Balibar-5432601

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

1/28

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

2/28

d i f f e r e n c e s

Word of phi losophy (such as the Singular , or the Difference, or the

Part icular) . Rather , I shal l argue that i t should lead us to accept the

sca t te red m ean ing of the un iversa l , and e labora te the passages be tween

i ts di ffer en t moda l it ies . The phi losophical project would thus be com e to

ar t i cu la te these d i f ferences , to seek an in te l l ig ib le o rder be tween

them wh ich is alwa ys, in the las t ins tan ce, a m at ter of ethical and pol i t i-ca l cho ice ra ther tha n pu re spe cu la t ive or theore t i ca l cons t ruc t ion .

In the nex t pages , I sha l l ga ther my remarks around th ree

succe ssive points of view on th e q ue st ion of un iver sal i ty: universality as

reality which , as we sh al l see , l eads to ques t ion ing again the r epre sen-

tations of un ity an d diversity; un iversality a s fi ction whi ch s eem s t o m e

the r ight way to discuss the ins t i tut iona l combina t ions of seem ing oppo-

si tes , such as universal ism and part icularism; final ly , universality as a

sym bol which, for reasons that I shal l explain later , I would also cal l

idea l un iver sal i ty . My term inology is a ten tat ive on e: i t could be t ran s-

form ed i f o ther t e rm s prove c lear er o r more accura te . It has a l so to take

into account the fact that each of these moments is i t sel f , in many

re spects , a contra dictory one .

U n i v er s a l it y a s R e a l it y

Let us s tar t wi th real un iver sal i ty . I take i t in th e se nse of an

actua l in terdepen dency be tween the var ious un i ts which together bu i ld

wh at we cal l the World: ins t i tut ions , grou ps, individuals , but also, more

profound ly, the various processes wh ich involve ins t i tut ions , groups, an d

individua ls : the ci rcu lat ion of produ cts and p er sons, the pol i t ical ne got ia-t ions , the ju r id ica l con t rac t s , the comm unica t ion of new s an d cu l tu ra l

pa t t e rns , e tc .

This in terde pende ncy has an extensive aspect: the limits or

ex trem i ties o f the wor ld have now been rea ched by var ious m odes of

exp lora t ion , o r the expan s ion of dominant , un ified techniques a nd ins t i-

tut ions have incorporated al l parts of the world. I t has above al l an

intensive aspect : more aspects of the l i fe of the const i tut ive uni ts are

depen dent on wh at o ther un i ts have been do ing in the pas t , o r a re cu r -

ren t ly do ing . Another , perhaps more concre te , fo rmula t ion for th i s

in tens ive a spect cou ld be expre ssed by saying tha t in terdepen dency i sreaching the ind ividu al him self/herself in a direct m anner , no t on l y

through the ins t i tu t ions or communi t i es to whom he/ she be longs . Of

course the ex tens ive an d in tens ive aspect s a re in terdepen dent . I t i s the

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

3/28

50 Ambiguous Universality

extens ive a spect which i s concern ed wh en co lon iza t ion inc luded a l l in -

ha bi ted terr i tories , when the w orld is actua l ly divided into nat ion-s tates

belonging to one s ingle Orga nizat ion, or comm un icat ion ne tworks can

broadcas t the sam e progra ms e verywhe re . I t is the in tens ive a spect which

i s concer ned whe n e very ind ividual s wage a nd sk i ll becomes depe nden t

on compet i tors anywher e on the wor ld mar ket , bu t a l so whe n edu cat ionalcurr icu la m us t inc lude the l earn ing of in terna t ional langu ages , o r san i -

tary regulat ions must control the individuals food and sexual habi ts

beca use of the spre ad of world-epidem ias (AIDS). . . .

Many rea der s wi l l say: real universa l ity in this sense is noth-

ing rea l ly ne w. I t d id not always exis t , to be sure : ther e wa s a t im e wh en

The World as an ent i ty was not conceivable, except in physical or

cosm ological ter m s. But i t ha s exis ted at leas t s ince the e m er gen ce of the

modern wor ld , therefore i t has bee n the perm ane nt background of wha t

we ca l l Modern i ty . This is tru e, indee d. Ther efore m y point wi ll be some -

th ing more . Ther e ha ve been s tages in the ex tens ion and in tens ificat ion of

real universali ty, t i l l , in the end, a decisive threshold was crossed ,

wh ich ma de i t i r re vers ible (we m ight also say: wh ich ma kes i t impossible

to ach ieve an y proper del ink ing or to imagine a ny re tur n to au tar ky

wi th in the wor ld-sys tem) . And a moment has a l so come when utopian

figures of universal i ty have become obsolete by their very nature. By

utopian figu re s I m ea n an y intel lectual plan s of es tabl ishing un iver sal i ty

by connect ing humankind with i tsel f , creat ing a cosmopol iswhich

was a lways imagined a t the same t ime as an implementa t ion of some

m oral value s , pre cisely universal is t ic values . Th is impossibi li ty did n ot

ar i se becau se i t p roved imposs ib le to conne ct the wor ld as a s ing le space ,

bu t exact ly fo r the oppos ite rea son: because th i s connect ion of hu ma n-

kind with i tsel f wa s al rea dy achieved, becau se i t was behind u s. The two

aspe cts the re fore a re bou nd togethe r , as a m at ter of fact . But this fact i s

only acknowledged with delay, and reluctant ly . Why? Perhaps because,

though n o t mar k ing the end of h i sto ry, i t never the less mar ks the pr ac-

t ical end of cosmopol i t ic utopias . Beca use i t involves a cknow ledging

that r ea l universa l ity, or global izat ion, al rea dy achieves the goa l which

wa s conceived as the u nificat ion of m an kind, albei t certainly not imple-

ment ing mos t o f the mora l (o r humanis t i c) va lues which u top ias

bel ieved should be e i ther a p re -condi t ion or an imm edia te consequen ce

of this u nificat ion.

