Marx est mort! Where Have All the “New Philosophers” Gone?

Journal of Social Sciences ISSN: 0971-8923 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjss20 Marx est mort! Where Have All the “New Philosophers” Gone? Fatos Tarifa To cite this article: Fatos Tarifa (1997) Marx est mort! Where Have All the “New Philosophers” Gone?, Journal of Social Sciences, 1:1, 13-20, DOI: 10.1080/09718923.1997.11892157 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09718923.1997.11892157 Published online: 09 Oct 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1 View related articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjss20 J, Soc. Sci., 1(1): lJ·lO (1997) 0 Kamlo.•Raj 1997 Marx est mort! Where Have All The "New Philosophers" Gone? Fatos Tarlflt ~a nt Cleapd /Jill, l>tJMrliiHitll nf SociDinRJ, Utrivtrtir, of Nurth O,roU C81.1210, /lamitl4tt /laU, Chnp•l 1/iU, 1\'C, 21J99•.l210, U.S.A. KEY WORDS Maui~ m . France. Ntw Philosophers. l"ower. DonliuliC>n. Stale S(ldalitm. AUSl'ltA<.:T 'lbe May 1968t"'entJia Rance. a.~ •·rlla.s 11 nucnbt'rof ""'Nid evrllls i.n lhlltlllr 1 96(1:~ ud urly 1970$. f>")ofu t ..d a p rofou.nd ~ ,. ·- J , '''·"'""'"'"'' ;,. ~ ~~ .. n d!. M.o.n isl lhoughl. 1'hr Nc•ow('l/t' l'hilt•M•phi.- e nwrged a.s 11 by• product()( !Uctl ttisi$. "fbe ~tlf • Jtyle d n..-w phil(os(•pllus fn.lllit3lly dca oultttd all (Clfmll of ManiJm as a "philo-'O· phy ordom in.atioft.- The "llhockiug .. QOVdt yo( their "uew"' phit.;,t()phy w:u- t>eliewd to mlllk thr "eud" of M~on is: m in f'nnce. But what wa.f "•tw • in l.he Nt•tHvolle Phiif'sophU!? Wh y did il filii to emerge v: adil'1i1Kiive ,;chool or thougtll? If Mau ut mort. 111 the.,.,_. phi/(Oscoplu·n and lhe media t:~ u l dn 'l ht nr.•• faafvtt&.cloOu.nccdin lhe mid·I970s• .-·l•y pltiiMOf'hJ e.uape !hf"·fate M •• tphi'tn<'tal phe u g mt~ol ? Wer e tlu;." ewpi/(>&'Q ph tl'1 1 "tl.sur u lCf~ (ld, ill¢0n"telly ia· •erpreced.«hdly re•d?Ofthey slrnply fa iledcoprovidt.a ~oo otp~uaJ fr ar~wo k ((>I' th euadtrs~.l ing 01 hum3tl £O<:ioety a t tltl.sfm dt $1~{'! Tbe CUrTetlt a•ticte attt •npu to a.t~r someofthete qut.stioat . I France is a counlty where Marxism, in one fonn or another' has provide(!. a dominwll fr.une of reference for wort in philosophy. sociology. and the "human sciences.. ever since lhe end of World WarTwo. 1 Ouring the nrstlwo dc:<.:ttdes afcer the war tbe grip of Marxism on the minds J1 was rM)t undl the mid sixties- a period of affluence. mobility. and individualism pro· duced by economic growth, declineoflhe work· ing c as.~l activism. and sclerosis of the PCF (Pani Communistc f rant;a.is)-tbat tbe intellec· tual reign of Marxism i n France became vulnerable to profoundly ideological and political at· tacks. Marxism lost its terrain to structuralism. and to what is cal led posrstructuralism in the A\lglo-Saxon world. It seemed that capitalist society was no longer the same lhat Marx bad once described. and tJle alternative of a revolutionary transfonn:uion ofsuch society was neiUler tlleOf'der' of Ole day nor even desirable anymore. Strocturnlist movements at this time not only called huo question every :lSpect of mod· ern liberal life. tbey also seemed to wipeout au hope or escaping the tentacles of "power· tJuoug.h politicaJ action. l ns.tettd. they seemed to offer "new possibilities" for resistance. The shifc wasofsucb a sc<>pe lhac. as Ulla( 1994: 13) points out. ..rather l_ha.n resisting io aclioo lhe debumanization of man on tbe basis of a ratio· nal analysis of hi.StOf)'. one resisted in tJleory the idea of:1'man,' 'reason,· and 'history' as the op· pressive products of ideology.• After the rille" (l( the New Left aa d tbe events()( of Pren cb iotc llectunls wQs "'ittuniJy complc1e. M • y ' 68, • lllhi:olt<:c:• """ d <:v. "'" id i.... y•.,..•tic h U- Marxism became. in Jean-Paul Sarlfe's words. Lhe "unsurpassable h o ri ~n n" oft be age and. in· deed. remained so even as it was reinterpreted in lig.ht of existeodalism. surre.:\lism. Saussuriansuuctumllinguistics. and even Freudian psy· cbology. This explains wby even :l celebrity like Raymond Ar(m, nr nth cr unti·oommunist I !linkers like Furet, DiJmont, and Cas:toria<lis were almost entir'e ly without inOueo-ce among their fellow French intellectuals in lhe postwar decades. as was explicitly signified in the-say· ing" Better wrong with Sanre than right with Aron."' 1\JnCa.l wort like Michel fouc:wll'll J>i.u . iplft ~ tmd l'rmish suttteded in c.u ti•g a fa.rd;ukcr Jhadow or Juspicibu ove1 libe r:d •~e: i tcy l.lun l..onill A llhu5ser•• laboriuus ana.l ylltllofM;ux' s Capiro/in the mid$i ll· tJC'J ( ... 1 t •o l i li e ~oly , r-.by ' 68 mar ked cbe b-eain.11i• a <~f the tnd ol Ma.rlli,m, ..