Podcasts about Foucault

durée : 00:03:51 - Les Matins de France Culture - par : Raphaël Laloum - En 1946, Michel Foucault étudie à l'École normale supérieure à Paris. Le jeune normalien a du mal à s'intégrer à l'école et subit l'oppression due à son homosexualité. Une expérience douloureuse et déterminante dans la construction de sa pensée. - équipe : Thomas Beau Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

Can you actually prove the Earth is a rotating globe? Before recording this episode, I tried to falsify Flat Earth and find the strongest case for the conventional globe model, and couldn't.Tamara Sheville joins InnerVerse to put the globe on trial through a rapid-fire examination of curvature, level water, horizons, Antarctica, long-distance visibility, Polaris, atmospheric pressure, vacuum experiments, Foucault's pendulum, Earth rotation, gravity, planetary observations, and the classic disappearing-ship argument.This isn't built around one supposed “proof.” The question is: what happens when the assumptions behind the globe are examined one after another against measurement, observation and experiment.Remote Biofield Tuning sessions with Chance are available via Zoom. Learn more and book at https://www.innerversepodcast.com/biofield-tuningWatch on Youtube: https://youtu.be/zcYiLrqh_uAFull archives, extended episodes, and member community at https://www.innerversepodcast.com/plusWatch the extended episode of this podcasthttps://www.innerversepodcast.com/plus/tamara-shevillePatreon: https://www.patreon.com/innerverse/posts/166337394Substack: https://innerversepodcast.substack.com/p/can-you-prove-earth-is-round-tamaraYoutube: https://youtu.be/04KqM2kz170SUPPORT INNERVERSE WITH AFFILIATESKyle Denton's Potent Plant Medicines – Tippecanoe Herbs (use coupon code 'innerverse'): https://www.tippecanoeherbs.comThe World's Best Tuning Fork: https://biofieldtuningstore.com/collections/the-sonic-slider-collection?ref=innerverseFlower Elixirs by LotusWei: https://www.lotuswei.com/innerverseNutritional Products from Clive de Carle: https://clivedecarle.com/?sld=204https://www.innerversepodcast.com/episodes/tamara-sheville Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tous les jours, retrouvez le meilleur des archives de Laurent Gerra en podcast sur RTL.fr, l'application et toutes vos plateformes.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

