This article was downloaded by:[State University Of New York] On: 6 April 2008 Access Details: [subscription number 788778040

] Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

The Cause of the Other
Jacques Ranciere Online Publication Date: 01 April 1998 To cite this Article: Ranciere, Jacques (1998) 'The Cause of the Other', Parallax, 4:2, 25 - 33 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/135346498250217 URL:


Full terms and conditions of use: This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

they argue in terms of categories belonging to the sam e cosm ology. but truly political. and of the w ay in w hich the ties that w ere knotted and then unknotted betw een the two terms at the S tate level knotted them together at the political level. A nd that truth-proce ss is likened to a de® nite system of relations betw een the sam e and the other: in the course of the struggle. w ithout provocation. The latter opposition is enough to indicate that m y intention is to re¯ ect on the relationship betw een this recent past and our present. That a radical break has occurred betw een two cosm ologies of the political. a particular relationship betw een sam e and other that lies at the heart of our citizenship: a concern for the other that is not ethical. If w e reread the w ritings of those w ho supporte d the A lgerian cause in 1960. M y concern is. I w ou ld like to project a few of the questions that arise w hen w e consider the knotting together of France and A lgeria on to the contem porary ordering of the ® gures of alterity (the hom eless. 25± 33 Downloaded By: [State University Of New York] At: 05:46 6 April 2008 The Cause of the Other 1 Jacques Rancie re Á M y argument does not exactly corres pond to the them e of the exchange of gazes betw een France and A lgeria. m an and hum anitarianism) that de® nes our political ® eld. `French’. `man’. rather. it is conquering a new hum anity. history. the imm igrant. War is the unveiled and inverted truth of oppression. 2. no. I w ill therefore be speaking of w hat can. is so obvious that it is now diæ cult to speak of the relationship betw een sam e and other. or `proletarian’. the excluded. truth and hum anity that de® ne the rationality of the political. national and foreign. a `people’ w hose identity has been snatched away by colonial oppression becom es that alterity’s other.p arallax . and as a language that speaks the truth of a historical process. to com pare two w ays of ordering relations betw een sam e and other. I w ill attem pt to show how this knotting together has determined a relationship of alterity. and thus gave rise to a speci® c ordering of the relationship betw een the terms `Citizen’. w e are struck by the fact that w hen the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre com ments on the theses of Frantz Fanon. 1998. 1353± 4645/ 98 $12´00 Ñ 1998 Taylor & Fran cis Ltd parallax 25 . That `people’ is not returning to a particularity that has been denied. included and excluded. It w ill not in fact deal w ith look ing at A lgeria or w ith a body of know ledge about m odern A lgerian thought. vol. and it is com pleting the break w ith a prim al identity. 4. or betw een the two system s of relations betw een w orld. the fundam entalist. and w hen the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu speaks on the basis of his ® eld w ork. The w ar is seen as a language. be called `French’ A lgeria. `people’. w ith the re¯ exive gaze w e turn back on ourselves w hen w e consider an other w hose presence or absence m odi® es the m eaning of the adjective `French’ and distances the `French’ political subject from him or herself. or our absence of a political ® eld.