-·ir.h M;~ o i ~n• .and !he "bou. tique'" mo ,·rmcats ohhe early sevr1lies (femil i$m, ttologis n\. '1bird Worldism") ldt gl(lw i•s like en1btu Cl( a dyi•g fire (lit!;~, 19?4: 13. 14) . The cbnnges in the French inteUectual life ev were further inlluenced by :l number or world n L~ in t.he late sixties andearlyse,·enl.ies.. such as the 1968 Soviet suppression of the ~Prague Spring'' and the invasion of CzecbOslovalda. l.he 14 FATOS TARIFA butc hcr'i¢S i n Cnmbodiu. nnd m os1hhJ>'')r C.il tltly, :such young authorlS, inteupersed w i th inter- the pu ~ licaton of A lexander Solzheni tsyn's io n Atkhipcla): GUL.a!: in 1973 and ils tmn~l:u in 11)74. T hese evems set o ff a pmfound crlst de: com c:ieru:e ;tmn ng l11e Fn:nc.:h inlc llccwals .• The publication ofSolz.henitsyn 's work in p~ tr­ tkular had such a shnckiug imp::u;t ~ un ong th e Fre nd l intellectuals tha t, as Levy puts it. it was "en<lut h hl inuncdhuely $hake our mental land· views o r exchanges M leuers with well·knowo figures such as Uvi-Strauss and Roland Bartiles. In t hi~ wny t11e impression was created lha.t th e imprimmur of the pb.ilosophico-litern.ry escnblistuncnt hus been granted to the "new movement." whkh l.he dossier purported to fteruld. Ltvy•s introduction of tbc dossier aimed at produdng maximum imp.'tct giving the reader the sense that something original and exciting was hilppeoiog in French T hOught, and u number of theoretical points M reference were displayed: Foucnult. Lacan. lln.idegger, Nlett:schc. A month late r. U Nouvel Obs erv(lttur, Fn\ce~s lending left-wing weekly, published a lengthy atlicle by Pe.titiean ()976), in wbicb a number of ot.her young writers were kmncbed asntwphilosophtiS, including Jean-Paul OoM, Andrt (i Jucksma.'ln, Je:tn Baudrillard, Guy HoCt.(uenbem. andNikos Poulnnttas. Althoug h no rerere11ce was auwe m uus arttcle to Mau· rice Cluvel. Gilles Susong, and Philippe Nemo. the Iau er were regudcd no less as adherents to the New PllilosopAy than the Olller ones. Levy emerged as tbe f<u.mder, tbc figurehead. and de facto spokesman (If lllis shifting constellation, no t le:J.:;I betnu.se r•ost of the new philosophtrs were published in tbe 'Figures' and 'ThOOricicns' series which be edited for Grassel.$ Altlh)ugh "new philosopher" was inevitably :t snmewha.t tluid (erm, the authOr:> whO were self-f.tyled the "llt)uveaux philosophes" moved rapidly to Ole cen1er of attention. dominating public perception of the day and m:lkiog head· lines not o nly in Frtmce, Out also in Germany. England, Tt:dy, the United Smte.s. etc. FM the rest of 1976 :.tnd the. next year o r so the New Phi/(,sophy truly b.!:crune media property. Appearfinces vn celcvision and public debates were t~ compaie d by ll Oood Of' press interviews. llc'1ted for tbeir rnnny in m ag:zin~oly interest in philoscphicnt issues, such as Lui. Paris·M(lcll. etc. It seemed impt)SSible. to read :.1 Patisintl newsp:'lper or to turn o n the radio wi tbnut fi nding 5\>l\e mention of the Nouvelle Philo.w pllie (Macty, 1995: 382). Media expowas so great as to sure of the New P~ ito s ophy lead tOanew coinage: •pub philosophie .. (from "publicitt phiiOSOJ:bie"), wbicb m.ightbe translated as "ad-phih1SO.nhy.•tn the ~u mer of scape nnd overtutn ourideolog.ictd g.uidepO!'ts'" (l ¢vy. 1977: 178). In the span of few years. intel lectuals who lmtesubscribed tctS.aru-e's vicw on M urxism :.ts the "unsurpassablc horizon" of out tinae begaJl h) confess that Communist to· talitarianism mjght fall within thou horizon aod nor be a lliSI()ric.:.:ll m..'<:ident. which can be ex· plained simply as a consequence oft.tte bot she· viks' mistakes and Ole Stalinist devi:Uh)ns. Suc.b a view is mosteloquemJy expres..or.ed by Foucault in his review o f <.ilucksm:ann·s Les Mllitres pens~or. Which was Cor Foucault hlmselr a. O· nal settling of accoums with Mutxism: 11M: vholt; ol ~ c er t ~i n left liM nnemple4 tO X~ J ) I ai n 1.he Gu lag 1- ·1 i~t tC'nw uflhe lht'ory .. C h <~tY l" .<>t 1111 tu stthc>l'liSt« yur thlfory. Y~ !i. yu.thtrC' w\'re mu. .tacru : but th3.1 wa.t~ r ril: kl ("U \If. JuJ( ren-nd M...n «Len it, ('On'P'!rc ther'lt witb.St.ali• a ell )VU w i U . t ~ whel'C the Iau er ""'tnt 'A'fOag . I t is obviou.t lhat a ll lll.:.S( oJt&eb!J could (1-nJy fi'!Jult from a tni'l:fta diflg. It 'A"'\U rredloctabk: SlaUttsm · t f"''()( wa1 VIII\' Of th< pri... elpal a.ge• ts btl'liaoJ tJw. r ~ t urn 1\'t Marab:m..u u th. tu MllniSM·ttal. wb i¢h we u.w in tht 1960 ~ . Ir )'OU wan t tOl;te aenl a ~ • S t.llia, o.toe't lt.S-tcntOI1te vio."tirtU: they Ni l! only r ~ QU f l l~ i r tonu«-.t. Rt r.:a d thi' thor• O«dcl;uu: they wdttell yoo tlh· truth a ~ • t the tru.e (Fouo:nvlt, JQ17: 3.t·8 S) . Suc1 was. brieOy. the ooutext in wllich the Nrwve,'le Philosophy ( Ute "New Philosophy") emerged in t11e mid 1 970 ~. 