In o ther t e rm s we could say tha t it is no longer a ques t ion of

creating The (Tr ue ) World, or th e Unity of the World, but of t ransform-

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

4/28

d i f f e r e n c e s 51

in g i t from wi th in . It is no acc iden t i f we a re rem inded he re of a ce lebra ted

phrase f rom Marxs Theses on Feuerbach : Phi losophers so long have

interp rete d the wor ld in various wa ys, what m at ters is to t ran sform i t . A

world which has to be t ransformed is a real ly exis t ing world, a Real

Universal i ty. No doubt , Marx h ad a n a cute p er cept ion of Rea l Univer sal i ty

being wel l on i ts way to be completed, which he associated with theestabl ishment of a s ingle divis ion of labor and a process of

comm odificat ion of al l social re lat ions . At the sa m e t ime , howe ver, he

wou ld associate this idea with an out look of the r adical s impl ificat ion of

social s t ructures , a wi thering away of t radi t ional forms of dominat ion

which he thought would be reduced to the pure explo i ta t ion of wage

labor, leading to the fin al anta gonism of individua l ity an d capi tal ism al l

over the wor ld, ther efore towar ds a catas t roph ic re versal of al iena t ion

into comm un ism, or a recon ci liat ion of Man with him self. This is per ha ps

the pa radoxica l figure of Marx : the l as t u top ian ann ouncing the end of the

ver y possibil ity of utop ias.

But r ea l universa l ity in todays world is by no m ea ns r es t r icted

to the global expan sion of econ om ic s tru cture s . It has also becom e pol i ti -

ca l (wi th the progress ive emergence of t ransnat ional s t ra teg ies , o f

pol i t ical subjects i rreducible to the local agencies , based on a s ingle

ter r i tory) , and i t has be come cu l tu ra l and comm un ica tive (wi th dominan t

networks and countercul tural ini t iat ives dialect ical ly interact ing across

the t radi t ional borders) . As a consequence, the phi losophical pat tern

which seem s day af te r da y to keep u p the appe aran ces i s mu ch m ore a

pat te rn la Hobbes , in which the re i s a war of each agains t each , than

a Marx ian-Hegel ian pa t te rn of g rowing an tagonism between symm et r ic

forces . However the Hobbesian pat tern reaches i ts l imits when i t i s a

que st ion of comin g to the n ext s tep: nam ely the possibil ity of control l ing

the con flictual elem en ts by set t l ing above the m som e juridical and pol i ti -

cal s ingle auth ori ty, be i t throu gh coer cion or gen er al consen t . A World

Leviathan, or a world-scale rat ional central rule, seems pract ical ly in-

com pat ible wi th the com plexi ty we a re facing: ne w m odes of re gulat ion

are nee ded i f the s to ry i s no t doome d to an e terna l Behe m oth .

Le t m e add s om e rem arks now abou t t he figu re o f the com -

plex world system in this sen se. The ge ograph ic and geo-pol i tical pat tern

of the wor ld h as bee n su b jec ted to cons iderab le m odificat ions . The very

term global izat ion s t i l l reminds us of a process in which i t was the

cen ter ( in fac t m ade of r iva l powers ) which was incorpora t ing succes -

s ive peripheries and outer regions (Wallers teins external arenas)

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

5/28


within the l im its of it s domina t ion. Th is process took the form of subject-

ing s ta tes and socie t i es , impor t ing goods an d m en, e xp lo it ing m anpowe r

and na tur a l resource s , expor t ing l angua ges , techn iques , and ins t itu t ions

(ul t imately: the n at ion-s tate i t self) . What s t r ikes us n ow is the backfir e

effect of this process . I t i s not the suppression of dominat ion and eco-

nom ic ine qua l it ies (perh aps i t could be said that the polarizat ion of wea l thand m isery , power and depe nden cy, has rea ched un precede nted l evel s ) ,

bu t the m ul t ip l ica t ion of cen ters , fo rming a ne twork r a ther than a core

area . And i t i s the reverse movement which pro jec t s e lements o f the

form er pe riphe ry into the centra l societ ies .

Above a l l the phenomenon of t ransnat ional migra t ions ac-

quires a new qual i ty . I t i s here, part icularly , that a precise his torical

an alysis is re quire d in ord er to avoid s implis t ic eur ocen tr ic or West-

ern prejudices . As the Mexican sociologis t Pablo Gonzalez Casanova

remarked a t a recen t conference in Par i s , co lon ia l and th i rd-wor ld

count r ies have long exper ienced what we in the Nor th now ca l l

m ulticultura lism . Far f rom be ing backwar d in th i s respect , they wer e

showing the way. I t becomes clear that this highly conflictual and also

evolut iona ry pat tern w as not a t ran si tory one, a provis ional (albei t m as-

s ive) except ion on the road to modernizat ion (mainly conceived as

western izat ion): i t i s the gen er al s i tua t ion in the er a of re al un iver sal-

ity.1 Wheth er this wi ll be com pat ible or not with the s imple cont inu at ion

of the po l it ica l and cu l tu ra l fo rm s which ha d em erged w i th the Europea n

(and Nor thern -Ame rican) se izure of the w or ld , no tab ly the (m ore or l ess

comple te ly sovere ign) n a t ion-s ta te and (more or l ess un ified) na t ional

cul tur e, is exact ly wh at is at s take in cur re nt deba tes on the New Wor ld

Order , on dominant and dominated l anguages , re l ig ious and l i t e rary

s tandards in educa t ion , e tc .

I would l ike to em phas ize the l a ten t t ran s forma t ion wh ich the

not ion of minori ty i s un der going in this s i tuat ion. Minori ty is a com plex

not ion wh ich refers e i the r to a juridical or a socio-poli tical realm .

Jur id ica l ly speak ing minors are those human ind iv idual s

and groups wh o are sub jec ted to the m ore or l ess pro tec t ive au thor i ty o f

the genuine ci t izens: the class ical example being that of chi ldren with

re spect to the ir pare nts . It is ma inly in this sense tha t , in a celebr ated text ,

Imm anu el Kant defin ed the g lobal p rocess o f em ancipat ion of hu ma nkind

which he ca l l ed Au fk l rung as a passage from minori ty to majori ty

ach ieved by spontaneous m ove. Clear ly, o ther g roups ha ve been long

maintained in a s tatus of minori ty , such as women, servants , colonized

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

6/28


peoples , and coloured people in racial s tates (not to ment ion s laves) ,

an d ther e is no doubt tha t , in spi te of their win ning forma l equa l ity one

after the other , none of them has total ly achieved complete equal i ty , or

pa rit y , in terms of r ights and dut ies , access to responsibi l i t ies , social

pre st ige, etc .