The process w hich. is the typical form of m odernity. local com munities based upon belief are all that Á Rancie re 26 . Deracination no longer produces the universality of a disappropriation that has been inverted into an appropriation of the universal. like those of the universalist philosopher and the specialized scientist. The `cause’ of the deracination is no longer oppression and liberation. and the eå ects it deduces from it. tim e. is now supposedly forging a m an w ho w ants to transform the religious law into the law of the political w orld. as a m odality of the social bond. This inversion of eå ects inverts the political status of the object of social science: w hereas history w as once a process that turned alienation into truth. A nd the spiritual com munity responds to that need. w hich can no longer go back to old particularisms and w hich leads to the new citizenship of the universal. W ithin this system . the w ar constitutes an em ergent people. history is the m oment of a truth that asserts the closure of a historical form (colonialism) as the subject that colonialism had w rested asunder becom es a voice and a people. That m uch is obvious from the w ay in w hich a contem porary sociologist of Islam describes and interprets for us a sim ilar phenom enon of `deracination’ . w ho becom e anony m ous citizens. the w ar is a negation of the negation. identity and alterity is. thirty years ago. the clan or the fam ily¼ The peasant m asses w ho rejected the innovations oå ered by the West in the name of a sturdy tradition and conservatism. have been caught up in the w hirlw ind of violence w hich is abolishing the rem ains of the past. This system of relations betw een truth. 3 This text describes a process of breaking w ith tradition sim ilar to that argued for by Sartre and Bourdieu thirty years ago. far rem oved from the system s that govern today’s analyses. w as supposedly forging a revolutionary m an. insofar as they are spiritual com munities.2 The voice of the m ilitant and that of the scientist. The reception facilities oå ered by the pious com munities. and w hat politics can apprehend of it. It is now an eå ect that is equivalent to both: the Nation-state w hich. inverts the relationship betw een politics and truth that underpinned their w ords: the relationship betw een w hat know ledge can say about the w orld. It is no m ore than a loss of identity. of course. Colonial degradation ends w ith the conquest of a self w hich is new . can speak as one because their pronou ncem ents relate to the sam e system of reference points. `Like som e tim e bom b’.Downloaded By: [State University Of New York] At: 05:46 6 April 2008 Insofar as it ends the negation that w as colonialism. But the w ay in w hich it establishes its cause. the em ergent people identify w ith the voice of a truth. w rites Pierre Bourdieu. This is how Bruno Etienne now explains the rise of radical Islamism: The Nation-state is destroying com munitarian structures and accelerating the ¯ ight from the country side but cannot oå er any credible w elfare provision for individuals. do allow individuals to transcend their deracination and sublim ate their frustration. and a need to recover an identity. it is crushing and scattering traditional com munities such as the village. the w ar is com pletely dem olishing social realities.

Ethics and politics thus cease to be polar opposites. or of the fact that it is now impossible to bind the four terms `history’. The paradoxical thing about this anti-ethical assertion is that. and not the other w ay round’. namely the relativity that distinguishes it from philosophical teleologies of truth. for us. if not an ethical sense. The truth of the w ar can thus be seen as a denunciation of the lie of ethics. The social is no longer the instance of the `manifest’. w e no longer have to sim ply com pare the illusions and disenchantm ents of history’ s relationship w ith the truth that de® nes possible political utterances. and especially not w ith the hum anistic protests of our beautiful souls. Bruno Etienne goes on: `It is because groups require cohesion if they are to survive that m eaning exists. The basic hypothesis is as follow s: belief in a truth-regime is at least as m uch an eå ect as the cause of a given m ode of political subjectivation. They w ant nothing to do w ith us. The question of the struggle against the A lgerian w ar. I am using a term w hich is. did pose a dilem ma: in w hat sense. To speak of the cause of the other appears to refer politics to som ething it does not w ant to be. and w hich it is right not to w ant to be. to see that the other can be included in politics in a non-ethical w ay. could the cause of the A lgerians be our cause? Rem em ber Sartre ’s preface to Frantz Fanon’ s L es D am ne s de la terre . This book is addressed to them . It supplies social science w ith both its raw m aterial and its m ode of validity. how ever. It is a paraodoxical preface in that it introduces  us to a book by w arning us that this book is not addressed to us. as they are in the norm al ordering of the relationship betw een these terms. Sartre tells us. We can arrive at a positional com parison of the political relationships betw een sam e and other that determine belief in a given historical truth regime or regime of untruth. Our protests are the last form of the colonial lie that is being shattered by the w ar: the truth of violence is its negation. it actu ally de® nes a parallax 27 .4 One could sim ply take note of the fact that the w orld has changed. or the site w here the truth becom es a m eaningful political m ovem ent. by excluding a cause of the other. A nd yet I w on der if it m ight not be possible to keep the question w ithin the lim its of the political by de® ning a diå erent line of approach. I am therefore suggesting that w e displace the argument away from a `historical’ analysis centred on the w ar/truth relationship and on the cause of the universal produced by the twofold negation of the alterity of the other. If that is the case. But the obscurity of the belief that can establish bonds is now seen as the only thing that can confer m eaning. or w hen politics is seen as a realm of self-interested com munities governed by their own logics of self-preservation.Downloaded By: [State University Of New York] At: 05:46 6 April 2008 rem ain. namely ethics. The w ar of liberation w aged by the colonized is their w ar. But it has alw ays been oå ensive. `people’ and `universal’ into a process that allow s truth to forge a w orld. `truth’ . It is the instance of obscurity once m ore. or the w ay in w hich successive French governments w aged it. and in the direction of a political analysis centred on w hat m ade it possible to inscribe the political struggle against the w ar. namely a certain sense of the cause of the other. oå ensive. We w ou ld then have to conclu de that the possibility of constituting political objects and utterances w as bound up w ith a cosm ology and a truth-regime that have becom e foreign to us. A nd w e w ou ld thus condem n ourselves to having to speak of that political con® guration in purely historical terms. The w hole point is. and ethics as the realm of a respect for the other governed by principles that transcend political lim itations.