11 The expressio n "nou ve:aux ph iln~o p hcs "' (new philosuphcrs) derh•ed from lhe title of a dossie: edited by Bernard-Henri Levy in the litemry weekly Lu Nouvelles Lim!raires in June of 1()76. in which t1\e colleccive noun re· fcrred ;o a number of young - alld for lhe most p::.n Uflk:nown - imellectuots including Ltvy himself. Jeao·Maric Benoist, Michel Guerin, Christian Jam bet, and Guy L'U'dreau. The dossier consisted of articles presenting the views of MARX I:ST MORT! W I-ttKE IIAVE ALL TilE ~ NEW 1976. J:>aris W[L" I'IIII.OS<U'III':RS'' <iOK <lnce again showing 1(1 t>c the city where f a:. h i~)n in the realm ~r ide~tS m<lves else . .as was e~ t tl i e r the (a$te•· than ~ tn ywhcr case w ,th the Nouwtdu Rauwtt, th e Nouvea11 Cml.nw. etc. 1\c.-.itlcs thc:ryuuug age. there were. b.1sically, two th ings which lhe ttew philasophers had in common: fin;r. they emerged from the s.amc socio·rolitic;tl cuntcxt: ~ecu h l. they sh ~\red certain pnliti..:al belief:i and philosophica l as~um pt i• l S . More .spcdftotlly. the: new plu'IM· op l u: r s~ h:\r eJ a Ct)lnll\l)U t)aSt of Maoist l:<'"sll· isme. :Uldtheir actual nasty <Wli·MtJrxism. As Macey ( 1 9~: 3f(2) l'ig htly points out. to the extem :hat any unity can be fuu nd in the wotk of the _;nrnewh:H di~pa r:lt e group of the 11ew philost•phers. it is "a negalive u nity ceuterc:<J upon :1 viulent rejection uf M~u · x i sm in all its fom1s.' Oo a c . y ni c~ lt view. such as that (lf<lillcs De leuze, the "varieties" uftheMIIl\'e/le PlliiMophie -Christi;:m,Jenht.libcral. N t ctzs~.:h lt - wen: simply '"dil'l'e rent ways of dressing up the Sill'aereactiooat)' message so as to appeal to as many castes as possible" (l>t!leuze. 1977). Vifi\H1IIy all the new p/u'/(Jsoplu:rs (except f()r Oenuist) had u leftist J):tSt. They were veterans <•f the May '68 :md funner leftist militant.s. descending fmm J iffere nt Maoist groups. which bad fo nucd after the May '68evcms wilh the impetus of the mere clements from the sa· cre<J Althus.serian rank ~ (l)eSl'Ombes. 1993: 134). their biogmphy of political milit.antism became an almost indispensable trade mark fur the new philasophers. for it provided not only theaulhellcity or disillusioumeut in their de.nunciations of Marxism. but also ser ved :•s a ~1 un .:e of moral authority for their later pronounce· ments ond provided their' wo rk with a vague aura of left ism ([)ews. 1979: 130). Fc)r the media. the new philosophers belonged to a "Ins\ generalion," dislllu.sihoed by tJle f~1d i ng of the drcanu and expectations n( the M:1y 'f18, )'¢1 contiouin& to bear willles-. to tJ1e "inner Lruth" of that movement. lbeextreme gaucllisme of the new philo:m· JJhers. which was tempered <nl the road fmm Althusser Uuoog.h a French·style Maoism was converted in 1974.. u ndenb e impact of the Sv· viet ani East Eul'tlpcandis.sidents, int(,3 frenet· ic anti·Marxism. For U1em. Marx and l1is hOly I~ '! I ~ scriptures alone were w be held rcso~ih l e fnr Lhe Sovie tlab o r c~ un ps and 1~ U1c crimes wmmitted by state S(lCialit'l ll. T his. convktiun heh c~i:-. of (ilucks:mn1an 's L<~ c;unc the c n tr<~l cuisinit te tl Je mwlf:tflt d '!Jommes( 1975 ). :wd was further cxp~ an dc in hi$ Lcs Mallre.t pense11tJ ( 1977). For< iludsmann ( l975: 40). there woutJ h:we hecn "no Russio.u1 camps with· , h ~n tu him, out Marxi.sm." Communism. acn e\juaiS Nazism. fl>r "n camp is :1camp. be it Russian or Nazi" ((.iluck.s mann. JlJ75: 37). Ltvy. nn his p:art. simply l:Omplit::d wilh (lluc:ksmann's view wbcn in IIi$ Ut Barbarit:ti vis<'ke Jummin- a p~ t chwo rk o efid :L -c; bur(uwed from t.he writing$ ofhisas..,ociatcs which immediate· ly became :abest-seller - he wn)te: 'The ~o­ \•iet c::un ps. are M::.Jxist. as Marxist as 1\ us· chwitz was Nu i· (Ltvy. 1971: 181-IS2). All this. according to L~ ' 'Y· bcc.uuc evident with S"lzhcnit.syn. whQm L.~vy c.:alle<J •theStmkespe:lre of uur time. " ~ ul d "Lhe Dame of OJt time." Wr nr<"\11:\lll. Un·i~ r ~ ..m.•d) rv re:1'Wellent Hell, rhe I'IIV<Itrn l lt ll.,f I he <i1.1b 3, W~ C' hc.ITendrousle>poa· rar)h)' ht (S())lb.:-nilS)'n) h/1$ ()(lllinc:\1 i.n I'IOtlk afaer b\M)II;. He ncC' 1here: w.u a ch.-in reac1iron, fiw o f 1111 w iahill reference 10 Muri.sm. It w:u e no ugh that :Svtha~yn $pr,•t' jM ,., tC> w11 t e \1)' (rom 11 dQJIYIII · ic ,dee p. A ll ht 1\ad 10 doW&$ w t!ppnu, ud .Jon 1111 wv l~>nj bis:lot)' fin.Jolly cnmc ICI nn elk!: ahei~ I C)f' <Jf th\ , ~e Mau.1s:u 'A'hCI. feor thirty ytats, h1d Wen rttr-acn•@: the p111h ot drcal.leace it1 6C'ateb ·>f their g tntly f'llny. ni0\'111@: sc.rw.,•fully tr01l'l tht "llurtt.u· cr.uic phl: nomoenoa" 10 tl'le "S r a lr~.s r dtVtllli(ln." fw rn Sulln '$ "erin)CS"to Lenlo ' $ "nl&SUt;~s· final· I )' fr<.