Manuscript submission Jane Elliott and Derek Attridge, eds, Theory After Theory, Routledge, London and

New York, 20! "ubse#uentl$ publis%ed in cop$&edited 'orm as pp! ()** o' t%at +olume!
Philosophy After Theory: Transdisciplinarity and the New
Peter Osborne
,n w%at sense is somet%ing called -t%eor$. o+er/ And in w%at wa$ mig%t t%e manner o'
its passing %a+e opened up a space 'or its renewal/ At 'irst sig%t, t%ese #uestions appear
paroc%ial and outmoded! -0%eor$. did not end, it lost a brie' and e1traordinar$
institutional %egemon$2 a %egemon$ t%at was restricted to particular disciplinar$ sites
wit%in t%e Anglop%one %umanities during its %eroic -3renc%. period 4(56)((678
primaril$, literar$ studies o' +arious sorts 49ussett 200:7! Yet, to con'ine t%is episode to
t%e past would itsel' be to 'all pre$ to 'as%ion! 3or t%ere are deep&seated issues at stake in
t%e struggles around -t%eor$., going as 'ar back as ;erman p%ilosop%$ in t%e last decade
o' t%e eig%teent% centur$, w%ic% not onl$ retain t%eir rele+ance toda$, but %a+e ac#uired
new pertinences ) and not merel$ 'or reasons o' e1pedienc$, associated wit% t%e global
e1pansion o' t%e Englis%&language academic publis%ing industr$! 4-0%eor$. is also a
marketing categor$, o' course!7

0%ese issues concern, among ot%er t%ings, t%e

possibilities and manner o' knowing t%e w%ole ) t%e totalit$ o' conditions t%at pertain to
e1perience ) a #uestion w%ic% %as been gi+en a new lease o' li'e b$ t%e tendentiall$
global dominance o' a single economic s$stem! ,t appears toda$, in part, as a #uestion
about t%e possibilit$ and modes o' knowing onesel' 4"ocrates.s old #uestion7 as a sub<ect
o' capitalistic social relations, social relations into w%ic% is inscribed a relentless
production o' bot% no+elt$ and crisis 4=sborne 200a7! 0o see %ow t%is mig%t be
connected to t%e 'ate and prospects o' -t%eor$. in t%e Anglop%one %umanities, it will be
use'ul to start wit% a sketc% o' t%e two main traditions o' t%eor$ at issue in t%ese debates!
0%e kind o' t%eor$ w%ose moment is supposedl$ past is t%at w%ic% became known
collo#uiall$ in t%e (50s as -%ig% t%eor$., -t%eor$ wit% a capital 0., or more polemicall$
but also in +arious wa$s more neutrall$, -critical t%eor$.! High t%eor$ b$ association wit%
uses o' t%e term -%ig%. in t%e Anglican 9%urc% and art criticism 4t%at is, a particular
combination o' ritual, uni+ersalism and e1clusi+it$72 t%eor$ with a capital T, b$ dint o' a
passing use o' capitali>ation b$ Louis Alt%usser2 critical t%eor$, more +ariousl$, but
largel$ +ia its occupation o' t%e institutional space o' literar$ criticism, in con<unction
wit% an aspiration to social criticism! 0%e pluralit$ o' connotations indicates somet%ing
o' t%e multiplicit$ o' in+estments at stake in t%e 'ield! -?ig% t%eor$. cross&codes a
%ierarc%ical ecclesiastical designation wit% t%e metap%orical %eig%t o' abstraction to
in+est suc% abstraction wit% social and intellectual gravitas! -0%eor$ wit% a capital 0.
e1tends t%e t%eological metap%or 4'rom ;od to 0%eor$7, drawing on t%e p%ilosop%ical
%eritage o' ;erman idealism +ia t%e arc%aic practice in Englis% and 3renc% o' citing t%e
nouns translating its central concepts in upper case, rei'$ing concepts b$ treating t%em as
proper names8 Spirit, Notion, Idea, etc! @$ dint o' its capitali>ation, Theory posits itsel'
as t%e successor to t%ese categories! More ambiguousl$, t%e institutional con+enience
-critical t%eor$. suggests a transition 'rom t%eor$ to practice wit%in t%eor$ itsel', and
%ence wit%in t%e educational practices o' t%e academ$! 0%is was t%e ground on w%ic% t%e
so&called -culture wars. were 'oug%t in t%e wake o' t%e %e$da$ o' t%eor$ in t%e A"A2 not
<ust between Le't and Rig%t, but wit%in t%e Le't itsel'! 4,n t%e 'irst case, t%e issue was t%e
political content o' educational practices2 in t%e second, it was t%e political rele+ance o'
cultural issues!7
0%e p%rase -critical t%eor$. carries more content t%an its popular s$non$ms! ?owe+er,
t%is is more o'ten t%an not seriousl$ misleading, since muc% o' t%e 3renc% work it is now
%abituall$ used to describe operates wit% a notion o' -science. in tension wit%, i' not
direct opposition to, t%e p%ilosop%ical notion o' criti#ue! 0%is applies to structuralism, in
particular, including its Mar1ist +ariants!
2
Moreo+er, anot%er signi'icant portion o' t%is
work, part o' t%e ?eideggerian legac$ ) deconstruction, in particular ) was constituted in
e1plicit opposition to t%e claims o' t%eor$, in its classical sense 4;asc%B 20057! ,n t%is
respect, at least, -critical t%eor$. reall$ did 'unction wit%in t%e Anglo&American academ$
o' t%e (:0s as a mere name 'or a %eterogeneous assemblage o' 3renc%, or 3renc%&
inspired, t%eoretical writings ) a label 'or a list o' t%inkers responding to a common
situation wit% o'ten diametricall$ opposed intellectual pro<ects!
At t%e same time, %owe+er, -critical t%eor$. was also t%e long&establis%ed designation 'or
a #uite di''erent, ;erman tradition t%at 'irst ac%ie+ed sel'&consciousness in t%e mid&(*0s
and continued to identi'$ itsel' as suc% into t%e ((0s8 t%e 3rank'urt "c%ool o' critical
t%eor$ associated wit% t%e ,nstitute 'or "ocial Researc% 4Ciggers%aus ((D7! 0%is o'ten&
con'using coincidence nonet%eless %as its producti+e side inso'ar as it %ints at t%e
possibilit$ o' 'eatures common to t%e two traditions, deri+ing 'rom deeper sources! ,t t%us
allows us to ask t%e #uestion o' w%at precisel$ %as been surpassed in a situation de'ined
as being -a'ter t%eor$. 'rom a slig%tl$ broader standpoint t%an is usual! 0%e main t%ing
t%e two traditions %a+e in common is t%e t%oug%t t%at t%e$ %a+e surpassed, or at least
displaced, -p%ilosop%$. in its modern disciplinar$ sense!
Theory after Philosophy: Two Traditions
,n 3rance, -t%eor$. was an e''ect o', on t%e one %and, conceptual de+elopments in t%e
%uman sciences 4structuralismEpost&structuralism7 and, on t%e ot%er, t%e Mar1ist criti#ue
o' p%ilosop%$! Alt%usser 'amousl$ brie'l$ used t%e term Thorie wit% a capital -0. to
designate w%at %e %ad pre+iousl$ re'erred to as -Mar1ist p%ilosop%$. 4namel$, -t%e
t%eor$ o' t%eoretical practice.7, in order to -reser+e t%e term philosophy 'or ideological
p%ilosop%ies., in line wit% Mar1 and Engels.s diagnosis o' t%e ideological c%aracter o'
p%ilosop%$ per se 4-sel'&su''icient p%ilosop%$.7 in The Geran Ideology 4Alt%usser (55
F22 Mar1 and Engels (5F8 *57! 0%is inconsistent combination o' t%e idea o' %istorical
materialism as a general t%eor$ o' practices 4deri+ed 'rom Mar1.s si1t% 'ragment o' -=n
3euerbac%.7 wit% a neo&Gantian conception o' p%ilosop%$ as second re'lection on science
4-t%eoretical practices.7 was, b$ and large, representati+e o' an e''ecti+e practice o'
t%eor$ more generall$, deri+ing 'rom certain pri+ileged disciplinar$ ob<ects8 linguistics
4"aussure7, ant%ropolog$ 4Le+i&"trauss7, ps$c%oanal$sis 4Lacan7, %istor$ o' t%oug%t
43oucault7 and literature 4Tel !"el7, in particular! ,t is t%e singularit$ o' t%e term -t%eor$.