The o ther me aning i s more a ques t ion of adminis tra t ion an dstat is tics : i t refers to the fact that re l igious an d/ or e thn ic groups a re l iving

among a majori tar ian populat ionusual ly in the framework of some

nat ional o r imper ia l s t a tewhere they are e i ther segregated , o r sub-

je cte d to som e spe cia l le gis la tio n , or pr ote cte d, bu t a ls o wh e r e th e ir

col lect ive ident i ty is thre aten ed w ith ass imilat ion to the m ajori tar ian,

i .e . dom inan t iden t ity. Wha t I wan t to emph asize he re is the fol lowing fact .

By defini t ion, m inori ty in th is sense , be i t associated or n ot wi th a s tatu s

of juridical minori ty , wa s considere d an exceptional phenom e non . M ore

pre cisely, i t was a norm alized except ion. Nine teen th-cen tury na t iona l ism

an d na t ion-bu i lding pol it ics had led to a dou ble-edged s i tuat ion. On the

one han d , it was cons idered norm al tha t a na t ion-s ta te be e thn ica l ly

(i f not re l igiously) hom ogen eou s, above al l from the point of view of the

official lan gua ge (wh ich ha d al l sorts of cul tura l effects , s ince i t was th e

language of law, pol i t ics , educat ion, adminis t rat ion, etc .) . On the other

ha nd i t wa s precisely beca use pol i t ical ent i t ies wer e gen er al ly conce ived

as nat ion-s tates that minori t ies official ly exis ted, i .e . populat ions were

form al ly class ified accord ing to the ir nat ional or ethnic (sometime s

al so re l ig ious ) m em bersh ip , and ind iv idual s we re iden t ified wi th the i r

comm on majori tar ian or m inori tar ian s tatu s , in spite of al l their othe r

differences and l ikenesses . The very exis tence of minori t ies , together

wi th the i r more or l ess in fer io r s t a tus , was a state construct, a s t r ict

cor re la te o f the na t ion-form.

Real Universal i ty produces a very ambivalent effect on this

situation. It generalizes m inority-status , firs t of al l in the sen se tha t there

are now minor i t ies everywhe re , be they of ancien t o r recen t o r igin , no t

only of local descen t , but vir tua l ly coming from al l over the w orld. How-

eve r , the d istinction betw een m inor ities an d m ajorities becom es blurred

in a n um ber of ways . Firs t o f a l l it i s b lur r ed be cause a g rowing n um ber of

individuals and groups are not easi ly inscribed in one s ingle ethnic (or

cul tur al , l ingu is tic , even re l igious) iden t ity. I shou ld ins is t on th is point ,

wh ich is highly sen si tive pol i t ical ly. The com m un itarian discourse ( in -

c lud ing the ex t rem e form c la iming e thn ic pur i ty) , which can ar i se f rom

dominan t and dom inated groups as wel l , ma in ly em phas izes the fac t tha t

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

7/28


socie t ies have becom e m ore he terogeneou s , tha t there ar e others per -

m ane nt ly se t tl ed am ong the nat ional popula t ion in a g rowing mea sure :

m ore hispan ic people wh o are n ot likely to s im ply adopt the dom inan t

anglo-saxon cul ture in the U.S. , more Is lamic people who are not

l ike ly to abandon or h ide the i r l anguages a nd be l ie fs in Wes tern Europe ,

etc. But this is obviously only one s ide of the coin: the other s ide bein gtha t , amon g these o thers , and am ong the nat ional s as we l l (no tab ly

t h rough in t e rm ar r i age ) , m ore individuals are n ot classifia ble: mar ry ing

par tner s from differ en t cul ture s and race s , l iving a cross the fi ct i tious

boundaries of communit ies , experiencing a divided or mult iple self ,

prac t i c ing d i fferen t l anguages a nd me mbe rsh ips accord ing to the pr iva te

and pu bl ic c ircum stances . These ph enom ena a re an yth ing bu t mar g ina l .

We m ight sum m arize them by say ing tha t , as m inor i ti es a re m ul t ip l ied ,

what minori ty means becomes rather obscure. Unless i t i s forceful ly

impose dwith very high hu m an costs (as we obser ve today t ragical ly in

the Yugoslav are a) .

Anothe r w ay of s ignal l ing th is contradictory process r efers to

the effec t o f suprana t ional cons t ruc t ions , however p recar ious the y are .

Take the case of Wes tern Europe . In each na t ion-s ta te you can find

minori t ies with respect to the majori tar ian populat ionalthough

thei r defini t ion i s any th ing bu t s t andard ized , because they are e i ther

l ingu is tic or rel igious (or vague ly referr ed to som e t ra di t iona l linguis t ic ,

re l igious , cul tur al di ffer en ces) , ei ther se t t led on some specific terr i tory or

sca t t e red a l l a round the count ry , e i ther o f ancien t descen t o r recen t

set t leme nt (im m igran ts) , enjoying ei ther ful l cit izensh ip or a s tatus of

fo re igners , e i ther coming f rom neighbor ing count r ies o r f rom d i s tan t

ar ea s , etc . Now if you consider the global pat tern from a Eu ropea n point

of view, i t m ay appea r tha t the ma jori ties them selves are m inori t ies , or

that the l inguis t ic , rel igious , cul tural at t r ibutes that characterize them

have no absolute privi lege on the global s tage. Even those populat ions

wh ich are r epr esen ted pol it ically by a s t rong s tate (Engl ish, Fre nch , Ger-

man) are no longer abso lu te references . At the same t ime, cu l tu ra l

char ac ter i s ti cs wh ich wer e m inor it a r i an in each na t ion-s ta te , e .g . the

Muslim re l ig ious an d cu l tu ra l backgroun d , p rovide a com m on in teres t

an d becom e vir tua l links betwe en populat ions of di ffer en t origin within

the em er ging pol i tical ent i ty of Eur ope. It becom es difficul t to give a

rat ional jus t ificat ion for the fact that , among the various intertwining

cul tu ra l g roups who form the e thn ic and socia l pa t t e rn of Europe as a

wh ole, contr ibu t ing to i ts econ omic an d cul tur al l ife , or to the funct ioning

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

8/28


of i ts ins t i tut ions , some enjoy a privi leged s tatus , whi le others are dis-

cr iminated a gains t . Ap arth eid wh ich was ha rdly vis ible on the n at ional

s tage become s appare n t on the supra nat ional : bu t p rec i se ly these l evels

ar e less an d less dis t inct . Inde ed, this is a s i tua t ion wh ich leads s ignificant

par t s o f the major i ta r i an groups to fee l th re a tene d wi th re duct ion to a

lower s tatu s , especial ly in a s i tuat ion of econ om ic crisis , wh er e the na-t ional-social (so-cal led Welfare) s tate is part ly dismant led. Openly or

not , ideologies of ethnic clean sing, how ever a rbi t rar y from the h is tori -

cal point of view, ar e l ikely to develop within th e n at ional boun dar ies or

at a cont ine ntal level .