>n\ Lrfli ni ~nuothc l;llundet$Oflhe e :ulien~ (l~ lies, J<Jill J lhtQUth ~ III)'H$ ()( lhe Mnu ill n l(lil OM hy o.e. u.:rifkin$ a .fl'a l >t~OIU a1 each lllep b1.1t al. W.Jo)'ll prcsef\'ina .Jobv~ •u~p i ncio th ~ o11e he datu 10 lk1uunce (orlh~ finn 1i.me - the fuun di•' f.111he.r iJI(IC'f$01. KatI K;a.piul ;ri)(J. hi $hol y saipll Hes(lhy. 1<>11: Hll)), Like Glucksmann. ltvy fou nd thnt Foucault's descrit'Hion of the great confinement in his Hiswirr. de ltljolie was applicnbte 10 the St)viet Unioo and. therefl)re. he called for' •n Fou<.".3ldian analysis" of Soviet society. His animosity towardS M:trxisrn went so fllf as to C\'en try tn deny Matx's doc-trine. "Matxisnl ." Ltvy ( 1979b: 66) wrote. "is but an ide 1~ oftt'.e S ~t1 lin· ists. It was Stalin hhnself who invenccd · m:Lrxism-leninism" as such." The advocacy of the new phi/Mophtrs for 16 FATOS TAltiFA ~ t and for Solz.henilsyn ·s The tlleSoviet di side:-. Gulag Archipetago was so zealous that Oelcuze. in a vintlcnt pamphlet. expressed his disdain in the words thtu fnllow: "What disgust me is very simple: the new phi losophers are r olgy [ ... )feeding on corpses. creating a m ar~y blaming the i nhabitants of the <.'iulag for not having "understO<I<r e:trlier (...)If I belonged to an association. I ,.,•ould lay complaintS against the new philosophers. who show rather too much scon1 f(lr the inhabitants or the Gulag (Dclcuze. 1977). Olher authors also crilicb:.ed tbe new philoscpl:erson simi hu-grounds. point· ing out that witJl their writings they only contributed to make the reol it)' of Gul:.'lg a myth (l>cbray, 1!>77: 61). Ul Critics usually agree that the •shocking• novelty ofthenewphi/Qsophers <.:onsistedof Ole fact that they were a g roup of young intelle.ctu· als w110 were no longer prepar\!d to dialogue with. or work wi01in, the framework of Marxism but openly ru:d frru1LicaJiy denounced il as a philosophy of domination (Dews. 1980: 2). for the new piJi/(J&oplltrS Marx.ism tlad proved incapable to expl:lin the struggles and lhe suf· fcri ngs of men ::u presem days. hs theoreticaL tools could no longer work. Therefore. as Uvy (1977: Il l) fonn ulate<l h. it was · urgent tore. think the spectrum of our society, ::lcc."Clrding to new guides. new sys1ems ofpnwcr. new orders of concepts." The question for the 11ew philosophers w!l.s not tbe critics of Marxism as philosophy and ideology lind its rr.ctification in the light of the new social realitie-s. T heir ajm was rather the veritnble liquidation of Marxism. Since 1970, Benoist had announced Ole · end" of Marxism in bis book Mtro. est mort. After decades in which the vast m~o ri ty offrcncb intellectuals had almost unauinlou.o;ly adhered to Marxism. the attitude()( U1e new philnmpht>rs se-emed now to mark ao imporc:.mt de.parture (Hir· schhom, 1978: 305). While Ibe Paris events o f May '68 hnd led to the "stt•g nation" of French Marx i.s m. the ad vl!nt firsc of the • phi Iosop hks of desire· (1970.5), ::tnd now o f the Nouvelle Philosophie ( 1976-8) marked the "dis3ppear- ance" nf Marxism. at least temporarily. from the field of discussion in Fratcc (Dcscombes.. 1993: 129). Be lhmasit may. tbenew pllilosophers, how· ever. cannot be credited for originaJity witJl regard to their denunciation ofMarx und Marx· ism. Anti· Marxism in French modem thought did not arise in 1977. Three decades before the new phitowphers voiced their.anger and repug· nance against Marx. M:ltxistl and the Soviet bureaucratic system. to whidl it was applied. were Strongly denounced by Claude Lefort in his Les Tempts modernes ( 1948), wbicb.. as is known, was written under lhedirect innuence ofVictor Kmvch.enko's book ! Chose Freedom. Other imponant examples of eatlier denuncia· tion of Marxism in French mo:Jem tboug_bt in· elude Raymond A.ron •s L'Opiwn des intillectu· els, and Mertcnu·Ponty'.s LesA.Yentures de ladi· alectique. As for the zealous ambition of the new phi· Josophers to sen.rch for more ad::quate tools than those provided by Matxism vith regard to a beuer understanding of the new social world, it proved quite unable to produte any cobcrcnl system of concepts and propositions. There was in the New Philosophyncitberwytbing compa· rable to other philosophical school s ( i.e. tbc Frankfun school. Existentialism, or Pbenome. no1ogy), nor were the new philosophers allied co one another through some kind of a common doctri ne. One could argue. as Hirschhorn (1978: 302)docs, forinsL'lnce. lbau he New Philo.mphy was