%ere t%at registers its internal relation to t%e traditional aspirations o' p%ilosop%$!
?owe+er, it aspired to a general scienti'icit$ o' a non&-p%ilosop%ical. 4and in particular,
decisi+el$ non&?egelian7 kind, associated wit% t%e rationalism o' 3renc% studies in t%e
%istor$ o' science 4Lecourt (567!
,' 3renc% t%inkers %a+e dominated t%eoretical de+elopments in t%e Anglop%one
%umanities since t%e mid (50s, it is primaril$ because o' t%e power'ull$ -post&
p%ilosop%ical. coding o' t%e p%ilosop%ical aspects o' t%eir work ) post&p%ilosop%ical, t%at
is, in a delicatel$ dialectical sense, w%ereb$ e+er$t%ing intellectuall$ producti+e about t%e
European p%ilosop%ical tradition is maintained outside t%e disciplinar$ setting o'
p%ilosop%$! 0%ere are a number o' conditions o' possibilit$ o' t%is situation, not t%e least
being t%e irrele+ance o' t%e domestic anal$tical p%ilosop%ical tradition to t%e rest o' t%e
%umanities and t%e internal, p%ilosop%ical problematicit$ o' t%e disciplinar$ autonom$ o'
p%ilosop%$ itsel'! ,ndeed, recognition o' t%is problematic c%aracter 4t%e contradiction
between an in%erited aspiration to absolute uni+ersalit$ and a disciplinar$ particularit$7 is
more or less a condition o' p%ilosop%ical modernit$ itsel'! ,t t%us comes in a +ariet$ o'
'orms! ?owe+er, because -0%eor$. wit% a capital -0. was generall$ adopted in a non&
Mar1ist 'orm in t%e Anglo&American reception o' 3renc% t%oug%t in t%e (50s, it tended
to sidestep 4rat%er t%an to speci'$, as was its desired role in Alt%usser.s writings7 t%at
t%oug%t.s comple1 relations%ip to European p%ilosop%$! 0%is allowed 'or t%e unin%ibited
in+estment o' broad transdisciplinar$ 'ields b$ general&t%eoretical categories, t%e ultimate
status o' w%ic% was unclear8 be it t%e -te1tualit$. o' a general semiotics, t%e -discourses.
o' a 3oucauldian %istoricism, or t%e -topograp%$. o' Lacanian metap$sc%olog$!
As a result, in its Anglo&American guise -t%eor$. became largel$ eit%er pragmatic or
deconstructi+e ) t%at is, eit%er o+er&determined b$ speci'ic 4o'ten political7 uses, or
marked b$ a re'lecti+e distance 'rom t%e metap%$sical claims acknowledged to be
implicit in its concepts ) or bot%! 0%at is to sa$, -t%eor$. became in a certain sense anti&
t%eoretical, inso'ar as -t%eor$. %ad pre+iousl$ been associated, wit%in p%ilosop%$, wit%
metap%$sics or doctrine 4#ehre7 more generall$! -0%eor$. re<ected t%e doctrinal2 %ence its
ironic dialectical identit$ wit% t%at w%ic% turned -against. it in t%e A" academ$ in t%e
mid (:0s! As t%e pre+ailing p%ilosop%ical mode o' Anglo&American intellectual li'e,
pragmatism became t%e p%ilosop%ical unconscious o' post&Mar1ist literar$ and cultural
studies 4=sborne 2000, 200F7! @$ t%e earl$ ((0s, %owe+er, as t%e le't political cultures
orienting t%e academic intellectuals o' t%e (50s and (:0s collapsed, t%eor$.s pragmatic
orientation became, on t%e one %and, increasingl$ s$mbolic 4t%e -culture wars.7, and on
t%e ot%er, increasingl$ indi+idualistic and wis%'ul 4Dollimore 20007! And as t%eor$
became increasingl$ commodi'ied 4branded b$ aut%or.s names7, its reception began to
succumb to t%e rei'ication and repetitions o' commodi'ication! At t%e same time, t%e
disa+owal o' p%ilosop%$ in+ol+ed in t%e 'orgetting o' a criti#ue t%at %ad largel$
constituted t%eor$ in t%e 3renc% conte1t became increasingl$ problematic, especiall$
once t%e 'ar less e#ui+ocall$ p%ilosop%ical writings o' t%inkers like Emmanuel Le+inas
and ;illes Deleu>e were sub<ected to t%e same discursi+e conditions! Ander t%ese
conditions t%e$ were 4and continue to be7 're#uentl$ tra+estied b$ t%e pragmatic uses to
w%ic% t%e$ are put! =ne reaction to t%is situation was a re<ection o' -0Et%eor$. 4bot% wit%
and wit%out a capital 07 and a return to disciplinarit$ 4and wit% it, bot% -old. %istoricism
and aest%etics7 wit%in t%e %umanities! At t%e same time, pressure began to build up
wit%in t%e discursi+e space o' 0%eor$ 'or a re&e+aluation o' t%e +irtues o' p%ilosop%$!
3rom t%e standpoint o' t%e Anglo&American reception o' t%e tradition o' 3renc% t%eor$,
t%e current empirical answer to t%e #uestion -C%at is t%eor$ 4in t%e Anglop%one
%umanities7 a'ter H0%eor$I/. is most de'initel$ -J%ilosop%$.!
0%is turn to e1plicitl$ p%ilosop%ical re'erences in t%eoretical work across t%e %umanities
4o'ten a turn to t%e citation o' p%ilosop%ical writings as a substitute 'or t%eoretical work7
is broadl$ a turn to w%at Mar1 called -sel'&su''icient p%ilosop%$., p%ilosop%$ in its
classical modern sense! ,t %as taken two main antagonistic 'orms8 #uasi&Le+inasian and
ot%er post&Derridean 'orms o' -et%ics. ) a con+ergence o' topic wit% t%e post&anal$tical
mainstream o' liberal political p%ilosop%$ ) on t%e one %and 4@utler 200D and 9ritc%le$
2005, 'or e1ample7, and t%e 'ull&blown metap%$sics o' Deleu>e and Alain @adiou, on t%e
ot%er 4=sborne 20057!
*
0%is is t%e ironic endpoint o' t%e main Anglo&"a1on tra<ector$ o'
-3renc% t%eor$. toda$! ,t represents a more&or&less w%olesale renunciation o' t%e
epistemo&critical concerns o' t%e (F0s and (50s!
D
0%is tradition o' -t%eor$. %as been
paid 'or its disa+owal o' p%ilosop%$ 4t%e 'orgetting o' t%e speci'icities o' its criti#ue7 wit%
a belated p%ilosop%ical +engeance!
6
C%at o' its ;erman cousin/
3renc% -critical t%eor$. was t%e product o' t%e reception o' a p%ilosop%icall$
%eterogeneous bod$ o' t%eoretical writings 'rom 3rance into t%e literar$ departments o'
t%e Anglo&American academ$, w%ere criticism was an establis%ed literar$ pursuit! 0%e
critical t%eor$ o' t%e 3rank'urt "c%ool, on t%e ot%er %and, was bot% sel'&designating and
t%e ob<ect o' e1plicit and ongoing t%eoretical re'lection! 9onse#uentl$, w%ile t%e
emp%asis in t%e 'ormer was on t%eor$, in general ) t%e main opposition being between
t%eoretical and at%eoretical or anti&t%eoretical 4e+er$da$ or aest%etic7 interpretati+e
practices ) t%e emp%asis wit%in t%e latter was more decisi+el$ on criticism or criti#ue
4$riti%7, t%e main opposition being between -traditional. and -critical. t%eor$!