With al l it s nar rown ess an d pecu l iar i ties , this pat tern cou ld be

taken as a m odel o f wha t is em erg ing a t wor ld-sca le : m inorit ies w i thout

stable or unqu estionable m ajorit ies. It a lso dra ws our at tent ion to the m ost

explosive con tradict ion of Rea l Univer sal i ty , na m ely the com binat ion of

ethn ic differ en ces an d social inequ al i ties wi thin a global pat tern of inter-

nal exclusion .

As a combined resu l t of colonial ism, impe rial rule, an d n at ional

class struggles, a process of (at least partial) social integration, together

with a domina nt tenden cy towards cul tural ass im ilat ion, had take n place

within the bou nda ries of the m ore developed na tions of the core, wh ile

m ajor s tatus di ffere nces a nd a cute social polarizat ion were rejected in the

periphery. To a large e xtent , socialist an d a nt i -imperial ist re gim es h ad

bee n attem pts at filling this gap, fighting aga inst exter na l exclusion. Now

the s imple divis ion betwee n developed and u nde r-developed are as inher -

i ted from imperial ism is blurred: economic polarizat ion in the

world-system is less directly expressed in terri torial structures, class dif-

fere nces a nd e thnic discriminat ions interfere in a s imilar wa y in th e North

an d South, interna l exclusion replaces externa l separat ions everywhere .

Something l ike a world underclass emerges , whereas , at the other ex-

t reme, a new t ransnat ional class of privi leged rulers acquire common

interes ts and langu age. This is un doubtedly one of the m ain re asons for the

ne w bur s t of racism thre atening to overwh elm hu ma nis t ic values: adm it-

t ingas I ha ve argu ed e lsewher e (Balibar an d Wallers tein)that ra cism is

not a simp le excess of iden tity fee lings or xe noph obia, but mor e spec ifically

linke d with intern al exclusion, i.e. hostil ity an d discrimina tion tak ing place

am ong populat ions wh ich are not rea l ly separ ated, but belong to the s ame

society and a re cul tural ly mixed with one another .

The immedia te p rospect s may appear ra ther g r imnot to

speak of the long te rm reso lu t ion of the cont rad ic t ion , which w ould re-

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

9/28


qui re bas ic tran s form at ions of the soc ia l an d econom ic s truc tur es . From

a theore t i ca l po in t o f v iew, however , th ings could be summarized as

fol lows: Rea l Univer sal i ty is a s tage in his tory whe re , for th e fi rs t t ime ,

Hum ankind as a s ing le web of in ter re la t ions i s no longer an idea l o r

utopian n ot ion bu t an a ctual condi t ion for ever y individua l ; ne verthe less ,

far from re pre sen t ing a s i tua t ion of mu tual re cogni t ion, i t actua l ly coin-cides with a gen er al ized pat tern of conflicts , hier ar chies , and exclusions .

I t is not even a s i tuat ion in wh ich individua ls vi r tual ly com m un icate with

each o t he r , bu t m u ch m ore one where g loba l com m un i ca tion ne t works

provide ever y individua l wi th a dis torted im age or a s ter eotype of al l the

others , ei ther as kins or as al iens , thus rais ing gigant ic obstacles

before a ny dialogue. Iden t it ies ar e less isolated andmor e incompat ib le ,

less univocal a nd mor e a n tagonis ti c.

Un i ver s a l i t y as F ic t i on

Let us now examine a qui te di fferent concept , which I cal l

fi ct it ious un iv ersa lity . Of course the re is some arbi t rar iness in an y term i-

nology. Misunders tandings can be avoided only in the progress ive

elaborat ion of the a rgum en t . When I say that u niversal i ty should also be

consider ed a fiction, I am n ot suggesting that i t is lackin g existence, bein g

a m er e possibili ty, a ghost or an idea a s opposed to the w orld of facts.Id ea l

universality will com e later . The kind of fiction I want to dea l with h as to

do with ver y effective proce sses, above a ll institutions an d representations:

I take i t the refore in the sense of constructed re al ity. On the other han d,

I want to avoid the common idea that every ident i ty , be i t personal or

collective, could be considered a construct in the sam e gen era l sense,

beca use this classical relativistic view so it seem s to me leads to level-

l ing the his torical processes which cre ate an d hiera rchize form s of ident i ty

an d individual ity, so that som e of them becom e m ore basic than others

and form a comm on background for the i r becoming complementary or

incompat ible. Such dist inct ions seem to me a l l the m ore n ecessary whe n

th e normative structures of identity and individuality, or the insti tutions

which produ ce a comm on repr esen tat ion of what it mean s to be a per son,

to be on ese lf, or to be a subject, an d the in stitutions wh ich continu ously

enforce these r epresen ta t ions upon h um an beings th rough educat ion a nd

social experience , are pu t into que st ion: what is som et imes re ferr ed to as a

crisis of values. What is at stake is precisely the non-n atur al but also

non-a rbitrar y cha ra cter of subjective norm s and pa ttern s of individu ality.