REDIFF - L'animateur emblématique de "Qui veut gagner des millions", a, pour l'occasion, changé le nom de l'émission en "Qui veut gagner Matignon". Cet été, retrouvez tous les jours le meilleur de Laurent Gerra en podcast sur RTL.fr, l'application et toutes vos plateformes.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Vince Fakhoury Horn speakswith Rima Vesely-Flad about The Fire Inside: The Dharma of James Baldwin and Audre Lorde—the silence she found in her own Buddhist community when she began writing about Palestine, Baldwin and Lorde's distinction between hatred that corrodes and rage that comes from the examined life, and the question they keep returning to: how to feel it all without causing more harm.Vince Horn: So, Rima, great to see you.I've been really loving getting to know you as a person and also your work. I've been reading your book. Unfortunately, I also spilled water on my copy, so it is a little... If you see me struggling to flip through the pages, that's ‘cause we had a bit of an accident here. But I've really enjoyed reading your work. Can't wait to get into it with you. Thank you so much for your time.Rima Vesely-Flad: Yeah. Thank you, Vince. It's been great to get to know you, too. We're so close. Amazing. Amazing.Vince Horn: Yes, and it's amazing as adults, we can carve out the time to hang out. So that's sometimes the hardest part. I feel like being in middle age is, like, making time to spend with cool people, so appreciate your time.Rima Vesely-Flad: Me too.Vince Horn: So let's talk about your new book. This is The Fire Inside: The Dharma of James Baldwin and Audre Lorde. Of course, before reading this book, I was familiar with you and your work. But it really struck me that you were writing in this book, like from the very beginning, you're writing about Palestine and Israel, which is not something I see many Buddhists really writing about or talking about in America.So it stands out just the fact that you're even talking about this subject. And then on top of that, you're bringing to bear these beautiful Dharma teachings and wisdom teachings from the Black tradition of James Baldwin and Audre Lorde, bringing them to bear on this topic in the first chapter of the book, which I thought was quite courageous.And I really appreciate it, you know, as someone who has Palestinian family members and people in the West Bank I care about. So just on a personal level, really am grateful that you centered this in your writing. And I thought maybe we could start with that first chapter if you're up for it.Rima Vesely-Flad: Absolutely. It was actually the very last chapter I wrote. I wrote this book of course over several years, but as I was concluding in real time, the genocide was taking place, and I just found myself absolutely in a state of grief and rage and was really politically active around it in ways that I hadn't been in quite some time.Like feeling very pushed to speak out and to contact the Biden administration and representatives, people here in North Carolina who might or might not speak in Congress, and just found that I needed ways to speak out, and this is my community. The people who self-identify as Buddhist claim these traditions, these lineages, these practices, these schools of thought, and yet there was so much silence, and I felt really compelled to speak into that silence. And I know that's something that you feel and understand in a deep way. And then also, I'm not by any stretch the first Black activist or academic or thought leader to make the connections between oppression of people of African descent whose ancestors were enslaved and people who are in a state of survival as their land is being taken in real time. So all of those connections were very present, and yet in the Buddhist world, there was so much silence, so much evasion or even erasure of what's taking place. And it felt like it wasn't separate from my practice, and I had to speak.Even though at the time I hadn't even visited the West Bank. I since have, but at the time I was thinking and writing and observing and feeling from afar.Vince Horn: Yeah. Okay. I didn't realize you'd gone to the West Bank. Wow, we'll have to talk about that sometime. Yeah, there's early on in the book, there's a quote here that's really echoing what you just shared.I thought I'd share this ‘cause it really moved me quite a bit. You said, “I, like many Black Americans, like Southwest Asian and North African Buddhists, observe that violent oppression of Palestinians can never bring safety and security to Jewish Israelis. And as a Buddhist practitioner, it's important for me to speak out against the violence sanctioned by my government, my tax dollars.The policies of the US government do not represent my commitments. I'm horrified by the massacres in Gaza day after day, by the constant terrorizing of Palestinians in the West Bank. I think daily of Baldwin's words, ‘You don't know what's happening on the other side of the wall because you don't want to know.'”Rima Vesely-Flad: Wow. Even just hearing Baldwin's words in that context again, it really brings me chills. And so prescient, right? So prescient in terms of just anticipating how much more extensive... At the time actually that Baldwin visited, there wasn't a formal occupation, although there was theft of land. But this— that was 1961, and then the wall— right now the walls, the checkpoints, the just sheer magnitude of aggression and violence. Like Baldwin anticipated that, and then the myopia in Israel and in the United States.Vince Horn: Yeah. I think at the same time though as I read through your writing on this, I was really also struck that you're really trying to hold multiple realities here at once.You know, both holding the suffering of the Palestinians and the apartheid state that you're describing. At the same time, you have a lot of, as I do, Jewish friends and people that you care about who may not be able to hold that reality in the same way or who are struggling to in some cases. Who...and you treat that with real compassion I think in your writing and in your words. As I try to, you know, my best. And it's, of course, important to differentiate between Jewish identity and Israeli identity, which is often, you know, merged intentionally by the State of Israel.And for many people it's the way they're inculturated. It seems like that was kind of an unconscious merger in a lot of folks' identity. At least I've noticed that with close friends and even students in the last few years where we've had conversations around this. There's been real tension.And anyway, I appreciate that you're holding it with compassion, both realities here, not trying to sort of demonize Israelis or Jewish people. And really being aware of the antisemitism that this whole issue is also bringing about. Or it's... I'm not sure if it's bringing about or giving excuse to people to be bigoted.So I think it's cool the way that you're trying to weave those different things. And I guess I'm curious if you could say a bit about how you're taking that approach or why that's important to you.Rima Vesely-Flad: Yes. I start off the book talking about a relationship I had with a, I would say a mama bear, a mother figure who claimed herself, who self-identified as my godmother, and she was born in France to a very well-known filmmaker who had the opportunity for asylum in the United States, and he and his wife were granted this opportunity to flee, but were told they couldn't take their daughter, who was my godmother Via–Vince Horn: Wow.Rima Vesely-Flad: –was sent to a convent in France. So a Jewish girl sent to a Catholic institution, and she was blamed for the war and has suffered horrific antisemitic abuse. And it scarred her indefinitely. When she came to the United States, she took off the first part of her name, just called herself Via.She died of cancer many years later, and the wounds of that period were still quite evident at the time. I just remember, I have such extraordinary memories of her and what she suffered. And so part of my compassion and empathy, which is real, is that this nation state we call Israel was founded as ostensibly a refuge for people like Via and her parents.And this is a nation state founded upon theft of land. And what it meant practically is that 750,000 Palestinians were driven from their ancestral lands, and they and their descendants still to date live in refugee camps, which I was able to visit when I went to the West Bank. These are no longer tents.They're now concrete buildings, but stacked very high, very crowded, very narrow passages for walking, no play space for children. One of the refugee camps I visited in Bethlehem has an entryway that consists of keys welded into an arc, and these are the keys for return. People still possess the keys to their homes they were driven from 75 years ago. So to recognize the terror that took place during the Holocaust in Europe, and then to recognize the consequent suffering that was inflicted upon Palestinians, I think is not simple. Yes, safety, but one thing Baldwin says that stays with me over and over is that Palestinians should not pay for the sins of Europeans.Europeans committed the genocide, the Holocaust, and Palestinians should not have had to pay for that and should not have been driven from their lands to establish what is supposed to be a state of safety. And yet the atrocities being committed by this government and other governments, not saying that this very right-wing government is the only government that has committed atrocities against Palestinians. To say that this is a state of safety for people whose ancestors were exposed to the horrors of the Holocaust is, I think, to be very myopic, very limited. And part of what I'm trying to wrestle with is such deep confusion, like a deep state of confusion of how, if your ancestors have experienced the Holocaust, could you inflict this upon another peoples?So that's some of what I wrestle with in this first chapter is just like—Vince Horn: Yes.Rima Vesely-Flad: —what? And I'm not the only one. Like Ta-Nehisi Coates starts off his book talking about the— the book is called The Message. And he starts off his book saying like, “I just don't get it.” And I feel that too. I just don't get it. But then also, I don't understand this claim to sacred land, and that's part of what's happening with the atrocities in the West Bank in real time. And you know, all of us know it has escalated dramatically in the past few weeks.Vince Horn: Yes.Rima Vesely-Flad: Like even worse than when I was there. And when I was there, that's when the farmers during harvest, the Palestinian farmers during the olive harvest were being terrorized.Vince Horn: Yes.Rima Vesely-Flad: Including many Jewish activists, similarly from the United States and from Israel were being terrorized, all of them. Everyone who was in the fields trying to harvest the olives.Vince Horn: Right.Rima Vesely-Flad: That was happening in October, but now it has escalated dramatically in a city called Nablus and its surrounds.Vince Horn: Yes.Rima Vesely-Flad: I actually went to Nablus. That was one of the places we spent some time.Vince Horn: Yeah. That's where my cousin is based. So yes. Oh, yeah. And I've heard that as well from her. So that's, in recent, like week or two, her house was broken into by the IDF and they destroyed one of the walls and were calling out for someone who they have no idea who it is.Yeah. And just, you know, like that's becoming more just kind of more standard. Like that's just happening all over the place. Yeah.Rima Vesely-Flad: It's becoming normalized.Vince Horn: Normalized, yeah, exactly.Rima Vesely-Flad: That aggression. Yes, so much. And one of the things I just sat with when I went, you know, I was in Jerusalem initially.There is coexistence. It's, you know, people are not separate. They are coexisting in real time. And yet, when I went to the West Bank and, you know, it's like I just don't understand. Jewish refugees were given 51% of the land by initially Britain and the United Nations then in 1948, 1947, 1948.Drove out Palestinians from their ancestral villages into refugee camps. Why do they want more? And one of the things I realized is that the West Bank consists or has many holy sites, both for Palestinians who practice Islam and for Jewish peoples who see these sites also as their holy sites. So I was based in a city called Al-Halil, and there's a mosque there that's called the Tomb of the Patriarchs, and that is one of the holy sites also for Jewish practitioners, people who are adherents.They have built settlements on top of Palestinian buildings, especially in the old village. So I saw all of this actually arrive just as there was an incursion of young people from these settlements into the city of Al-Khalil, which is also called Hebron. In any case, that claim to holy space in the sense, the idea, the narrative that God gave it to a certain peoples who are chosen and therefore all of the land is theirs, something I don't understand. And I have some real hatred— with regards to the atrocities taking place. And I feel that part of my practice is to really own that and feel that in my body, and then to work with it in such a way that it doesn't come out and get directed towards people.But I can feel that. And so part of what it means for me to claim these practices, like you, I'm in the Insight Diaspora, so we likely know many of the same practices. But part of it is working effectively with the body so much so that it's not targeted, it doesn't come out in random ways and cause further harm.But it's a hard practice, and some of what you see in that chapter or read is that muscle being flexed of like, how do I feel without it coming out in a way that causes harm? That is part of the wrestling. That is part of the practice.Vince Horn: Yes. And it's one that I noticed, like in my own training, I didn't get a lot of tools for that in the insight tradition because hatred was sort of like something we're trying to transcend or, you know, like notice and then counteract.That was usually the frame around hatred. It wasn't something like you can actually feel this anger and really feel rage. Like although sometimes people would, I think, give lip service to that, it never felt to me like a culture where people were actually doing that.And so I was just sort of repressing all this rage and sort of like carrying on. And now I realize that the wisdom of what you're saying is like, if you repressed all that rage it goes inward, it goes outward. It is not constructive. It's not generative. It's not healing. It's just kind of like a time bomb ticking.Rima Vesely-Flad: Yeah I think that's so wise. It causes anxiety and depression. It needs a place to land, and part of what I think we're meant to do with this work is cultivate that place to land, but do it in a way that's skillful so that we're not creating more harm. And I don't think that... is harmful, but I think it, when it's not effectively worked with, it does come out sideways, and then it can inadvertently or maybe—Vince Horn: Intentionally even.Rima Vesely-Flad: —intentionally create that. But I think part of it also is recognizing it, giving it space to be named—Vince Horn: Yes.Rima Vesely-Flad: —and legitimizing it. Like, it is a just rage. And hatred— actually Baldwin and Lorde both talk about hatred as corrosive. They talk about how it does actually impact us in ways that are not useful, and it does need to be worked with skillfully.But rage, they both say, comes from the examined life. It comes from legitimate and clear observation of patterns of oppression taking place and experienced in real time. And so that's energy that can be used, that can be directed in fruitful ways. And I think that distinction is really important, and it did inform my own experience of hatred.Of like, “Oh, it's here. How do I work with it in a way that doesn't corrode my spirit or it doesn't corrode relationships that matter to me?”Vince Horn: Yeah. I love what you're saying there. It seems like conflating hatred and rage would be one mistake there, to think like, “Oh, I shouldn't be experiencing this anger or this rage because somehow it's a sign that I'm, like, in this corrosive state of hatred.”But like, oh, it's real, and it's arising in response to something real. Like, I had never seen this quote from James Baldwin about how being a Black American means living with rage all the time everywhere, and that hit me so hard. I'm like, yeah, that's what it feels like as a Palestinian right now. I feel that and have always felt that.I didn't know that's what I was feeling for so many decades. But now that it's out in the open and it's like, oh yeah, like it's just this constant sense of rage at being constantly policed. You know, having your tone of voice policed, your words. Not being able to be a certain kind of emotive or, you know, loud.Like, all these things that are culturally, like what I grew up with. This was like the way that our family was. Like, it's not okay in this larger kind of white culture to display these kinds of things. And so you just like, you gotta tamp it down.Rima Vesely-Flad: And, you know, Foucault would say we learn to police ourselves to discipline ourselves. And I think part of our work then, in terms of recovery, is to name the ways that we self-oppress.Vince Horn: Yes.Rima Vesely-Flad: I would say that's a huge, huge part of my practice, ongoing.Vince Horn: Yes. That makes so much sense because it is, like you're saying, it's internalized.Like, I— yeah, it's like I only need to get a few social signals before I start to realize, ‘cause I'm a socially intelligent being, like we all are. Like, oh, like, this is not okay. And if I continue to do this, there's gonna be kind of repercussions. And I think the bravery and the courage to do it anyway, and to deal with those repercussions, like, that seems to be where your work lives here, and it's a hard place to live.Rima Vesely-Flad: It is hard, yes. I mean, one of the things I also talk about in this book more broadly is that I grew up in a family where I wasn't wanted. My birth was not welcome, and that was something I knew from a very early age. So I learned to adapt. I learned all of these ways of trying to be wanted, trying to be claimed, being exceptional.Vince Horn: Yes.Rima Vesely-Flad: So the idea that I would self-exile is, like, anathema. And that's where I start talking. And part of the way I use Audre Lorde's work in this first chapter in particular is to say, she calls us out, saying, “We must speak remembering we were never meant to survive.” But for me to speak in ways that might be confrontational or perceived as offensive is a very hard edge.But to self-silence is also to betray myself and my people. And that's the edge, right? To speak and to risk exile for someone like me, who has been exiled just because of the way I appeared in the world with dark skin, dark eyes, dark hair, curly hair. And then also to adapt in so many ways that I recognize a level of self-betrayal or a betrayal of the people to whom I'm accountable.And I do consider my people are people of African descent who have been oppressed because of their embodiment in this particular context, which has shunned people of African descent as unworthy, as less intelligent. Has seen a kind of embodiment as inferior. We come up against that. I came up against that in my own family.Vince Horn: Yes.Rima Vesely-Flad: It's a hard edge, and I think part of the work is to actually not be so alone, to find our people, to find people with whom we feel mirrored. That's also hard work, but it has come over time. I have found community, and that matters. And I think part of this work of sangha, which I think in our lineage is not so prioritized—Vince Horn: Right.Rima Vesely-Flad: —but if we take it on intentionally, we can truly honor it as one of the three jewels. Part of our work is really investing in sangha, even when it feels scary or even when it feels like, wow, I have to be held accountable for things that I say that might actually really harm somebody else. But to keep doing that work and to ask for that feedback and that accountability.Vince Horn: Yeah, that strikes me as so true, and I understand why sangha isn't prioritized when you have such an individualistic kind of culture of, you know, meditative achievement and self-work. It's like, oh yeah, well, of course if we're all just focusing on ourselves together, we're not gonna be focused on the bonds that connect us.And yeah, I found that to be a limitation really for many years now in that community. And sort of what drove me to like explore relational practices and other things that felt like they kind of help soften those boundaries and begin to kind of get a felt sense for like what interbeing feels like in real time.It's like this is what it actually is like to be connected to someone or to disconnect or to lose myself in someone else's perspective. I guess I wanted to honor too that like you're talking about all the reasons that one could not speak out even if there's injustice and one wants to speak out on behalf of people they care about and are identified with.That on top of the racial dimension of this, there's also imagine the gendered dimension of this for you as well. Like I see with my wife and other women I know who are raised in a more kind of gendered female way. Like it's just speaking up in general is hard to do. Or it's not something that's encouraged or, you know, people don't have...they're not offered that same level of training often when they're in a female body. So I guess I'm curious like is that also part of what you've had to work with in addition to the racial dimension of this?Rima Vesely-Flad: That's a really good question. I think initially, yes.Like, I was raised to watch and serve and people please. And that's how I got my goods, as my therapist would say. Like, I felt wanted when I—Vince Horn: Right.Rima Vesely-Flad: —gave people what they wanted, and I think that is a very, very gendered experience. I cleaned the house at an early age. I took care of my younger brother.I was with a single mother who worked a lot, so I held things together in the family home. And yes, I think that is a highly gendered experience that I've carried into adulthood. I think I have patterns that I'm still trying to work with around serving and adapting, people pleasing and what have you.I do also feel like there's some corrective, if you will, by becoming an academic. I think in my line of work, having jumped through a thousand hoops, I did three master's degrees, I did a PhD, I learned how to cite research and ask questions and back up and demonstrate. You see it in this book, right?Actually, the book initially was an academic book where I just took on Baldwin and Lorde and tried to show how they illuminate these incredibly important and timeless teachings that we now associate with Buddhism or call Buddhist. And I had a friend and a mentor, Ruth King, say, “Actually, we need your practice in this book.We need this to not just be through the third person, but we actually need your voice in this book,” which was really important and also incredibly hard. But part of why I felt I could take it on is that I was in a world in which I was expected to speak and facilitate, and I think there was a training not necessarily in the broader environment to which you're pointing, but in an academic environment where standing up and giving a talk or a lecture or doing Q&A on the spot was something I learned how to do.So in that way, I think there's more of a sense of, oh, I have this. I can do this. And that feels more, I would say, naturalized, for lack of a better word, just because it's been two decades of doing this so explicitly. And I've loved the academy, you know, being with people who read thick books.And I'm the kind of person, I'll walk into a store and I'll look at the endnotes before I look at the introduction, just ‘cause I wanna know who's cited and, you know, what research are they relying on? And like, who has informed this work? That matters to me even more so than the title or even the introduction.I wanna just know who, what school of thought is this author drawing upon. And I love being with people who also operate in that way. And I have this funny story of being a consultant for a book project for a friend of mine, and we were all taken out to Portland. It was my first time in Portland, and you know, beautiful city.And we hung out and talked and conversed and worked through these chapters, and then we sat in the hot tub and discussed Foucault. And, you know, it's just so, for me, natural to be in an environment where something like that is really fun. And that is, I think, a part of learning how to speak. I think the harder part, and this goes back to the gender question, is having been a Black girl in a white family and trying to figure out how to survive in such hostility.So yes, I do think that's both racialized and gendered kind of experience.Vince Horn: Yeah. Okay. Yeah, makes sense. I hadn't considered the training in academia would be such a sharp training. But it makes sense, yeah, that you'd sort of be expected to be able to receive critique and offer it and speak and debate.Yeah, that... I could see that both being kind of traumatizing and a very good training at the same time.Yeah. I appreciate it so much that you did bring your story into this book as well, because I feel like at least for me as a reader, it gives me something personally to connect with where I can sort of see, like, how the universal becomes personal, you know, in a way. Where it's like all these things that you're describing, and Baldwin and Lorde are describing, like, they make sense to me and I understand it.But then when you describe, you know, your experience of coming up with your grandparents and the specific ways, like not having your picture hanging up with the rest of your cousins, for instance. Like, that specific experience and the way that you shared it just made... It made all of the abstract universal stuff real for me in a way, you know, that I think it sticks with me, and it's like it lands in my heart, you know, in a way that is transformative.So I suspect that's probably true for others as well. So thank you for sharing that.Rima Vesely-Flad: Yeah, I would say that was hard in a way that academic citations and reading for ideas, making arguments is not so hard. Like, it actually comes very naturally. But the harder work of communicating the harm that was done and how I received it, and certainly because I was raised knowing them, my grandparents' rejection of me based on my skin color in particular was, it was deeply traumatizing, and I still work with some of my patterns of adapting, ways that still do not serve me.And then too, and this is something I'm more present with, is my experience of being abandoned by my father. Actually, yesterday was his birthday, August 2nd, also James Baldwin's birthday, and I found myself honoring James Baldwin, and having a really hard time honoring my father, who I had not seen at the time that he passed away for more than 40 years. And I also feel that, and the disconnection not just from him, but also my lineage. And a big part of this book is actually not attempting to reconcile with my grandparents or the members of my family that are still very overtly racist, and there are many, but actually to find my father's people and to cultivate a sense of lineage and belonging through my father's people who came from the Mississippi Delta.My grandmother moved north during the Great Migration, and I am in touch with those family members who descended from her. She's now deceased, but, and my father is also deceased. But to have some sense of connection and being claimed, to have visited the graves of my great-grandparents, in a certain way it's not full circle, but it is a sense of return, and by that I mean return to ancestors, biological ancestors who I now know the names of and have a place to go and now developing relationships with in terms of a broader family system. And those are folks who have claimed me.I, about a month ago, maybe just about three weeks ago, got to talk to the matriarch of my father's family, one of, uh, his youngest... Uh, not my father, I'm sorry. My great-grandparents, their lineage. I was able to speak to one of their youngest daughters, my great-aunt who turned 100 last December.Vince Horn: Wow.Rima Vesely-Flad: Who's now about 100 and a half, and I just think, wow, how amazing to have met her. That she knows my name, that I had some time with her, that she still wants to speak to me on the phone. That she sees me as a way to connect to her sister, my grandmother, who's, as mentioned, deceased. Sometimes I think that healing process is not attempting to reconcile with the people who have denied or rejected your existence, but to find people who claim you and who want to be part of you.I think that also speaks to this broader political environment. It's not about getting accepted by the people who have ideas of your inferiority. It's not about proving that you are, in fact, worthy of X, Y, and Z, but it's actually about claiming and developing and cultivating your own spaces. And I'll say this in a personal way, not so much about being accepted by a dominant white culture community, as much as cultivating the spaces that do feel supportive, in which I am mirrored.And I feel like both Audre Lorde and James Baldwin were oriented that way as well. Like Audre Lorde was part of the second generation women's movement, and they weren't, like, trying to fit into some stereotype of women. They created their own communities, and they had relationships with one another. She was a self-defined lesbian, and was with a community of women who honored their own sexuality and their gender, and who sought a kind of alternative to the broader dominant culture. I think that is so important. And Baldwin, as a gay man too, was oriented towards honoring his own sexuality and creating communities that essentially I don't want to use the word affirmed in, like, a tidy way, but just said, like, all of you, every part of you is welcome here.Vince Horn: Yes.Rima Vesely-Flad: And so I do think that is incumbent upon us as well, not to look for acceptance, not to be claimed, but rather to invest in communities that we want to be part of.Vince Horn: Yeah. So it's like you're getting your belonging needs met by creating or finding the kind of community that you can be yourself there and not have to be constantly seeking external validation from a culture that's not going to validate you, or probably not for the next few decades at least. Rima Vesely-Flad: We could even say that within our insight lineages.Vince Horn: Yeah, absolutely. I guess that's the need for diasporas is rooted there. You know, finding... I remember the early community of people I hung out with were mostly people that were unabashedly interested in, like, mastering the states and stages of the path, which is a weird thing to say now ‘cause that's not where I am at all.But yeah, it was like a subculture of people who were like, “Yeah, we're really interested in hardcore meditation.” And that wasn't the scene in the insight tradition. It was more like healing and kind of long-term retreat. So yeah, I can absolutely relate to what you're saying. I'm curious to go back a little to the part of the book where you talk about karma.Because this is, I think this is an area where I've always struggled with early Buddhist teachings. And I remember the first class I took at Naropa on the first turning with Judith Simmer-Brown. We really explored karma in depth there, and it became clear to me, like the early Buddhist vision of karma was very individualistic.It was like you are the cause of— it was primarily putting everything back onto the individual. So I thought it was interesting when you're trying to bridge that with collective understanding of karma as well, and seemed like you're trying to hold both the individual and collective perspectives together, like not kind of falling into one or the other.But I always found early Buddhism was like collapsed straight into the individual perspective. So I'm curious, like how do you work with... Is that true from your point of view and from, you know, your scholarship? And like how do you then work with a tradition that seems to be, I don't know, hyper individualistic when there are also deep teachings on interdependence and interbeing you can find in the tradition as well, though I haven't found them as prominently in the early Buddhist tradition.Rima Vesely-Flad: I think that's true. I mean, the sutta that I rely on at the beginning of the chapter, which I can put into the chat if that's helpful, is one of the few that explicitly says, oh, and there are other causes and conditions for suffering, and I actually, I'll read that.Vince Horn: That's cool. So it is there.Rima Vesely-Flad: Yeah. It's, so it's an early Buddhist teaching or sutta, the Moliyasivaka Sutta, and it says, “Bile, phlegm, and also wind.” So our bodies, what's around us, “imbalance and climate too—”Vince Horn: Wow.Rima Vesely-Flad: —”carelessness and assault, with karma result as the eighth.”And it's saying these are all reasons for suffering. But it's true. It's one of the few suttas that explicitly acknowledges causes and conditions as sources of suffering. Where I delve into collective karma is, it's true, I found it less in early Buddhism, more in Mahayana Buddhism, the focus on language actually.The fact that we come of age as very small beings and learn language, and our language is collective. We are learning certain meanings along with certain phrases, and that is collectively formed, and that is a part of our thoughts. That is something that a number of scholars within the Mahayana Buddhist lineage talk about in many very complex texts over actually several centuries.So it is to say that we find that less in early Buddhism, but we do find that, and it's with that analysis in mind that I talk about the fact that we are shaped by the collective, and also that we have agency.Some of the gleanings I have towards how we might employ karma in a very constructive way come from postmodern thinkers who claim Buddhism, but who are also broadly read with thinkers such as Marx, thinkers such as Foucault, and, you know, people who are making connections in ways that, of course, are very far removed from early Buddhism.But one of the things that is drawn out by now a wide range of postmodern Buddhist scholars, so people who both practice Buddhism and are scholars of Buddhist teachings, is that we have agency. We're not simply beholden to actions of the past or even the collective, that we actually can practice and cultivate our thoughts, cultivate our words, cultivate our actions in a way that allows us to break free of patterns that are harmful or do not serve us. So that's where I go with that chapter on karma.Vince Horn: Yeah.Rima Vesely-Flad: Wanting to say we inherit so much, and we do. We inherit language. We also inherit culture. We inherit ways of thinking, and it's hard to see that because we swim in the waters even as we are inheriting them, yet there is some capacity for agency.Vince Horn: Yes.Rima Vesely-Flad: And that is what we can do. And maybe that's the emphasis in early Buddhism, is that we can work on our minds. We can free our minds from these oppressive patterns.Vince Horn: Yes. Yeah, and that makes so much sense in the context of, like, Indian caste system and the emergence of this, like, other way of living that's kind of outside of that caste system.I mean, it seems like such a powerful move to claim agency when you're in a culture that's, like, so determined by birth and status.Rima Vesely-Flad: Yes.Vince Horn: And then now, but in 21st century America, it feels like in some ways that view prevents moving forward to me with some of the deep learnings that the postmodern theorists have offered us over the last decades, you know, around the way that power gets calcified and ossified in systems, you know, that we're embedded in, in cultures that we are raised in.You know, having grown up here in the rural South, you know, this is a lot of what I've reflected on when it's come to reading works like yours and looking at racialization. Is like how I can't separate myself out from the place that I came up in. And I can see even with a Palestinian mixed racial household, like I was in a sea of white Southern Baptist Christians mostly.And, like, it had a huge effect on the way I talked and the things I thought were acceptable to say or to think. And, you know, I can even see the ways that I was always... I was trying to bridge the gaps with folks who are different because my grandfather moved into the part of town where the only Black folks in the entire county lived.There were two students in my high school who were Black. They were both... We rode on the bus together. I was quite close friends with one person. And it's like growing up in the small little mini minority space I remember trying to make connections with folks and sometimes just like really messing up and not because of that inculturation.I remember one time I wanted to share this story, which I've never shared before. Which I think it... I want to meet you in your vulnerability here because you shared so much in the book. But I remember a friend of mine had a friend over, young Black girl, and she was, I forget her name, but she came over.We were hanging out and getting to know each other. And I remember this thing that I said to her as a... Really, my intention was to try to connect. And I said, sometimes me and my family, we're also called “sand,” and then I used the N word. And this was my— and I said it totally smiling, you know, like really assuming this would bridge some gap between us, and that she would see, like, I'm like her.But the impact that it had was totally the opposite. You know, it's like, it really bothered her. She was crying later. My friends were like, “What the heck is wrong with you? Why did you say that?” And I was like, oh my gosh. And it was just such a rude awakening to the reality of race, and I could see that even as an older adult, you know, asking people where they're from to try to connect, when I appear as white, has this impact of really causing people to feel paranoid or feel like I'm coming at them in a way that's racially biased.You know, where I'm trying to, like, figure out where they're from ‘cause they're not from around here, you know, and stuff like that. And I could see how even being well-intentioned when you're trying to connect across difference, it's very easy to, because of ignorance, to really harm people. And I can see that in the community of white Buddhist practitioners, you know, where a lot of very smart and well-intentioned people, as they engage with this work, like, we struggle to figure out how to do that in a way that's not perpetuating harm on a racial basis.It seems safer to just not talk about it sometimes. And I can see that this is a real problem. Like, it prevents learning and it prevents people from being able to kind of see their own conditioning and kind of acknowledge like, oh, this is really ugly. You know, it's really ugly that I thought it was okay to just, like, use that language and that it wouldn't have that kind of impact.Like, I thought for some reason it was neutral.Rima Vesely-Flad: Yeah. Yeah, that, I think that does speak to what we were just talking about with regards to karma and language and how we are socialized, how we inherit so much, and how even a word that has been weaponized with such vitriol and hatred over centuries in real time is still like a brick at the body.Like, it can land and it's almost... Yeah, I could even feel, like your reference to it, just how it landed, ‘cause it's still such a powerful word, and it does point to the fact that we do exist in conditions of such hatred and violence, that we are landed upon all the time, and we have to figure out, like, how to acknowledge that in ways that don't take us under or, frankly, if this is wanted on all sides, create rupture so that there can't be a way forward to acknowledge the weight of what's taken place.And I think for people who have had that hatred— and again, I'm thinking of both Baldwin and Lorde speaking to this with such clarity and self-empathy. For that hatred to be received over and over, especially in early years, but not exclusively in early years, and to have ways to acknowledge it and to come out of it, I think is something that we are all called to do.And to maybe to, and I say this with real tenderness, ‘cause I am still learning and asking for feedback all the time. With some tenderness to, if you notice that something has been, that some harm has taken place, that something has caused rupture, or if you're told that by other people to go in, not with some sense of defensiveness or a sense of needing to explain yourself, or even needing to clarify your intention, but to come in and to say with real humility, “I'm sorry, and I want to know what this is for you, and it matters to me that your inner being, that your wellbeing is cared for.”That's what matters. And actually, I had a moment a couple of weeks ago, not even quite that long, where I said something quite offensive to a friend of mine, and I noticed. I just— you know, noticed by reading facial expressions, and this is part of our work too, right? To observe. And so I asked, and was able to receive some feedback and to really hear it.And I think something that I struggle with, and I imagine for you, Vince, this is real as well, is we both are parenting young kiddos. You have an 11-year-old, I have a 10-year-old, about to be 11. We are really busy. We're running households, and I think some of what I come up against in my own work is, where is the time to do that inner work of reflecting, processing, synthesizing how we might have created harm, returning to the relationship?Like, where is the time to really do that? And that is something I'm sitting with, is if I have said something or not said something and it has created harm, where is the space to process that? And so this practice of sitting every day, of taking refuge, creating a kind of consistent place to land every day, I think that is some of the work as well, is to have a place where we can receive ourselves and how we are working with that harm that we have imputed upon someone else.And that's a big part of the practice as well for me, is just to create that level of consistency. And to feel into that remorse, to feel into that regret, to feel how it lands with us, and to hope that we might be able to convey that and to be received. And we don't always know. We can put ourselves out there.We may not be received, but just to have that sincerity of approach and to not make it about us, but to really focus on how it has landed for the other person, and then in our own practice to do our work. I think that, for me anyway, has been a way forward. Not that I could write a rule book or some set of instructions. I would not say that. But, you know, I take real guidance from Audre Lorde who said, like, “It's on me to see my heel print on another woman's face.” I have to do my own work even if I do self-identify as someone who has had that level of systemic and interpersonal harm coming at me.I'm also in a place where I can oppress other people. I'm doing real harm for other people. And it's not one or the other. It's not simplistic, but it involves a level, I think, of spiritual and emotional maturity to really see that for ourselves and to be open to whatever has arisen and whatever harm has been done, and then to be accountable, to put ourselves in a position of being accountable to a group or to another person it is really hard work. Really very hard work.Vince Horn: Yeah. Yeah. At the same time, I mean, I can see that's the only way to gain in wisdom is to be able to do that work and then be like, “Oh, yeah, now I know better. You know, I know a little better how to engage or be with folks in a way that's not gonna cause as much harm.It's going to, you know, support others.” So yeah, thank you for talking to me today and for exploring this with us here in the Insight Diaspora. I wanted to mention, too, that you're very generously offering up sort of in-depth content around this for sanghas and other communities and leaders that are kind of interested in bringing this work into their communities.I don't know if you wanted to mention that for those that are listening and might want to reach out to you and explore that.Rima Vesely-Flad: Oh, yes. And I can put... I have a couple of things I want to put in the chat, but I can put my website in, and the bottom of the page are these offerings. Yeah, so—Vince Horn: Please.Rima Vesely-Flad: I have recorded a number of Dharma talks, eight Dharma talks with two practices based on the book. And the hope is that this is a self-guided course, but the hope is that people can both listen and then practice. And the hope is in community that actually that can happen. And still trying to figure out exactly how to essentially package all of that.But at the moment, people can register for a self-guided course and listen to Dharma talks, some of which come from the book and are somewhat expanded, and some of which come from other work I've done. So there's one called The Dharma of James Baldwin and Audre Lorde, and then there are three that will be offered live with a good friend of mine, Rashid Hughes, who has put together a practice he refers to as rest.He is a lovely human. He's done restorative justice work for a long time. He also has a Master of Divinity degree and leads a sangha in DC. And so Rashid will offer practice spaces live, and I will record Dharma talks. The next one is called Buddhism and Black Liberation. That comes from a book I published in 2022.And then there will be one offered in January called The Discipline of Liberation, and I think that's my next project. I'm just starting to get my head around it, but it's informed and guided by the writings of bell hooks.And then there will be one that actually points to exactly what we were just talking about with regards to harm and conflict and how to work with it internally and how to be in community, and I think a lot of us don't have that training, and I'm still someone, even now, who if I receive something in a hard way, I will go to my cushion before I'll go to another person.And maybe that's okay, except if I don't ever get off the cushion and go to that person, that's not okay. So really trying to, this is in real time, also trying to learn, like, how to have these harder conversations and do repair. That's really what I'm pointing to, how to do repair effectively so that there isn't only rupture, but there's a relationship that's sustained. So there will be one self-guided course. It will open in about a month on Tuesday, September 1st, and then three live classes with my friend Rashid, and starting in October, and then in 2027, two classes. And my hope is that we start to create some spaces that are trainings and also collective spaces where we can be guided, especially by, in my case, I'm thinking of Black thinkers, although always in conversation with other lineages, but really wanting to bring the wisdom of Black thinkers to the center of Dharma practice.Vince Horn: Yeah.Rima Vesely-Flad: Palestinian voices as well. I am really invested in that, too. And a friend, Kareem Gandoor, refers to Palestinian dharma, and I think, yes, that really resonates with me.Vince Horn: So yeah, Kareem. I know Kareem. Good stuff. Yeah, I've recently just connected with Mohsen Mawdawi, who is the president of Buddhist Association at Columbia.I think— didn't you do your grad work at Columbia?Rima Vesely-Flad: I did one of those degrees there. Uh-huh. In the same program he was in, yeah.Vince Horn: Uh-huh. Yeah. And it's been so nice to connect with fellow Palestinian Buddhists. All five of us are now connected. So I feel a lot of solidarity with the work that you're doing, and the way that you're centering the wisdom of Black teachers in the Buddhist lineage, bringing that to bear.So thank you so much for that work. I hope you continue doing it for a long time.Rima Vesely-Flad: Well, thank you. It does feel like the right work, and I feel so grateful to be able to do it long term. I mean, that's I think where I'm going here. Actually, being able to work... I'm gonna put my website into the chat.Being able to organize some of these classes is an attempt to make this work more sustainable, in addition to being like it both informs the next project and is an outgrowth of the current project. Get full access to Buddhist Geeks at www.buddhistgeeks.org/subscribe