0%e 3rank'urt notion o' critical t%eor$ deri+es 'rom t%e critical turn t%at took place in t%e
sel'&conception o' t%e work o' t%e ,nstitute 'or "ocial Researc% in 3rank'urt in (*5, in
Ma1 ?ork%eimer.s 'amous essa$ -0raditional and 9ritical 0%eor$. ) an essa$ t%at sets
out 'rom t%e #uestion -C%at is t%eor$/. 4?ork%eimer (527! ?ork%eimer used t%e term
-critical t%eor$. to denote w%at we mig%t call t%e -negati+e. turn in %is conception o'
%istorical materialism as an interdisciplinar$ social t%eor$! 0%is was t%e conse#uence 'or
%is ?egelian met%odolog$ 4dialecticall$ totali>ing t%e results o' t%e positi+e sciences7 o'
%is inabilit$ to identi'$ a representati+e o' t%e 'uture wit%in t%e present 4as a result o' t%e
degeneration o' communism in t%e "o+iet Anion7, 'rom t%e standpoint o' w%ic% t%e
totalit$ mig%t be uni'ied! ,t in+ol+ed t%e trans'ormation o' -critical acti+it$. itsel' into t%e
-sub<ect. o' a t%eor$ t%at conse#uentl$ related to totalit$ onl$ negati+el$, as a purel$
speculati+e met%odological standpoint 'or a criti#ue o' t%e present! 0%is t%eor$ is
-;erman. in t%at it represents t%e p%ilosop%ical %eritage o' t%e strong programme o'
;erman idealism wit%in a dialecticall$ interdisciplinar$ social t%eor$, 'irst e+oked b$
Engels in %is ::: #"dwig &e"er'ach and the ()it fro *lassical Geran Philosophy!
40%e standard Englis% translation o' A"sgang ) -e1it. or -wa$ out. ) as -end. in t%e title
o' t%is book %as led to a centur$ o' p%ilosop%ical con'usion!7 0%e model o' -criti#ue. %ere
was Mar1.s criti#ue o' political econom$8 a coincidence o' p%ilosop%ical uni+ersalit$ and
t%e %istorical pro<ection o' practice, +ia t%e critical relation to a speciali>ed science, albeit
%ere in a 'orm in w%ic% critical acti+it$ 4-t%eoretical re'lection.7 stands in as t%e place&
%older 'or t%e current absence o' emancipator$ politics on a world&%istorical scale!
,n t%e %istor$ o' t%e 3rank'urt "c%ool, -critical t%eor$., in ?ork%eimer.s tec%nical sense,
lasted onl$ about t%ree $ears, (*5)(D0, a'ter w%ic% it was replaced b$ t%e criti#ue o'
instrumental reason, w%ic% became t%e basis 'or t%e Ar&%istorical narrati+e o' +ialectic
of (nlightenent 4Dubiel (:6, ?ork%eimer 200D, ?ork%eimer and Adorno, 20027!
9riti#ue o' instrumental reason is not -critical t%eor$. in t%e sense o' -t%eor$. in w%ic%
t%e p%rase deri+es its meaning 'rom its opposition to -traditional t%eor$.! Rat%er, it %as
more a''inities wit% t%e Gantian sense o' -criti#ue., w%ic% is precisel$ not t%eor$ as suc%,
alt%oug% %ere it occupies t%e discursi+e space o' t%e t%eoretical, b$ ot%er means8 t%e
literar$&p%ilosop%ical constructi+ism o' t%e Romantic 'ragment, 'or e1ample2 %ence
+ialectic of (nlightenent.s subtitle, Philosophical &ragents, w%ic% also e+okes
Gierkegaard, o' course! ,n t%e earl$ (F0s, in reaction against t%is Romantic and at times
almost "c%open%auerian negati+ism, ?ork%eimer.s earl$ (*0s ,nstitute programme o'
interdisciplinar$ materialism 4t%e pre#uel to 9ritical 0%eor$7 was re+i+ed b$ t%e $oung
?abermas! ,t brie'l$ represented a met%odological model 'or o+ercoming t%e percei+ed
impasse o' a p%ilosop%$ conscious onl$ o' its own criti#ue, represented b$ t%e purel$
negati+e restoration o' p%ilosop%$ in Adorno.s work, summed up in %is (FF Negative
+ialectics! ?abermas.s -@etween J%ilosop%$ and "cience8 Mar1ism as 9riti#ue. was
publis%ed in (F* ) t%e same $ear as Alt%usser.s -=n t%e Materialist Dialectic.! ,' t%ere is
a $ear in w%ic% -t%eor$. in its recent sense was born, (F* was t%at $ear! 0%is earl$
?abermasian re+i+al o' -Mar1ism as criti#ue. was subse#uentl$ de+eloped into a model
o' criti#ue as -t%e unit$ o' knowledge and interest. in ?abermas.s #uasi&transcendental,
(F: $nowledge and H"an Interests! ?owe+er, it was a %ermeneuticall$ reduced
conception o' ps$c%oanal$sis t%at pro+ided t%e model o' a critical t%eor$ t%ere 4rat%er
t%an t%e criti#ue o' political econom$7, in w%ic% t%e indi+idual sub<ect was related to
political collecti+it$ onl$ b$ weak analog$ or +ia t%e transcendentall$ ideal conditions o'
a discourse et%ics! ,n t%is respect, t%e break in t%e 3rank'urt critical tradition in (F:
anticipated 4in a di''erent 'orm7 t%e ps$c%oanal$tical reorientation o' political t%inking to
w%ic% part o' t%e Anglop%one +ersion o' t%e 3renc% tradition %as more recentl$
increasingl$ %ad recourse, t%roug% @utler and Ki>ek in particular! -A'ter (F:. and %is
'amous declaration o' t%e -'ascism. o' elements o' ;erman student radicalism, ?abermas
departed 'rom t%e tra<ector$ o' critical t%eor$ as pre+iousl$ concei+ed, towards t%e
restoration o' liberal Gantian political and legal p%ilosop%$, +ia t%e transcendentali>ation
o' American pragmatism into a t%eor$ o' -communicati+e action. 4?abermas ((,
(:5b, ((F7! 0%e subse#uent generation 4?onnet% ((6, Cellmer ((:7 %a+e remained
wit%in t%e broad parameters demarcating t%is con<oint t%eoretical and political retreat!
Meanw%ile, Adorno.s parado1icall$ entitled Aesthetic Theory, publis%ed post%umousl$
in (50 ) suspended between p%ilosop%ical criticism o' art and t%e construction o' a
%istorical art t%eor$ ) %as graduall$ ac#uired t%e status o' t%e most important
p%ilosop%ical work in ;erman in t%e second %al' o' t%e twentiet% centur$! ,' t%ere is a
odel o' t%eor$ in t%e 3rank'urt tradition t%at remains intellectual ali+e toda$ it lies
embedded in t%is resolutel$ singular and t%ematicall$ restricted te1t! At t%e same time,
t%e p%ilosop%ical and general&t%eoretical signi'icance o' Calter @en<amin.s writings %as
come to t%e 'ore, in t%e wake o' t%e belated, (:2 publication o' t%e mass o' notes and
materials making up %is (25)(*( Arcades Pro,ect 4@en<amin (((7! @en<amin.s work
increasingl$ appears as t%e ric%est, most comple1 and also t%e most -li+ing. source o'
critical&t%eoretical insig%t in t%e twentiet%&centur$ ;erman tradition! Yet it resists eas$
assimilation into t%e Anglop%one conte1t o' -t%eor$. and its a'termat%8 in part because o'
its sop%isticated but understated p%ilosop%ical c%aracter! 0%e Derridean appropriation,
mainl$ +ia a deconstructi+e reading o' t%e -messianic. 4Derrida (:(&((02 Ceber 200:7
is %ig%l$ partial and, cruciall$, cuts o'' t%e speculati+e aspect o' @en<amin.s t%oug%t 'rom
t%e critical relation to t%e multiplicit$ o' knowledges w%ic% gi+es it concrete %istorical
and political meaning! Aesthetic Theory aside, t%e 3rank'urt tradition %as paid 'or its
'ailure to maintain an acti+e relations%ip wit% t%e -positi+e. disciplines in t%e %umanities
and social sciences wit% a +engeance o' p%ilosop%$ not dissimilar 'rom in t%e 3renc%
tradition8 albeit, in t%is case, one t%at is w%ole&%eartedl$ liberal and post&anal$tical 4t%at
is, 'ocused almost e1clusi+el$ on problems o' normati+it$7, rat%er t%an being residuall$,
genericall$ radical and 'undamentall$ ontological!