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

10/28


Ther e i s indeed a long t rad i t ion in the soc ia l sciences dea l ing

with fict i t ious universal i ty in this sense. However, for my present pur-

pose, I find that a phi losophical reference can be more useful : Hegels

construct ion of an ethical not ion of the individual (what he cal led

Sitt l ichkeit ) . Th is i s p robably because Hegel , depen dent as h e wa s on a

part icular set of social values ( those of the modern s tate or theRech tss taa t which foun d i t s ra t ional shape in Wes tern Eu rope towar ds

the en d of the e igh teen th a nd the be g inn ing of the n ine tee n th cen tury ,

after the bourgeois revolut ions) , was acutely aware of the conflict ,

there fore the ana log ies a nd incompat ib il it ies , be tween two conflict ing

realizations of fi ctit ious un iversality: the r el igious an d the na t iona l-poli ti -

cal . In a sen se i t could be sa id that Hegels dialect ic of his tory had n o other

object than pre cisely explaining h ow one grea t his torical fict ion, tha t of

the un iversa l i s t i c church , cou ld be subs t i tu ted by another h i s to r ica l

fict ion, tha t of the se cular , rat ional ins t i tut ions of the s tate ( in pra ct ice,

the n at ion-s tate) , with equ al ly un iversa l is t ic aims.

To be sur e, Hegels view of this proce ss was a ssociated with

the idea th at the his torical process nece ssari ly leads from re l igious uni-

versal i ty to pol it ical universa l ity ( in Hegel ian term s, rel igious un iver sal i ty

is only ration al an sich or in a l iena ted form whe rea s po l it ica l un iversa l -

i ty is rational f r sich or consciously) . In other words he saw i t as an

irrevers ible progress. Therefore pol i t ical universal i ty , notwithstanding

i ts fic t it ious char ac ter , should appear as an abso lu te . What we ar e expe-

rien cing today is clea rly a re lat ivizat ion of this view, w hich goes a long

with impr essive phen om en a of rel igious revival . I would rath er sa y: we

experience that pol i t ical universal i ty i t sel f displays internal contradic-

t ions w hi le the con tradict ions of rel igion a re s t il l a l ive, or we e xper ience

the fac t tha t the cr i s is o f re l igious h egem onies rem ains open to new

developm en ts whi le the cris is of the n at ion-form is al ready developing,

with n o pre dictable en d. But this cr i t ique of Hegels conce pt ion of l ine ar

progress does not abol ish the relevance of his analyt ical construct ion,

m uch the con trar y. What I have ca l led fict i tious un iver sal i ty could be

label led Hegel ian u niversal i ty as we l l.

What m akes the Hegel ian cons t ruc t ion 2 so very relevant is the

fact that i t tran scen ds an y form al opposi tion betwe en hol ism an d indi-

vidual ism. What Hegel is concerned with is the int r ins ic relat ionship

between the cons t ruc t ion of hegemony, o r total ideology , and au t onomous

individual i ty, or the person . Universal is t ic rel igions and nat ional s tate-

bui lding as wel l rely upon total ideologies , encom passing a n um ber of

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

11/28


different ident i t ies and memberships . They claim to represent uni-

versal i ty as su ch, but the y are oppose d to total itar ian worldviews, whe re

al l individuals are su pposed to adopt one a nd the sam e system of bel iefs

or fol low compulsory rules , for the sake of salvat ion and ident ificat ion

wi th some com mon e ssence . They are p lu ra li st ic by natur e .3 This am ounts

to saying th at total ideologies a re int r ins ical ly conne cted with the re c-ogni t ion (a nd b efore tha t , the in s t itut ion) of the ind ividual as a re lat ively

au tonom ous en t ity: not one w hich is absolutely fre e from par t icular iden -

t it ies an d m em bersh ips , bu t one w hich i s never redu cib le to them , which

ideal ly and also pract ical ly ( in the day-to-day working of basic ins t i tu-

t ions , such as sacraments , marriage, courts , educat ion, elect ions , etc .)

transcends the l imitat ions and qual ificat ions of part icular ident i t ies and

m em bersh ips . This is p re c ise ly wha t should be un ders tood as (fict it ious )

universality : not the idea th at the com m on n atur e of individua ls is given

or a l ready there , bu t ra ther the fac t tha t i t i s p roduced inasmuch as

par t i cu lar iden t it ies a r e r e la t iv ized an d becom e me dia tions for the rea l -

i za t ion of a supe r ior and more abs t rac t goal.

What I wan t to show, there fore , by very schem atical ly out lin-

ing a kind of Hegel ian dialect ic of hegemony, is both that this figure is

very effect ive, an d that i t has a ver y s t r ict pre re quis i te , wh ich can lead to

i ts c r i s is an d in tern a l co llapse wh en o ther ma ter ia l condit ions (no tab ly

econ omic one s) are given . It is very effect ive be cau se individ ua lity i tself is

alw ays an insti tut ion , it has to be repr esen ted and a cknowledged , which

can be r eache d on ly if the ind iv idual i s re leased f rom s t r i c t me mbe rsh ip

or a fusion within his (he r) Gem einschaft , thu s becoming ab le to adopt

various social roles , to play on se veral m em ber ships , or to shift iden-

t i ty in order to perform different social funct ions , whi le remaining a

m em ber of a supe r ior comm un i ty or a subjec t . It has p rob lem at ic p re-

requis i t es , however , because i t i s connected wi th the impos i t ion of

normali ty , a nor m al or s tan dar d wa y of l ife a nd se t of bel iefs (a domi-

nant pract ical ideology), which has to be maintained for successive

gene ra t ions , a t l eas t fo r the overwh elming m ajor ity, o r the m ains t ream ,

across c lass and o ther ba r r ie rs .

Universal rel igions ach ieved both resu l ts, wh ich explains why

they s t i ll provide idea l types of hegem ony. They did n ot suppr ess loyal-

t ies to the family, profess ional s tatus , ethnic belongings and racial

differences , social and pol i t ical hierarchies , etc . On the contrarywith

the e xcept ion of apocalypt ic m oveme nts an d crisesthey pictur ed the

absolute r eciproci ty am ong the fai thful or the p er fect love of the n eighbor

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

12/28


as a t ran scenden t goal, which could be reach ed on ly afte r dea th (or a f te r

the Ju dgm en t): a m at ter of hope, not of pol it ical s t rategy. But the y urged

the individuals to l ive their part icular l ives internal ly (and, as much as

possible, extern al ly) accord ing to the t ran scen den t goal of salvat ion, or ,

be t t e r sa id , accord ing to ru les which w ere supposed to fit th i s idea l . This

set up the symbolic framework which al lowed part icular ins t i tut ions tobecome Chris t ian (or Is lamic) ins t i tut ions , to be l ived and repre-

s en t ed a s indirect m eans or m edia t ions towards the final sa lva tion . Thu s

the par t i cu lar ins ti tu t ions , comm un i ti es , and rec iprocit ies , wer e ree s tab-

l ished or t ransformed, but always integrated within a total i ty . An

indiv idual cou ld be re cognized as a me mbe r of h i s var ious comm un i ti es