Still, in 1976-77. "a school in tJle making." Even if we agree for a moment witb such a claim, there is no doubt tbat the New Philosophy failed to emerge a.s a distinctjve sehoul or thought, regatdless of l.be publicity and some praise il received at the outset. For. not only is there no common problemtuiquc in those few works- but nume10us newspaper articles and interviews- prod1ced by t.be new plliiQSOphers besides their vicious rejection of Mnrxh:.m, \'1 1.11 1he ('.On tent oftbelr works is: ah:o as poor Mit is eclectic. Garri!ues (1977: 27) refers co Gtuck.smann 's works a. ~ an exrunple of philosopbkaJ eclectism where Nieu.sche, Wagner. Clausewit1.., and Mao·Tse-Toung are all mixed up together. Dews ( I98(•: 2), on bjs part. points out that the work ofthentwphilosophers MARX f.~ MORT! WUtltL tiA YE All TilE "NEW MIII.OSOPtll'.R'i" CJQ!Iffl? is in fact an "ill-coosldercd nu ~ lrUgeo attitudes.. and responses.. In which po~lt herited from the post·'<'ft f1~r - l eft theories. i ons in- mingle wil.b tbc:mes which. under their veneer of novelty. can be seen to belon' to the tr.adHIOnal repertoire of tbc Rigbt. • Old n:mlnaM:e.nces of Allh· usserian Marxism and Maol(m- allhougb Marx. Altbusscr. and Mao v.'Ue now rejeaed tn bloc - were mixed up wu.h a Kt or nottons bor~ · ed by Lotc3n, Kojhe. Foucault. and Solzhenitsyn, whO hec.une thetr new •tbcorctical patrons. .. Tbts re!(uhed In an runa.lgaru of beliefs. tatl&ing from L6vy·s nihthStspiritu.llis.m - at firs t or n moralistic form in llis LA Oarbarie d visaJ:e Jwmairl illid t hen wilh plain religious tones and references to the biblical beriu'!e in hisl..t Testament de Vieu- toason of Lacanian cbristi:mlsrn In the wort of Philippe Nemo. and, furthermore., tn gnosticism to be found in L ·ag,lt by Guy Lndreau and Cbrisuan Jambet (See mrscbborn. 1978 : 308; Descombes,. 1993· 134)_l>c:ku~. who criticiz.ed tbeir work rrobably more severely than anyod>er Frenchscholar.llefruned 1be """Pili· losophtrs scorning them a1. "M)phtsu· and •lV buffoons" who should be crc:d11ed for nothing (Deleuze. 19TI). As was previously suggeMell. be.~lds their a<Jminuion for Solz.hcnilsyn. th..: new philo.so· phtrs were greatly inOuenced In Iheir work by L.acao and Foucovlt. Lncu·~ work bad been impOrlAnl f<w $t:Veral &c.r~ mlc ' ms nfPrcnc:.h intellcclu:&Js. inc;:lud111g Merleau·Ponty. Jean Hypoli~e. and Louis Altbu<..«r. Especially afterthepubhCltiOCI u.ft~ &nll tn tbe bte 1960s. Lacan became 3 uuly c:cntml fi,J.we. Tbe 11ew phlloSQplters m:uk exten'lt'f'C use of Lacan's perception of science "" an "tdenlogy or the wppression of~ hUbj«t.'" •nfl:1ong it into :l.D tmphttl in the rigor of scientific rne lltntl. For Ltvy (1977: 177). the IO«:llttJUil\n slate nu:uns ·scientists in power." · rotal power," accortJil1g to him. is synonymous wilb "tvwl kn<1wledge."TI•e threat or totalitarianism IS even greater wben a soci· au~c ko l'h e"aut.borh:vlni~m ecy imposes the duay or·terl,n&. all." This is. in Uvy's view. the case v.•ith SUite socialism and its Marxist idcoiO&Y· for by sancufying ·t.be llc:&ehao dream O( 1be IIVlh becomm& lbe ,.'Ofld ond lbe "'Of!d becomin: lbe trulh. [u) ends up 17 with nn l~a l which is l ... j ooeoflbc definitions of modc:nl tymnny" (U:vy. 1977: 14 1- 142). The theme of "powet/knowledge" bec:une central also in Glucksmann's Lu Maitru pensturs. in wllich be cxlen<kd his criticism 10 wb:u hcc.1llcd "the Revolutioo·Scate,'" :arguin1 t.h3t all philosopbc.rs. w&tbout exception, dis· pl;~.y a will todom•nation. wbkb explains their complicity wltb tyrants. In Gluck$mann'$ (1977• 149) IUIM. "10 domirulle iSIO know; 10 know is to domiooue." This is 3 vic;:ious cm:le. And the circle of circles: --rbemastet fabricates nlllhetrulh"(Giucksmann.l9n:Z71).Giuckomann accused modenl philosophy since Hegel of Intellectual complicity in the violence of o bb tory domlmued by principles of lhe revolu· t1onory swte. uemoostraung suc;:b an unaer· SUtndin& of the relation pouvoir-savolr, the new philosophers searched for the seeds of .. totali· tarianlsm• in the 184A Manuscr;pts or tbe Youns Mllrl< and in lie&cl'sl.ogic. AsFoueaull ( 1977). who welcomed lbe publication of Lts Maitrt.J ptiUtNrl putS it. Gluctsmaon's baste quesuon is.; "Ry what trick was Gennan Philosophy 11ble to tum Revolution into the promise or 3 true, a aood Sl!UC, and lhe State into the sern~d complete fonn ofRevolution! Fouca.uh himsclr, In his review of Lu Mattrts penseurs endnrscd (ilud:smann •s blanket condemnntiC!n O( l.he hyphenated UIC)11Stet "StlllC· Rc\•Oiution," portrayed as inevicably devourin& il~ own children (Foucault.. 