Contenu du sommaire : La démocratie à l'épreuve du conflit

Is there a thought of voluntary servitude in Spinoza's theory? Starting with tensions arising from the apparent contradiction between such a thought and Spinoza's anthropology, this paper shows that the Tractatus Theologico-politicus's author identifies some political conditions that lead to the reversal of the conatus and make men fight “for their servitude as if it were their salvation”. Spinoza dampens La Boetie's hypothesis : a man or a people cannot want to enslave himself/themselves, but can be induced to do it under the effect of the adoption of a certain politics or institution. It is not only the fear the monarchical regime breeds. The foundation of the Hebrew Republic, after the Jewish people left Egypt, also raises the issue of voluntary servitude. Spinoza's thought, consequently, shows a discerning political rationalism that can help us today to think about the “hidden external causes” which can weaken, even conflict with the desire for freedom.

This paper seeks to determine the relationship between anarchy and democracy in Proudhon's thought, considering the place of the conflict in this autor. The first part exposes what Proudhon names antagonism and antinomy in his social ontology and the different sorts of conflicts this ontology takes into account. The second part focuses on a case of antinomy, that is at the same time a basic and a borderline case : sexual difference, that Proudhon considers as an antinomy, but not as a conflict. The last part shows how this theory of conflictuality leads to a criticism of democracy and to a positive federalist project.

Machiavelli's thought has been referred to in numerous ways in the past decades in political theory. His work has grounded various comments about the process of democratization, the meaning and the conditions of political liberty and about civic participation. This paper advocates the thesis of an indirect relevance of Machiavelli's work for contemporary political thought. It stresses the importance given by Machiavelli to the desire for liberty and its meaning for the understanding of the deepening of democracy. From then on, it argues that his thought invites us to qualify the scope of citizenship understood in relationship with the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen and with political modernity. It allows us to highlight the ambivalence of democratic citizenship and to question the limits of the participatory conception of democracy.

In his criticism of Weimar liberal democracy, Carl Schmitt mainly shows his opposition to pluralism. The State sovereignty that he wants to maintain takes on the form of intensified presidentialism and he thus intends to save the substance of the German Constitution against Weimar Constitution. Walter Benjamin, although he does not stand on the same level and criticizes the after-war world even before contemplating a democratic essence, agrees with Schmitt on the notion of sovereignty. While everything leads them apart from each other and in spite of the explicit tribute paid by Benjamin to Political Theology, Schmitt's more discreet homage to Benjamin, the feeling that they do not argue according to the same definition of sovereignty must at least be considered as a hypothesis likely to become contradicted. What are they really agreed on ? Diagnosing the conflict and acknowledging an epoch are but a partial and unsatisfactory answer in many respects. Using Giorgio Agamben's analyses, we will take the fleeting meeting between Schmitt and Benjamin as a starting point to study a concept that plays a pivotal role for both of them : the state of emergency being given concrete expression by civil world war with Schmitt, and by civil war turned into terror with Benjamin. In the interplay of the concepts the meeting point focusing two very different lines of thought is also a divergent point. This will lead us at first to define civil world war as a signature, a semi concept or the illustration of a concept and, subsequently, to redefine what underlies these two conceptions, i.e. political temporality in a time of crisis for democracy.

This article examines Charles Wright Mills' sociological works and political thought : it shows how they provide the basis of a reflection on the social conditions of democratic conflict. First Mills' work questions the impact of social stratification on democratic conflict. Second Mills' approach of the notion of « mass society » puts emphasis on the way the decline of the autonomy of social orders contributes to a weakening of democratic conflict. Finally, we compare the way Mills and Pierre Bourdieu defend a « politics of truth » : such an analysis emphazises that the autonomy of social orders or social fields is a condition and a stake at once pivotal and ambivalent of democratic struggles.

On the background of a criticism of (neo)liberalism which the idea of popular sovereignty completely inefficient, the article tries to demonstrate that a theory of democracy should be elaborated through the theoretical framework of governmentality. The existence of a situation of multiple governmentalities becomes the criterion of democracy. The « government of the common » is finally identified as the alternative to neoliberal governmentality which gives sense to democracy today.

A philosoph and a sociologist inspired by Durkheim with whom he started L'Année sociologique, Célestin Bouglé (1870-1940) has been for a long time known for his Essais sur le régime des castes (1908) and his critique of Lapouge's anthroposociology. His sociological interests however are intimately linked with his republican and solidarity ideals. This article explores the importance and the form of democracy in Bouglé's political thought. On this topic, the influence of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) on Bouglé's thought is important in order to understand the particularity of Bouglé's solidarism by contrast with Léon Bourgeois'. This particularity is however for Bouglé an attempt to complete Bourgeois' philosophy of solidarity rather than to confront it.

Besides its English and Dutch versions, the Recherche de la Vérité was also translated – during the author's lifetime – into Latin, under the title of De Inquirenda Veritate. This translation was undertaken between 1682 and 1683, using the third edition of Malebranche's work. The translator was Jacques Lenfant (1661-1728), then a student of theology at the Geneva Academy. In itself, the translation attests to the strong impact of Malebranche's thinking in Geneva in the 1680's, and bears witness to the favourable reception given to Cartesian doctrine among intellectuals linked to this reformed Academy, despite the heavy censorship applied at the time by Catholics and Protestants alike. Jacques Lenfant's Preface to the De Inquirenda Veritate, translated here in French, clearly illustrates these two aspects. It conveys a sort of apologia for Cartesianism, and portrays Malebranche's thinking as a philosophy that achieves, through its ethical and theological developments, Descartes' doctrine.