That day. and som etim es it inspires annoy ance w ith those w ho are indiscreet enough to rem ind us of the existence of suå ering. that betw een the French State and `us’. it w as impossible even to count the victim s. Politics is not som ething that is declared in the face of a w ar that is seen as the em ergence into truth of som ething truly historical. It often inspires a m ore secret feeling of relief at not being in that other’ s shoes. the police cleared the public space and. an utterance capable of saying: `this w ar is and is not our w ar’. a co ntrario . thanks to a new s blackout. the truth is that this blinding sun never lit up anything. In a w ord. The crucial thing about the eå ect of that day w as the w ay in w hich the questions of the visibility and invisibility of repression becam e interwoven into the three relationships that w ere in play: the relationship betw een A lgerian m ilitants and the French state. Politics is som ething that is Á Rancie re 28 . this m eant that som ething had been done in our country and in our name. and that betw een the A lgerian m ilitants and `us’. On the contra ry. It is m ade in m y image and I deserve it’ . w hat can be said and w hat cannot be said.5 Tw o con¯ icting Sartre anisms com e together here: a notion of history-as-truth that dism isses any ethics of a concern for the other. w as a turning point. We know that now . a m oment w hen the ethical aporia of the relationship betw en `mine’ and the other w as transform ed into the political subjectivation of an inclusive relationship w ith alterity. Rw anda and elsewhere show us m uch m ore than w e w ere show n in those days. Thus.Downloaded By: [State University Of New York] At: 05:46 6 April 2008 purely ethical and individualistic relationship w ith the w ar as such. A nd the police are not prim arily a strong -arm repressive force. as French subjects. A nd politics is constructed in relation to that prescription. The results of that intolerable event are w ell know n: savage beatings and drow nings. Fear and pity are not political aå ects. the rem oval of som ething by the action of the police. but a form of intervention w hich prescribes w hat can be seen and w hat cannot be seen. The w ork of certain historians has recently rem inded us that the starting point for the big dem onstrations that took place towards the end of the A lgerian w ar w as 17 October 1961. w as therefore bound up w ith the possibility of a third utterance. the m eaning of that twofold disappearance: `The blinding sun of tortu re has now reached its zenith. A t best. the dem onstration m eant that A lgerians in struggle had em erged w ithin the French public space as political participants and. On that day. the deserter M aurice M aschino justi® es his action in terms of the ethics of absolute freedom and  responsibility established by the very sam e Sartre in L’ E tre et le ne ant : `If I am m obilized in a w ar. m ade its own operations invisible. For us. our exposure to them inspires m oral indignation. it w as an invisibility. It w as not the blinding sun that lit up the political scene in 1961. The possibility of a truly political m obilization that could break out of a dialogue betw een w ar and ethics alone. that w ar is m y w ar. M arked and tortu red bodies do not light up anything. now that images from Bosnia. A t the tim e. and it is lighting up the w hole country ’. in a certain sense. a pow erless hatred of the tortu rer. and that it w as taken away from us in two w ays. an A lgerian dem onstration called by the FLN in Paris w as m arked by savage repression and a new s blackout on the num ber of victim s. 7 Now . and a notion of freedom that m akes the French government’s w ar everyone’s business. A phrase used by Sartre in his preface to L es D am ne s de la terre  helps us to understand. w ith its twofold aspect (manifest and hidden). 6 From the French State’ s point of view.