@roadl$ speaking, t%e main 3renc% and ;erman tra<ectories o' critical t%eor$ t%us %a+e a
common point o' departure 4Mar1ism7 and a common point o' arri+al 4J%ilosop%$7,
alt%oug% t%e pat%s t%e$ tra+erse are radicall$ di+ergent, and t%e p%ilosop%ies at w%ic%
t%e$ arri+e are correspondingl$ di''erent! 0%e 3rank'urt +ariant 4and its imaginar$
continuation7 is sel'&consciousl$ post&?egelian and anti&?eideggerian, w%ile t%e 3renc%
t%eor$ in #uestion is insistentl$ anti&?egelian and genericall$ post&?eideggerian, e+en in
its Mar1ist +ariants 4t%eoretical anti&%umanism7! As Jean&Luc Nanc$ put it at t%e end o'
t%e (:0s8 -H3renc%I t%oug%t toda$ proceeds in part 'rom a H;ermanI rupture wit% a
certain p%ilosop%ical H3ranceI 4w%ic% is also a rupture wit% a certain H;ermanit$I7.
4Nanc$ ((8 *7! ,t was t%is displaced ;ermanicism o' late twentiet%&centur$ 3renc%
t%oug%t, associated wit% Niet>sc%e and ?eidegger, t%at was t%e main ob<ect o' attack o'
?abermas.s notorious (:6 Philosophical +isco"rse of -odernity 4w%ic% also attacked
+ialectic of (nlightenent, as itsel' a Niet>sc%ean te1t7, in t%e conte1t o' t%e
e1traordinar$ success in ;erman$ o' t%e #uasi&&rench Niet>sc%eanism o' Jeter
"loterdi<k.s (:* *riti."e of *ynical /eason ) a book t%at in certain respects
inad+ertentl$ prepared t%e ground 'or t%e reception o' Deleu>e in ;erman$!
Nonet%eless, 'or all t%ese polemics, t%e coordinates s%ared b$ t%ese two traditions o'
-t%eor$. de'ine a 'ield c%aracteri>ed b$ a number o' common 'eatures8 ! suspicion o' t%e
sel'&su''icienc$ o' p%ilosop%$, deri+ed 'rom t%e t%oug%t o' Mar1, Niet>sc%e and 3reud
4Jaul Ricoeur.s t%ree -masters o' suspicion.7, along wit% t%e desire to continue t%e
classical p%ilosop%ical pro<ect b$ ot%er means2 2! a conse#uent orientation towards anti&,
inter& and trans&disciplinar$ ob<ects, alt%oug% not necessaril$ e1plicitl$ concei+ed as
suc%2 *! an openness to t%e general te1t o' writing, associated wit% a reception o' literar$
modernism conscious o' its sources in p%ilosop%ical Romanticism2 D! a critical attitude
towards t%e establis%ed 'orms o' Cestern capitalist societies2 6! a certain underl$ing,
trans'ormed rationalism! At a certain le+el o' abstraction, t%is is su''icient to de'ine a
common problematic!
3urt%ermore, 'rom t%e standpoint o' t%e concepts o' t%eor$ at issue, t%e moral o' t%e two
tales is broadl$ similar8 namel$, t%e imperati+e to sustain t%e criti#ue o' p%ilosop%$ out
o' w%ic% bot% t$pes o' t%eor$ emerged, i' t%eoretical practices are not merel$ to return to
pre+iousl$ establis%ed, particularistic modes! 0%is implies t%e need to de+elop an anti&
disciplinar$ and trans0disciplinar$ conception o' p%ilosop%$ as a dual practice o'
criticis and constr"ction, wit%in w%ic% t%eoretical re'lection on non&p%ilosop%ical
materials is paramount! =r to put it anot%er wa$8 there is no ade."ate theory 4in t%e
sense o' general t%eor$7 ) <ust as t%ere is no ade#uate p%ilosop%$ ) witho"t reflection on
its relations to 'oth the history of philosophy and the criti."e of self0s"fficient
philosophy1 0%eor$ cannot be +iabl$ practiced merel$ as sc%olarl$ re'lection upon ) let
alone mere citation o' ) p%ilosop%ical te1ts, w%ic% is t%e 'orm into w%ic% it %as to a great
e1tent deteriorated, in t%e wake o' t%e passage in t%e Englis%&language publis%ing
industr$ 'rom t%e sale o' t%eor$ to t%e sale o' t%eorists2 a passage corresponding to t%at
'rom readers as producers to readers as consumers!
,' -t%eor$ a'ter 0%eor$. is to be p%ilosop%$, or rat%er, one aspect o' p%ilosop%i>ing 4not
t%e p%ilosop%$ be'ore 0%eor$, but a p%ilosop%i>ing -a'ter. t%e criti#ues o' sel'&su''icient
p%ilosop%$ and 0%eor$ alike7, a p%ilosop%i>ing of -0%eor$., one mig%t sa$, t%en t%eor$
a'ter 0%eor$ will be t%e element o' conceptual construction in a transdisciplinar$
p%ilosop%i>ing ) a p%ilosop%i>ing wit%out disciplinary limits, but precisel$ not, t%ereb$,
wit%out limits, since t%is opens p%ilosop%$ up to t%e test o' e1perience! C%at would a
p%ilosop%icall$ sel'&conscious t%eori>ing o' t%is kind be like/ =ne wa$ to t%ink about
t%is is to re'lect upon t%e de+elopmental d$namic t%at is at stake in t%e issue at %and,
w%en t%e intellectual present is posited as -t%e a'ter. o' some purportedl$ concluded
period, open to a $et&to&be&determined 'uture8 t%e logic o' t%e -post. in its more positi+e,
'orward&looking guise as t%e logic of the new!
Philosophy after Theory: The Pro'le of the New
As a criti#ue o' sel'&su''icient p%ilosop%$ and 4in 3oucault.s case, in particular7 o' t%e
cultural dominance o' t%e %istor$ o' p%ilosop%$ wit%in t%e %istor$ o' ideas, -t%eor$.
posited itsel' as t%e intellectual 'orm o' t%e new8 not merel$ t%e modern o' its da$, but its
+anguard 43'renc% ((67! 0%e +er$ idea o' -t%eor$ a'ter Ht%eor$I. represents a reprise o'
t%e now&classical a+ant&garde logic o' temporal negation! C%at t%eor$ a'ter -t%eor$. is to
be will be determined in large part, but b$ no means e1clusi+el$, b$ t%e c%aracter o' t%is
negation! 3urt%ermore, i' suc% t%eor$ ) or better, t%eori>ing ) is to li+e up to t%e structure
o' dialectical appropriation and transcendence implicit in t%e %istorical logic posited b$
%is -a'ter., it will need to incorporate an account o' its own de+elopment, an account o'
t%e new! -0%e new. is in man$ wa$s paradigmatic o' a transdisciplinar$ p%ilosop%ical
concept! As a time&determination, t%e new is at once a p%ilosop%ical and a %istorical
concept! ,t is at work in 4one mig%t sa$ t%at it o+erdetermines7 t%e t%eoretical domains o'
art, culture, economics and politics! Yet it is pre&eminentl$, b$ +irtue o' its uni'ication o'
t%e relations between suc% 'ields, a categor$ o' t%e p%ilosop%$ o' %istor$! ,ndeed, it is in
'act the central categor$ o' t%e p%ilosop%$ o' %istor$ o' modernit$! 0%e temporalit$ o' t%e
new de'ines modernit$ as an %istorical epoc%! 9ompeting conceptions o' t%e new t%us
bot% ser+e to situate p%ilosop%ies wit%in t%e 'ield o' t%e p%ilosop%$ o' %istor$, and
t%ereb$ indicate di''erent wa$s o' positioning t%at 'ield wit%in broader parameters, suc%
as, 'or e1ample, its relations%ip to nature, or to t%e more basic ontological categories o'
being and becoming!

