phenomena. Firstly, the power of a political entity (Prince, State, Party, etc.) is recognized if it is perceived as given (moment of recognition). Secondly, the power of that entity depends on the said recognition (moment of institution). The first moment notices the given, while the other contests it. This article aims to elucidate, firstly, to what extent power must be understood as the union of recognition and institution, and secondly, to what extent that unity must be understood as a matrix productive of history. The first question will be resolved by appealing to the notion of the perceptual faith, which is the ontological version of such a unity; and the second, by appealing to the political notion of representation inherited from Machiavelli and developed in the critical analyses of the theme of the representation of the proletariat by the Party. The result is a reconfiguration of the relations between discourses of truth (in this case, ontology) and political action. It is a reconfiguration of the notion of power and a hypothesis that wants to account for the unity of Merleau-Ponty’s “theoretical” and “political” efforts.L’analisi del potere che Merleau-Ponty propone attraverso il confronto tra marxismo e bolscevismo tenta di pensare questo paradosso: il fenomeno del potere contiene due sotto-fenomeni: in primo luogo, il potere di un’entità politica (il Principe, lo Stato, il Partito, ecc.) è riconosciuto se è percepito come dato (momento di riconoscimento); in secondo luogo, il potere di questa entità dipende dal suddetto riconoscimento (momento di istituzione). Il primo momento constata ciò che è dato, mentre l’altro lo contesta. L’articolo si propone di comprendere, in primis, in quale misura il potere deve essere inteso come unione del riconoscimento e dell’istituzione, e in seconda battuta, in quale misura quest’unità deve essere compresa come una matrice produttrice di storia. La prima questione sarà risolta tramite il riferimento alla nozione politica di rappresentazione ereditata da Machiavelli e sviluppata nelle analisi critiche del tema della rappresentazione del proletariato attraverso il Partito. Il risultato è una riconfigurazione delle relazioni tra discorso di verità (in questo caso, l’ontologia) e azione politica; una riconfigurazione della nozione di potere, e un’ipotesi che renda conto dell’unità dei lavori “teorici” e “politici” di Merleau-Ponty.

This paper argues that if the wildly popular expression ‘post‐truth politics’ means anything, it describes a political situation inwhich political speech elicits support from its audience without the public believing it to be true or not (Section 2). As a result,the phenomenon of post‐truth (PT), if there is such a thing at all, forces us to move our account of political action away from thestandard belief‐desire model (BDM) (Section 3). I offer an alternative where attention replaces belief in Section 4.

Maurice Merleau-Ponty is widely recognized as one of the major figures of twentieth-century philosophy. The recent publication of his lecture courses and posthumous working notes has opened new avenues for both the interpretation of his thought and philosophy in general. These works confirm that, with a surprising premonition, Merleau-Ponty addressed many of the issues that concern philosophy today. With the benefit of this fuller picture of his thought, Merleau-Ponty and Contemporary Philosophy undertakes an assessment of the philosopher's relevance for contemporary thinking. Covering a diverse range of topics, including ontology, epistemology, anthropology, embodiment, animality, politics, language, aesthetics, and art, the editors gather representative voices from North America and Europe, including both Merleau-Ponty specialists and thinkers who have come to the philosopher's work through their own thematic interest.