Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Pierre Macherey On The Rupture

    Uploaded by

    Valentín Huarte
    57 views5 pages
    Pierre Macherey on the Rupture

    Original Title

    Pierre Macherey on the Rupture

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Pierre Macherey on the Rupture

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    57 views5 pages

    Pierre Macherey On The Rupture

    Uploaded by

    Valentín Huarte
    Pierre Macherey on the Rupture

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 5
    118 the minnesota review Pierre Macherey On the Rupture jorge Sempruns txt grapples wit almost cry subject tone, al he ‘tice permit s fo define ourselves a "mars," The nation of Haranis, sce come, only plas inthis text the role ofa pretext. Ugenise, whit vending Sempran ne can choose an ete tern point ‘applicant tone inden hs te, Thats why {woud choo werent of departure one ofthe few paragraph in which te probl ‘ot method posed very conception of the progressions of thought (Marx's in nis spoufe eae, but the obeervtion has a general valve) by tnean of "ruptures" or "qualitative leaps,” in spite ofits dake {ical appearance is disputable. The most correct the mostra onal trust (hac by he thought most adequate tothe ral tinerstanding and transformation ofthe wold is never arevsla- tion, But an elaboration, in which praxis plays a more or less Inportant role Mark that role was decisive), Tn cultural and ‘ological analysis, the notion of “rupture” should be handled tvith extreme car, if we truly want to avokdextemisms. Here, Ie touch on the probleme ofthe dscusion about "bourgeois SSeneeand proletarian science," ofthe discussion about Pro- Teal," ete| “The whole interpretation of this paragraph lie in the translation to be aiven (othe words “extreme cate.” Obviously, the concept of rupture, Tike al concepts, must be used, noi with prudence or precaution but with, {ave that sins rue meaning, If hat meaning hasbeen acquired, ap- peal to pradence are superfluous; the rigor that guides a rational wage Benoush, ‘Without prejuding the domain to which this concept refers, oe thing at least certain: between Semprun’s and Ahusser’s course there is @ rupture, The language employed each isnt the same: not only because the words used by each aren the sae, but especialy because the same ‘words take on diferent meanings. Althisir's statements ashe designates ‘himself, thcoreicl. He ha an obvious claim, which i expresed with ‘igor Semprun doubts tha ths lam i legimate, because the igor seems te him too “abstract” But doube never hasbeen and never will be the Instrument of @ scientific statement; only demonstration can provide 2 stiterion. For’ example, as long. 3s Althusser's explanation isn't macherey demonsrated to be false (ot rigorous) it should be considered tre (en ‘domed with a certain degree of knowledge). But thie tnt wht Semprun Goes. He chooses another language whichis less "abstact™ and more ‘senerous: the language ofthe "real and of "practice." This choice takes place les between distinct objects than between levels of statement. The thm“ yeacn Toric common he oo lngge ul iahinguag ata or Ae re gan Sebi Lat ap oa is an ab otto cone to en seni anayanean bapa or eran Jere pace tc in peony ta att gen indent ofa Roogofars i iposed op Mart mel oy tees. ne asf ace” copoly be eno ne ofthe oe ie te Te ide ont ah er, ote soit coat niece tocen Ath and Somprun thee cn te no gueson of a “ache naee he too oF ia theta sb Tea oe thon Stores oop Each a so gue ec has Rous sa language Art este wx ae open teh tte tna eatin of xchange, sey ae ssl se. ae ive pe aypene Teta wd why car fon Se peu cestary ht Wish simpy a ay lac the Rawat dlp" Thee eum fo aiopcin hese es trom cotieo tvo douse, by meat fer saan Mouse el ett he woud enema im hey oul be te ruofthe contacto: Hom io caus sapaed Inia wy nating aican sen nord douse Le eae fRabeney ee fn lange sell isp mc ‘Thu dos: meay hu sherk sce sper, oh ts touche one“ is sai On iecomsessnchicom nsec it nce Ec fran ashe abt ec nea ad ansersis fa most suena ape ants sao ‘huss wat etn nil rier noe basa sa nd ‘il sot od ht pce nlnch nearer {Skerh avay fam hm Sempron returns wat he bene fo Sete of clog teeny see spane fo feted Bevel og or he Wak ae dupe oles ie ey forms he dace Ae days des ray means dlp oem we ie se hee ifs Sempra tno don't ma oy Son we esha {tea een hog te nung ry eae tbe ade thom ine hy ot econ, Weschler e poste ores mus bb we Toe rere beeen eto Rages sean he abee of my ees at mse rotioa espe seen eee a gegen gree eee sees 120 the mianesota review al his is tre, the problem posed by bringing these wo tet together oes far beyond their stated objets, Behind the problem of humans — ‘hich