or w ith those victim s. a degrading of that identity. In the case of the A lgerian w ar. w hose m otives w ere not ours. That selfdiå erence of French/A lgerian citizens could not. and not m erely som e form of com passion. or a gap betw een juridical citizenship and political citizenship. It w as a police operation on a large scale. oæ cially. This rejection of an identity could becom e the principle behind a political action. ® rstly. The French state had proclaim ed the end of that diå erence at the beginning of June 1958. how ever. could subjectivate it as w e w ere caught betw een two de® nitions of citizenship: the national de® nition of m em bership of the French nation. w hat can be counted and w hat cannot be counted. A political subjectivation alw ays implies a `discourse of the other’ in three senses. The political response w as therefore a response to the `police’ aspect of the w ar. Insofar as it is a political ® gure. The State therefore m ade it possible to subjectivate the self-diå erence of our citzenship. be subjectivated by ® ghters involved in a w ar of liberation w ho w ere now determined to w in their A lgerian identity throu gh w ar. a rejection of an identity established by an other. reject our identi® cation w ith the State that had killed them and rem oved them from all the statistics. and the political de® nition of citizenship as a w ay of counting the parallax 29 .Downloaded By: [State University Of New York] At: 05:46 6 April 2008 declared in the face of policing. We could not identify w ith the A lgerians w ho appeared as dem onstrators w ithin the French public space. of a people de® ned by the w rong done to the constitution of a com monality that w as constructing an other com munal space. the prim ary m eaning of the cause of the other is a refusal to identify w ith a certain self . I refer to the diå erence betw een a French sub ject and a French citiz en w hich w as inscribed by the colonial conquest as the diå erence internal to the juridical determination of being French. it alw ays contains an impossible identi® cation. and that is not the sam e thing as a recognition of the historical validity of a w ar of liberation. on the other hand. The political selfdiå erence corres ponded to another diå erence. w hose very faces w ere invisible to us. for one speci® c reason. and therefore a break w ith a certain self . But an identity that could not be assum ed w as included in a political subjectivation ± in a rejection of an identity. there becam e possible a political subjectivation that did not take the form of external support for the other’ s w ar. It is. We. named and counted by the State. on the other hand. or of an identi® cation of the other’ s m ilitary cause w ith our cause. it is a dem onstration addressed to an other that constitutes a com munity de® ned by a certain w rong. This political subjectivation w as prim arily the result of a disidenti® cation w ith the French state that had done this in our name and rem oved it from our view. Thirdly. de® ned as the law that prescribes w hat em erges and w hat is heard. it has to be rem embered that. Secondly. namely the juridico-Statist diå erence that had been inscribed for hundreds of years as the diå erence internal to French identity. there w as no identi® cation w ith those ® ghters.8 Now . and w ho then disappeared. an identi® cation w ith an other w ith w hom one cannot in norm al circum stances identify: the `wretched of the earth’ or som e other object. We could. The point is that its policem en once m ore underlined it heavily on that day in October 1961 by m eeting out a repression that diå erentiated betw een som e `French people’ and others. and by distinguishing betw een those w ho did and did not have the right to appear w ithin the French public space. It is the production of a people diå erent from the people seen. From that point onw ards. the A lgerian w ar w as not a w ar.

how ever.Downloaded By: [State University Of New York] At: 05:46 6 April 2008 uncounted. The abstraction of the other thus corres ponded to the abstraction of the sam e. and one m ight express the paradox in the ethical tem inology of an unpaid debt. and of the virgin future to com e. a counting of the uncounted. One m ight argue that there w as a strict correlation betw een this occultation and the discourse of the A lgerian revolution. the internalizing relationship w ith the other de® ned by French subjectivation of the gap in citizenship w as con® ned to the French political scene. In the A lgeria that w on its independence. even though there w as no strong political link betw een the two. But in France it did create a political subjectivation. That impossible identi® cation inverted a name that w as m eant to stigmatize by turning it into the principle behind an open subjectivation of the uncounted. but it did not politically confuse them w ith any representation of an identi® able social group. that it w ou ld be m ore pro® table to think in terms of amnesia. the sole relationship authorized by the discourse of a w ar of reappropriation w as one of external support for the identity that w as being constituted. and a population confronted w ith its sociological and cultural reality. are com pletely self-centred. It is the rediscovery of w hat a political subject ( proletarian or otherw ise) is: the m anifestation of a w rong. For those w ho lost the w ar. It could of course be said that these considerations. The leaders of the A lgerian struggle and anti-war activists thus found them selves colluding in the political erasure of the singularity of the ® ght. on the other hand. It m eant the unm ediated con¯ ict betw een the people of the State’ s discourse. On the other hand. Yet perhaps that nameless subjectivation of a gap betw een two citizenships did ® nd a name a few years later in an exem plary form ula for an impossible identi® cation: `W e are all G erm an J ew s ’ . I think. I think. and to m easure the long-term implications of that amnesia for our present. W hat is it that gives the political sequence punctuated by M ay 68 ± w hich som e imbeciles insist on interpreting as a m utation in m odes of behaviour and m entalities ± its speci® city? It is. w hich should be reciprocal. it helped to rede® ne a setting for the political subjectivation of the uncounted. diametrically opposed political eå ects in A lgeria and France. But I think it is just as important to grasp the speci® c form of the inclusion-exclusion relationship that established the lim itations of this political subjectivation. One m ight therefore say that the political pro® ts from this `cause’ of the other w ere reaped here. That erasure had. or a relationship betw een included and excluded in w hich no subject w as speci® cally named. This appropriation of the invisibility of the dead bodies that had been taken away w as obviously a w ay of not seeing them . This did not create a politics for the A lgerians. I said that I w ou ld be speaking only of French form s of identi® cation of w hat w as at stake for the A lgerians. For that discourse. and of w hat w as lost betw een the sociological identi® cation of a class and the bureaucratic identi® cation of its party. and of constructing an A lgerianness w hich w as no m ore than a category of French political activity. the face of the A lgerian ® ghter w as sim ply the pure face of a w ar that w as destroying oppression. it m eant a brutal confrontation betw een discourse and reality as w hat had been denied or repressed returned in so m any form s. A w ar to appropriate a historical identity and the politics of subjectivating an impossible identity m erged. On the one hand. the rediscovery of w hat lay behind the great subjectivations of the labour m ovem ent. a form of visibility conferred upon som ething that is supposedly non-visible or that has been rem oved from visibility. Á Rancie re 30 . how ever.