Podcast 310 From Barbados To Rome Reading the Roman Amphitheatre and Codrington College Copyright2026 ISBN978-976-97997-9-0.mp3This Conversation examines the scholarly contribution of the work From Barbados to Rome: Sacred and Civic Witness_ Reading the Roman Amphitheatre and Codrington College as Living Texts Sixteen Lenses on One Stone (ISBN: 978-976-97997-9-0). It argues that this publication exemplifies rigorous academic inquiry by employing a multi-perspectival methodology to analyze two distinct architectural sites as "living texts." By juxtaposing the Roman Amphitheatre, a symbol of imperial civic edifice, with Codrington College, a product of colonial sacred education, the work engages with critical debates in postcolonial theology, heritage studies, and cultural theory. This conversation will demonstrate that the study's contribution lies in its methodological innovation—reading architecture as ideology—and its capacity to illuminate enduring tensions between faith, power, and public memory, thereby re-centering Caribbean theological discourse within a global conversation.Devgro Media Arts Services Publishing®2015 In collaboration with iMovie present Podcast 310 From Barbados to Rome A Scholarly Textual Analysis of Sacred and Civic Witness: Reading the Roman Amphitheatre and Codrington College as Living Texts Sixteen Lenses On One Stone ISBN: 978-976-97997-9-0 © 2026 By Dr. William Anderson Gittens, Doctor of DivinityRECOGNITIONSAs I take a moment to reflect on my journey, I am filled with profound gratitude for the Creator's guiding hand that has led me every step of the way. Life has brought me countless blessings, and at the forefront of these blessings is the immeasurable debt of thanks I owe to my late parents, Charles and Ira Gittens. They bestowed upon me their wisdom and creative spirit, which have been a consistent source of inspiration throughout my life. Their counsel and encouragement continue to resonate within me, shaping my path and purpose. To my beloved wife, Magnola Gittens, your unwavering support has been my anchor in turbulent seas. Your love and understanding provide the strength necessary to navigate life's complexities. I am eternally grateful for your presence, which comforts and uplifts me. To my brothers—Shurland, Charles, Ricardo, and my late brothers Arnott and Stephen—as well as my sisters, Emerald, Marcella, and Cheryl, thank you for being my steadfast companions along this journey. Each of you has contributed uniquely to my narrative, reminding me of the importance of family ties in shaping who I am today. I extend my heartfelt appreciation to my cousins: Joy Mayers, Kevin and Ernest Mayers, Donna Archer, Avis Dyer, and Jackie Clarke. Your love and camaraderie have enriched my life beyond measure. To my uncles, Clifford, Leonard Mayers, David Bruce, and Collin Rock, your support has been invaluable, strengthening the bonds of our family. To my children, Laron and Lisa, grandson Elijah you are my pride and joy, the motivation behind my work, fuelling my desire to create and inspire.Moreover, I am equally grateful to all who have believed in me and wanted nothing but the best for my growth. Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Platizky, Mr. Matthew Sutton, Mr. Juan Arroyo, Mr. and Mrs. David Lavine, and many others have played pivotal roles in my development, encouraging me to pursue my passions relentlessly. During my time at New Jersey City University (NJCU), I had the privilege of receiving guidance from exceptional mentors, including the late Dr. Joseph Drew, Merline Mayers, Mrs. Ellen Gordon, Dr. Nicholas Gordon, Rev. Dr. Scofield Eversley BSS, and many others. Conversations about enhancing my writing skills after graduating were integral to my growth, providing the foundation for my future endeavours. Over the past three decades, my experiences in the leisure activities industry have significantly shaped my journey. From 1995 to 2026, I have devoted myself to writing, resulting in 482 E-Publications and 309 podcasts that resonate within the community. In recognition of the profound impact Dr. Joseph Drew had on my academic and personal development, I dedicated my 66th publication, "A Tribute to Culture" Vol. 1, to him—a small token of gratitude for his enormous influence on my life.As I look forward to what lies ahead, I remain thankful to all who have contributed to my story and to the Creator for the endless possibilities this journey holds. Each person's presence has left an indelible mark on my life, guiding me toward a future filled with hope and potential.Dr. William Anderson Gittens, D.D. ReferencesBennett, J. (2018). Religion and the rise of the British Empire: A Caribbean perspective. University of the West Indies Press.Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books.Gittens,W.A. (2026). From Barbados to Rome: Sacred and civic witness_ Reading the Roman amphitheatre and Codrington College as living texts sixteen lenses on one stone.[ISBN: 978-976-97997-9-0] Published by Devgro Media Arts Services Publishing ® 2015Hopkins, K. (1983). Death and renewal: Sociological studies in Roman history (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.Reddie, A. (2012). Is God colour-blind? Insights from black theology for Christian ministry. SPCK Publishing.Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books.Smith, L. (2020). Emotional heritage: Visitor engagement at museums and heritage sites. Routledge.Support the showCultural Factors Influence Academic Achievements© 2024 ISBN978-976-97385-7-7 A_MEMOIR_OF_Dr_William_Anderson_Gittens_D_D_2024_ISBNISBN978_976_97385_0_8Academic.edu. Chief of Audio Visual Aids Officer Mr. Michael Owen Chief of Audio Visual Aids Officer Mr. Selwyn Belle Commissioner of Police Mr. Orville Durant Dr. William Anderson Gittens, D.D En.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifelong_learning Hackett Philip Media Resource Development Officer Holder, B,Anthony Episcopal Priest,https://brainly.com/question/36353773https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifelong_learning#cite_note-19https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifelong_learning#cite_note-:2-18https://independent.academia.edu/WilliamGittens/Bookshttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=william+anderson+gittens+barbados&oq=william+anderson+gittenshttps://www.academia.edu/123754463/https://www.buzzsprout.com/429292/episodes. https://www.youtube.com/@williamandersongittens1714. Mr.Greene, Rupert

When you read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum and saw the allusions to Francis Bacon's New Atlantis, did you begin to suspect a Plan. Did you think that James was obviously sending you on a literary journey from one stepping stone to the next on the way to a predetermined destination? That would be a perfectly reasonable supposition...but it's completely incorrect. These works were chosen completely independently from each other by people who didn't even know of the other's existence, let alone the other's choice of book. Does this information bother you? Should it? Why? These are the sorts of questions one begins to ask oneself when you engage in a rabbit hole as large and as all consuming as Foucault's Pendulum—a rabbit hole that contains all other rabbit holes. And that's precisely how Eco would have wanted it...maybe. Find out more about this elaborate, meticulously researched, clockwork conspiracy yarn in this month's edition of Film, Literature and the New World Order with special guest Tom-Oliver Regenauer of Regenauer.press.

The real crisis isn't the Declaration—it's what we've stopped teaching. Peter Berkowitz, Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, contends that universities have failed at liberal education—the cultivation of citizens prepared to exercise freedom and responsibility. He attributes the breakdown to politicized classrooms, overreliance on narrow “scientistic” approaches in the social sciences, and a professional culture that trains future scholars instead of educating future citizens—leaving graduates with little serious exposure to the Declaration, the Constitution, and the moral logic of self-government. Stephen Haber, Stanford Professor of Political Science, History, and Economics, presses the discussion toward causes and incentives, setting up a debate about who is responsible for the drift and what reforms could realistically restore civic learning. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters:[00:00:26 – 00:04:11] Chapter 1: Setting the stakes—The Declaration at 250 and today's critiques Michael McConnell frames the episode around renewed skepticism of the Declaration's natural-rights claims—from progressive critiques focused on slavery and domination to post-liberal arguments against “abstract” rights.[00:04:11 – 00:06:54] Chapter 2: Berkowitz's opening—What the Declaration claims and why critics converge Peter Berkowitz restates the Declaration's core logic (equality, unalienable rights, consent, and the right to alter/abolish destructive government) and argues that left/right critiques increasingly overlap in their indictment of universal rights.[00:06:54 – 00:17:47] Chapter 3: Universities and the erosion of liberal education Berkowitz contends civic understanding is collapsing because colleges no longer ensure a shared, rigorous education in founding principles, constitutional traditions, and the broader intellectual inheritance needed for citizenship.[00:17:47 – 00:31:00] Chapter 4: From “critical” to “generous” thinking—Mapping the modern critiques Berkowitz argues that criticism without charitable interpretation becomes a “rage to criticize,” then traces postmodern progressive and post-liberal arguments (including Deneen and Vermeule) that reject the Declaration's rights framework and flirt with radical alternatives.[00:31:00 – 01:04:12] Chapter 5: Human rights, diplomacy, and reform—The Commission and a debate about university governance Berkowitz ties the Declaration to U.S. foreign policy via the UDHR and the Commission on Unalienable Rights, including its aims and controversies; Stephen Haber responds that boards, presidents, and provosts shape campus ideology and that governance-level changes could enable a revival of civic education. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Tous les jours, retrouvez le meilleur des archives de Laurent Gerra en podcast sur RTL.fr, l'application et toutes vos plateformes.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

REDIFF - Le célèbre animateur de "Qui veut gagner des millions" pourrait bien animer les tests obligatoires sur l'histoire de France que Bruno Retailleau souhaite imposer aux étrangers lors des naturalisations. Cet été, retrouvez tous les jours le meilleur de Laurent Gerra en podcast sur RTL.fr, l'application et toutes vos plateformes.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