0%us, 'or post&?egelian modernists like @en<amin and Adorno, t%e concept o' t%e new
problemati>es and trans'orms t%e concept o' %istor$ ) rendering it messianic or aporetic,
respecti+el$ 4@en<amin 200*8 *:()(5, Adorno (5*8 *207! ,n contrast, 'or an anti&
?egelian like Deleu>e, arguabl$, -t%e #uestion o' t%e new LMN takes t%e place o' t%e
#uestion o' %istor$. 4Marrati 200:8 2, emp%asis remo+ed7! 0%is is a crucial marker o'
t%e ontological monism ) one mig%t call it a kind o' naturalism ) o' Deleu>e.s t%inking
o' time! 3or Deleu>e, -di''erence., -li'e., -e+ent. and -t%e new. ultimatel$ re'er to a
single, ontologicall$ undi''erentiated process! 9ompeting conceptions o' t%e new t%us
stand at t%e crossroads o' t%e p%ilosop%$ o' %istor$ and t%e p%ilosop%$ o' time, struggling
o+er t%e +er$ possibilit$ o' -%istor$. as a p%ilosop%ical concept! 0%is <unction is also t%at
o' t%e most politicall$ crucial o' issues, t%e t%eori>ation o' t%e 'uture! 3or in
p%ilosop%ical&political terms, t%ere is a 'uture to t%e e1tent to w%ic% t%ere is #ualitati+e
%istorical no+elt$, not merel$ in t%e sense o' new occurrences or new -e+ents. 4w%ate+er
-e+ents. ma$ turn out to be ) w%ic% is a signi'icant and contested issue %ere7, but in t%e
sense o' c%anges in t%e d$namics o' %istorical temporali>ation t%at e''ect t%e e1istential&
ontological c%aracter o' t%e %uman itsel'! ,t is 'undamental political c%anges o' t%is kind
t%at t%e concept o' %istor$ is ultimatel$ called upon to t%ink! ,n Negri.s words, time is t%e
-material 'rom w%ic% communism is constructed. 4Negri 200*8 D57, alt%oug% #uite w%at
-time as material. means %ere remains to be e1plicated! At t%is le+el o' abstraction, t%en,
<ust as one can identi'$ a common problematic determining t%e c%aracter o' t%e
di''erences between t%e traditions o' -3renc%. and -;erman. t%eor$, so wit%in t%at
problematic t%ere is a more particular problematic o' t%e new, moti+ating certain o' t%e
decisi+e p%ilosop%ical di''erences between, 'or e1ample, Deleu>e and Adorno! Eac%
'orges a distincti+el$ post&Romantic p%ilosop%ical 'orm, in part +ia re'lection on
dis<uncti+e con<unctions o' Mar1, Niet>sc%e and modernism 4=sborne 200b7!
F

=ne important result o' t%is sub<ection o' %istor$ to t%e temporalit$ o' t%e new 4%owe+er
precisel$ concei+ed7 is a trans'ormation in t%e concept o' tradition, and %ence
t%e sense in w%ic% one ma$ still speak o' p%ilosop%ical, or t%eoretical, traditions in
modernit$8 4-;erman.7 post&?egelian +ersus 4-3renc%.7 anti&?egelian, in t%is particular
case! J%ilosop%ical traditions cease to be best understood as 'orms o' intellectual
continuit$ 'orged b$ t%e intergenerational transmission o' aut%oritati+e te1ts, principles
and procedures, and become sel'&consciousl$ retrospecti+e constructions o' continuit$
o+er&determined b$ t%e percei+ed needs o' a p%ilosop%ical present ) t%e products o'
parado1ical -c%oices. o' p%ilosop%ical aut%orit$, willing di''erent p%ilosop%ical 4and
social7 'utures! 0%at is, -traditions. become genealogical, in a strong Niet>sc%ean&
3oucauldian sense8 sub<ected to, as well as pro+iding t%e means o' articulation 'or, w%at
3oucault 'amousl$ called critical ontologies o' t%e present! 0%is is t%e temporal&
ontological trut% underl$ing w%at o'ten appears as a more super'icial, merel$ politicall$
con<unctural -pragmatism.! ,n Niet>sc%e.s words8 -,' $ou are to +enture to interpret t%e
past $ou can do so onl$ out o' t%e 'ullest e1ertion o' t%e +igour t%e present. 4Niet>sc%e
((58 (D7! ,t is t%e claim on t%e 'uture %ere t%at distinguis%es t%is Niet>sc%ean
pragmatism 'rom more narrowl$ concei+ed and reducti+el$ -presentist. pragmatisms
4=sborne 200F8 D*)D78 claims on t%e 'uture re#uire totali>ations o' t%e past! ;enealog$ is
modernist %istoriograp%$! ?eidegger, @en<amin and Deleu>e are all prime e1amples o'
polemicall$ genealogical %istorians o' p%ilosop%$, w%o undertook t%e enormous
%ermeneutical labour o' constructing new -traditions. out o' w%ic% to produce t%eir own
work2 alt%oug% ?eidegger.s %istor$ o' p%ilosop%$, and p%enomenolog$ more generall$
4w%ic% was ?eidegger.s own -p%ilosop%ical modernit$.7, also 'urnis%es t%e e1emplar o'
regression to recei+ed aut%orit$ wit%in p%ilosop%ical modernit$, +ia certain proto&
9at%olic institutional 'orms!
C%en , speak o' post&?egelian +ersus anti&?egelian p%ilosop%ical traditions, t%en, , re'er
to two %ig%l$ constructed competing p%ilosop%ical lineages 4pro+isionall$, we mig%t sa$,
dialectical and anti&dialectical7, w%ic%, in t%e 'orm currentl$ recei+ed in t%e Anglop%one
literature, were largel$ t%e retrospecti+e -in+ention. o' t%e 3renc% p%ilosop%ical
imaginar$ o' t%e (F0s ) produced in t%e lig%t o' p%ilosop%$ in Europe since t%e (20s,
wit% t%eir antipat%ies pro<ected back to t%e period o' t%e mid&nineteent% centur$ 4:*0)
:50s7! 3urt%ermore, since (F:, it %as increasingl$ been in t%e name o' -t%e new. t%at
t%is di+ision %as been made and legitimated, on bot% sides! 0%us, 'rom t%e standpoint o'
t%e anti&?egelian +anguards, not onl$ was ?egelianismEdialecticsEort%odo1 Mar1ism
4sutured %ere into a single sub<ect7 -anti#uated., in its relations to bot% t%e p%ilosop%ical
and t%e political present, it was its conception o' t%e new as t%e product o' a dialectical
negation t%at was t%e primar$ marker o' t%is anti#uation8 source o' an alleged structural
inabilit$ to t%ink t%e so&called -radicall$., -rupturall$. or -creati+el$. new! J%ilosop%ies
o' di''erence, broadl$ speaking, 'igure dialectical t%oug%t in terms o' identity, saeness,
totality 4all actuall$ dialecticall$ relati+e terms7 in order to credit anti&dialectical
p%ilosop%ies wit% difference, otherness, sing"larity and incopletion! Alternati+el$, 'rom
t%e standpoint o' t%e post&?egelian position, t%e anti&dialectical embrace o' t%e new as
pure di''erence or pure e+ent appears as a 'lig%t 'rom %istor$ ) a structuralist or post&
structuralist negation o' %istor$ 4"c%midt (:*8 0:7 ) leading, p%ilosop%icall$, onl$
backwards, towards +arious 'orms and combinations o' -t%e old.8 namel$, post&Gantian
positi+isms and onto&t%eologies o' t%e e+ent! "eparating itsel' out 'rom t%e ?egelian
dialectics t%at 'orms t%e ob<ect o' t%e anti&?egelian antipat%$, t%roug% t%e dialectical
negation constituti+e o' its own particular a'terwardness, t%e post&?egelian position
identi'ies itsel' wit% -new., open or unresol+ed dialectical 'orms o' e1perience8 be t%e$
proto&Romantic 4@en<amin7, negati+e 4Adorno7, or -concrete. 4Gosik7! Yet 'rom t%e
standpoint o' anti&?egelianism, suc% post&?egelian 'orms 'ail to di''erentiate t%emsel+es
su''icientl$ 'rom t%e conceptualit$ o' ?egelian dialectics! And so t%e debate continues M
0%is genealogical sub<ection o' %istor$ to t%e present, as t%e new, is at t%e same time,
necessaril$, its sub<ection to t%e problematic o' t%e sub<ect! 3or t%e primar$
determination o' t%e p%ilosop%$ o' t%e sub<ect lies not 4as mig%t be t%oug%t7 in its
relations to -consciousness. and -reason. but in its relations to time ) ultimatel$, t%is is
true e+en o' Gant %imsel' 4?eidegger ((07! And t%e sub<ect o' modernit$ is a collecti+e
one! As Ricoeur put it8 t%e -'ull and precise 'ormulation. o' t%e concept o' modernit$ is
ac%ie+ed onl$ -w%en one sa$s and writes HourI modernit$. 4Ricoeur 200D8 *06!7 And one
can sa$ and write -our. modernit$, p%ilosop%icall$, onl$ b$ positing ?egel.s -H,I t%at is
HCeI and HCeI t%at is H,I. as its speculati+e sub<ect 4?egel (558 07! -Modernit$.