(fam ily, profess ion, neighbor hood), he could act a ccording to the ir obl i-

gat ions or e njoy the ir privileges or support the i r burde nsas a fa ther o r

a m other , a so ld ier o r a p r ies t, a mas ter o r a servan t , a Frenchm an or a

Germ an, e tc .inasmu ch as h i s var ious prac t i ces wer e sacra l ized or sanc-

t ified , and there were par t i cu lar r i t es fo r a l l the corresponding

ci rcumstances . But the r everse w as a l so t rue : an y of these qu al ificat ions

and prac t i ces , whethe r d i s t r ibu ted a mon g d i ffere n t soc ia l g roups or suc-

cess ive ly per form ed by the sam e ind iv idual s , cou ld be exper ienced as

intr ins ic m ediat ions of the re l igious l i fe .

The same i s t rue for na t ional hegemony wherever i t was

ach ieved in the form of an indepe nden t s ta te bu i ld ing , which succeede d

in nat ional izing the m ain a spects of social li fe a nd cu l tur e: which is the

m os t concre te m ean ing we can g ive to the n o t ion of secularization . From

a re l ig ious po in t o f v iew, na t ional hegemony i s o f ten seen as pure

un iform izat ion, i f not as total i tar ian, jus t as , from a se cular na t iona l point

of view , rel igious hege m ony is seen as incom pat ible wi th individua l au-

tonomy. Indee d bo th hege mon ies have d i ffere n t subs tan t ia l views of what

is essen t ial to hum an p er sona l ity. The y also have differ en t , sym m etrical ,

poin ts d hon neu rwhich are supposed to reveal the suprem e value wh ich

they t ry to cre ate. In the case of un iversa l rel igions , the poin t d honn eu ris

peace am ong the na t ions , the r ecogni tion of a supran at ional comm un i ty

by al l pol it ical powe rs . In the ca se of the n at ion-s tate, it i s rather pea ce or

to lera nce am ong the var ious re l igious denom inat ions (and m ore gene r-

al ly, on this mode l : the var ious ideologies) , in the n am e of cit izensh ip and

legal order . In fact , both ar e p lu ra li st ic , from their ow n point of view, i .e.

wi th in the i r own l imits. Nat ion-s tates adopt various me an s (according to

their pa rt icular h is tory, wh ich is some t imes difficul t and b loody) to mak e

peace among re l ig ions , reg ional background or e thn ic membersh ips ,

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

13/28


class loyalties.4 Usual ly these me ans have n o th ing to do wi th rea l o r s t r ic t

equa l ity, they are perm eated w i th re la t ions of fo rce , bu t they are success -

fu l inasmu ch as they a l low the par t icu lar comm un i ti es and ne tworks , no t

only to becom e integra ted in the total comm un ity (nat ional cit izen ship) ,

bu t , much more , to work as i t s own m edia t ions .Recogn iz ed d if feren ces, o r

otherness-within-the-l imits-of-ci t izenship, become the essent ial media-t ion of na t ional m em bersh ip .

Of course , one could wonder why I have ca l l ed th i s mecha nism

un iversa li ty. Or on e cou ld say: i t is un iversa l only be cau se of i t is false

consc iousness , becau se a ch urch or a s t a te as a n ins t itu t ion of power h as

need of a legi t imizing discourse in which i ts own pecul iar i ty or one-

s i dednes s i s m as ked and t r ans figu red t h rough t he r ep res en t a t i on o f

ideological goals and values . This aspect undoubtedly exis ts . I t was

em pha sized by the Marxis t cr i tique, and i t is revived wh en ever a radical

discourse cr i t icizes the s tate , the school system, the legal system, etc. ,

v iewing them as so ma ny mea ns of dom inat ion in the serv ice of a ru l ing

class or group (b e i t the grou p of capi tal is ts , or impe rial is ts , or wh i te m en ,

or m ales , e tc. ). But i t can work , an d crea te a consensus or an hege-

m ony, on ly becau se i t is roo ted in a m ore e lemen tary s truc tur e , which i s

truly universal is t ic . I th ink that such a s t ructure always exis ts when a

second-order communi ty or a Terminal Cour t o f Appeal , as Ernes t

Gel lner cal ls i t , i s raised above t radi t ional or natural or primary

m e m bers h i p s , wh i ch add res s es the i r m e m bers qu a individuals, that is ,

whe never imm edia te mem bersh ips are v ir tua l ly de-cons t ruc ted and re-

cons t ruc ted as o rgan ic par t s o f the wh ole . Seen from outs ide ( f rom the

absolute s tandp oint of world-his tory) , the total ity it sel f can cer tainly

appea r as h igh lypa rticu la ris tic : there a re several universal re l igions , or

r ival interpretat ions of rel igious universal i ty , jus t as there are several

na t ion-s tates an d na t iona l is t ideologies , ea ch of them claiming to emb ody

universa l va lues (each c la iming , one way or ano ther , to be the e lec t

na t ion or to be des t ined to l ead humankind on the road of p rogress ,

ju stic e , e tc .) . No th in g is m or e cle a r ly pa r tic u la r is tic in th is se n se th a n

insti tutional claims of universali ty.

However the t rue un iversa l i s t i c e lement l i es in the internal

proce ss of individua l izat ion: vir tua l de-constru ct ion a nd r e-constru ct ion

of primary ident i t ies . And i t i s al l the more effect ive when i t has been

reached th rough d i fficul t and v io len t conflic t s , where oppress ion and

revolt have th rea tened the hege mon ic st ruc ture w i th in terna l col lapse .