“It's a realization of my individual self, not an alienation of it.” — Keith Teare on the book he wrote with AI in a week Welcome to episode 2984 of the show. A week is certainly an age in AI time. Since last week's “Who Owns Intelligence” show, That Was The Week publisher Keith Teare has used AI to write an entire book entitled, surprise surprise, Who Owns Intelligence. No wonder, as Keith's editorial this week puts it, AI has its enemies. These enemies, Keith insists — riffing off Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies — are mostly “good people.” They are the authors, workers, and others caught in the headlights of epochal technological change. He claims to have seen the pattern before. When he opened the world's first Internet cafe in 1994, the BBC only wanted to ask him about online porn. But some enemies are less well meaning than others. Congress is considering a kill switch bill — let's call it the Kill Bill — which is backed by the frontier companies like Anthropic and OpenAI cynically seeking to set their current market dominance in stone. So might the answer be Chinese style “open source” AI as requested this week in an open letter by NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang? Keith's answer is deliciously ironic. Denied walls of NVIDIA GPUs, Chinese labs learned to train cheaply by inference — distilling American frontier models through their own public interfaces. So Huang's support for open source AI might end up shooting NVIDIA in their most sensitive parts — their chips. And what about the state — can it protect all those “good people” from the oncoming AI locomotive of history? No. Not according to Keith, at least. State regulators like Lina Khan treat consumers as children, Keith (himself the parent of three boys) says. Besides, government simply can't keep up with the speed of technological change. So, for example, when OpenAI's models hacked Hugging Face in a lab test this week, the company caught, stopped, and reported it faster than any regulator could. As for inequality, the answer isn't nationalization but ownership on the model of Keith's Norway-style human wealth fund. For more, read his new book Who Owns Intelligence. We ended on an uncharacteristically French post-structuralist note. My interview of the week was Emily Eakin, author of The Frenchmen, her very personal history of French theorists like Michel Foucault and the two Jacques, Derrida & Lacan. It was Foucault, who — at the end of his 1966 book The Order of Things — predicted that man would be erased, AI style, like a face drawn in sand at the edge of the sea. But Keith isn't in this bleak Foucaultian camp. His book, written with AI in under a week, he says, is a realization of his individual self, not an alienation from it. The end or beginning of man? Maybe I got it wrong earlier. Welcome to episode 1984 of the show. Five Takeaways •       A Book in a Week. Inspired by last week's conversation, Keith used AI to write Who Owns Intelligence in seven days — the case for a “human wealth fund” seeded by the AI companies' own stock, global on day one and non-governmental, with Norway and Alaska as partial precedents. AI, he insists, is a tool, not an author: “AI would never have been able to start, never mind finish a book without me.” The detection farce cuts his way — Substack's new AI detector rated his 100% human editorial as 100% AI, and universities are quietly canceling their AI-detection contracts because the tools simply don't work.•       The Kill Bill and the Ladder-Kickers. Congress is considering a bill that would let government switch AI off — and, paradoxically, the AI companies are in favor. Keith's reading: regulation is a competitive strategy. Dario Amodei — “he's an entrepreneur, he's devious, he strategizes” — is the most sincere in wanting rules that would lock out open source competition — and Anthropic's $1.5 billion book settlement this week suggests the moat is expensive to maintain; Sam Altman zigzags; Musk, in this context at least, is one of the good guys. The genuine enemies of AI, meanwhile, are mostly good people: authors and workers frightened by the scale of change, just as the BBC in 1994 could only ask the founder of the world's first Internet cafe about porn and addiction.•       Why the Good Open Source AI Is Chinese. The week's uncomfortable question: where is the American open source AI? Keith's answer is structural. Denied walls of NVIDIA GPUs by export controls, Chinese labs were forced to train cheaply by inference — asking American frontier models millions of questions through public interfaces and learning from the answers. The result: world-class open models built, in effect, on distilled Anthropic and OpenAI. NVIDIA's much-signed open letter supporting open source, Keith notes, translates simply: more customers.•       The State Can't Keep Up. Lina Khan's consumer protection, in Keith's telling, is parental — treating consumers as children — and government-owned AI would be obsolete within three months of purchase. The counter-example happened this week: when OpenAI's de-railed models hacked Hugging Face in a lab test, the company caught, stopped, and reported it faster than any regulator could. The companies are the right point of control, held to a high standard. Matthew Yglesias adds nuance on the data center backlash — local micro-politics is not the same thing as the statewide bans coming almost entirely from Democratic states — and the American university, still metering intelligence at $80,000 a year, looks to Keith like a business model past its sell-by date.•       The End of Man — or the Beginning? Andrew's interview of the week was Emily Eakin on the Frenchmen — and Foucault's 1966 prophecy that man would be erased like a face drawn in sand at the edge of the sea, a prediction Eakin thinks the AI age is realizing. Keith takes the opposite view: the postmodernists grasped the rise of the individual (consider the Pantone color system) but gave him no society to live in. AI, far from erasing the individual, lets him realize himself — the week-old book is “a realization of my individual self, not an alienation of it.” Could Popper have written The Open Society in an hour? Before the car, nobody drove Manchester to London in two and a half hours either. About Keith Teare Keith Teare is Andrew's weekly co-host and the publisher of the That Was The Week tech newsletter. A four-decade veteran of the technology industry, he opened Cyberia — the world's first Internet cafe — in London in 1994, co-founded Easynet and TechCrunch, and is today the founder and CEO of SignalRank Corporation in Palo Alto. His latest — unpublished, so far — book is Who Owns Intelligence, written with AI in a week. References: •       “AI and Its Enemies: Who Needs a Kill Switch?” — Keith's editorial in this week's That Was The Week.•       

“Theory said, it doesn't matter what you've read. It's how you read.” — Emily Eakin on the seduction of the FrenchmenWhen I was a graduate student at Berkeley in the Eighties, there was a bewildering rage for Frenchmen. Foucault in history, Derrida in literature, Althusser in political philosophy, Lacan in psychology. Not that anybody could quite explain what any of them meant — which only made their ideas even more compelling. It was the seduction of the American mind, especially its elite campus version. Innocent times with forty years of hindsight.Emily Eakin caught this Eighties fever for French theory at Harvard. Now an editor at the New York Times Book Review, Eakin has written The Frenchmen, or My Life in Theory, which is both a confessional of her own seduction and a serious piece of intellectual history.A self-described farm girl from Indiana — albeit one whose Francophile parents once left her waiting at a Paris nursery school because a Lévi-Strauss lecture went overtime — she fell for theory as the intellectual equivalent of a little black dress. It looked expensive, even off the rack, she confesses. For a middle-class Midwesterner, it seemed like a passport to Left-Bank sophistication. All you needed was the jargon, the black clothes and, in Eakin's case, the opera gloves.But her Frenchmen, Eakin warns, turned out to be a slippery bunch. Lacan was so difficult that professors cancelled their own classes rather than teach him. Althusser murdered his wife. Foucault's histories were as much fiction as fact. Not even Derrida took Derrida seriously. These were the men undoing the “master narratives” while an enthralled generation of cross-legged young feminists in their little black dresses took notes.And yet Eakin's Frenchmen may have the last laugh. Their theory of language — an impersonal system requiring no human at its center — presciently describes today's AI revolution. Foucault predicted that “man” would be erased like a face drawn in sand on the beach. Forty years on, that tide may be engulfing us all.Five Takeaways•       The Little Black Dress of the Mind. Eakin grew up in a family of Francophiles — one of her earliest memories is her mother arriving late to the Paris maternelle because Claude Lévi-Strauss's lecture had run over — and arrived at Harvard as a middle-class kid from a middling Midwestern high school, painfully aware of the gaps in her education. Theory offered the shortcut: it didn't matter what you'd read, only how you read. The cliché about the little black dress is that it looks expensive even bought on sale off the rack at Macy's, and theory, Eakin says, was its intellectual equivalent. It was also, frankly, sexy — young professors in jeans lecturing on the masturbation of the comma in Henry James, as Lorrie Moore's barely-parodic parody had it, and students dressed in black. Eakin went as far as the opera gloves.•       System Replaces the Self. After the war, Sartre's existentialism made every accurate thought an authentic act of resistance — a heroic message for a France humiliated by four years of Nazi occupation. But the postwar world was not being changed by individual actors, and Lévi-Strauss dismissed the whole business in Tristes Tropiques as “shop girl metaphysics.” Around the time the Berlin Wall went up, Althusser routed Sartre at the École Normale, and a new philosophy took hold, obsessed with vast impersonal forces: not humans controlling events but a structure — with language at its center. The moment that fascinated Eakin is that sixties moment when system replaced the self.•       Difficult by Design — and Easy to Distort. A colleague of Eakin's at the Times was once assigned Lacan's lecture on The Purloined Letter; a few minutes into class, the professor cancelled it, admitting he didn't understand the text he had assigned. That is the level of difficulty in question. Underedited and self-indulgent, Eakin the editor concedes — but each Frenchman left behind one bold idea worth the struggle, like Lacan's mirror stage, in which identity is formed outside ourselves in an act of misrecognition. The difficulty carried a price: it made the work easy to parody, and conservative pundits handed the public a distorted picture. The Frenchmen never said truth doesn't exist, Eakin insists. Their message was to beware political claims masquerading as eternal truths.•       Slippery Politics, Awkward Pasts. Foucault, insecure about his thinning hair, shaved his head, ditched the suits, and by 1970 was in the streets with a megaphone defending prisoners, immigrants, and workers — and he was in San Francisco at the start of the AIDS catastrophe, which is reason to take his politics seriously. Derrida was temperamentally otherwise: nothing follows from deconstruction, as Stanley Fish put it, and the moment of silence his classmates held for Stalin at the École Normale was a bit much for him. The posthumous exposure of de Man's collaborationist journalism hastened theory's American demise. And there was the paradox Eakin only saw while writing the book: men undoing the master narratives, and a generation of feminists — herself included — enthralled to them. De Beauvoir was the indomitable exception, awarded second place in the agrégation by jurors who could barely decide between her and Sartre.•       The Frenchmen's Revenge: AI. When the chatbots got good, American linguistics went into a tailspin: Chomsky's account of language as a uniquely human, embodied endowment cannot explain a machine producing sophisticated sentences. The structuralists' theory — language as an impersonal system in which meaning derives from how words differ from one another — describes generative AI rather well, and scholars such as NYU's Leif Weatherby are now calling for a structuralist revival to understand it. De Man called language a machine; Foucault wrote of the proliferation of authorless discourse; Eakin's recent New York Times essay argues Foucault foresaw everything from AI to the deep state. The Frenchmen, she thinks, would be fascinated rather than appalled — and would remind us to be just as wary of AI's language as of anyone else's.About the GuestEmily Eakin is an editor at The New York Times Book Review. She has worked as a senior editor at The New Yorker, an ideas reporter for The New York Times, a fashion features writer at Vogue, and a deputy editor of Lingua Franca. Her features, essays, and reviews have appeared in The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, The New Republic, and The New York Review of Books. A Harvard graduate with graduate degrees from Columbia and the École Normale Supérieure in Paris, she lives in New York City. Her first book is The Frenchmen, or My Life in Theory (Penguin Press, July 2026).References:•       The Frenchmen, or My Life in Theory by Emily Eakin (Penguin Press, July 2...

AHRC Classes are enrolling now: https://www.acidhorizonpodcast.com/ahrc-coursesCan a theory be so complete, so magistral, that it is dead on arrival?That's the charge Baudrillard levels at Foucault in 'Forget Foucault', the 1977 book review that got him blacklisted from French theory and earned him the title "shame of the profession" from Deleuze. Cooper Cherry of Machinic Unconscious Happy Hour joins us to work through reversibility, seduction, the potlatch, and what Baudrillard thinks theory should actually be doing. We get into power, seduction, enucleation, courtly love, yearning versus craving, and Baudrillard's theory of fascism.Listen to Machinic Unconscious Happy Hour: https://www.patreon.com/c/muhh/hometwitter: @unconscioushhSupport the showSupport the podcast:AHRCCurrent classes at Acid Horizon Research Commons (AHRC): acidhorizonresearchcommons.comAHRC Course Archive: https://www.acidhorizonpodcast.com/ahrc-course-archivesSubmit your course proposal: acidhorizonresearchcommons@gmail.comMore LinksWebsite: https://www.acidhorizonpodcast.com/Linktree: https://linktr.ee/acidhorizonAcid Horizon on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/acidhorizonpodcastBoycott Watkins Media: https://xenogothic.com/2025/03/17/boycott-watkins-statement/Subscribe to us on your favorite podcast: https://pod.link/1512615438Merch: http://www.crit-drip.comSubscribe to us on your favorite podcast platform: https://pod.link/1512615438LEPHT HAND: https://www.patreon.com/LEPHTHANDHappy Hour at Hippel's (Adam's blog): https://happyhourathippels.wordpress.com​Split Infinities (Craig's Substack): https://splitinfinities.substack.com/​Music: https://sereptie.bandcamp.com/ and https://thecominginsurrection.bandcamp.com/

Foucault. Derrida. Lyotard. Three French philosophers walk into a cafe — and forty years later, American universities can't define what a woman is.In this episode, Pigweed and Crowhill dig into a viral French mea culpa: an apology, on behalf of France, for exporting postmodernism to the world. They trace the direct line from French theory's core claim — that truth is just a mask for power — through Judith Butler, Edward Said, and Kimberlé Crenshaw, and into today's language of oppressor/oppressed, meritocracy-as-racism, and "words are violence."Topics covered:* Why civilization rests on three pillars — truth, morality, and inherited tradition — and how French theory tried to dynamite all three* The difference between what Foucault et al. probably meant and what their disciples did with it* Why "everything is a power struggle" is really just Marxism with race swapped in for class* The philosophical case against relativism (and why no one actually lives like a true relativist)* Fragmentation, diversity, and the postmodern seduction of "there is no truth, only narrative"* Why a civilization that's only trained to deconstruct forgets how to buildPlus: a four-year-old bottle of Flying Dog Double Dog Triple IPA that's mellowed into something closer to a barleywine — tasting notes, aging thoughts, and whether it's worth the cellar space.#Postmodernism #Foucault #WesternCivilization #Philosophy #CraftBeer #IPA #BeerReview #PoliticalPhilosophy #CultureWar #Podcast