became a p%ilosop%ical concept at t%e point at w%ic% it came to denote t%e temporal
structure o' e1perience o' t%is sub<ect8 -%istor$. in t%e collecti+e singular! ?owe+er, it
became t%e central categor$ o' t%e p%ilosop%$ o' %istor$ ) trans'ormed into a p%ilosop%$
o' %istorical time ) onl$ after t%e criti#ue o' ?egel.s absolute, wit%in w%ic%, its critics
%a+e alwa$s insisted, time is ultimatel$ abolis%ed 43euerbac% (528 6*)(F7! ,n t%e end,
Ricoeur %imsel' actuall$ 'a+ours t%is annulment o' time o+er modernit$, making t%e
options in t%e p%ilosop%$ o' %istor$ #uite clear8 a'ter ?egel, t%ere is modernit$ or t%e
p%ilosop%$ o' religion! 0%ere is no t%ird wa$! "c%ematicall$, we ma$ sa$8 modernit$
becomes t%e central categor$ o' t%e p%ilosop%$ o' %istor$ +ia the e)traction of the foral
str"ct"re of teporal negation fro the totali2ed narrative of necessary developent in
?egel.s p%ilosop%$ o' %istor$! 0%is 'ormal structure o' temporal negation, e1tracted 'rom
teleological narrati+es o' necessar$ de+elopment, is t%e new1 Modernisms ) as isms ) are
collecti+e a''irmations o' t%is 'ormal temporal structure o' t%e new, under t%e conditions
o' particular negations! A+ant&gardes collecti+el$ a''irm t%is 'ormal temporal structure o'
t%e new, and its attendant negations, 'rom t%e standpoint o' particular politicall$ de'ined
'utures! ,n t%is respect, in t%e mo+e 'rom -0%eor$. to t%e t%eoretical practices t%at
currentl$ dominate an increasingl$ transnational Englis%&language market in %umanities,
we see a dual retreat, 'irst, 'rom -t%eor$. as a+ant&garde to a general modernism o' t%eor$
4an emp%asis on t%e present as a negation o' t%e past72 and second, 'rom a modernism o'
t%eor$, to t%e illusor$ present o' t%e space o' -t%e contemporar$.! Muc% o' w%at passes
'or t%eor$ toda$, especiall$ in t%e degraded 'orm o' t%e circulation o' -marketable
names., aspires to be contemporar$ ) to <oin toget%er t%e times o' t%e spaces it addresses,
discursi+el$, +ia its mode o' address, rat%er t%an merel$ +ia t%e e1c%ange relations t%at
gi+e suc% contemporaneit$ its actualit$! Yet it rarel$ pauses to re'lect upon t%e
p%ilosop%ical structure o' t%e idea o' t%e contemporar$, t%e transcendental illusion o' co&
presence t%at it carries 4=sborne, 'ort%coming7, or its relations%ip to t%e idea o' t%e new!
A p%ilosop%icall$ in'ormed transdisciplinar$ t%eoretical discourse alone is ade#uate to
t%at task! ,t calls 'or a new kind o' reckoning between post&?egelian and anti&?egelian
positions2 a reckoning t%at would return to t%e most basic p%ilosop%ical stakes at issue
between t%em in t%inking t%e new ) negation, a''irmation and t%e relations%ip between
t%em ) in t%e conte1t o' concrete 'orms, instances and connotations o' t%e new!
0%e problem o' t%e new, moti+ating its construction as a general&t%eoretical categor$ o' a
transdisciplinar$ p%ilosop%i>ing, is simple8 -?ow to t%ink t%e -newness. o' t%e new/.
0%at is, %ow to t%ink t%e new.s transcendence o' its conditions, as -no+elt$., wit%out
reducing it to eit%er 47 a relation o' negation to t%ose conditions 4i!e! a 'orm o'
dependence7, or 427 t%e pure transcendence o' a #uasi&t%eological -creation./ ,n ot%er
words, w%erein lies t%e immanent, rat%er t%an purel$ relational, intelligibilit$ o' t%e
newness o' t%e new/ Jart o' t%e answer clearl$ lies in -a''irmation.8 t%e new is an
affirative ode of negation, ot%erwise called 4b$ Niet>sc%e, ?eidegger, @en<amin and
Deleu>e alike7 -destruction.! 0%is is a crucial part o' t%e a''irmation o' t%e new, but onl$
a part, 'or w%ile destruction clears t%e space 'or t%e new, t%e positi+it$ o' its speci'ic
newness still needs to be accounted 'or! ?ow t%en, precisel$, does t%e a''irmation o' t%e
new stand in relation to its negation o' t%e old/ 0%is is t%e temporal&ontological problem
t%at no re'lection on t%e 'uture o' t%eor$ itsel' can a+oid! 9onceptuall$, it re#uires a
renewed in+estigation o' t%e underl$ing a''inities between ?egel.s and Niet>sc%e.s
t%oug%t, at t%eir deepest le+els, at t%e +er$ moment at w%ic% t%e$ appear most opposed2
5

in its %istorical dimension, it re#uires p%ilosop%i>ing about, and out o', non&p%ilosop%ical
e1perience! ,t is %ere t%at @en<amin.s later work stands out as e1emplar$ in its
t%eoretical&political intent2 and it is %ere also t%at, in %is collaboration wit% ;uattari in t%e
two)+olume *apitalis and Schi2ophrenia, Deleu>e.s writing distances itsel' 'rom t%e
classicall$ metap%$sical problematic t%at it ot%erwise appears to s%are wit% @adiou, and
to w%ic% @adiou would %a+e us reduce Deleu>e.s t%oug%t 4@adiou 20007!
,n 3hat is Philosophy4, it is argued t%at8 -0%e %istor$ o' p%ilosop%$ means t%at we
e+aluate not onl$ t%e %istorical no+elt$ o' t%e concepts created b$ a p%ilosop%er but also
t%e power o' t%eir becoming w%en t%e$ pass into one anot%er. 4Deleu>e and ;uattari
((D8 *2!7 0%e e1ample gi+en t%ere is t%e con<oined production in Gant.s writings o' new
concepts o' time, space and t%e cogito! 0rans'ormations in t%e concepts o' space and time
produced a new concept o' t%e cogito! ?ere, m$ suggestion is t%at in criticall$ re'lecting
on t%e recei+ed oppositions between negation and a''irmation, in t%e conte1t o' t%e
%istor$ o' t%e new, we can look towards t%e con<oined production o' new concepts o'
negation, a''irmation and t%e new! =r to put it anot%er wa$8 per%aps t%e new mig%t be
made to wor% on and transfor t%e concepts o' negation and a''irmation, 'rom its
ambiguous location somew%ere between t%e ontological and socio&%istorical -realms.!
