![]() ![]() The externalist approach takes two forms: one from those interested in the history of philosophy, and another to those in political philosophy. I then want to examine the arguments for and against it first. ![]() ![]() That said, the latter–philosophy first or internalist approach–is the one that I have taken for most of my career. If one made two stacks of the literature written about Althusser, the mound that puts the killing of Rytmann-Légotien front and center–what I will call the externalist or biographical approach–would far outweigh the pile that exclusively treats of Althusser’s contributions to political philosophy. During the year following Althusser’s centenary, when his life is temporally connected to his work and to its ongoing influence, it is more than appropriate to think about the relation of his biography to his ideas and to the history of their reception. Clearly, we have evidence to suggest that the fact of Althusser killing his wife is generally off-putting, perhaps particularly to women, who might otherwise be interested in his thought. Further, more than one student has told me of graduate seminar debates regarding whether one should teach, read, or cite Althusser given his history. But, having researched Althusser for over twenty years and having corresponded or visited with folks interested in Althusser from all over the world, I am only too aware that the Althusser-citing crowd overwhelmingly identifies as male. That Marxism, socialism, and the far left have their own gender problems presents confounding variables. The male to female ratio of the list was somewhere around11/1, making Althusser studies worse in terms of gender equity than academic philosophy as a whole, and probably much worse than political philosophy as a sub-discipline. Two years ago and in preparation for a conference supporting Althusser’s 2018 centenary, I prepared a list of every philosopher, political theorist, or social scientist whose work was significantly informed by Althusser’s ideas. The ways in which theorists and activists have typically dealt with the uncomfortable fact that Althusser ended the life of his wife, the sociologist and résistante Hélène Rytmann-Légotien, have undoubtedly hindered the reception of Althusser’s ideas. Can we continue to employ Althusser’s philosophical ideas politically in light of this offense? For those of us who find Althusser’s rethinking of Marxism of theoretical or practical relevance, a pressing moral and political question is, therefore, how can we continue to think with Althusser. If the person knows who Althusser is–and especially if the acquaintance identifies as female–you will often be met with a stunned silence, followed by: “But didn’t he kill his wife?” How to respond? The banal and facile reply is: “Yes, but this fact doesn’t matter philosophically.” However, given the frequency of this and similar reactions, to say that the killing does not matter at all is plainly wrong. There is a common reaction when people find out that the work of Louis Althusser significantly informs your thinking. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |