Roland Barthes

Bio: Roland Barthes is an academic researcher from Kenyon College. The author has contributed to research in topics: Criticism & Pleasure. The author has an hindex of 57, co-authored 195 publications receiving 24529 citations.

Les deux Critiques

Abstract: Nous avons actuellement en France deux critiques paralleles: une critique que l'on appellera pour simplifier universitaire et qui pratique pour l'essentiel une methode positiviste heritee de Lanson, et une critique d'interpretation, dont les representants, fort differents les uns des autres, puisqu'il s'agit de J. P. Sartre, G. Bachelard, L. Goldmann, G. Poulet, J. Starobinski, J. P. Weber, R. Girard, J. P. Richard, ont ceci de commun, que leur approche de l'oeuvre litteraire peut etre rattachee, plus ou moins, mais en tout cas d'une facon consciente 'a l'une des grandes ideologies du moment, existentialisme, marxisme, psychanalyse, phenomenologie, ce pour quoi on pourrait aussi appeler cette critique-la ideologique. par opposition "a la premiere, qui, elle, refuse toute ideologie et ne se reclame que d'une methode objective. Entre ces deux critiques, il existe, bien entendu, des liens: d'une part, la critique ideologique est la plupart du temps pratiquee par des professeurs, car en France, on le sait, pour des raisons de tradition et de profession, le statut intellectuel se confond facilement avec le statut universitaire; et d'autre part, il arrive 'a l'Universite de reconnaitre le critique d'interpretation, puisque certaines de ses oeuvres sont des theses de doctorat (sanctionnees, il est vrai, plus liberalement, semble-t-il, par les jurys de philosophie que par les jurys de lettres) . Cependant, sans parler de conflit, la separation des deux critiques est reelle. Pourquoi? Si la critique universitaire n'etait rien d'autre que son programme declare, qui est l'etablissement rigoureux des faits biographiques ou litteraires, on ne voit pas, 'a vrai dire, pourquoi elle entretiendrait la moindre tension avec la critique ideologique. Les acquisitions du positivisme, ses exigences memes, sont irreversibles: personne aujourd'hui, quelque philosophie qu'il adopte, ne songe

We Have Never Been Modern

Abstract: What makes us modern? This is a classic question in philosophy as well as in political science. However it is often raised without including science and technology in its definition. The argument of this book is that we are modern as long as we split our political process in two - between politics proper, and science and technology. This division allows the formidable expansion of the Western empires. However it has become more and more difficult to maintain this distance between science and politics. Hence the postmodern predicament - the feeling that the modern stance is no longer acceptable but that there is no alternative. The solution, advances one of France's leading sociologists of science, is to realize that we have never been modern to begin with. The comparative anthropology this text provides reintroduces science to the fabric of daily life and aims to make us compatible both with our past and with other cultures wrongly called pre-modern.

Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method

Abstract: Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method is a systematic introduction to discourse analysis as a body of theories and methods for social research. It brings together three central approaches, Laclau and Mouffe's discourse theory, critical discourse analysis and discursive psychology, in order to establish a dialogue between different forms of discourse analysis often kept apart by disciplinary boundaries. The book introduces the three approaches in a clear and easily comprehensible manner, explaining the distinctive philosophical premises and theoretical perspectives of each approach as well as the methodological guidelines and tools they provide for empirical discourse analysis. The authors also demonstrate the possibilities for combining different discourse analytical and non-discourse analytical approaches in empirical study. Finally, they contextualize discourse analysis within the social constructionist debate about critical social research, rejecting the view that a critical stance is incompatible with social constructionist premises and arguing that critique must be an inherent part of social research.