"uc% a position re'uses an$ straig%t'orwardl$ resol+ed sense o' t%e %istoricall$
ontological, not least because o' its radicali>ation o' t%e problem o' t%e 'uture, w%ic%
problemati>es e+en retroacti+e ontologi>ations o' t%e %istorical! ,t categoricall$ re'uses
t%e internalit$ to a con+entionall$ constructed p%ilosop%ical 'ield c%aracteristic o' t%e
Gantian series cited in 3hat is Philosophy4, a''irming instead t%e openness o' a
p%ilosop%icall$ in'ormed t%eoretical discourse to t%e present as a w%ole! 0%is is a
tra<ector$ 'or w%ic% @en<amin.s Arcades Pro,ect and Deleu>e&;uattari.s *apitalis and
Schi2ophrenia o''er us 'lawed but li+ing models, models t%at retain t%e aspiration o'
t%eoretical work to bot% trut% and t%e trans'ormation o' e1perience!
@ibliograp%$
Adorno, 0!C! 4(5*7 Negative +ialectics, trans! E!@! As%ton, London8 Routledge!
&&&! 4((57 Aesthetic Theory, trans! R! ?ullot&Gentor, Minneapolis, MN8 Minnesota
Ani+ersit$ Jress!
Ali>art, M! Gi%m, 9! and 9ollecti' 420067 &resh Thorie, Jaris: Editions Leo "c%eer!
Ali>art, M!, Nicolin, J!, Kaoui, J!, Ronell, A! and 9ollecti', 4200F7 &resh Thorie II:
5lac% Al'", Jaris: Editions Leo "c%eer!
Ali>art, M! 4ed!7 420057 &resh Thorie III: -anifestations, Jaris: Editions Leo "c%eer!
Alt%usser, L! 4(557 -Remarks on t%e 0erminolog$ Adopted. ) (F6 Jre'ace to t%e (F*
essa$ -=n t%e Materialist Dialectic8 =n t%e Ane+enness o' =rigins., in &or -ar),
trans! @! @rewster, London8 New Le't @ooks! F2!
@adiou, A! 420007 +ele"2e: The *lao"r of 5eing, trans! L! @urc%ill, Minneapolis, MN8
Minnesota Ani+ersit$ Jress!
@en<amin, C! 4(((7 The Arcades Pro,ect, trans! ?! Eiland and G! McLaug%lin,
9ambridge, MA and London8 ?ar+ard Ani+ersit$ Jress!
&&&! 4200*7 -=n t%e 9oncept o' ?istor$., Selected 3ritings1 6ol"e 78 9:;<=9:7>,
9ambridge, MA and London8 ?ar+ard Ani+ersit$ Jress! *(0&D00!
@lanc%ot, M! 4((*7 The Infinite *onversation, trans! "! ?anson, Minneapolis, MN8
Minnesota Ani+ersit$ Jress!
@utler, J! 4200D7 Precario"s #ife: The Powers of -o"rning and 6iolence, London and
New York8 Oerso!
9%iesa, L! and 0oscano, A! 4eds7 4200(7 The Italian +ifference: 5etween Nihilis and
5iopolitics, Melbourne8 re!press!
9ritc%le$, "! 420057 Infinitely +eanding: (thics of *oitent8 Politics of /esistance,
London and New York8 Oerso!
9ussett, 3! 4200:7 &rench Theory: How &o"ca"lt8 +errida8 +ele"2e8 ? *o Transfored
the Intellect"al #ife of the @nited States, trans! J! 3ort, Minneapolis, MN8
Ani+ersit$ o' Minnesota Jress!
Deleu>e, ;! and ;uattari, 3! 4(:*7 Anti0Aedip"s: *apitalis and Schi2ophrenia, trans!
R! ?urle$, M! "eem and ?! Lane, Minneapolis8 Minnesota Ani+ersit$ Jress!
&&&! 4(:57 A Tho"sand Platea"s: *apitalis and Schi2ophrenia, trans! @! Massumi,
Minneapolis8 Minnesota Ani+ersit$ Jress!
&&&! 4((D7 3hat is Philosophy4, trans! ;! @urc%ell and ?! 0omlinson, London and New
York8 Oerso!
Derrida, J! 4((27 -3orce o' Law8 0%e HM$stical 3oundations o' Aut%orit$I., in D!
9ornell, M! Rosen'eld and D!;! 9arlson 4eds7, +econstr"ction and the Possi'ility
of B"stice, London and New York8 Routledge! *)F5!
Dollimore, J! 420007 -Cis%'ul 0%eor$ and "e1ual Jolitics., /adical Philosophy 0*8 :&
2D!
Dosse, 3! and ;lassman, D! 4((57 History of Str"ct"ralis1 6ol"e 9: The /ising Sign8
9:7C=9:DD, Minneapolis, MN8 Ani+ersit$ o' Minnesota Jress!
0001 4((57 History of Str"ct"ralis8 6ol"e E: The Sign Sets8 9:DF0Present,
Minneapolis, MN8 Ani+ersit$ o' Minnesota Jress!
Dubiel, ?! 4(:67 Theory and Politics: St"dies in the +evelopent of *ritical Theory,
trans! @! ;regg, 9ambridge, MA and London!
3euerbac%, L! 4(527 -0owards a 9riti#ue o' ?egel.s J%ilosop%$., in The &iery 5roo%:
Selected 3ritings of #"dwig &e"er'ach, ed! and trans! K! ?an'i, New York8
Anc%or @ooks! 6*&(F!
3'renc%, J! 4((67 The Tie of Theory: A History of Tel !"el G9:D>09:<;H, =1'ord8
9larendon Jress!
;asc%B, R! 420057 The Honor of Thin%ing: Theory8 Philosophy8 *riticis, "tan'ord, 9A8
"tan'ord Ani+ersit$ Jress!
?abermas, J! 4(5D7 -@etween J%ilosop%$ and "cience8 Mar1ism as 9riti#ue. 4(F*7, in
Theory and Practice8 trans! J! Oiertel, London8 ?einemann! (6)262!
&&&! 4(5:7 $nowledge and H"an Interests 4(F:7, trans! J!J! "%apiro, 2nd edn, London8
?einemann!
&&&! 4(:5a7 The Philosophical +isco"rse of -odernity: Twelve #ect"res, trans! 3!
Lawrence, 9ambridge, MA8 M,0 Jress!
&&&! 4(:5b7 The Theory of *o"nicative Action8 6ol"e E: The *riti."e of
&"nctionalist /eason 4(:7, trans! 0! Mc9art%$, 9ambridge8 Jolit$ Jress!
&&&! 4((7 The Theory of *o"nicative Action8 6ol"e 9: /eason and the
/ationali2ation of Society 4(:7, trans! 0! Mc9art%$, 9ambridge8 Jolit$ Jress!
&&&! 4((F7 5etween &acts and Nors: *ontri'"tions to a +isco"rse Theory of #aw
and +eocracy, trans! C! Re%g, 9ambridge, MA8 M,0 Jress!
?egel, ;!C!3! 4(557 Phenoenology of Spirit, trans! A!O! Miller, =1'ord8 =1'ord
Ani+ersit$ Jress!
?eidegger, M! 4((07 $ant and the Pro'le of -etaphysics, trans! R! 0a't,
@loomington, ,N8 ,ndiana Ani+ersit$ Jress!
?onnet%, A! 4((67 The Str"ggle for /ecognition: The -oral Graar of Social
*onflicts, trans! J! Anderson, 9ambridge8 Jolit$ Jress!
?ork%eimer, M! 4(527! -0raditional and 9ritical 0%eor$., in *ritical Theory: Selected
(ssays, 9ontinuum! ::)262!
&&&! 4200D7 (clipse of /eason, London and New York8 9ontinuum!
?ork%eimer, M! and Adorno, 0! C! 420027 +ialectic of (nlightenent: Philosophical
&ragents, trans! E! Jep%cott, "tan'ord8 "tan'ord Ani+ersit$ Jress!
Gosik, G! 4(5F7 +ialectics of the *oncrete: A St"dy of Pro'les on -an and 3orld ,
trans! G! Go+anda and J! "c%midt, Dordrec%t and @oston8 Reidel Jublis%ing
9ompan$!
Lecourt, D! 4(567 -ar)is and (pisteology: 5achelard8 *ang"ilhe and &o"ca"lt8
London8 New Le't @ooks!
Marrati, J! 4200:7 -Li'e and E+ent8 Deleu>e on Newness., in J!J! @ono, 0! Dean and E!J!