1977), Gtucksmann·.sand uvy· s views on me com· plicily kooiNied&elpowcr, philosopber/ 1ynan1, show how mud\ the Nt-ttt•Philbsophy was inOuenced by KOJhc's tcadun's. for it w:u Kojhe (19S4· 252). •ho "'role lha1 lbere is no...., • • tiaJ difference between the philosopher nnd the tyr:mc 'l'h.t-tyrnnr nt'1 • nrtliKj'v,. ., l~nrv' nnyt.hin& but a statesmun attempting to realize n philosophical ide;• in tt\e wortd. Sincethel.f'Uth or n philosophicaJ notion is j udged by its real· iunion in his10ry, the philosopher. Koj~ve o.rgues. cannm reproach Ole cyr.wt fortyranniz.inJ in the nome ofMidea. as is always cbe case with mOOem tyrannies. wbete cbose in power consls· tently claim to represent an ideoloJ,y. Moredu-cy.~ lhesubjeaofla>owled&epo•-er relationship as it was lhematised in the worts or 1be .,., phllosophtrl3nd lheit belief FATOS TAJUI A 18 Mt~lnes 111 the inherent <1p nf reason seem cacly free ufcxrloltadon and cLass domination to have bee n inspired by h lucuult'l\eru·ly wMk l.: thesnmc languogc while reople wil l Mill ~pt( that they u~ IO~y? With regard to these qucs· uuuo; 11io. awnlf'riate co remind tbc 11ew pllitns· oplttrsthe -..trCtt..\I&C words which Marx :lOCI tn JclsnnCC' Qltrll'ltned to tbe Young HeaeltWl!- pr c~:.lv n c:-.$ and Civllil.tlllon. :md cvcn more im· port3ntly by his OisUp/Uit cmd Puni$1l. F'or foucault. t-o-n uJ k.u.-k..lf'" •••'"'II)' l"'f'')' ~ ~t.lkdef I~ lUtupo•utd..~.o .,,.,,..._ «W«\1.- I b~'" CVMt~ of • fNW u4 k......,k'oiiJC" . .ot WI Pff'"'''""- Mil COUI~ t~dwl«_. s:a..c..- I"~' at~ Ewald WU~' ••J rc-a....... ct•"': 17,. oa rttlff'T!IdCIIInUII betv.un J-oucault"s and (tlucbm.mn'' t\leas. JuM as fo~.C u lc dtnlOn!otnllcd that, m general. power rroduces tnowled,g,e. antJ knuwledgc in its tum rein f orce~ power, su (ituck,.,munn revealed Marxism to be "an ext.a.-u,dinury instrumcm of power. unbelievable prm..:iple uf production. production ol <;unc..ocntr.:tliC:Hl counps..1md prnduta.-. an uppamtu' ,,, production. tton of camp~ fomudahle pnntlplc of bltndne,.._ obliaeration. prnhtba1a1•on. enlu.:.aon. and d~a1h· (E...,--ald. 1975 1232). Sam11:ar :.ugumrob .. ere U"--.!d by lh~ lfCM' philtl.wphtrJ 10 •txplaan • d~ u"nrhcnyofJan. :uageand.powcrdc:umn.IIIHU ru. U\:y(l917: 50), language i~ puwer Mt,reover.langu.age is the e~snc of power. ami "aa.unmur · ~ U'IC sci· ence of power... He wnle\, n . ~ h ' ,, :tn obY i CM. I ~ rthl l ic• n cl'~ p bctwtc-nlht Cunn vf JM.l"'~ .lnd th.-, •ha.pe nll,nw.uiiJ•'• bttwe.-,• thl' oNtu or a l'naet and lht in•·•a~• of a t•e~ (.•. ( Tbt« u ,.. 1diomabc u.iuu of pov.·tr. ae a lgtbu ,tt oo.m...atao... an.J Il~ is nu ~1r.: 1t1111 lnotf•• n( .aU • ,,..,..,..,....,. 1- 1!l;,...kh o• 11·>4•• Ariooc...Oe P'O f'(lkll. a pklilni $p«t •• •tl~hcNIK caa k U• pttt#d.Mdiotr as ll.-..tlw \~n.•,a-w • pol•· tali.....,. . . . . . Oft)ttul'll'• • . , C'lflPt'UN •• . . . ...tt' Ilk o l . - '-' • .,~ •• &f n-.-w.-.lol· .....C'U j&). a mt.eai.Pial, •• dlt .,,,If' '"' po•~r. ~Juc u ~Lmpf)'IJU*tl. 'IJ,''t'.t.,:.,,..()j p()Vott. t!Mirt-ly$MpMbypl•otnf'\tn In IU m(l6:1 modf'n rhtiCWicalt'J"f'C"Hit•••lhy, 1~7: 411J.1;0), A1thnugh tbh iti>IU11 ,1 !"I:&Ct IH d eh~ I1 C ~ a bo ut l..i\•y· idea$ un l:mg.un#,c/powcc reltulons. a number of ques.tions t.'tJII\CiUit) mind instant! y. [)r()es the oppression o(nuan hy anrm nnd politi· c:al domination l.'OiucnJc In time with the birth l an~ue ever contribofhumlm language'! Has uled 10 the prOg.n:M o( soclety7 I low come th.al hoavc a mnre rtpre,\hre slate machinery tban Olhtt\e\cft lhooth they mi&hl lltc) (<..ftl . lioW~\n,hat 10 lite" phrase~ diCJ ...,_,,.,. ,.,...,. ........ Oikr~ ....... ~,. •• . . ...,, C!CIIIIhaliaJdlot re&leurutt W\lfM •kl1w'IWY_.~) . . dlc-pUuflofWi ......,.,.,'4..,••Hl.r1Jtls 1919:41). The rejet:t1on of the "'white tenoroflhoory" led the ntw flltilmophtr.f 10 p ~m nd u l all:lf'h C.ltl science, ranicutru·ty on human SC1euce, noc bec:tu.sc of Ole f1d .. a1y or its discourse. but pre· ciscly h<.-cn u ~c or hs .. ttulh·. "We have 1oM nil the respect foe science: decl:lced l.nrdreuu (1974: 1<2). In l .tvy's attack. on Marxism. ror instttncc - antJ ctus Bpphes to lhc NoU'~tl PltilflltlfJIIit O\ a whole- bis ultimate atJ:U• mcut "nnt Ltut ManLS.m is a false thetlf)' of socacty and of fM\IIttc:al achon. but r:atbc.r tb.Jt h a\ an all·tclt..:.ccur.ut account of lbe cvrnmt f:atc or the we,t In :1 bnarre sense. as can b.• fuund m the t:J(.(' of L 'AI:nt by Lm'drcau rand Jam bet. Murxi~m I 'I orpressive because H a•. •true." nr ~u lca\t rcprcscms the "unlto sven~· able l>hilu:-.uphy of uur time." In Lt.vy"s ( IIJ77; 2 1M) terms. "we nre I O<hl y e nclosed wllh m Murxbm us l'wh::mnk cos.mologisb we re en· closed within their cnsmology." so that to reply to Marxi-St thl.1ory with n cuunter·tboory would In a ha~me 1Y.Ict mto tbe "discourM: oolv re~ult of tbc M::uu:r .. According 10 Uvy. lbc protc.st a~:runst M.:anu't11 c::.n onfy take a mor.al fonn, and an thl\. Snl1henH.syn bas sbown tbe •ay Ltvyv.