Speaker 1
well, um, oh, jes, that's a tough question. That isoman. Let me, let me focuson on the main educational one writ so jacques ranci hers first. But jacques rancier was a student about this error. You know, he coathored reading capital with him, amongst other students, about thi er. And his first book was, you know, called rencier's lesson. Andit, it was a critique of rancier's padagogy. And a, basically, you know, the idea here is that, like, althuser was the master who had the knowledge that the students needed. And so, you know, his whole thing is a, like, you know, it's basedon, it on an inequality between intelligences. And it presumes, you know, an inequality from the very beginning. And because of that, it can oly ever reproduce inequality. And so u. But what's interesting, and this, this is based on r comes from a book that tyson lewis wrote about ronciere, is that it's actually very different than how rancier describes al thuser's actual teaching a, because they actually, a, like, evidence that althuser really doesn't say a lot rit there's a lot of silence. And students are actually left to sort of construct things with themselves and with althuser. And one of the ways the rancier figures althuser padagoge is as like the dotted lines and in an alementary school text book, right? So, you know, if you can think back to the elmentary school, if you went there, or, you know, like an introductory text or a work book, right? You know, r like learning language, right? A, you don't say you're learning corean. Wella, you know, there's going to be sentence in corean, and there's going to be like, a dot, dot, dot. Weare supposed to fill in the blank, right? And so they're like, that's his model of althuser's pedagoge. He rit because althuser knows what's in the blank. And, you know, the student has to prove that they know the master of the teacher. But a lewis is actually like, well, the the dotted lines of the text book are more like, am the the the falling rain that althuser begins his m his essay on the philosophy of the encounter, in which, you know, he says, it's like, o a basic, like, before the world happened, there were just all these atoms falling parallel, and then there was like the tiniest swerve where one atom crashed into another, and it eventually, like, you know, kept on piling up until there was a world. And so, you know, althus, and this relates to althuser's overall project, which is really to reclaim the contingency and complexity of marxism against the reductionism of marxism that was taking place. For example, like, you know, through a munostalens book, ond, historical and dialectic materialant wore became a set of, you know, prescriptive, ah, you know, like unalterable things ive. And so am so altisar's theory of the encounter is that basically, like, you know, there's no, we can look back historically and we kind wo can kind of say like, ok, this happened, than that happened, when that happened. But beforehand, there's no way of knowing it's going to happen. There's no way of knowing that the encounter will take place, that it will take hold, or what it results in. And so althuser's philosophy is marked as philosophy ad that is explicitly and always a, you know, a organized, you know, through the party writin the revolutionary communist organization, the collective knowledge of the class struggle. It's oriented towards the working and oppressed people, a taking power and, you know, a a defeating their class enemies, creating a communist world. But in order to do that, a, there's not a set of prescriptive laws or procedures to follow. And instead, what we have to be open to is the lalike heterogeneous, diverse, you know, contradictory complexities of the world around us. It's not as if there's one antagonism or contradiction between, you know, it's not just like between capitalism and humanity, or between, you know, the modes of production and the relations of production, right? There's actually like a million contradictions that come into combination at particular moments in history that produce revolutionary opportunities. Which is precisely why, as lennon said, you know, we can't predict in or, you know, when, and we can't make the revolution come.