“If you can only explain the arguments of the other side because they're mad or dangerous or dumb, the problem is with you.” — Turi Munthe On yesterday's show, the psychiatrist Sally Satel described how Americans imagine their own mental condition differently, depending on their politics and age. Which is a nice segue for today's conversation with the Anglo-French journalist turned media entrepreneur Turi Munthe. It's not just in our mental health self-evaluation, Munthe argues, that we hallucinate reality. Indeed, the French born Munthe often sounds like one of his post-structuralist compatriots in his defiantly slippery notion of ontological reality. In Why We Think What We Think: The Unexpected Origins of Our Deepest Beliefs, Munthe argues that our deepest convictions turn out to be shaped by genetics, brain shape and sometimes even by the agricultural legacy of our distant ancestors. Left and right thinkers, Munthe argues, are different political phenotypes — each hallucinating their own version of reality. Total relativism, then — the full French post-structuralist monty? Not quite. Here's where Munthe's Englishness kicks in. Following the Anglo-Russian philosopher Isaiah Berlin, Munthe insists pluralism and relativism are different. So Turi Munthe doesn't just think what he thinks because of his English or French origins. Borrowing from the cognitive scientists Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier, Munthe defines thinking as a “contact sport”. So, for example, believing that the 2020 election was stolen is what Munthe calls a social commitment, because humans would rather be wrong together than right alone. Speaking of convenient segues, Munthe's thoughts on thinking set the scene for next Tuesday's conversation with Emily Eakin, author of The Frenchmen. It's her history of seductive post-structuralists like Foucault, Derrida and Lacan who corrupted a whole generation of literary American Ivy Leaguers (including Eakin) into hallucinating reality. Five Takeaways •       Pluralism Is Not Relativism. Munthe opens with Isaiah Berlin's distinction: registering the sincerity and value of opinions across the political, religious, and ethical spectrum does not relativize truth. That Charles Windsor is King of the United Kingdom is a statement of fact; whether you're a monarchist or a republican is where opinion begins. The book confines itself to the second category — beliefs, values, and opinions that cannot be factually proven — and asks what the nonrational influences on them actually are. The answer is humbling: genetics account for perhaps half of political persuasion, and the rest is shaped by everything from brain anatomy to the agriculture of our ancestors. •       Different Political Phenotypes. At the margins, left and right differ neurologically: right-leaners are on average more readily startled by loud noises and more attentive to threat, while left-leaners carry a slightly larger anterior cingulate cortex — the brain region where we process ambiguity and split hairs. That anatomy, Munthe argues, explains the ideological capture of academia and media better than any conspiracy: hair-splitters go where the hair-splitting is, and a conservative 22-year-old doesn't volunteer for a newsroom where 80% of colleagues think differently. We are, in his phrase, different political phenotypes, each hallucinating a different version of reality. •       Thinking as a Contact Sport. Drawing on Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier's research, Munthe argues that reason didn't evolve for solitary contemplation — Rodin's Thinker is the wrong image — but for argument: to convince you to hunt the buffalo with me, I need reasons that look objective to you too. The evidence is everywhere, from the most impactful academic papers being written by pairs and groups to the creative density of small university towns. The implication is political: the people we disagree with are not obstacles to good thinking but the condition of it — the loyal opposition that helps us get out of ourselves. •       Wrong Together Rather Than Right Alone. Munthe's reading of January 6 and the stolen-election faith is social rather than psychiatric: an enormous number of our beliefs matter more for what they do than for what they say, and professing them is a commitment to a group. From an evolutionary perspective, believing what your village believes — even about the god who is a giant rock at the end of the field — is intelligent, because the ostracized lose the protection of the group. The terrifying data point is the marriage test: in the 1950s, around 4% of families would have objected to a child marrying across party lines; today it approaches 45%. That is affective polarization, and it can pull societies apart. •       The Problem Is With You. Munthe spent his twenties unable to fathom American gun rights — supporters had to be bought, dumb, or morally corrupt — until he did the work and found a tradition he now calls beautiful and heroic, whether or not he shares it. His rule of thumb: if you can only explain the other side's arguments as madness, danger, or stupidity, the problem is with you. This is not centrism — there was no middle ground on slavery or the Holocaust — but a defense of the clash itself: societies need the left to fix inequality and the right to defend the village, and we think best when the two are, in his words, continually bashed against each other. About the Guest Turi Munthe is a journalist and policy analyst turned media entrepreneur. He founded Demotix, which became the largest network of photojournalists in the world before its sale to Corbis in 2012, and Parlia, an encyclopedia of opinion. He has written for The Economist, The Guardian, the TLS, The Nation, and The Spectator, has sat on the boards of Index on Censorship, openDemocracy, and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, and is a board member of the Italian media group GEDI, publisher of La Repubblica and La Stampa. He studied Arabic and History at Oxford. Why We Think What We Think: The Unexpected Origins of Our Deepest Beliefs (Penguin/Hutchinson Heinemann) is out now in the UK, with US publication early next year. References: •       Why We Think What We Think: The Unexpected Origins of Our Deepest Beliefs by Turi Munthe (Penguin/Hutchinson Heinemann, 2026). Timothy Garton Ash: “Thinking is a contact sport.” •       Isaiah Berlin — the Anglo-Russian philosopher whose insistence that pluralism and relativism are not the same thing frames the whole book. •       Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier...

The standard narrative is that policing and imprisonment are necessary tools to keep the public safe from criminals. But it also would seem that these things are useful tools for a state that wishes to dominate its citizens.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/foucault-panopticism-and-carceral-society-rise-surveillance-state

The standard narrative is that policing and imprisonment are necessary tools to keep the public safe from criminals. But it also would seem that these things are useful tools for a state that wishes to dominate its citizens.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/foucault-panopticism-and-carceral-society-rise-surveillance-state

durée : 00:22:26 - Avec philosophie - Comment gouverne-t-on par la vérité ? En 1980, dans son cours "Du Gouvernement des vivants", Michel Foucault explore les formes d'adhésion et de contrainte par lesquelles les sujets sont amenés à reconnaître le vrai et à dire vrai sur eux-mêmes. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

durée : 00:22:39 - Avec philosophie - Pour ce dernier épisode, Michel Foucault analyse en 1984 le procès et la mort de Socrate, qu'il interprète comme l'épreuve ultime du dire-vrai face au pouvoir, y compris dans un régime démocratique. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

durée : 00:21:37 - Avec philosophie - Dans son dernier cours au Collège de France en 1984, Michel Foucault explore le cynisme antique, où la vérité ne se dit pas seulement, mais s'éprouve dans une manière de vivre qui rompt avec les conventions. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

durée : 00:22:26 - Avec philosophie - Dans ses derniers cours, Michel Foucault s'intéresse à la "parrêsia", ce dire-vrai adressé au pouvoir qui engage celui qui parle au point de mettre sa vie en jeu. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

durée : 00:21:25 - Avec philosophie - Quel rapport le philosophe doit-il entretenir avec son temps ? En 1983, Michel Foucault relit Kant pour penser une philosophie attentive au présent et fondée sur l'exercice de la critique. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

durée : 00:22:10 - Avec philosophie - Face au célèbre "Connais-toi toi-même", Michel Foucault met en lumière une autre exigence de la philosophie antique : le souci de soi, entendu comme un travail de transformation de soi tout au long de la vie. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

durée : 00:21:54 - Avec philosophie - D'où viennent les normes qui encadrent la sexualité ? En 1981, Michel Foucault en retrace les origines antiques et montre comment elles participent à la formation des sujets. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

durée : 00:22:35 - Avec philosophie - Penser l'État autrement que comme une entité centrale : c'est la démarche proposée par Michel Foucault en 1979, lorsqu'il examine la rationalité libérale et ses effets sur les manières de gouverner. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

durée : 00:21:55 - Avec philosophie - Comment l'économie en est-elle venue à définir notre manière d'être au monde ? Avec le néolibéralisme, l'individu est désormais pensé comme un acteur rationnel, appelé à gérer sa vie comme un capital. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

durée : 00:21:25 - Avec philosophie - D'où vient l'idée de gouverner les hommes comme un troupeau ? Dans un cours intitulé "Sécurité, territoire, population", donné en 1978, Michel Foucault remonte aux origines du pouvoir pastoral pour éclairer une forme essentielle de la gouvernementalité moderne. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

durée : 00:21:14 - Avec philosophie - À partir du XVIIIᵉ siècle, la politique ne se pense plus seulement à partir du souverain, mais d'un nouvel objet : la population. Michel Foucault en analyse les implications dans un cours intitulé “Sécurité, territoire, population” et donné en 1978 au Collège de France. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

durée : 00:22:30 - Avec philosophie - Comment le pouvoir en est-il venu à s'exercer sur la vie elle-même ? Dans “Il faut défendre la société”, cours donné au Collège de France en 1976, Michel Foucault met au jour une transformation majeure : l'émergence du biopouvoir. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

durée : 00:22:23 - Avec philosophie - Et si le racisme trouvait son origine dans une lecture guerrière de l'histoire ? Au Collège de France, Michel Foucault explore cette hypothèse dans un cours intitulé “Il faut défendre la société”, en repensant le pouvoir à partir des rapports de domination. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

durée : 00:21:47 - Avec philosophie - Comment se construit la figure de “l'anormal”, au croisement de la justice et de la psychiatrie ? Dans son cours “Les Anormaux” donné au Collège de France, Michel Foucault analyse l'émergence d'une catégorie décisive pour comprendre le pouvoir de juger. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

durée : 00:22:32 - Avec philosophie - Que se joue-t-il lorsque la psychiatrie entre dans le prétoire ? Au Collège de France, dans son cours “Les Anormaux”, Michel Foucault montre comment l'expertise psychiatrique participe pleinement à l'acte de juger. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

durée : 00:21:23 - Avec philosophie - Au XIXᵉ siècle, la psychiatrie ne se contente pas de soigner : elle fait exister la folie. Dans ce cours de Michel Foucault restauré par France Culture, le philosophe développe une analyse décisive des origines du pouvoir psychiatrique. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

