Lucie Kim-Chi Mercier

This chapter focuses on the concept of ‘situation’ in Fanon’s philosophy, a notion that has seldom been analysed as pivotal in his thought. My argument follows the circulations of the concept of ‘situation’ in post-war psychiatry as well as in the philosophies of ‘existence’ of Karl Jaspers, Günther Anders, and Jean-Paul Sartre. The rst two sections address Fanon’s discussion of ‘situational diagnoses’ in Fanon’s earliest writings and as a general methodological framework for Black Skin White Masks (1952). It is on the basis of a condensed philosophical genealogy of the concept of ‘situation’ presented in the third section, that the fourth section re-examines the role of meaning in racial identi cation in ‘The Lived Experience of the Black’. The nal section argues that Fanon’s intervention in post-war philosophy cannot be grasped without understanding the theoretical displacements it e ectuated: by situating critique Fanon paradoxically expanded the scope of philosophy.

This article contends that an adequate investigation of the role and effects of race in the history of philosophy requires an elucidation of the ways in which the history of philosophy functions as a “territorial” structure. This argument is developed through an extensive cross-examination of Peter Park's Africa, Asia and the History of Philosophy: Racism in the Formation of the Philosophical Canon 1780–1830 (2013) and Catherine König-Pralong's La colonie philosophique. Écrire l'histoire de la philosophie aux XVIIIe et XIXe siècles (2019). I show that although the two studies inquire into the fixation of the history of philosophy on Europe that took place in German and French philosophy at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century, they do so via different explanatory frameworks, highlighting diverging critical strategies in the dismantling of Eurocentrism in the discipline. In the final part I contrast three broad critical strategies against the Eurocentric orientation of the historiography of philosophy based on opposite problematizations of the territoriality of the history of philosophy: the territory as (1) jurisdiction, (2) relational field, and (3) space of address.

I focus in this response on what I take to be Bernasconi's proposal to dissolve and reframe moral and political philosophies around the problematic of slavery. Insofar as, in the wake of Afro-diasporic and Black radical thought, it offers us one version of an argument that has now touched virtually all aspects of modern European philosophy, how are we to understand the specific orientations of Bernasconi's approach? Reading Bernasconi's article, I comment on the following points: (1) the notion of “absence” or “silence” about slavery, (2) Bernasconi's focus on methodology rather than individual moral or political responsibility, and (3) his shift away from canonical philosophical figures. To conclude, I open further questions regarding the relationships between the “material” approach to the history of philosophy he advocates in this article and the project of a “critical philosophy of race” he has defended elsewhere.

The central premise of this thesis is that translation has acquired a new meaning in so-­called postcolonial times and that this transformation calls forth a renewal of the philosophical conceptualisation of translation. I begin by distinguising between two different philosophical genealogies of translation in modern European philosophy. The first is a Romantic and hermeneutic lineage, in which translation is closely bound to the movement of culture, and conceived of as an ‘experience of the foreign’. The second is a relational genealogy of translation, in which translation is a transformation without teleology, yet systematically-­oriented. The thesis reconstructs this alternative concept through a parallel reading of Walter Benjamin’s and Michel Serres’ works on translation, contending that Leibniz’s relational metaphysics proved a crucial resource for both of them. Albeit reflecting on different objects, these two authors converge in thinking translation as a relation and a method, associating translation with their critique of epistemology. By drawing on a generalised metaphysics of language, they both reflect on translation as a transformation in the objective domain, hence as a form of historicity. The thesis is composed of three autonomous yet convergent parts. The first part operates as a backdrop to the whole by expounding the need for locating the philosophy of translation outside of the ethics of alterity. It contends that the link made between linguistic difference and difference ‘as such’ is often insufficiently mediated. The second part examines Serres’ early works, explicating his philosophy of translation in close connexion with the evolution of his structuralism, from his doctoral work on Leibniz to the last of the Hermès series: Le passage du Nord-­Ouest. The third part investigates Benjamin’s philosophy of translation in light of his metaphysics of language, following his concepts of the ‘afterlife’ as a thread through his early and later works. Finally, the conclusion propounds the intrinsic connexion that holds between the translation problem, Leibnizianism and ‘decentered epistemologies’.

Excerpted from an article on Leibniz first published in 1974 in Hermès III, la Traduction, Michel Serres’s ‘Transdisciplinarity as Relative Exteriority’ offers a synoptic view of Serres’s vision of the relationship between philosophy and the sciences. Serres charts four historical strategies by which philosophy has secured its theoretical control over the sciences, four versions of philosophical exteriority towards the scientific field. He contrasts this topography or philosophical ‘theatre’ of representation to Leibniz’s immanent relation to scientific discourse. A systematic whole without fixed metalanguage, the Leibnizian encyclopaedia constitutes, according to Serres, a truly transdisciplinary method.

The Dictionary of Untranslables: A Philosophical Lexicon, a translation of Vocabulaire européen des philosophies (2004), is an invaluable resource for researchers in philosophy and the humanities more generally. Gathering together the work of over 150 philosophers, this encyclopaedic project focuses on a series of philosophical terms that prove difficult to translate, disclosing their historical and linguistic intricacies. This review aims to provide a succinct analysis of its structure and rationale. It is suggested that a gap exists between the framing of the Dictionary in relation to a critical European cultural politics and the kind of philosophy it performs – a highly erudite contribution to both the history of philosophy and to philology. It is further argued that this does not get simpler with the edition of this book into English and the potential ‘globalization’ of its scope.

This chapter reviews three of the most consequential works in modern European philosophy published in 2017: Étienne Balibar’s Citizen Subject, Nick Nesbitt’s edited volume The Concept in Crisis, and William Clare Roberts’s Marx’s Inferno. These works reflect the fact that 2017 witnessed an upsurge of philosophical publications on Marx and Marxism. On one level, this is because 2017 was simultaneously the 150-year anniversary of the publication of the first volume of Marx’s Capital and the 100-year anniversary of the Russian Revolution. Yet on another, more substantial, level, these works point to the enduring question of the meaning of ‘Marxist philosophy’ in its dual, and disputed, relationship to transformative political practice, on the one hand, and to the history of philosophy on the other. There are different threads that tie these works together, but two concepts, coming out of Louis Althusser’s work, stand out: those of ‘conjuncture’ and ‘symptomatic reading’. In short, this chapter suggests that the importance of modern European philosophy is in large part attributable to the theoretical and political problems that Marxism constitutes for it, problems which, at the same time, Marxism cannot articulate without this philosophy. The chapter is divided into five sections: 1. Introduction; 2. Writing and Conjuncture: Citizen Subject; 3. A Symptomatic Reading: The Concept in Crisis; 4. A Symptomatic Reading? Marx’s Inferno; 5. Conclusion.