Kiarek, eds, A Tie for the H"anities: &"t"rity and the #iits of A"tonoy,
New York8 3ord%am Ani+ersit$ Jress! 5&2:!
Mar1, G! and Engels, 3! 4(5F7 -0%e ;erman ,deolog$. in *ollected 3or%s, 6ol"e C8
9<7C=9<7F, London8 Lawrence and Cis%art!
Nanc$, J&L! 4((7 -,ntroduction., in Nanc$, J&L! et al!, eds, 3ho *oes After the
S"',ect4, New York and London8 Routledge! &:!
Negri, A! 4200*7 -9onstitution o' 0ime., in Tie for /evol"tion, trans! M! Mandarini,
London and New York8 9ontinuum! (&2:!
Niet>sc%e, 3! 4((57 -=n t%e Ases and Disad+antages o' ?istor$ 'or Li'e., in @ntiely
-editations, trans! R!J! ?ollingdale, 9ambridge8 9ambridge Ani+ersit$ Jress! 65&
2*!
=sborne, J! 420007 -J%ilosop%$ in 9ultural 0%eor$., in Philosophy in *"lt"ral Theory,
London and New York8 Routledge! &(!
&&&! 4200F7 -HC%oe+er "peaks o' 9ulture "peaks o' Administration as CellI8 Disputing
Jragmatism in 9ultural "tudies., *"lt"ral St"dies F0 478 **&D5!
&&&! 420057 -Neo&9lassic8 Alain @adiou.s 5eing and (vent., /adical Philosophy D28 (&
2(!
&&&! 4200a7 -A "udden 0opicalit$8 Mar1, Niet>sc%e and t%e Jolitics o' 9risis., /adical
Philosophy F08 ()2F!
&&&! 4200b7 -Modernism and J%ilosop%$., in J! @rooker et al 4eds7, The A)ford
Hand'oo% of -oderniss, =1'ord8 =1'ord Ani+ersit$ Jress, pp! *::)D0(!
&&& 3ort%coming! -0%e 3iction o' t%e 9ontemporar$.!
"loterdi<k, J! 4(::7 *riti."e of *ynical /eason, trans! M! Eldred, London8 Oerso!
RanciPre, J! 4((67 An the Shores of Politics, trans! L! ?eron, London and New York8
Oerso!
Ricoeur, J! 4200D7 -eory8 History8 &orgetting, trans! G! @lame$ and D! Jellauer,
9%icago, ,L8 9%icago Ani+ersit$ Jress!
"c%mitt, A! 4(:*7 History and Str"ct"re: An (ssay on Hegelian0-ar)ist and
Str"ct"ralist Theories of History, trans! J! ?er', 9ambridge, MA8 M,0 Jress!
Ceber, "! 4200:7 5en,ains =a'ilities, 9ambridge, MA and London8 ?ar+ard
Ani+ersit$ Jress!
Cellmer, A! 4((:7 (ndgaes: The Irreconcila'le Nat"re of -odernity, trans! D!
Midgle$, 9ambridge, MA and London8 M,0 Jress!
Ciggers%aus, R! 4((D7 The &ran%f"rt School: Its History8 Theories and Politics,
9ambridge8 Jolit$ Jress!
QiRek, "! 4(((7 The Tic%lish S"',ect: The A'sent *entre of Political Antology, London
and New York, Oerso!
&&&! 4200D7 Argans 3itho"t 5odiesI An +ele"2e and *onse."ences, New York and
London8 Routledge!
N=0E"

As part o' t%is market, -3renc% t%eor$. is e+en being sold back to 3rance, in an ironic -moderni>ing.
importation o' sel' as ot%er 4Ali>art et al 2006, 200F, 20057! A p%ilosop%er in 3rance must now
circulate t%roug% Englis%&language academic networks in order to become a -3renc% p%ilosop%er., e+en
in non&Englis%&speaking >ones, suc% as "out% America and "out%&East Asia!
2
"ee Dosse and ;lassman ((5!
*
0%e reception o' t%ese t%inkers is too per+asi+e to merit singling out an$ particular te1ts! ,t is wort%
noting, %owe+er, t%at t%is pro+ides t%e conte1t 'or t%e promotion o' Ki>ek.s work +ia t%e manner in
w%ic% %e %as inserted into it %is own brand o' ?egelian Lacanianism, in t%e polemical 'orm o' a new
-9artesianism. 4Ki>ek ((( and 200D7! Ki>ek alternates tacticall$ across t%e t%eor$Ep%ilosop%$ di+ide8
pla$ing -p%ilosop%$. 4?egel7 against -t%eor$., and -t%eor$. 4Lacan7 against -p%ilosop%$.! 0%is constant
tactical manoeu+ring, c%aracteristic o' %is writings, places t%em per'ormati+el$ wit%in t%e more narrowl$
pragmatic band o' t%e pragmatist mainstream!
Cit% regard to Deleu>e, it is important to distinguis% %is more classicall$ p%ilosop%ical work 4be it
interpretati+e or constructi+e7, 'rom t%e more complicated, e1perimental status o' %is two main books
wit% 3Bli1 ;uattari 4Deleu>e and ;uattari (:* and (:57 ) 'or w%ic%, see below! ?owe+er, t%e
nominall$ co&aut%ored 3hat is Philosophy4 4Deleu>e and ;uattari ((D7 reinstates t%e classicall$
modern disciplinar$ di+isions between -p%ilosop%$., -art. and -science.!
0%e t%eoretical side o' 'eminism 4-3renc% 'eminism. as a part o' -3renc% t%eor$.7 presents a more
complicated tra<ector$2 in part because o' t%e reception o' its 'ounding mot%ers ) Griste+a, 9i1ous,
,rigara$ ) t%roug% t%e categor$ o' writing 4crit"re finine7! Nonet%eless, one can still discern a
mo+ement in t%e %istor$ o' reception 'rom ps$c%oanal$ticall$ in'luenced 'orms o' t%eor$ 4Griste+a, in
particular7 to more metap%$sical +ersions o' se1ual di''erence 4,rigara$7 and -woman. 4@raidotti.s and
ot%ers. Deleu>ean -becoming woman.7!
D
0%e partial e1ception to t%is rule is Jac#ues RanciPre, w%o remains in man$ wa$s a politici>ed post&
3oucauldian %istorian o' -s$stems o' t%oug%t.! ?owe+er, t%e Englis%&language reception o' %is work
%as to a large e1tent 'ocused on %is -aest%etics., in strict distinction 'rom t%e successor discipline o' -art
t%eor$.! As suc% it represents somet%ing o' a mediated return to t%e classical modern p%ilosop%ical
'ield! ?is political t%oug%t similarl$ draws %ea+il$ on classical p%ilosop%ical sources 4RanciPre ((67,
but it distinguis%es itsel' 'rom t%em, nonet%eless, b$ deplo$ing t%em in t%e conte1t o' a t%eor$ o'
sub<ecti+ation! ,n t%is respect, it is resistant to t%e dominant A" tendenc$ to situate 3oucault and %is
legac$ wit%in an e1panded 'ield o' liberal political p%ilosop%$! C%et%er t%is resistant #ualit$ e1tends to
%is aest%etics is more doubt'ul!
6
Suentin Meillassou1 and t%e so&called -speculati+e realists. pro+ide a comic 'ootnote to t%is %istor$ )
t%e return as 'arce! 0%e$ are t%e Louis @onapartes o' metap%$sics!
F
0%is problematic e1tends well be$ond t%e 3ranco&;erman t%eoretical a1is, pro+iding one o' t%e
uni'$ing 'orms o' t%e increasingl$ transnational domain o' -t%eor$., wit%in w%ic% ,talian work pla$s a
growing role 4see 9%iesa and 0oscano 200(7!
5
9'! -0%e p%ilosop%$ o' Niet>sc%e takes its distance 'rom dialectical p%ilosop%$ less in contesting it
t%an in repeating it.2 speci'icall$, -in repeating t%e principle concepts or moments t%at it de'lects LMN
t%e idea o' contradiction, t%e idea o' going be$ond, t%e idea o' trans+aluation, t%e idea o' totalit$, and
abo+e all t%e idea o' circularit$, o' trut% or o' a''irmation as circular. 4@lanc%ot ((*8 6(7!