of consum er goods and the com mon G ood. Then there is the pathetic corolla ry of com munitarianism s and fundam entalism s: the `universalism’ that fully identi® es citizenship w ith a juridical status de® ned by the State. w ith the rights of those w ho do not have the m eans to assert their rights or to use them to argue a politics. In a w ar. to show that w e m ight have to take the opposite view: rather than com paring a triumphant truth regime w ith a disenchanted truth regime. 9 The Franco-A lgerian past cannot be analysed sim ply in terms of the distribution of pro® ts and losses. It w as inherent in the knot that bound together the logic of w ar and the political logic characteristic of colonization. has supposedly destroyed political activity’s faith in history. They can take two form s: the com munitarian form that asserts only the rights of the Same. We have supposedly m oved from the imm ediate disillusionm ent of the Third-World ist illusions of the 1960s to the discovery of the G ulag in the 1970s. of those w ho have lost their `identity’ because they have lost their goods and because `the social bond’ has been broken. and rarely m isses the opportunity to com bine the principles of secularism w ith the discreet frissons of racism . We do not have to look far to see w hat happens w hen w e forget that diå erence. There is also the hum anitarianism that is de® ned as the cause of a naked hum anity. Political activity has therefore been orphaned. w e should be com paring one alterity status w ith another. The dissymm etry of the A lgerian question had imm ediately contra dictory eå ects. I have tried. Politics exists because the cause of the other exists. A consensus identi® es the political subject know n as the `people’ w ith a population that is broken dow n and then reconstituted into groups w ith speci® c interests or a speci® c identity. for m y own part. by re-establishing fact after fact. It describes an inverted inevitability w hich. This is also a product of ± or a com plem ent to ± the consensual utopia: this is the breaking point w here the little econom ico-juridical m achine takes on the appearance of the excluded. U ltim ately it plays into the hands of the geostrategic policies of the great pow ers. and the religious form that requires only obedience to the law of the Other. there is no cause of the parallax 31 . But that dissymm etry w as not sim ply a m atter of a task that had been left undone. or the defence of the rights of peoples w ith the fever of w ars or reconquest. and the political citizen is identi® ed w ith a legal subject w ho then tends to be identi® ed w ith an econom ic subject w ho is a m icrocosm of a m acro-circulation and an incessant exchange of rights and civil capacities. a `cause’ of the `other’ that retreats from politics to ethics. to the discovery that the French Revolution w as not w hat w e thought it w as. because because citizenship is not self-identical. and is then com pletely absorbed into duties towards the suå ering. in a w ord. The dom inant discourse tells us that political activity is being constantly underm ined by a disillusionm ent w ith such faith. Politics does not exist because of som e faith in the triumphant future of em ancipation.Downloaded By: [State University Of New York] At: 05:46 6 April 2008 A s I have said. in the w atershed year of 1989. and there is no longer anything to m ake it a w orld. to the discovery in the 1980s that not all French people w ere involved in the Resistance and then. Petitions for identity are a negation of the citizenship that includes the other. the m ost useful w ay to com pare our present w ith the period of anticolonial and anti-im perialist struggles is not to draw a contra st betw een a tim e of historical faith and a tim e of generalized relativism. as the defence of hum an rights that are identi® ed solely w ith the rights of the victim .