A literatura indígena no Brasil passou por diversas fases e batalhou contra o apagamento em todas elas. Dos primeiros encontros com os jesuítas, que tentaram impor as regras de gramática e de assentamentos importadas da Europa, ao crescimento das publicações editorais de autoria indígena que vemos hoje. Nesse episódio, Mayra Trinca e Lívia Mendes contam mais dessa história a partir de entrevistas com a pesquisadora Carolina Rodrigues, da Unicamp, e com a escritora Trudruá Dorrico. Você vai conhecer mais sobre as primeiras gramáticas, a importância da oralidade para a literatura indígena e a relação disso tudo com a política (no passado e no presente). ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ROTEIRO TRUDRUÁ: Cara, o Brasil é tão indígena e ele nem se dá conta assim, sabe? Do quanto ele é indígena. MAYRA: No episódio de hoje, a gente vai falar sobre a importância da escrita pra história do movimento indígena no Brasil.  TRUDRUÁ: Eu entendo assim que a presença indígena nesses espaços literários, é o que faz a nossa literatura ser interessante hoje. Faz deslocar um pouco os homens brancos, jornalistas do Rio – São Paulo, assim, numa produção completamente egocêntrica. LÍVIA: E sobre como isso ganha ainda mais relevância diante de um histórico de apagamentos.  CAROLINA: Que algo escrito nem sempre é um texto. Quem lê nem sempre é um leitor. E quem escreve nem sempre é um autor. MAYRA: Isso porque o ato de escrever foi, e talvez ainda seja, uma das ferramentas mais usadas pra hierarquização social. E aí, ao longo da história, isso deixou marcas que revelam muito do que a gente pensa e entende como autoria de povos indígenas no Brasil.  TRUDRUÁ: A autoria coletiva indígena, ela sempre existiu. O problema é que ela foi descaracterizada por conta da história de apropriação dos povos indígenas ao Estado-nação Brasil. LÍVIA: Pra entender essas questões, conversamos com a escritora e pesquisadora Trudruá Dorrico, do povo Macuxi, e com a linguista Carolina Rodríguez.  MAYRA: Eu sou a Mayra Trinca, bióloga e comunicadora de ciência e você já me conhece aqui do Oxigênio.  LÍVIA: E eu sou a Lívia Mendes, linguista e especialista em jornalismo científico, e também já apareci algumas vezes por aqui. [VINHETA] CAROLINA: Eu sou pesquisadora do Laboratório de Estudos Urbanos, o Labeurb, que pertence ao Núcleo de Criatividade da Unicamp e sou também professora no departamento de Linguística do Instituto de Estudos da Linguagem, o IEL, também da Unicamp. É, a minha formação inicial é em letras, mas eu me especializei em linguística. Fiz o doutorado, pós-doutorado, especificamente nas áreas de análise do discurso, história das ideias linguísticas e saber urbano e linguagem. LÍVIA: Essa que você ouviu é a Carolina. Nos últimos anos,  ela têm se dedicado a pesquisar a língua Guarani e as relações dessa língua com a atuação dos jesuítas na região que era a província do Paraguai.  CAROLINA: Que não deve ser confundida com a província civil do Paraguai, né? Porque a província jesuítica ocupava todo o sul do Brasil, Argentina, parte da Bolívia, enfim. MAYRA: O Guarani era a língua falada pelos povos indígenas da região e que teve seus primeiros registros escritos feitos por esses jesuítas.  CAROLINA: O espaço em que surge a escrita em Guarani vai determinar, a finalidade com que é introduzida a escrita nessa língua, vai determinar a relação entre escrita e oralidade, né? Vai determinar o que que é um texto, o que que é ler, o que é escrever em Guarani. LÍVIA: Os jesuítas chegaram na região por volta de 1580 e se instalaram ali, fundando a tal província. Esses missionários, tinham como tarefa estudar a língua local. CAROLINA: A finalidade principal, né, desse trabalho linguístico era se comunicar com os indígenas no dia a dia, aprender a língua, né? Que os missionários estrangeiros pudessem aprender a língua para se comunicar com os indígenas e para catequizar. A questão principal não é o cultivo da língua como bem cultural. Isso pode até ter um resquício, mas não é esse o objetivo principal. MAYRA: Essa lógica por trás do estudo do Guarani fez com que a escrita e a gramática utilizada para essa língua fosse bem diferente de outras línguas. Enquanto as línguas europeias tiveram sua escrita elaborada e rebuscada como uma forma de enriquecimento cultural, a escrita das línguas indígenas era muito mais pragmática, usada apenas como instrumento para ensinar outros jesuítas.  LÍVIA: Ainda assim, a Carolina conta que as primeiras gramáticas, as primeiras organizações e regras linguísticas do mundo surgiram todas meio que juntas.  CAROLINA: É interessante isso porque muitas vezes a gente pensa que “ah, as gramáticas europeias foram feitas primeiro e as línguas ameríndias, por exemplo, depois e não. Então, a diferença entre uma gramática, a primeira gramática em francês, do francês, tem dois, três, quatro anos de diferença com a primeira gramática do Nahuatl, no México, por exemplo. [começa trilha] LÍVIA: Só que nesse momento, na Europa, durante o Renascimento, as gramáticas estavam surgindo pra organizar e padronizar as línguas que representariam os Estados-nação, como o francês, o português e o espanhol. Era preciso reduzir as variações dos dialetos, fixar regras linguísticas, para dar uma ideia de unidade praquele território. MAYRA: Gramatizar uma língua, assim como escrever essa língua , é importante para consolidar regras gramaticais e fazer com que ela mude mais devagar. Por isso as gramáticas surgem com a formação dos Estados, porque conforme as nações hegemônicas iam colonizando diversas partes do mundo, levavam também consigo o processo de gramatização das outras línguas. CAROLINA: Então, essa associação, né, língua cidade através da ideia do movimento, da fixação, eles tinham que fixar a língua pela escrita e fixar os indígenas em povoados, não é? Para que, como dizia o Manuel da Nóbrega, o padre jesuíta, era preciso fazer com que ficassem quietos, né? E não se movessem o tempo todo. Ele reclamava que o trabalho da catequese era jogado fora, porque eles se mudam o tempo todo. LÍVIA: De novo a gente percebe aí a linguagem sendo usada como uma forma de dominação desses povos. O estudo da língua Guarani não estava a serviço dos povos indígenas e sim dos colonizadores. Mesmo que eles começassem a dominar a escrita de sua língua, isso não significava que eles iriam conseguir realmente se apropriar política e culturalmente dessa ferramenta.  CAROLINA: A cultura é imposta como modelo, ao mesmo tempo que se impede o acesso integral a esse modelo. Porque senão a desculpa para subordinação desaparece, não é? [sobe som e encerra música] MAYRA: E a Carolina encontrou, em alguns textos da época, exemplos que mostram isso muito bem. Ela me deu o exemplo de vários textos religiosos, que eram escritos em Guarani, mas que não eram lidos pelos indígenas.  CAROLINA: Porque esses textos traduzidos em Guarani, é, se destinavam aos missionários, não eram dados para a leitura dos indígenas, que eram mantidos a maior, maiormente não alfabetizados, não é? Era porque os missionários soubessem, é, aprendessem e pudessem transmitir oralmente aos indígenas. Então, na verdade, o destinatário do conteúdo do texto, né? Da mensagem religiosa, era o indígena, que não era o leitor do texto, né? Então era não era um público leitor, era um público ouvinte, era um auditório, porque quem lia era o missionário. LÍVIA: Ela também identificou o mesmo deslocamento da função do autor desse texto. Um dos exemplos mais didáticos é de um indígena chamado Nicolas Yapuguay, que publicou dois volumes de sermões bíblicos escritos em Guarani, só que sob direção de um missionário.  CAROLINA: Então, o que significa sob a direção? Significa que a responsabilidade é do missionário. Bom, aí já temos uma dica, não é? Mas o prefácio é fantástico. Eu acho que Foucault leu esse prefácio para definir a função autor, né? Porque quem faz o prefácio ao livro é Paulo Restivo, o missionário. Até aí tudo bem, a gente pode fazer o prefácio de outro livro, né? Mas o que é interessante é que todos os “eus”, as primeiras pessoas, é o missionário que assume. Então, assim, ele chama o leitor de meu leitor, as doutrinas que eu te ofereço.  MAYRA: Isso mostra pra gente que apresentar o Nicolas Yapuguay como autor era quase como um disfarce, um fingimento. Que ele estava ali pra que os missionários pudessem dizer que havia uma participação indígena, mas que não tinha liberdade de decidir o que ou como escrever.  [começa trilha] TRUDRUÁ: Nesse processo de de entender um pouco a escrita e os povos indígenas, eu queria dizer assim que a escrita, essa escrita assim, ai, de escrever o nome, de escrever um poema, de escrever um livro ou de aprender a escrever alguma coisa que é importante assim no dia a dia, não é dessa escrita que nós estamos falando, quando a gente fala assim, ai, dos povos indígenas conseguirem escrever e serem uma sociedade desenvolvida. A gente está falando de um sistema de escrita que cria documentos, que cria cartórios, que cria notários, que cria é, que cria uma legislação para validar, por exemplo, um processo de expropriação territorial. [sobe som e encerra música]  LÍVIA: Essa que você acabou de ouvir é a Trudruá Dorrico.  TRUDRUÁ: Eu sou indígena Macuxi. O povo Macuxi tá no estado de Roraima. Eu sou escritora, essa é uma parte que eu atuo, no âmbito da literatura e eu também sou pesquisadora de literatura indígena e essa é a segunda parte assim da minha atuação no âmbito da pesquisa. MAYRA: Eu conheci o trabalho da Trudruá num grupo de leitura que eu faço parte. A gente leu “Originárias: Uma antologia feminina de literatura indígena”, que é uma coletânea organizada por ela, mas com histórias de diversas autoras de diferentes povos. Ela faz parte de um movimento contemporâneo de autores indígenas, como Daniel Munduruku, Ailton Krenak, Eliane Potiguara, Geni Nuñez e por aí vai.  LÍVIA: A literatura indígena passou por diferentes fases no Brasil. Ela começou muito antes da chegada dos jesuítas, com a cultura oral, ainda sem registros escritos. Essa primeira fase, estruturada na oralidade, ainda  é muito pouco aceita como literatura. Vamos falar disso um pouco mais pra frente, continua por aqui pra entender.  MAYRA: Então, os registros dos jesuítas formam uma segunda fase, com os primeiros textos escritos, como a gente viu, mas não exatamente respeitando a cultura indígena.  LÍVIA: Depois, a gente teve, durante o modernismo, lá da semana de 22, autores como Mário de Andrade, autor de Macunaíma, por exemplo, se apropriaram de histórias indígenas naquela onda da antropofagia e ficaram famosos por isso.  TRUDRUÁ: O José de Alencar, Mário de Andrade e Oswaldo de Andrade fizeram carreira sobre com o nacionalismo indígena. Então, é uma terceira fase que a gente fala assim: “É, mas agora a gente vai escrever. A gente vai fazer nossas histórias, a nossa literatura com esta identidade, porque esta identidade é um território que o Brasil precisa reconhecer, que tudo o que diz respeito a nós tem valor e tem alguém ali para reivindicar dizendo assim: “Ó, você não vai falar de nós de qualquer jeito, como se a gente fosse nada ou como vocês estavam acostumados a tratar a gente”. Eu acho que é por isso que talvez esse identitarismo ameace, né? Porque essa pessoa não tá pronta ainda, ela tá muito mais na defesa de: “Ai, nossa, vai me podar, de pesquisar, vai me podar, de escrever, vai me podar, de publicar, vou ser malvista”. Vai mesmo. Vai, vou te dizer com certeza que vai. MAYRA: A Trudruá tá falando aqui de pessoas que falam sobre os povos indígenas ou sobre elementos da cultura indígena como se fossem donas desse saber, ignorando o movimento e a história desses povos. Como livros ou mesmo pesquisas acadêmicas que se apropriam desse conhecimento sem dar os créditos, as referências ou mesmo sem ter representantes indígenas fazendo parte do trabalho.  LÍVIA: Isso porque, como a Trudruá contou na entrevista, esses escritores e pesquisadores sempre viram as práticas indígenas como “sem dono”. O motivo está no fato de que a maioria dos povos indígenas não tinham e ainda, em algumas regiões, continuam não tendo acesso ao domínio da escrita de suas línguas maternas. Por esse motivo não era considerada  a participação do próprio indígena nessas produções. TRUDRUÁ: Eu acho que esse argumento, ele foi utilizado assim por muitos anos, por por décadas, né? Pelos indigenistas e também pelos professores que é que sempre pesquisaram povos indígenas e se tornaram porta-voz desses povos indígenas. E eu acredito assim que é boa fé, o fato é que isso virou uma tradição e essa tradição acabou colocando, né, esses pesquisadores que muito colaboraram, muito ajudaram, não tô nem julgando isso, mas colocou eles assim como paladinos, né? Colocou como representantes de povos indígenas, como uma voz, é, de autoridade, uma voz de tradução entre dois mundos. Traduziu o mundo branco para os indígenas e traduziu o mundo dos indígenas para os brancos. Então, essas pessoas eram as autoridades. MAYRA: É uma ideia que tá muito ligada a noção de que povos que usam a escrita são, de alguma forma, superiores do que sociedades que chamamos àgrafas, ou seja, que transmitem seus conhecimentos exclusivamente por meio da tradição oral, sem ter desenvolvido um sistema próprio de escrita. Eu vou trazer a Carolina aqui de volta pra ajudar a gente a entender isso.  CAROLINA: Olha só, de novo, porque os europeus então gramatizaram as línguas do mundo, instrumentaram as línguas do mundo a partir do modelo que eles tinham usado da gramática grecolatina e também transformaram os espaços do planeta, os territórios a partir do modelo urbano europeu. Então, veja como os processos de gramatização massiva também coincidem com o processo de urbanização, isto é, de transformação das línguas e dos territórios do planeta, né, em direção ao modelo da escrita e da gramática da cidade europeia, não é? LÍVIA: É como se, porque a história da europa seguiu esse caminho, passando da tradição oral pra tradição escrita, do nomadismo para as cidades, todas as sociedades do mundo tivessem que fazer o mesmo percurso.  CAROLINA: Então, esse modelo da escrita, esse modelo da cidade, nesse discurso historiográfico, né? Vai estabelecer uma relação entre espaço e tempo, né? Por quê? Porque as sociedades, cujas formas de vida não produziram esse modelo específico de espaço que é a cidade, né? São jogadas situadas para trás no tempo, são pré-históricas, estão atrasadas, não chegaram lá. Então, há uma temporalidade que vai ser acionada a partir do modelo de espaço, que é produzido a partir de suas tecnologias, entre as quais a escrita, não é? MAYRA: Só que essa é uma visão bem distorcida de como as coisas funcionam. Não é porque a escrita foi necessária pra organização de um modo de vida que ela é essencial em todas as configurações sociais.  LÍVIA: E tem uma questão muito importante aqui. É que essa leitura de mundo não vem sem propósito, “sem querer”. Ela foi moldada pra justificar uma ideia de superioridade.  CAROLINA: Você estar numa sociedade de escrita e não dominar a escrita é uma grande desvantagem. Né? Não ser alfabetizado numa cidade é uma grande desvantagem. A questão é quais são as explicações, né? E como isso acaba sendo ontologizado. É uma característica ontológica dessas sociedades ou desse sujeito, não é? Então, de fato, o que há, é, é o que eu chamei de uma memória da língua marcada pela escrita e uma memória do espaço marcada pelo urbano. Eu explico, né? O que que é memória no sentido discursivo, da análise do discurso. Memória não é lembrança, é o contrário, digamos, ou pelo menos esse tipo de memória discursiva. É aquilo que já foi dito, esquecido e passou a ser do senso comum e faz sentido nas próprias palavras, não é? Então, a gente tem essa memória da escrita, memória da escrita, o que que é? Você imagina a língua, você imagina através da escrita alfabética, não é? Você vê um espaço que não tem cidade, parece um espaço vazio e não tá vazio, né? Por exemplo, uma floresta, o espaço de populações indígenas, não é? MAYRA: É como se houvesse, ainda que de forma inconsciente, uma associação automática entre cidade e progresso, linguagem e “inteligência”. É como dizer que uma pessoa analfabeta não sabe ler porque não quer, ou porque não tem capacidade, e, assim, excluir completamente o papel do Estado, da escola e de outras pessoas no processo de transmitir essa habilidade. A Carolina deu um outro exemplo muito bom de como isso foi manipulado pra fazer povos indígenas parecerem menos capazes do que as pessoas brancas.  CAROLINA: A educação literária, artística, da escultura, da pintura e da música são considerados como o modelo, né, de educação aos indígenas. Mas aí você vai nos povoados e mostram, essa daqui é escultura feita por um indígena, essa aqui para um europeu. E de acordo com esse modelo a feita por um indígena aparece uma caricatura muito simplificada, né? É, então como se apresenta isso, né? Olha, os jesuítas até ensinaram, mas até aí eles conseguiram chegar, mas então esse resultado aquém, de acordo com certo modelo, se apresenta como uma incapacidade lógica, natural dos indígenas. Eles não conseguem se apropriar desse modelo, então tem que se manter como subalternos, né? O que não se diz é que aos indígenas não se ensinava as técnicas de preparatórios para fazer uma escultura que se ensinava aos escultores europeus nas escolas de artesãos europeus. Simplesmente se dava o pedaço de madeira para os artistas e falaram: “Olha, copia aqui” LÍVIA: Se a gente parar pra reparar, a mesma lógica continua até hoje nos discursos meritocráticos, né? É uma ideia de que a habilidade de uma pessoa, seja ela indígena ou não, só depende do seu esforço individual. E assim oculta completamente o papel da sociedade de ensinar as bases necessárias pra isso.  MAYRA: E tem outro ponto interessante aí. Olha como a gente tem todo um referencial do que deveria ser uma sociedade, baseado quase que exclusivamente num único modelo: o europeu. A escultura, a música, o jeito de se vestir, tudo segue as regras estabelecidas na Europa. Só que na maioria das vezes, isso não é colocado em perspectiva, né? É naturalizado, colocado como um processo único pro mundo todo. CAROLINA: Como se isso fosse um, um, um processo inexorável, não é? LIVIA: Quando na verdade a gente devia tá olhando pra isso mais como possibilidades de modos de viver numa diversidade gigante de culturas. Só que é muito natural, por conta da nossa história, a gente achar que o que vem desse padrão europeu é sempre o melhor. CAROLINA: Uma coisa importante, isso não tem a ver com o que a gente acha de melhor ou pior. No sentido de que se você nasce e cresce numa numa sociedade urbana e da escrita, pode achar absurdo não escrever a língua ou não se fixar, mas esse é problema seu, vamos dizer assim, não é? Porque assim, você não é o centro. Não é? Então, não precisa gostar. [trilha sonora] LÍVIA: Até hoje, a escrita tem sido um reflexo disso. Ao longo da idade média, como a escrita tinha praticamente sido sequestrada pela Igreja na Europa, fazendo com que fosse quase exclusiva dos sacerdotes, ela se tornou um símbolo de conhecimento.  MAYRA: Como se um conhecimento só tivesse valor se estiver escrito, aquela ideia de que isso garante que ele será transmitido pro futuro. Isso também explica, voltando no que a gente tava falando antes, porque a primeira fase da literatura indígena, que tava na oralidade, não é considerada.  TRUDRUÁ: Tem muita produção indígena que é uma produção intelectual que esteve no âmbito do imaterial, porque os povos indígenas foram impedidos de desenvolver sua própria escrita e ao mesmo tempo foram impedidos de adotar a escrita alfabética, né? Esse foi um jogo sistemático do Estado para impedir a presença indígena na sociedade brasileira. LÍVIA: Ou então, de forma mais sutil ou até mais perversa, o que era feito era diminuir a identidade indígena de quem escrevia. Uma coisa de “se sabe escrever, então já não é mais indígena”. Um pensamento totalmente relacionado àquela ideia de progresso linear que a gente falou agora pouco, que considera os povos indígenas como se estivessem num estágio cultural anterior e inferior aos dos povos europeus.    TRUDRUÁ: Nesse caso, quando os povos indígenas e os sujeitos indígenas, eles começam a a escrever, a publicar, a romper essa tradição de que tudo que eles têm está na oralidade e quando está na oralidade não pertence a eles, é, eles, né, os primeiros escritores eles vem com essa tradição de dizer: é, não tem autoria porque vocês nunca deixaram, o país nunca deixou, nunca considerou, né, que um indígena que escrevesse, falasse língua portuguesa ou conhecesse os costumes da sociedade dominante pudesse ser considerado indígena. O que eu quero dizer com isso é não não não temos direito à nossa propriedade intelectual, material que tá na oralidade, eh porque eh ao escrever elas não somos mais tão indígenas. MAYRA: Aqui é importante a gente parar e explicar algo com mais calma, porque mesmo pra mim isso não tava bem claro quando comecei a conversar com a Trudruá pra esse episódio.  TRUDRUÁ: Quando você fala de oralidade, eu penso em um sistema, em um dispositivo de memória que é trabalhado assim pelos povos indígenas. Quando você fala de de fala de de voz alta, você tá falando desse oral. né, de uma fala oral. Então são um é sistema de conhecimento, um é prática. Então são diversos, né? TRUDRUÁ: Não podemos entender a oralidade como uma fala, como se ela não tivesse consciência, mas ela tem um sistema todo organizado, é de memória mesmo, assim, que vai de geração em geração e vai ensinando valores e e, e, né, tem uma ciência, né, que a compõe. LÍVIA: Ou seja, quando a gente tiver falando de oralidade aqui, estamos falando de um conjunto de práticas que faz parte de uma tradição de centenas de anos, que foram capazes de fazer permanecer o conhecimento, sem precisar de recursos escritos.  MAYRA: De certa forma, isso permeia o trabalho da Trudruá como escritora hoje. Eu ouvi uma entrevista dela falando sobre o último livro que publicou, o Tempo de Retomada, e como ela tinha o hábito de ler em voz alta pra mãe dela quando tava trabalhando no texto.  TRUDRUÁ: Quando eu penso texto escrito, eu me preocupo muito assim com, é, com uma sofisticação que elas são contadas nessa oralidade. E aí nessa, quando a minha mãe tenta me passar certos valores, eu fico assim impressionada, porque eu realmente me sinto indo para um outro tempo a partir da palavra, eu me sinto viajando assim num outro tempo. E era, e era essa ideia assim de talvez transportar as pessoas para esse tempo que eu nunca sei se eu vou conseguir, ou nunca sei se as pessoas vão se abrir para elas, mas é uma preocupação de que é, talvez o mesmo ritmo ou o mesmo balanço que que eu escuto e que eu sinto, né? MAYRA: Durante a entrevista, eu comentei com a Trudruá como eu tenho percebido um pouco um movimento na literatura de resgatar esse jeito de contar histórias. Como eu falei, eu participo de um clube de leitura e isso é algo que vira e mexe aparece por lá. De como é gostoso ler um livro que você tem a sensação de que a autora tá ali falando mesmo com você.  LIVIA: A Trudruá contou pra gente que, além do contato com as histórias contadas pela mãe, ela também teve, desde sempre, uma ligação muito forte com a literatura. E que os livros sempre tiveram um papel muito importante, não só de companhia, mas de vivência pra ela.  TRUDRUÁ: Eu cresci com a literatura e a literatura me fez viajar por tantos mundos, me faz sonhar, me faz chorar, me faz é, me faz sentir uma magia que de artista, então eu não poderia desejar outra coisa que não, né, viver com a palavra. E aí nesse sentido eu eu também entendo que dá para levar um pouco essa magia nessa escrita literária. E esse era o trabalho assim, de talvez transportar um pouco aquilo que eu sinto quando eu escuto essas histórias. E aí o trabalho, ler em voz alta é importante, assim como ler em silêncio também, mas como eu tenho essa preocupação que a minha comunidade leia, eu também fico pensando assim: “Ai, como que elas podem como que elas vão ler isso, a disposição das frases, desce isso para ir num ritmo tão longo, né? Esse trabalho escrito, prático, de como pode também emular uma certa um certo oral. MAYRA: Uma coisa importante, como dá pra perceber nas falas da Trudruá quando ela tá falando sobre o que espera dos livros dela, é que essa oralidade, tanto a tradição, quanto o hábito de ler em voz alta, tão muito relacionados com o coletivo. E aí entra outro ponto importante. Não é porque um conhecimento é coletivo, que ele é de todo mundo. TRUDRUÁ: Um segmento assim que fica muito evidente no Brasil é o núcleo de folcloristas, o núcleo de estudiosos assim brasileiros que que olham para esses conteúdos, olham para esses materiais, para essas narrativas e entendem ela como uma cultura popular. A cultura popular nesse sentido de que ela é de todo mundo, mas não tem uma autoria específica. E isso é muito conveniente quando você, né, é, consciente ou inconscientemente, você rouba, é, narrativas prontas, narrativas criativas, fantásticas de outros povos para dizer: “Ah, isso faz parte da cultura brasileira no singular” LÍVIA: A Trudruá deu exemplos como o guaraná, a mandioca ou uma série de medicamentos que foram descobertos e desenvolvidos por povos indígenas, mas que nunca foram reconhecidos como autores ou proprietários dessas técnicas.  MAYRA: E que depois, foram coisas incorporadas à cultura brasileira, como se todas as pessoas do país tivessem a mesma relação, a mesma história com esses elementos. E com isso, ignorando que os povos indígenas tiveram um papel fundamental nesse processo. LÍVIA: Lembra que a gente falou sobre como a primeira fase da literatura indígena, aquela da tradição oral, não é reconhecida? Isso porque quando a gente fala de oralidade, é difícil identificar um autor. E essa brecha foi usada pela sociedade brasileira como uma estratégia de incorporar essas histórias numa narrativa nacionalista.  MAYRA: Só que isso, ao invés de valorizar os conhecimentos tradicionais e a individualidade de cada povo, como costuma ser dito por aí, acaba, na verdade, apagando a participação e a autoria dessas pessoas na sua própria história.  [trilha sonora]  TRUDRUÁ: Mas sobre a identidade indígena, vai ser algo que eu nunca vou abrir mão. E eu digo como escritora e eu digo como indígena, porque assim, a história brasileira e a história literária brasileira, tudo que ela quis foi apagar a identidade indígena para se apropriar das nossas narrativas. Quando a gente se coloca com essa identidade, a gente demarca um território simbólico de dizer: “Isso aqui não tá livre. Isso aqui não é terra de ninguém. Isso aqui tem uma autoria coletiva. Tem uma propriedade material que pertence a nós. Não é seu. Não é seu, brasileiro.  LÍVIA: Por isso é tão importante hoje esse movimento de autores indígenas no Brasil. Ele ajuda a retomar uma série de histórias aos seus autores originais, dessa vez com os devidos créditos e com sua própria voz.  TRUDRUÁ: E a autora individual, é essa autoria, que tá no mercado editorial e que vem reforçando, que vem para reforçar os valores, né, dos povos, das comunidades, mas o fato de tá no mercado editorial e circular, ela alcança um outro uma outra visibilidade, inclusive lançando luz a essa autoria coletiva  MAYRA: E aí, obviamente, esse movimento acompanha o posicionamento político dos povos indígenas no Brasil.  TRUDRUÁ: Tem um filósofo, tem um teórico da literatura que se chama Emil’ Keme, ele é do povo Maia Quechua da Guatemala. E ele fala que não é possível separar a teoria literária indígena da política indígena, porque elas caminham juntos. Quando os indígenas eles pegam a escrita para publicar e etc, estudar mesmo, eles entendem a escrita como uma técnica, a língua como uma técnica que vai ser essa transportadora dos desejos da luta do movimento indígena. Então, a gente entende, alinhado a política indígena, a gente entende, uma teoria da literatura que vai seguir as mesmas políticas que os povos indígenas tão tentando em termos de autonomia. Então, a política indígena fala do direito ao nome. Todos os autores indígenas que eu conheço, ou eles adotaram o nome de povo, ou eles adotaram o nome da tradição. Mas se você olha em documentos, eh que não faz, sei lá, 10 anos que tem 20 anos que tem essa política, eles têm nomes brasileiros, nomes e sobrenomes brasileiros por conta da política de que proibia nomes indígenas. Então, isso acompanha também dentro da literatura a política indígena. LÍVIA: Com esse movimento, a gente também tá tendo a oportunidade de conhecer mais da tradição indígena e de ter acesso a cultura de tantos povos indígenas que existem no brasil, aprendendo inclusive as diferenças que existem entre eles.    TRUDRUÁ: Os escritores estão acompanhando as linhas de da política indígena, que é autonomia, soberania, autodeterminação. E é tão falso e isso de que a literatura indígena vai repetindo, vai falando das mesmas coisas, porque os temas indígenas, eles são tão abertos e são tão variados, assim, só fala isso quem nunca leu a literatura indígena. Porque, entrar no mundo da identidade indígena, ela é muito, assim, é um mundo muito amplo. A gente tá falando de uma identidade indígena, mas a gente tá falando de quase 400 povos indígenas, de quase 300 línguas faladas culturalmente, como elas são diversas entre si. Eu acho que quem fala isso nunca nem se aproximou da das culturas indígenas para entender um átimo dessa dimensão que é essa riqueza cultural. MAYRA: E também de pensar como a gente pode tentar se aproximar de outras formas de viver e entender o mundo. No grupo que eu faço parte, sempre que lemos alguma coisa de literatura indígena, a conversa rende muito nesse sentido, em pensar pequenas mudanças que a gente pode tentar trazer pra nossa realidade, inspiradas nessas outras culturas.  TRUDRUÁ: E aí uma das coisas que eu amo, amo na literatura indígena é que não tem nada do amor romântico, mas não tem mesmo assim, sabe? Amo, sabe essa ideia de ai nossa, as mulheres foram abandonadas pelos homens, é, e as mulheres o que que elas fizeram? Ah, elas foram procurar outros maridos. Tchau amor, tchau e benção assim, é completamente, assim vai completamente na contramão do que a gente foi ensinado. De ficar chorando, de ficar se lamentando. [sobe trilha]  LÍVIA: E falando em grupos de leitura, pra encerrar nosso episódio, a Trudruá pediu pra deixar um recadinho pra vocês.  TRUDRUÁ: Eu tenho uma página no Instagram que se chama Leia Mulheres Indígenas. E aí eu tô com uma proposta para 2026 de abrir um clube de leitura do Leia Mulheres Indígenas.  TRUDRUÁ: Como que você vai apreciar melhor essa leitura e essas produções se vocês não sabem, né? De onde que a gente parte, quais são os princípios, quais são os valores. E aí eu tô querendo muito abrir um clube de leitura para 2026, espero que dê certo. E é convidar todo mundo para, sei lá, tá com a gente, abrir o debate, ler, se se encantar ou se desencantar também, tá valendo, né? Tá tudo valendo. MAYRA: Fica aí o convite pra seguir a página e ler mais livros escritos por autoras indígenas. Eu sou a Mayra Trinca, produzi e escrevi esse roteiro, com pitacos e revisão da Lívia Mendes. A edição também é minha.  LÍVIA: Aproveita quando for seguir a Trudruá e procura a gente, somos Oxigênio Podcast em todas as redes sociais. A trilha sonora é do blue dot session e os créditos estão na descrição desse episódio. A vinheta é do Elias Mendez.  MAYRA: O Oxigênio tem apoio da Secretaria Executiva de Comunicação da Unicamp e é coordenado pela Simone Pallone. Obrigada por ouvir, e até a próxima!  Trilhas:  Trailmaker by https://app.sessions.blue/browse?trackId=384027  Thunderpass by https://app.sessions.blue/browse?trackId=385385  Posh and Vine by https://app.sessions.blue/browse?trackId=385621 