theoretically a false problem, because if badly posed arises “nother question which is more ero, Although this question would Soom {orbe fat removed from the main ses raised, itn fact what assumes the greatest importance. The question is: what does Mars teach us? where Isis discourse anchored? An easy response would be thatthe domain ‘ofthe marist problematic precisely hat lis the Semprun-Althuser “debate.” Marusm isan open doctrine, in perpetual dialogue with self, theonly one capable of tasing and resolving futful confrontations, But itthat response isnt enough, i, as we have seen, no dialogue occurs Be- tween Semprun and Althusser, if thir positions aren't those of two in- Tevocutors who are inthe process of speaking BY having a face-to-face fencounter, i the true debate fs somewhere other than between the to, bosate thee is nothing between the two, no middle ferm—then we isk reversing the dialogue into a monologue, preferring to hear a singe voice instead ofa debate, remaining deaf to the other and his defense. In other Words, i there isn'ta genuine debate beeween Semprun and Althusser, Is because one of them sighs and the ater who then believes himself to beat the very heart ofthe marist debate in fact ind inself elsewhere, ‘orlong that frontier about which Althusser speaks in his nose, Iron ‘Ger marked wih signposts: there so other way to Marx. The isk isle: SMe fefuse to consider that the unity of marx isn he unity of 80 discourses because it makes no sense to speak about that unity—we're going to have to reect One of the 6w0 discourse cla to unity and oherence, That would be scandalous ot for moral but for theozeical Feaions—provided thatthe meaning of the word unity i understood. Tn fact, that word ike ll those we have encountered until no, has ‘so senses ideological and theoretial. Semprn's ieoloay i 3 deals) fof unity. Move precisely, i san ideology of organic unity a8 he says Fist (is the only definition that we encounter i his discourse, whereas 2 unity of all possible opposites. This appeal fo wnt is the Key 10 the Paragraph on rupture. Semprun aks sto use the term rupture with treme cre," in the last analysis, beease involves a there of division, ‘nheres the organic cohesion of every debate must be (blindly) guaranteed {since every debates good, productiveand so forth) Such uty isin fat {he hegeian reconciliation of opposites, which are feconciled because in {hemlves, inspite of appearance, they haven't ceased to be Menta. “Thus, every dialogue is fruitful because i sa return to the same. But without speaking about the “philosophical” preblem of contradetion, ‘ne know thatthe pactical problem of anit ent so easly resolved. TO realize ity st Just to appeal ro unity, but to go quite along way which Fsnever that of an ideal revonciasion but an effective compromise, Now Imacherey 121 a i oT og hs calc Nn a ce 2 ee et and 122. the minnesota review comedy (pretend not to know what I do know inorder to know what Sou know; I pretend not 10 have any ideas inorder to have your ideas) ‘hat will povigea framework for some lusory epiphany of what i tue, ‘There is no exchange posible between people who don’t know, yet Would pretend to learn. There is no spontaneity of dialogue in which knowledge ‘would appear transparently despite is absence. In this instance, Semprun is sight, the notion of rupture should be sed with extreme care. Wat is found na theoretical discussion only what hasbeen put into it. Maybe hot under the same form, though, of ele the discussion would have frm Which would only be instructive for the one who as 10 learn, But Theoretical discussion i only possible Because it breaks with every other form of discussion, Tha's why it sn adalogue but an incessant polemic, ‘which is crefltoeurantce ts conditions of posibiity ax mush a, and Inaybe even more than, to make them frutf 1, a theoretical dscusison only exists Deease it has a quite par ticular car for is object the later must exist Before can even be did ‘ed. What permits us fo say that this object exists? The criteria must De ‘the same once-or analogous to them —that permit us to say that scence has an object. Now, as we know, it's not enough to say that science has the real fr iis abject. In that sense the expresionsefence would be in "ain and not tsa? sient. Science in applied toa sven really cm. Sees a qualified reality. Thu, science i nly a selenc of the real fom ‘the moment that it sivesform—or rather gives forms—to reality. The real, the objet on which cence depends alas eB LLecscallina-concept, Now, a concept isn't just a signal by which the ‘cl might tansmic Hs messages, Because a message has no reais apart Irom either its ex o its statement. Concepts are fist ofall words and

    You might also like