-Tnes lJw 1dr•ol....u.~n:•R poUhctuabNfd.....,... lblt, ud I CCII!IndoCIH)IIID •nm. Aali•M.araUIII ll u..r c•• b~ n!Xhl•a •tl~; 1he OOIIlt:mp<JrV)' lurm ullht ft~l ~,ti.n•l ro l ~tks 1... 1For alonllllmt toC<~mr, we lift lOIIdtlfUI\'d 10 lht llfi£UII£4' Of rupuo/ U l IV some socieJ~ u~ the same bng,u~e' Can lht-rt t\'('(be a so- Ju•i '"' n\' IV\'f ta play the j;Jome of polltlclJ 01 • 1 .1 We no lm•lfr h11vr a (Klliliu, n l~ n su•l!~ tCC<!'Ifte, n wre r~ng i n onl y tthic• and lllor&l dtny, lllm rtltt..l•• t.'n ly tM duty t Q PfOIC<i' a.ga•n.n M.1u dm. liMt Wt (iiJIIklil f«JC"llt(l,.hy,l917: Zl1·~ ns we ft~l, The lit~ plrnJt~sbec:u very soon an obJ<d for bacbf>Oiemic :llld mockery Ooe year 19 nfterUvy bad amt~ • c d Ihe oumr:1••fthe/\'tw rlti fi~( IJ/1)', /..c: N<m vtl OIM1;1\ 1lfi'IO' publi~ed a "jcu-teM. "'which l'fOJ'I(lM!d 11 M:.rics of multi· plc--ch<'ice q uestjor.s co nllow n :~ u .krs to O.')ndude lflbey were "new rhlhl-,uphcrs.." Anyone wbo could I'Mlne::-11)' claim to 1\."1\C rejeclcd AJ· Lbu:s.ser in the last year ..,_urcd tt mn.dmun: of (hrtt pOints: rtjecuon nr lnuc.Juh sccwed no poims. Tbe idal·ocw rh•lo\()('rher• v.'3SSOIOe· one ,,,.bo b:td at vanuu!o umt\ been an CK'tbo41ox communist. a MaotM, and a m•IHall1 al.holic. The Nou,·tllt PhiiCJsopllv w;~s :t fashi o1 m r::t.ris. Assuch. •t vmlh.hcd qu1ddy witJtl.beend t)( the seaso n, which l a~U ...'tl ft)r ahoot lw<l yws. T here w;~s no1onger any JlUhlicity for i t~ no important works wrhlcn by uny Mils adherelts; no serious reference made lfl Ihem. Sn(lu, the new philosophers were nnl ~o:ve n recalle..t :I'IY· more as if their Nouvtllt PhUnsnphlt bad oev· erex.iMed.ludeed. suK:e 1')77, ~ohtn h.shed bts Lt1 BcuNrit c) \·I.Jc•t~ Frencb public wa~ Ltvy plbhumailf.tbc fed ur \lrltb lbc ·no, ell es'" of I he NtM' Philosoph\' onJ the mcdt3 fanf:tres. Commenling on 1b1\. Uvy would write v.itb :11 lhc ~•me hr.,e: S3dnes.s and narci~M\fl Tb.rrt- ""a $lra.nat ch.,tt'P'h()' tlttv.u·n die- PQbli: Llul hu btu rn(:ht..t ud lllf c••..ettiM 11111 bten ad. drt$,:ed. .ud JUihe hi\ t h.!JMt n IWIIV)'I'rkr f(Jrlhi.J.. l l: r~owci<'Jtbu nt.: ~ ~. l •ul l nlro l: nr.w lht~oy c.vry oo weight; llt'41)' ar;: l l •t cltr~• bOOie.s (« lht 1)1. rtt:UI kfl. l utp l ao~J thnt nn•vl 11'41 IJ(In\lllued by itse.su.blisbed ta)l.ltuliut.,l .. 11 0011' 1lhl•t Cohteb· m;;t.nn hu pn'uad.r..t lltt)OtM' , .. !tiC' kf1., a.nd aou. •i•sk Mar•.ntiWic M.rn th.A._u by"'"'·" This isa.CumakHI '-"\:wt~ talor-.U~y ,ss_,._ ~: !ob.ay lltJ. .I-.:MC iok.U "'"" Mrt~ Cl' ia-~ ia dw.. qr. Ul4 •l•a)t: "'' • dlf<t« r.r•tt flltkU cnt· c.aJ.aadl.-ub'"CU.I\C' f(lftt Thf' "'MIUY'f'MII ptlitoe• aptloeJ.• n~ dtou .,1Wittkrut caiW.,luvt< ~ ..uJUed.ro:«.x14. tn«o~lr ••LffJ'ff'll'il,ud badly read. lio•• C'OIIId 11 M todln .,.._qo w t~> a hntc: .alld .f;(>ol(hoW llllprltrd IC'fl •he~ i• llill «-• helll"fiU$ UbtfUIC' tl"b'~ lltll!UI ll'f(lflh lind fi'V(III.I• liQn. a ud whvSI" lbh'ltlklll6"f'I"Clrum has • lll g.C bryond t l ~ot M~r (l\lkmklltfl.cnln a11d llilrndl ..~'! (Lhy. 1977• i:(IQ.ll<ll. -•.Jmbt.,. Marx est n\01'1 . Yet. ht.: rcmuin(O:t ccntmllig· in lhc ~udal s.cienc· c5. Thisisn'tttue for tbt.:lltW ph•lnrophtrs. vho. ap:u1 from their zcaJou' anlhlllnn and self-agc,r.tndizement pro..,·c<J unahlc to rnw•de a cmc:rcnl frame of rcfcrcn4.-e for undtr~i' the complexity o( our ~1ety Thl!refore. in lbe ure ill contemporary t1~puc history of mO\Icm thnuglu lhc Nom:t:lle JJI!ilo:f· opiJic t >ec u ph:~t nn plucc t)f ho r....•. h fnil c.J 10 pa.S!) the ICO:I of lime. thflug,h both the sm:ial milit" nnd the Ilmt in which the New JJI!i/(J.W· ph) apperu-etl. pmvided a rnre histonatl chanc.....: rclf OO\'thy 1n the realm of ideas. NOTES M~I .......Ui.ll11•rrkf-ol\tan._.r•-*llldllf• ...., hlfiW!a~M»ckptd ia thtwribi!pulk.J8 1".... \Ann• 11111d .\hu~ Mt<rk.au 1'\lo..y. ~ WC"IJ • of a MOI'I" oohudo• \i&ISmdunrs~o. by Lou~tAI.HT in tht ul1y ,i,tlt,, l. A rtlc\VIM hiC'IIII.n l'lllh.it itf\lt {DehtdU: l.'IIUI.t l(,lf\4, I k hlhd111 1%6; l'u.'iti"f 191j: Kelly J982; Jud• 1911h, ICI'It2, :t t.h~v c)Unsdt ;:~.l i.n 198). afwr Fh!nCh h wa• (• l 'f~)l l ..c lltelll"h had thtfi\UI vu .abudOIIItd Man .b m. tbat AN41 WIIA ~f'Ctl.c»VI" I ~d" tbrough IIIII" publit:atloa (1/ .a ttri.rt of tltkfVWws- ud luJ o•·~ flWI'OOIIN Ia 11M early eicNtu .a•cllu.t IIUJOf WOJk.t •• pW.Jollpb), hlM"Y· too ctNt>st· ... IOCI;al cma-lllM")' MJa•to be tNcl fiiiOI'f" • •ty ., '1k '-'I•J (II cnut ia ftntdl Man.ISI ~ ~ urilon' ()et (If dlf' ""nu •hK'b IKc--*4 ndl• cm.u - -dW -n;a •• ,.,_so. F.:.r u ........ """''',. provrd dW llfliYI"'ali.M 11111\lft ofd)e Soritt t k rt, Sartt, M •nar·l.f'd "1llc ttu.t<J t6raltsm"andtht "'-1'" au•! ut•reallun".ll •'IIIUtl.ht mid fiftie. y,•Jw•Mnluu l'unty, In hlt /.1t Aw•~tlf o •s d.r In dialrrltqltl' ( ) (,!~-'• :tttil'"-tn«d h i• ~• un tl1ion n j)( Marxi~m. writ1n11 t!Ul "'1114'14' I• n ~l4 n1uct1 p(lllt« In lryitt& Oobhevbm 1111 UIIC'f ag..al t al me 1nvme n1 whea iu revatu•ionu-y f.ailure be ~o • nu •llt'llrfcll 1\,u notlltln i• thert mud!. .conn i11 ur l•f: M.arll all fl~ I,J.&i n if his pbiiO$.-phr iJ iavolvt<ll• ftc f.ailtm,(lf •• acriaa u ilthb ph.do4:~ycaiM \11,11. \'If l(,..._. '•ton. •Ia• ••llfallt 11rt1e(' {Mf'rlc~-.Poat) 19n:91).. For S.WII't. k ,.-...,a few,.,..,, baer dl..atia kiJ lA Crrl'ftl#tk ._ ,.,. Jf'll fl~,_. Cl'hO) 1M' ·wttltd Olt a((!OUKI• tiGth -·· btll-•1'"" .......g. Uid. .......... of.,(\~ aM1a1lU. •'"'·'"' thea btlie-...ed.. (.alnf'~ ""'nl<t Man· i.U!t•t\lll'tl.,.l.1td49-ISO). S. Lh)' IIIINC'It adm•IJ•b•• tw- bcc•mc ·.a k.indot 'I)I'IIIJUI', :.1. ka.!:t IIIMIJ:h J'lltbliodty11nd ediroori.aljudgtmcnt (Lhr, 11.117:10Y). 6 . E•J)h'Hlon IU4"d by P. Auhrnland X. L>dtoun Ill \hth bOOt ~( ''-'· a 1. l;~JoVOUt•' IJif • n7.~hp llllttlir,l /"1' ((I II(IIW#'Il, p/U/(1\fl>phlt!. )':I/IJ: cJAIII II'\11• vn. , v~il. • ptlila$opllt'T' UNclfi,..,Oti.J#'f• AUJ'U' IIJ17,p.46. REFERENCES &ad Xnln ()dcCMrrt. 19n. A•ltf.al. f•;a<u~ .......,,, • .~ .....,.,.... l"•rt: G.aU.tftlllf4 C•'" At f'ATOS l'ARlPA 20 A'" ,1011. Paris:~ n.aOli B~noist, Jeao-Macie. 1Q70. Milt nJ. Caute, D.avid. 19~ . CciiMit!NifiJJif tll'ld lhr Fnt~dlf l ~· New VOtt.: Ma(-mlllaa. J~tah. Ddlray, Rq_it. 1977. "lu pkureuf•llu PfUitemps,• LA 11/fftfl..'d Obs~TYuk•r . 11J\11e, rP-6().61 . lkk•u. Gtu~.J . 1977. ...A Prop~ eN• -•n1u pllilosOf'ksrtUMclJi08p~ l -'nk , · ll••flt,..... pk.c•). j J~a. :fo. lo& F,..,.. c • ·. Vi.ee-. 199' """'"'"' Trusbced Illy L.Scot• ~Fo " au J \C. H11'4l•"' flloridte: C'".ambriclce l ,.,...,.~"Y f'rt• Dewt , ~k':r . 19?9. "The Ntwl'f'llt' Nui«Hfllti#! . .d ftou. :o•ull.M ~ylwSoi#) , 8{1): 121· 111. - -· 1980. ·The 'New Plti O ~ I(lphr.t' and lhoc End ofLd\· ism." Rradknl PluJ.mJp"1· S!"'lna.l4: l· l I. I • .., . c... £w.ald., fruQC)i.f. 1975. "A•~tQ letn ct t:Of")).f (l<llitiqu u: Cnliq u~ . [)eccntb". XXXI(l4l): 1228· 1265. Foucault. Mkbel, I 017, "'La ar.aatJc colhe d.e1 faiu," LA NtNvd Ob.umurur, 9 Mill. pp.lti-16. __, I'Yft.DfKcplitli!umi l'luobll fltriWnlu.rf•M l'rtwn ....... (h.-e$1&~ l)y A ~hni.J•) . Nrw Yorlt: Vi.ause Oarn:s-.s.. F•.,..•ttl. I 911. "Pow Ia If I Yt cks i.UI«at. ell tr~ k M-.nu., • ' ftt plut I.a. Y1kuf rd1f1.t• Rot.sn . N<W~., . I'\ o. \ll, pp 24-l9. 01wb.....••· AMrf l t1 .S . I.Anu,;~-_ 4·~ £utM ,., ks '"PIM'" "''''I'£MI. k 11114D"• 411W #In~s M t"~l!WI traH~ l"an.t: &ibo..., du. Seuil. 1911. LumohrtspMuNrl, l'arlt: tiwuu·d Grana. Hiuehbore. MonJque.. 1978. "Lu nOYI"II\IlJ)hilotophes: l'ea•med Ia vnaue,'" Stmf/(ml Fu,ch Rea•ltw, ll(2): 301-313. Jwdl. Toey. 198~ OAfor\1 \lniYttlit)' Pru1. • Prt.nd l"tdlufltrrb, /944 19$6. UnJvrrrity ol C'alifor•i• Preu. kfll)', Mkfl.t.tl. 1912.Madnw Frt.rtclt Mnr.ti..rM. Ballimore; Jolla llapkhu U•lvtrsity Prull. --· 19'42.. P~niMptf . Mnr:tl.rm altdtltf! F,•,.clt Uft: Studi<t.s itr IAHTMd Politr<J ut Frimrr, JfJJ(J..JSfJJ. Odl.f~ ,..... Xo}h"c.Aie.uedr•. l 9.5-t T'"~#Mq . P•u ...... Lalb~*M : Oal Ovy. 1•7<4 U S .,&e4'•r. h.ru:: Mcrc•re-. ..._...... u..,.(~JertI916L ' -.t" · hr• IHr...nl CirUMC l'o'fNfld O IHU'I'#If<tWf" 1071 '"£1u-vo.t u• ' 1101.1\t..u r*• lo"lt"''lwi' T (SU.e masu.ille). 1• AoOt. p . <4b Uvy, L~•N llf"IUI. 191'1 lA borbtutl'd 111UJ.1r.lt•IIM"'· l"&~u : Un-~trad Clr-&u.-t. V - ... 1979• "r. Jinm<ttftde Jh~. f'Vi.!l: BaMrd O'U· 191\,lb ,.Oitloll.'l k IOioll.lo$•• (11ttrYICWW!tbltU• Pruu;oiJ R.cvd). L'Fprr..ss, 21 Avril. pp. M-11. Lld t~ hu , Oaeurje. 1966. l>i<mtism in Mad•m f'rit"tr' Colvmbl" ll11l11tn•tY Prtn. LilJa. Mart:. 199t.."The Lctiti macy ollbe LIMul Alt... PI' .,._,_. ~•M LU~(N.)ewFntc671orA·I'liMJ - ..... ,,.,,._,• •,. fl'r•neot~. NJ: Prn«:lo. U v-.. l'~tUf )bcfy, l)a'1Ml, I99.S. Jlwol.nnfl{Alidd F~.tL A ... ..,,..,.w..- Yort Bool.s. J.bn.• K.M'I •.d F\eckrielt: &Jtb.. 19t9. nat GMIIIIn W, tllov 1~ar Ow, Loa4on: La•Tea« .lt Wislul" Mel1ea....Po•ty, MMirire. 19n . Ada·~t ... ,.s cf1/Jt~ D.-lf!l'• II(, bllt.nUtOn: North~e.m Univeulty Prut ~ti(jl. Olrt.HI, 1976, "l..etftOUVr..&U X plfOW," l_,/{ow o vtl ()IM~tWif', l l July, pp. 62·68. Pwkr, Mntfc, 1'17$, E.TI~uJma/Mtrx 111 P()$1W6f FMIH'~ l't•.Cttl••· NJ: J'rinceton U1ivenily Pftu. Sanr~. J~ ....l~,a;u l 1976. ·Autopurtrait A. Sohnte-Aa~,"l1 X, P•rl• fialttma.td. ,t,._,,,IU