Individual ized individuals do not exis t by nature: they are created

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

14/28


th rough the conflic tua l (d i s ) in tegra t ion of p r imary membersh ips , i .e .

whe n ind ividual s can v iew the super ior comm un i ty as a liberating agency ,

which f rees the m from belonging to one s ing le g roup , o r possess ing a

s ingle, und iffere nt iated, m assive ident i ty. I t is un iver sal is tic becau se, in a

typical shor t-circu it , it is workin g both fr om a bov e a n d fr om below with

respect to the par t icu lar g roups and com mu ni t ies . Of course the corre-spondin g exper ience is am bivalen t by na ture : i t can a lso, na y i t has to be

l ived as de -natu rizat ion, coercion of the a ffect ive t ies an d na tura l sen-

t imen ts in the na m e of Rea son, of the Comm on Notions . This is inde ed

exact ly what ideo log ies an d s tandar ds of educat ion a re in char ge of ex-

p la in ing and implem ent ing .

This process has be en working from the very beginnings of s tate

structures. It is a decisive means of integration, or community building,

because i t produces or enhances individual subjectivity , that is , both a

loyalty directed towards a more abstract, or symbolic, or (in Benedict

Ande rsons term s) imagined comm un ity, and a dis tance betwee n pr ivate

life and social l ife, individual init iative and collective duties (a moral,

rathe r tha n ri tual , obedience : one in which con vict ion a nd con scien ce is

m ore importan t tha n custom a nd natura l auth ori ty) . There is no doubt in

m y view tha t Hegel was r ight: private l ife an d private conscien ce be-

come autonomous precisely as a consequence of this subsumption and

transformat ion of the natura l m em bersh ips or primar y cul tures under

the law of the sta te, and r em ain t ied to i t. Or, better said, private l ife an d

conscience can become a mat ter of conflict between the interes ts of the

part icular comm un ities and the pu bl ic interes ts of the s tate , but only be-

cause every subject has already been d i s tancia ted f rom h i s /her

immediate membership (even before his individual bi r th) through the

exis tence of the s tate or publ ic sphere. In m odern s tates , this const itut ion of

subject ivi ty , which is a permanent tension between memberships and

citizen ship, takes the form of individua l proper ty, person al choice of pro-

fession and opinions, free play of alternative loyalties offered by

chu rche s , fam ily and sch ool, poli tical part ies a nd u nions, or in m ore ab-

stract ter m s complex e qua lity, wh ich altogethe r form a Civil Society,

supported and loosely controlled by the state but not identified with i ts

central apparatus , as Locke, Hegel , Tocquevi l le , Gramsci , and Michael

Walzer e xplaine d each in his own way.

Ficti tious or total un iver sal i ty is effect ive as a m ea ns of inte-

grat ionit demonstrates i t s own universal i ty , so to speakbecause i ts

l eads dom inated groups to st ruggle aga inst discrim inat ion or inequ al i ty in

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

15/28


the very name of the superior values of the community: the legal and

ethical value s of the s tate i t sel f (notably: jus t ice) . This is clear ly the case

wh en , in the na m e of fai r opportu ni ty for al l hum an in dividuals , fem inis t

movements a t t ack the d i scr iminat ing pat r i a rchal l aws and cus toms

which pro tec t the au thor i ta r i an s t ruc tur e o f the ma le-dom inated fam i ly

wh ile exten ding i t to the wh ole profess iona l and cu l tur al rea lm. I t i s alsothe case wh en dom inated e thn ic g roups or re l ig ious denom inat ions de-

m and equa l ity in the n am e of the p lura l is t ic o r l ibera l va lues wh ich the

state official ly incor pora tes in i ts const i tut ion. And i t was clea rly dem on-

s t ra ted th roughout the n ine teen th and twent ie th cen tur ies by the way

class s t ruggles forced the nat ion-s tate to acknowledge specific r ights of

l abor and incorpora te the m in to the cons t itu t ional o rder . The process was

Mar xis t but the r esu l t was Hege l ian . By taking pa rt in the organ ized

class s t ruggle (an d firs t of all by imposing the ir r ight to bui ld com bina-

t ions against exploitat ion), worke rs cea sed to form a s imple dom inated

m ass , intern al ly exclude d, they individua l ized the m selves and cre ated

new media t ions for the s ta te . To confron t the hegemonic s t ruc ture by

denou ncing the gap or con t rad ic t ion be tween i ts o fficia l va lues and the

actua l pract icewith grea ter or lesser succe ssis the m ost effect ive wa y

to en force i ts u niversal i ty.

Now we shou ld not forget the cou nter par t of this form of un i-

versali ty: i t is indeed normalizat ion . Th is i s where th ings become of

course m ore am biguous . Hegemony l ibera tes the ind iv idual from imm e-

dia te membersh ip , bu t which ind iv idual? I t requ i res and develops

subject ivity, but wh ich su bject ivi ty? One wh ich is comp at ible wi th n or-

m al i ty . Within th e b oun dar ies of fict it ious u niversal i ty, a free individual

(en joying free dom of consc ience and in it ia t ive , and a l so in a m ore m ate-

r ial sense su ch l ibert ies as possess ion of per sona l belongings, a r ight to

pr ivacy , and a r igh t to speak on the pu bl ic s t age , to en ter the educa t ional

an d profess iona l com pet i t ion, etc .) has to be nor m al in severa l sen ses .

He or sh e h as to be m en tal ly heal thy, i .e . to display the w ays of re ason ing

and pr iva te beh aviors which do n o t d is tu rb the s tanda rd pa t te rn s o f com-

m un ica t ion . He or sh e h as to obey the dominan t sexual pa t t e rns (o r , i f th i s

is not the case, to hide his /her sexual habi ts , therefore l iving a schizo-

phr en ic exis ten ce, or in the very best case, to live the m open ly, albei t in

the fram ework of some s t igma t ized subcul tu re ).5 He or she h as to be

m oral o r consc ien t ious and of course obey the l egal ru les which r epre ss

del inqu en cy. By saying so, I am not taking a m oral s tan cepro or contra th e

exis tence of the nor m al subject , I am simply re cal l ing tha t norm al i ty is the

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

16/28


s tand ard p rice to be paid for the u niversal is t ic l iber at ion of the individual

from the imm edia te sub jec t ion to p r im ary comm un i ti es . For n orma l ity is

not the s imple fact of adopt ing customs and obeying rules or laws: i t

m ean s in tern a l iz ing re presen ta t ions of the hum an type or the hum an

subjec t (no t exact ly an essence , bu t a n orm and a s tandard be havior ) in

orde r to be re cognized as a pe rson in i ts ful l r ight , to becom e prsen table(fit to be seen ) in o rde r to be repre sen ted . To become responsible (fit to be

answe red) in o rder to be respected .

