Hommage à Gerrit Mannoury

Sans résumé     

Entrevista con Pierre Oléron

RESUMEN

Pierre Olerón es uno de los clásicos de la psicología francesa, sus aportaciones al estudio de los procesos cognitivos y el lenguaje han hecho de él, un precursor comprometido con la psicología de finales de siglo. En esta entrevista desarrolla con precisión sus recuerdos de formación, el análisis de sus relaciones con otro grande de la psicología, Jean Piaget, sus ideas sobre la función del lenguaje y el desarrollo cognitivo en sordos. De esta forma, establece un recorrido completo por la psicología en el lenguaje, hasta llegar a los enfoques cognitivos actuales.     

Normativity à la Mode

This paper sets out to raise questions about the metaphor of the spaceof reasons. It argues that a proper appreciation of Wittgensteinundermines the metaphysical or dualistic way of taking the metaphor thatis supposed to prevent the naturalization of reason.     

The ethic of truths: Badiou and Pierre Rivière

Drawing on Badiou, 2002, Badiou, 2009 theory of the subject and his ethic of truths, this paper extends the analyses made by Foucault (1975) of the court documents of Pierre Rivière’s trial. Pierre Rivière wanted to bring about social change. His three murders, along with the Memoir he wrote afterwards, were not only an attempt to solve an intractable problem in his own family, but also to draw the world’s attention to what was wrong with society. Yet immediately after his murderous act, Pierre Rivière thought of what he had done as monstrous and evil. In order to explore his conflicting thoughts and emotions that led to the murders this paper draws on Badiou’s definitions of an event (a movement in thought and action through which the world changes) and of evil (where commitment to an event denies the multiplicity of truths, and sacrifices others to a singular cause). It asks in what way Pierre Rivière’s triple parricide can be thought of as contributing to an event, and how it was that his contribution turned to evil.     

Propension à discriminer à l’égard du genre et dominance sociale

This work aims to study the propensity to discriminate (PTD) (Dovidio & Helb, 2005 ; Tisserant, Wagner & Barth, 2010) against gender and other salient criteria in the working place, such as ethnic origin and religious background. More precisely, we investigated the link between PTD and the social dominance orientation (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). 119 counsellors from French employment services answered a questionnaire dealing on concepts and attitudes towards social groups. Results show that social dominance, as a system of belief justifying social inequalities, generally predict the PTD of individuals, whatever the criterion of discrimination considered. The sex of counsellors can be considered as a moderating variable since females are less likely to accept inequalities than males do. We discuss the need for work and organizational psychologists to invest, alongside the managers, this field of research on equality, non-discrimination and diversity (ENDD).     

Who was Pierre Rivière? Introduction to the special issue

Foucault's (1975) edited book, I, Pierre Rivière, having slaughtered my mother, my sister and my brother… A case of parricide in the 19th century, includes the court documents and newspaper reports from the 1835 trial of Pierre Rivière, Pierre Rivière's memoir written while in prison, and the “analytic notes” written by Foucault and his colleagues. Whereas the court focused on the question of whether Pierre Rivière was of sane mind or not, Foucault and his colleagues sought to avoid the closure that such categorical thinking invites the reader into. This paper introduces the story of Pierre Rivière, and opens up some of the questions to be addressed in this special issue. The papers examine the memoir, the accompanying documents, and Foucault's and his colleagues' take on them, and reopen discussion of the Pierre Rivière case and its contemporary twenty-first century relevance, using a combination of both philosophical ethnography and arts-based enquiry. These contemporary papers are based upon a series of interdisciplinary workshops and seminars that took place at the University of Bristol during 2010. In this introductory paper we ask what was the emotional geography of this young man who engaged in such an unthinkable act? And how did that geography intersect with the emotional geography of his village in France in 1835, and what does it still have to tell us about our own contemporary society?     

The ‘Collective Pierre Rivière’: Using collective biography and ambling conversational methods to interrogate and re-present pivotal moments from the Pierre Rivière narratives

Collective biography is a research strategy that works at the level of bodily and emotional knowledge and moves beyond individualized versions of the subject, towards subjects-in-process and subjects-in-relation (Davies and Gannon, 2006). In this paper we, the authors, reflect upon and describe our experiences of using collective biography practices as a way of interrogating and writing our way into ‘pivotal moments’ within the Pierre Rivière texts (both book and film). The collective writing about ‘pivotal moments’ that our research group generated during workshops held at a university, exploring the ‘Pierre Rivière’ narratives have then been further reworked into a reflective, layered account, through an ambling conversational process.     

'Does Broca's area exist?' Christofredo Jakob's 1906 response to Pierre Marie's holistic stance

In 1906, Pierre Marie triggered a heated controversy and an exchange of articles with Jules Déjerine over the localization of language functions in the human brain. The debate spread internationally. One of the timeliest responses, that appeared in print 1 month after Marie’s paper, came from Christofredo Jakob, a Bavarian-born neuropathologist working in Buenos Aires. The present study comprises an English translation of Jakob’s 1906 paper and a discussion of Jakob’s ideas on the localizationist–holistic approach regarding the role of Broca’s area. This issue is still at the core of scientific debate in the light of current neuropsychological and neuroimaging findings.     

Pierre de La Ramée et le déclin de la rhétorique

This article provides a basic general introduction to Ramus, and evaluates his role in the history of logic and rhetoric, especially with relation to the study of argumentation. The author agrees with Ong and other historians of logic that Ramus is not to be taken seriously as a logician, and that his undoubted importance in the history of ideas is to be found elsewhere.Ramus advocates a belief in nature, experience and reason, and rejects the reliance on the authority of ancient philosophers, above all Aristotle, though experience does not mean scientific experiment and, paradoxically, includes the example of great philosophers and writers. In the end Ramus is seen as responsible for substituting for ancient classical rhetoric an entirely ornamental rhetoric of figures which was to take over education (with the exception of the Jesuit schools) almost until our own day. This curtailing and diminishing of rhetoric is seen as a degeneration. Ancient five-part rhetoric had been concerned with convincing and persuading: Aristotle distinguished the analytic, scientific reasoning of logic, from dialectic which was based on opinion and probability and had close links with rhetoric; by the time of Cicero and Quintilian, who addressed themselves to jurists and politicians, logic has given way to dialectic. In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance the two become assimilated; the evolution of this is traced here through the thirteenth-century Summulae logicales of Peter of Spain to the fifteenth-century German humanist logician Rudolph Agricola, who influenced Ramus partly through the intermediary of Johann Sturm. Ramus took over their topical theories but restricted them to logic/dialectic, and left rhetoric with little more than tropes and figures. He believed that there was only one method for teaching all the arts, and one dialectic common to them all. The distinction between analytical and dialectical has disappeared, with far-reaching consequences for the study of argumentation. Over the centuries logic has lost its connection with controversy and persuasion. With the development of the post-Cartesian, post-Baconian emphasis on the clarity of scientific discourse, and the mid-nineteenth-century interest in mathematical and formal logic, the process was complete. Argumentation, or the new rhetoric, aims to fill the gap thus created.