In this solo minisode, Sam enters the wilderness of mirrors to unpack Michael Jackson: child star, King of Pop, fairy-tale monster, walking logo, and one of the strangest cultural phenomena of the 20th century. Using Margo Jefferson, Wendy Lesser, Mark Fisher, Foucault, Bakhtin, Peter Pan, The Little Prince, Shirley Temple, Diana Ross, Elizabeth Taylor, Bob Fosse, P.T. Barnum, Neverland Ranch, pork pie hats, patent leather shoes, and white spats, Sam pursues Michael as a figure of inversion: the child who was an adult, the adult who became a child, the Black man who became white, the man who became a woman, the innocent who became the guilty. Along the way, she considers the glamour and horror of child stardom, the maternal diva archive, the carnivalesque body, the freakshow of Wacko Jacko, and why Michael's legacy remains endlessly unresolved.Stargirl's 100th episode, we love you Emma

Tous les jours, retrouvez le meilleur des archives de Laurent Gerra en podcast sur RTL.fr, l'application et toutes vos plateformes.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

durée : 00:59:27 - Les émissions culturelles de France Culture - par : Marie Richeux - Avocat, garde des Sceaux, historien, dramaturge, Robert Badinter fut tout cela à la fois, dialoguant avec Foucault, Camus, Oscar Wilde et Victor Hugo. Le magistrat Denis Salas lui consacre une biographie intellectuelle et retrace le parcours de l'homme à travers ses écrits. - équipe : Jeanne Aléos, Mathilde Wagman, Marianne Chassort, Alexandre Alajbegovic, Cyril Marchan, Vivien Demeyère, Julie Gastal - invités : Denis Salas Magistrat et essayiste Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

The two-part conclusion of season six begins. We're delving into the work of Georges Bataille, with a focus on his book, "On Nietzsche". Bataille is one of the most interesting intellectual nodes of 20th century philosophy. For a long time, his work was obscure in the English-speaking world, often eclipsed by those he influenced, such as Derrida and Foucault. However, among the postmodernists, Bataille takes Nietzsche as his closest companion, and struggles most fiercely with him. On Nietzsche is written during the war years, and is a very strange book that defies categorization. We'll talk about the background of the text, Bataille's life, the secret society Acephale, and the main ideas in Summit and Decline. In the next episode, we'll discuss 1944 diaries with a focus on the philosophical ideas therein.

Dans l'émission du 15 juin 2026, Marc-Antoine Le Bret a imité Philippe Candeloro, Nelson Monfort, Jean-Pierre Foucault ou encore Patrick Bruel ! Retrouvez tous les jours le meilleur des Grosses Têtes en podcast sur RTL.fr et l'application RTL.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