Every eå ort to launch a political struggle for B osnia has consisted in the attem pt to get away from m ere dem and s for aid for victim s. I have w ritten elsew here that the `immigrant’ w ho is the target of these outbreaks is the m igrant w orker of the past w ho has lost his other name: `work er’ or `proletarian’. The cause of the other exists only w ithin politics. To forget that contra diction. But being politically active is alw ays diæ cult. Â Â L es D am ne s de la terre (Paris: M aspero. `we/us’ sim ply refers to a political generati on tak en as a w hole.Downloaded By: [State University Of New York] At: 05:46 6 April 2008 other. It is that w hich allow s that a subject such as the `work er’ or the `proletarian’ to be divorced from the identity of a social group w hose self-interests bring it into con¯ icts w ith som e other group. A nd that disjunction w as the result of an openness to the cause of the other. E sprit ( Janu ary 1961). p. L’ Islam ism e R adical (Paris: H achelle . and it functions there as an impossible identi® cation. w here he teaches aesthetics and politics. betw een two notions of com m unity : the idea of a fair distribution of populations and identitities. 1995). and the idea of the m em berless com m unity of those w ho assum e the pure contingen ce of being there together . Like others. p. is to forget an internal alterity: the diå erence internal to citizenship that is the m ark of politics. m ore com monly. 30 Â (Fe vrier 1997).C entury F rance (Tem ple U niversity Press. It show s that the ® gure of the suå ering other does not in itself lead to a politics bec ause this other. w hich is know n as the `A lgerian w ar’. 6 Throu ghou t the rem ainder of this text. It is diæ cult to be politically active `in’ a w ar. We know that. `La cause de l’autre’ . w ithin suå ering B osnia itself. 7 Jean-Pau l Sartre. To forget A lgeria is to forget one of the fractures that shatter social identities and give rise to political subjectivations.26. `Prefac e’ in Frantz Fanon. A nd those extrem e situations in w hich politics. 1987). 5 M aurice M aschino. and w hose only principle of distribution is the principle that founds politics: the equality of every one w ith every one else. 1989). hatred. he ® nds himself reduced to having only the identity of the other.142.143. in France. w as not our other and did not de® ne our citizenship’s relation ship w ith itself. to being a m ere object of pity or. the read er is referre d to m y L a M Â e sentente (Paris: G alile e. L’ Islam ism e R adical . L e R efus (Paris: M aspero.36 ± 49. A nd having lost that political subjectivation. lignes. 3 B runo Etienne. and to de® ne a com m on interest on the basis of the dichotom y. unlike the A lgerian or Vietnam ese other. w ar and ethics m ake the question of the other an aporia are also the crucial situations that allow us to think of the fragility of politics. 1961). amnesia has returned in the form of the `immigrant problem ’ and new outbreaks of racism . 2 Â Â Pierre B ourdieu. Jacq ues R a ncie re is Professor in the Departm ent of Philosophy at the U niversity Á of Paris VIII. W hat m ade the political identity of the `work er’ or the `proletarian’ operational w as the disjunction betw een political subjectivity and social group.179. 8 For a m ore detailed discussion. 1960). 4 Etienne. T he I gnorant S cho olm aster: F ive E ssay s on I ntell ectual E m ancipation (Stanford Á Rancie re 32 . `Re volution dans la re volution’ . Â 9 The B osnian question is an exem plary instance of this displacem ent of the position of the other. and to becom e a ® gure of citizenship. pp. I think w e now have to com plete that analysis. H is books include T he N ights of L ab our: T he W orker’s D ream in N ineteenth. T ranslated b y D avid M acey N otes 1 This text is a transla tion of Jacq ues Á Ranc ie re. w hich still subscribes to the `police’ logic of the aggress or. p. p.

1991). parallax 33 . and O n the S hores of P olitics (Verso. H e is currently w orking on a biography of Frantz Fanon to be published by G ranta in 1998 and on a dictionary of critical theory to be published by Penguin Books. 1995). 1994). Downloaded By: [State University Of New York] At: 05:46 6 April 2008 D avid M acey is a freelance translator and the author of L acan in C ontexts (1988) and T he L ives of M ichel F oucault (1993).U niversity Press. T he N am es of H istory : O n the P oetics of K no w ledge (University of M innesota Press.