"Le carceri sono come hotel", "servirebbe la pena di morte", "i giudici li rimandano subito a casa". Quante volte abbiamo sentito queste frasi qualunquiste? In questa puntata di Pensiero Stupendo, Matteo Saudino entra dietro le sbarre per smontare i luoghi comuni sulla punizione. Dalla rivoluzione illuminista di CESARE BECCARIA contro tortura e forca, all'analisi inquietante di MICHEL FOUCAULT sul carcere come "macchina per punire l'anima", fino alla sfida abolizionista di ANGELA DAVIS. Un viaggio per capire se il carcere serve a rieducare o è solo uno strumento di controllo sociale e profitto, riscoprendo il senso profondo della GIUSTIZIA RIPARATIVA.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Antik Yunan'dan günümüze uzanan unutulmuş bir kavram: Otium. Eksik Olan programında Alp Kozanoğlu ve Ömer Çeşit, Jean-Miguel Pire'in "Halkın Otiyumu" kitabını değerlendirirken boş zamanın, düşünmenin, felsefenin ve demokrasinin ilişkisini tartışıyor. Programda Antik Yunan'daki Skole kavramından Roma İmparatorluğu'na, Hristiyanlık döneminden kapitalizme, dijital çağdan sosyal medya algoritmalarına kadar uzanan geniş bir tarihsel ve sosyolojik yolculuk yapılıyor. Boş zaman gerçekten kayboldu mu? Yoksa insanın iç dünyası mı boşaldı? Günümüz insanı neden sürekli meşgul ama anlam arayışından uzak? Dijital çağ, dikkat ekonomisi ve sosyal medya bireyin düşünme kapasitesini nasıl etkiliyor? Jean-Miguel Pire'in "Halkın Otiyumu" kitabı üzerinden yapılan bu değerlendirmede; demokrasi, felsefe, eğitim sistemi, kişisel gelişim kültürü, kapitalizm, Foucault, Byung-Chul Han, Max Weber ve modern toplumun krizleri ele alınıyor. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ceci est un épisode Solo et donc une lecture de ma newsletter à laquelle vous pouvez vous abonner juste ici - Je vous invite également à participer à ma cagnotte sur Tipeee, c'est juste là.j'ai beaucoup approché ce sujet sans jamais en parler directement alors dans cet épisode, je parle de l'épuisement systémique, pas de fatigue passagère. J'interroge l'incertitude comme carburant silencieux de notre surcharge cognitive, l'accélération décrite par Hartmut Rosa, la pression financière documentée par Antoine Foucher, le capitalisme de la jouissance analysé par Michel Clouscard, la machine à attention qui se nourrit de notre peur, et l'isolement silencieux de nos grandes villes. J'ai questionné aussi le grand mensonge de la productivité, et ce que Viktor Frankl, Pablo Servigne, Byung Chul Han et Olivier Hamant ont chacun à nous dire sur comment traverser ça sans se noyer. Et je finis par trois directions concrètes, pas des solutions miracles, juste des pas de côté qui permettent de ne pas s'épuiser à nager à contre-courant.Citations marquantes"Notre réponse à l'épuisement est presque toujours la même : on essaie de trouver une méthode pour optimiser. Et c'est là que ça devient pathétique, parce que même ceux qui veulent ralentir adorent une méthode pour le faire rapidement.""L'amygdale ne fait pas vraiment la différence entre 'un lion va me dévorer' et 'je ne sais pas ce qui va se passer dans six mois avec mon boulot, mon loyer, la géopolitique, l'IA ou le prix de l'énergie.' Les deux produisent de l'épuisement.""On n'a jamais été aussi optimisé et pourtant on n'a jamais eu aussi peu de temps.""L'ennui est biologiquement plus proche de l'énergie que de la léthargie. Le vide n'est pas un problème à remplir, c'est une condition nécessaire à la pensée profonde.""L'épuisement que vous ressentez n'est pas une faiblesse. C'est une réponse rationnelle à un système qui n'est pas conçu pour l'humain."Idées centrales 1. L'épuisement est systémique, pas personnel Ce n'est pas parce que vous êtes mal organisé ou pas assez zen. Nous sommes collectivement victimes d'un système qui n'est pas conçu pour l'humain, avec des ressources inégales pour y faire face. L'individualiser, c'est exactement ce que le système veut qu'on fasse. [~03:00]2. Notre cerveau est une machine à prédire coincée dans un monde imprévisible Pendant des millions d'années, l'anticipation était une question de survie. Aujourd'hui, cette même mécanique tourne en surchauffe permanente face à des menaces diffuses et globales qu'elle ne peut ni identifier clairement ni neutraliser. C'est là que commence l'épuisement, bien avant le surmenage. [~06:30]3. Trois accélérations simultanées qui se renforcent Hartmut Rosa distingue l'accélération technique, l'accélération du changement social et l'accélération du rythme de vie lui-même. Nous vivons les trois en même temps, sans jamais avoir le temps de nous adapter à l'une avant que la suivante arrive. [~12:00]4. La productivité vendue comme remède est souvent une cause supplémentaire L'ennui n'est pas de la paresse, c'est une émotion fonctionnelle qui prépare biologiquement le corps à l'action et ouvre la porte à la créativité. Remplir chaque vide par une stimulation externe, c'est se priver de la condition nécessaire à la pensée profonde. [~22:00]5. Le contrat du travail est rompu, et on fait semblant de ne pas le voir Pendant les Trente Glorieuses, on doublait son niveau de vie en 15 ans. Aujourd'hui, il faut 84 ans, soit deux vies de travail. Ce n'est pas une opinion, c'est documenté. Et continuer à courir plus vite dans ce contexte s'appelle de l'épuisement par définition. [~17:00]6. Nager en perpendiculaire plutôt qu'à contre-courant Résister frontalement épuise. Comme dans une baïne, la bonne réponse n'est pas de nager vers la plage mais à la perpendiculaire. Silence, soutien, sens : trois mouvements latéraux qui permettent de sortir sans s'y laisser noyer. [~28:00]Questions structurantes de l'épisodePourquoi notre réponse instinctive à l'épuisement est-elle toujours de chercher une méthode pour l'optimiser ?En quoi l'incertitude du monde contemporain active-t-elle les mêmes mécanismes que la menace physique dans notre cerveau ?Qu'est-ce que Hartmut Rosa entend exactement par "immobilisme frénétique" et en quoi ça décrit notre condition ?Comment le passage de la "société disciplinaire" de Foucault à la "société de la performance" a-t-il transformé la domination en auto-exploitation ?Pourquoi les médias et les algorithmes ont-ils intérêt à nous maintenir dans la peur plutôt que dans la réalité des chiffres ?Ce que nous avons sacrifié à vivre en grande ville mérite-t-il vraiment qu'on ne le questionne pas ?L'ennui est-il vraiment une ressource productive que l'on a collectivement décidé de détruire ?Comment Viktor Frankl trouvait-il du sens dans les camps de concentration, et qu'est-ce que ça nous dit sur notre propre rapport à l'adversité ?En quoi la "résonance" de Rosa est-elle incompatible avec le contrôle et la performance ?Qu'est-ce que vous faites parce que vous en avez envie, et qu'est-ce que vous faites parce que vous avez peur de ne pas le faire ?Références citéesPersonnesPablo Servigne (chercheur sur l'effondrement, invité de Vlan!) : "La vie danse toujours au bord du chaos. L'inverse du chaos, c'est la mort." [~05:00]Donna Brothers (psychanalyste américaine) : concept d'"anxiété cartésienne", l'idéal de certitude hérité de Descartes comme source de souffrance [~08:00]Hartmut Rosa (sociologue et philosophe allemand) : trois formes d'accélération, "immobilisme frénétique", concept de résonance [~11:00 / ~31:00]Byung Chul Han (philosophe coréen) : "société de la fatigue", dépression et burn-out comme symptômes civilisationnels [~15:00]Antoine Foucher (ancien directeur général adjoint du MEDEF, invité de Vlan!) : livre "Sortir du travail qui ne paye plus", distinction des trois périodes de progression salariale [~16:00]Michel Clouscard (sociologue français) : mutation du capitalisme de la répression vers le capitalisme de la jouissance [~19:00]Rousseau : "Malheur à celui qui n'a plus rien à désirer." [~20:00]René Girard (anthropologue français) : désir mimétique [~20:00]Jonathan Crary (chercheur américain) : Le capitalisme est à l'assaut du sommeil (2013) [~22:30]Reed Hastings (fondateur de Netflix) : "notre plus grand concurrent est le sommeil" [~22:30]Yohan Hari (auteur, invité de Vlan!) : marché de l'attention [~23:00]Kenneth Schlenger (fondateur de Opal, invité de Vlan!) : marché de l'attention [~23:00]Sherry Turkle (professeure au MIT) : Seuls ensemble, trente ans d'étude de notre relation à la technologie [~25:00]Bruno Marzloff (sociologue de la ville, invité de Vlan!) : plus une ville est grande, plus elle rend seul [~25:00]Tim Ferris : La semaine de 4 heures comme symbole du mensonge productiviste [~27:00]Olivier Hamant (biologiste, invité de Vlan!) : robustesse vs performance, l'arbre qui ne transforme que 1% de la lumière [~29:00]Marc de Smedt (invité de Vlan!) : épisode sur le silence intérieur [~32:00]Viktor Frankl (psychiatre autrichien, survivant des camps de concentration) : le sens comme condition de survie, déplacement du regard de soi vers l'autre [~34:00]Sénèque : "Ce n'est pas que nous ayons peu de temps, c'est que nous en perdons beaucoup." [~36:00]LivresLe capitalisme est à l'assaut du sommeil, Jonathan Crary (2013)Seuls ensemble, Sherry TurkleSortir du travail qui ne paye plus, Antoine Foucher"Sur la fonction de l'ennui", article de psychologie cité (deux auteurs non nommés)FilmsFight Club : "Nous achetons des choses dont nous n'avons pas besoin..." [~21:00]SourcesCentre d'observation de la société : données sur l'évolution de l'insécurité en France [~24:00]Timestamps clés (optimisés YouTube)00:00 - Le bracelet connecté et le piège de l'optimisation J'ai voulu mieux écouter mon corps. J'ai obtenu un tableau de bord qui me disait si je méritais d'être fatigué. La réponse à l'épuisement est presque toujours la même : trouver une méthode. Et c'est là que tout déraille.03:00 - L'épuisement n'est pas un problème personnel Ce n'est pas parce que vous êtes mal organisé ou pas assez zen. C'est un épuisement systémique, dont nous sommes tous victimes à des degrés divers. L'industrie du développement personnel, 1.500 milliards de dollars, s'est construite exactement sur ce mensonge.05:30 - Pablo Servigne et le chaos comme condition du vivant "L'opposé du chaos, c'est la mort." Si c'est vrai, alors nous ne nous épuisons pas du chaos lui-même, mais de l'énergie colossale que nous dépensons à tenter de le fuir.07:00 - L'amygdale et le lion derrière le rocher Notre cerveau ne distingue pas entre une menace physique et l'incertitude géopolitique, économique ou climatique. Les deux produisent la même mobilisation d'urgence. Répétée sur des années, cette mobilisation s'appelle de l'épuisement.09:00 - L'anxiété cartésienne de Donna Brothers La pensée occidentale a construit un idéal de certitude. Quand on ne le trouve pas, on ne souffre pas de l'incertitude elle-même, mais de la collision entre ce qui est et ce qu'on croit qui devrait être.11:30 - Hartmut Rosa et les trois accélérations Technique, sociale, rythme de vie. Elles se renforcent mutuellement et nous n'avons jamais le temps de nous adapter à l'une avant que la suivante arrive. "On court de plus en plus vite pour rester sur place."16:30 - Le contrat du travail est rompu Pendant les Trente Glorieuses, on doublait son niveau de vie en 15 ans. Aujourd'hui, il faut 84 ans. Deux vies de travail. Ce n'est pas une opinion. C'est la réalité documentée qu'Antoine Foucher résume dans son titre.18:30 - De Foucault à Byung Chul Han : l'auto-exploitation Le passage de "tu dois" à "tu peux" est la mutation la plus insidieuse du système. Nous ne sommes plus soumis à une contrainte externe, mais à une injonction permanente à nous dépasser, au nom de notre liberté.20:00 - Le désir mimétique et Instagram Rousseau l'avait vu avant tout le monde : "on est heureux qu'avant d'être heureux." René Girard a théorisé le reste. Et Instagram est la machine à désir mimétique la plus efficace jamais construite.22:30 - Reed Hastings et le marché de l'attention "Notre plus grand concurrent est le sommeil." Ce marché n'est pas construit sur votre plaisir, mais sur votre peur. Peur de rater, d'être déclassé, d'être moins compétent. Et les médias ont appris à amplifier cette peur parce que ça marche.25:00 - Seuls dans la ville Sherry Turkle, trente ans au MIT : on peut être hyperconnecté et ne jamais vraiment rencontrer personne. Plus une ville est grande, plus elle rend seul. Et chaque interaction avec un inconnu est une donnée qui échappe aux plateformes.27:00 - Le grand mensonge de la productivité L'ennui est biologiquement plus proche de l'énergie que de la léthargie. C'est une émotion fonctionnelle qui prépare le corps à l'action. Remplir chaque vide par une stimulation, c'est se priver de la condition nécessaire à la pensée profonde.29:30 - Olivier Hamant et la robustesse Un arbre ne transforme que 1% de la lumière qu'il capte. Il est en sous-optimal quasi permanent pour pouvoir survivre les jours sans soleil. La nature entière sacrifie la performance pour la robustesse. Notre cerveau aussi.32:00 - Nager en perpendiculaire Résister frontalement épuise. Comme dans une baïne, nager vers la plage est la mauvaise réponse. Nager à la perpendiculaire, c'est aller ni contre ni avec, mais à côté. C'est là que commence la sortie.33:00 - Silence, soutien, sens : trois mouvements latéraux Pas des solutions miracles. Trois directions concrètes pour ne pas se laisser paralyser. Viktor Frankl dans les camps de concentration. Hartmut Rosa et la résonance. Et cette question finale à garder dans un coin de la tête.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Why were Laetitia Casta and Aishwarya Rai criticized for their appearance at the 2026 Cannes Film Festival?What starts as celebrity gossip quickly becomes a much bigger conversation about beauty standards, aging, body image, and social media. Because the more I looked at the comments coming out of Cannes, the more one question kept nagging at me:Did the tabloids disappear—or did we become them?Are. You. Ready?****************Sources & References:Andrejevic, Mark. iSpy: Surveillance and Power in the Interactive Era. University Press of Kansas, 2007.Andrejevic, Mark. Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched. Rowman & Littlefield, 2004.Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. Penguin Books, 1972.Bordo, Susan. Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body. University of California Press, 1993.Dyer, Richard. Stars. British Film Institute, 1979.Festinger, Leon. “A Theory of Social Comparison Processes.” Human Relations, vol. 7, no. 2, 1954, pp. 117–140.Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. Vintage Books, 1977.Gamson, Joshua. Claims to Fame: Celebrity in Contemporary America. University of California Press, 1994.Marwick, Alice E. Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity, and Branding in the Social Media Age. Yale University Press, 2013.Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Screen, vol. 16, no. 3, 1975, pp. 6–18.Senft, Theresa M. Camgirls: Celebrity and Community in the Age of Social Networks. Peter Lang, 2008.Wolf, Naomi. The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women. William Morrow, 1991.Articles & Reporting:Arieux, Chloe B. “Laetitia Casta : insultes, grossophobie… ce qui s'est passé à Cannes choque.” Public, 29 May 2026.Reporting and commentary covering public reactions to Laetitia Casta and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan during the 2026 Cannes Film Festival, including discussions of ageism, body shaming, beauty standards, and social media scrutiny.****************Leave Us a 5* Rating, it helps the show!Apple Podcast:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/beauty-unlocked-the-podcast/id1522636282Spotify Podcast:https://open.spotify.com/show/37MLxC8eRob1D0ZcgcCorA****************Follow Us on TikTok & Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!YouTube:@beautyunlockedspodcasthourTikTok:tiktok.com/@beautyunlockedthepod****************Intro/Outro Music:“Fame Inc” by Savvier — https://icons8.com/music

Tous les jours, retrouvez le meilleur des archives de Laurent Gerra en podcast sur RTL.fr, l'application et toutes vos plateformes.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Dans l'émission du 27 mai 2026, Marc-Antoine Le Bret a imité Jean-Pierre Foucault, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Cyril Lignac et Chantal Ladesou . Retrouvez tous les jours le meilleur des Grosses Têtes en podcast sur RTL.fr et l'application RTL.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

In this episode, I'm unpacking the history of female body hair removal, the rise of shaving and Brazilian wax culture, and why women are taught to see natural body hair as “gross.”From Ancient Egypt and razor advertising to pornography, patriarchy, and Eurocentric beauty standards, we're digging into how female hairlessness became tied to femininity, desirability, cleanliness, and control. Why is body hair considered masculine on men but unacceptable on women? And why does modern beauty culture reward women for removing visible signs of adulthood from their bodies?Are. You. Ready?****************Sources & References:Attwood, Feona. Mainstreaming Sex: The Sexualization of Western Culture. I.B. Tauris, 2009.Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books, 1995.Gill, Rosalind. Gender and the Media. Polity Press, 2007.Herzig, Rebecca. Plucked: A History of Hair Removal. NYU Press, 2015.Ovid. Ars Amatoria (The Art of Love). Translated by James Michie, Modern Library, 2002.Peiss, Kathy. Hope in a Jar: The Making of America's Beauty Culture. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.Strings, Sabrina. Fearing the Black Body: The Racial Origins of Fat Phobia. NYU Press, 2019.Tyldesley, Joyce. Nefertiti's Face: The Creation of an Icon. Harvard University Press, 2018.Wolf, Naomi. The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women. Harper Perennial, 2002.Additional historical and cultural analysis referenced throughout the episode includes studies on Ancient Egyptian beauty and grooming rituals, Islamic hygienic traditions and body hair practices, feminist media theory surrounding bodily surveillance, pornography and beauty culture, beauty labor and gendered self-surveillance, racialized beauty standards, Eurocentric femininity, and contemporary discussions surrounding Brazilian wax culture, “clean girl” aesthetics, and social media beauty trends.****************Leave Us a 5* Rating, it helps the show!Apple Podcast:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/beauty-unlocked-the-podcast/id1522636282Spotify Podcast:https://open.spotify.com/show/37MLxC8eRob1D0ZcgcCorA****************Follow Us on TikTok & Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!YouTube:@beautyunlockedspodcasthourTikTok:tiktok.com/@beautyunlockedthepod****************Intro/Outro Music:“Fame Inc” by Savvier — https://icons8.com/music

What's a recession indicator you've noticed?Lately, one answer keeps resurfacing online: "You can see celebrities' ribs again." And as unserious as that sounds at first, history suggests it may not be entirely wrong.In this episode, I dive into Ozempic, recession aesthetics, quiet luxury, heroin chic, and the return of thinness as a cultural ideal. From celebrity weight loss trends to the politics of appetite, I explore how beauty standards shift during periods of economic anxiety, social instability, and cultural fear- and why women's bodies so often become the place where those anxieties are projected.Are. You. Ready?****************Sources & References: Bordo, Susan. Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body. University of California Press, 1993.Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Translated by Richard Nice, Harvard University Press, 1984.Debord, Guy. The Society of the Spectacle. Zone Books, 1994.Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books, 1995.Foxcroft, Louise. Calories & Corsets: A History of Dieting Over 2,000 Years. Profile Books, 2011.Rose, Nikolas. Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. Free Association Books, 1999.Stearns, Peter N. Fat History: Bodies and Beauty in the Modern West. New York University Press, 2002.Strings, Sabrina. Fearing the Black Body: The Racial Origins of Fat Phobia. NYU Press, 2019.Tolentino, Jia. Trick Mirror: Reflections on Self-Delusion. Random House, 2019.Veblen, Thorstein. The Theory of the Leisure Class. Oxford University Press, 2007.Wolf, Naomi. The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women. Harper Perennial, 2002.Additional reporting and cultural analysis referenced throughout the episode includes coverage of Ozempic and Wegovy, celebrity weight loss culture, recession aesthetics, heroin chic and 1990s fashion culture, wellness culture, self-optimization, and digital body surveillance from contemporary journalism, academic commentary, and media analysis.****************Leave Us a 5* Rating, it helps the show!Apple Podcast:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/beauty-unlocked-the-podcast/id1522636282Spotify Podcast:https://open.spotify.com/show/37MLxC8eRob1D0ZcgcCorA****************Follow Us on TikTok & Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!YouTube:@beautyunlockedspodcasthourTikTok:tiktok.com/@beautyunlockedthepod****************Intro/Outro Music:“Fame Inc” by Savvier — https://icons8.com/music

On Jürgen Habermas' The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (1985), featuring guest John Ganz.  Habermas defines modernity as Enlightenment ideals, discusses what's wrong with them (subjectivity), how Hegel argues constructively that a social element needs to be added this this, and how many other critics (e.g. Adorno, Nietzsche, and Foucault) instead argue more destructively against Enlightenment values like Truth, liberty, and justice. Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion. Sponsors: Check out the Scribe Optimize Workflow AI platform at Scribe.how/PEL. Get a $1/month e-commerce trial at shopify.com/pel.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comAdrian is a journalist and an old friend. We arrived in America on the same plane in 1984 and spent the first few days together in the same hotel room. After more than 20 years writing for The Economist, he became the global business columnist for Bloomberg Opinion. He's the author of several books, including The Aristocracy of Talent, and the co-author of many more with John Micklethwait, including The Right Nation. Adrian's new book is The Revolutionary Center: The Lost Genius of Liberalism. It's a terrific tonic for a philosophy as vital as it is in eclipse.For two clips of the episode — on how Enlightenment ideas got corrupted, and Big Tech's threat to liberalism — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: raised in rural Shropshire; his parents both teachers; his dissertation on the 11-plus (an exam that changed my life); when IQ tests were a liberal cause; Luther and the Reformation; the religious civil wars leading to the Enlightenment; Hobbes as a proto-liberal; the humanism of Erasmus; Montesquieu and the spirit of liberalism; John Stuart Mill and utilitarianism; Isaiah Berlin and pluralism; Graham Wallas and the Great Society; Lippmann; Leo Strauss; Thatcherism; consumerism vs. self-improvement; meritocracy threatened by the left; Foucault's folly; the EU and managerial liberalism; Brooks' bobos; affirmative action and DEI; why liberal democracy in Iraq didn't work; Oakeshott; Schmitt and friend-enemy; Trump's stark illiberalism and neo-royalism; King Charles; Putin ushering in a strongman era; Biden's open borders; the migration crisis and Brexit; the buffoonish Boris; the struggling Starmer; high culture and other upsides to elitism; Abundance; Deneen and post-liberalism; and Europe stepping up for Ukraine.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. We have some real stars coming up: Ben Rhodes on Iran and speech-writing, Harvey Mansfield on modernity, HW Brands on the life of George Washington, John Gray on Trump's new world, Bob Wright on the evolutionary force of AI, Tiffany Jenkins on privacy in a liberal democracy, Jerusalem Demsas on the state of the left, Daniel McCarthy on conservatism, Stephen Grosz on the struggles of love, and Robby George on pretty much everything. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.