This a l lows us to un ders tand why the key s t ruc tures o f hege-

monythe deep s t ruc tures o f hegemonic reasonare a lways fami ly

s t ruc tures , educat ional and jud ic ia l ins t i tu t ions : no t so much because

they would incu lca te dom inant op in ions or ma in ta in a u thor i t a r i an t rad i -

t ions , but because they immediately display the symbolic pat terns of

normal i ty and responsibi l i ty in everyday l i fe: the normal sexual di ffer-

ence and complementar i ty o f genders , the normal h ierarchy of

intel lectual capaci t ies and m odels of ra t iona l discour se, the nor m al dis-

t inct ion of hone sty an d del inqu en cy, or the fai r wa ys of acqu ir ing power

and wea l th a nd the i ll ega l ones ( in shor t wh at the m ora l t rad i tion ca l l ed

natur al law). This is not to say that in a nor m al society everybody is

normal , o r tha t the re i s no dev iance or h ypocr i sy, bu t whoever i s no t has

to be segre gated or r epre ssed or e xcluded , o r to h ide h imse l f, o r to p lay a

double gam e one way or an o ther . This is the l a ten t condi t ion wh ich a l lows

other ne ss or di ffer en ce to becom e integra ted within a total ideology or

hege mon y. It a l so reveal s what re ma ins the in tern a l obsess ion of every

hegemony: nei ther the s imple fact of conflicts , not even radical social

an tagonisms , however th re a ten ing they can be for the r u l ing c lasses , nor ,

on the o ther h and , the ex i stence of dev ian t g roups or rad ica l move-

ments d i rec ted agains t mora l and cu l tu ra l norms , bu t ra ther the

combinat ion of both, whe ne ver individua l ity can be claim ed on ly at the

condi t ion of cha l len ging the social form s (or r ules) of norm al i ty . But this

leads m e to exam ining a nother concept o f un iversa l i ty, which I ca l l ideal

universality .

U n i v e r sa l it y a s a S y m b o l

Again some misunders tandings should be avoided here . In -

s tead of symbolic, perhaps I should speak of ideal or ideal is t ic

un iver sal i ty , beca use wh at is at s take is not anothe r de gree of fict ion. It is

rather the fact that universal i ty also exis ts as an ideal, in the form of

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

17/28


absolute or infini te claims which are symbolical ly raised against the

limits of an y insti tution.

Perh aps i t should be su ggested tha t , in fact , fict i tious univer-

sal i ty could n ever exis t wi thou t a laten t refere nce to ideal universal i ty

or , as Jacques Der r ida m ight pu t i t , some spectre whi ch can neve r be de -

constru cted. Just ice as a n ins t i tut ion m ay not only req uire that subject ivi tybe forme d wh en ind iv idual s in tern a l ize the comm on or un iversa l va l -

ues . I t may requi re a l so , more de ep ly, to be roo ted in some open or l a ten t

insurrection , which gave subject ivi ty i ts infini te character or (against

ever y form of social s tatus) equ ated i t wi th a que st for absolute l iber ty.

In Marx i st t e rm s , th i s would be the prob lem of how dom inant

ideologies are const i tuted with respect to the consciousness of domi-

na nt an d dom inated pe ople. Marxs origina l form ulat ion ( in The Germ an

Id eo lo gy) , assert ing tha t the d om inan t ideology is always the ideology of

the d om inan t class , is ha rdly ten able: not only i t does i t ma ke ideology a

m ere dupl ica te o r refl ect ion of econom ic power ( thu s ma king it impos-

s ible to unde rs tan d how ideological dom inat ion can con tr ibute to re al

dom inat ion, or add som ethin g to it ) , but i t ma kes i t im possible to explain

how a ny socia l consentor consensus can be forged, exce pt by t r ick, m yst i -

ficat ion, decept ion, etc . , i .e . categories borrowed from a fantasmat ic

psychology. The a l te rn a t ive see m s to be to reverse the pa t t e rn , and pro-

pose the (on ly appare n t ly) par adoxica l idea tha t the n ecessary condi tion

for an ideo logy to become dom inant i s to e labora te the va lues a nd c la ims

of the social ma jori ty , to becom e th e discour se of the dominated (dis-

torted or inver ted as i t ma y appear ) . Society, or the dom inan t forces in

society, can speak to the masses the language of universal is t ic values

(r ights , jus t ice, equa l ity, welfar e, progre ss . . . ) becau se in this langu age

a kernel remains , which came f rom the masses themselves , and i s re -

t u rned t o them .

However this formulat ion certainly does not el iminate every

m ystery, i f only beca use th e au then t ic discourse of the dom inated, prior

to any hegem onic use , i s hard ly to be i so la ted as such . I t main ly appears

as a forgot ten origin, or i t i s not so m uch tes t ified to by actua l words as

by pra ctical re sistan ce, the irre ducible being there of the dom inated. . . .

The a c tua l re la tionsh ip be tween dominan ts and dominated in the field of

ideology must remain ambivalent in his tory, but there is undoubtedly a

meaning of universal i ty which is int r ins ical ly l inked with the not ion of

insurrection , in the broa d sense (insur gen ts ar e those wh o collect ively

rebel agains t dominat ion in the name of f reedom and equal i ty ) . This

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

18/28


meaning I ca l l ideal universality , not only because i t supports al l the

ideal is t ic phi losophies which view the course of his tory as a general

process o f em ancipat ion , a rea l iza t ion of the idea of m an (or the h um an

essence, or the class less society, etc .) , but because i t in t roduces the

not ion of the uncondi t ional in to the re alm of poli tics .

A crucial exampleperhaps the only one, i f we admit that i tcou ld be formu la ted severa l t ime s in d i ffere n t p laces a nd t im es , and in

d i ffere n t wordsis the propos it ion concern ing hu m an r igh t s which i s

expressed in the class ical bourgeois Declarat ions or Bi l ls from the

eighteenth century. More precisely i t i s the proposi t ion which reverses

the t rad i t iona l relat ionsh ip betwe en su bject ion an d cit izen ship, an d jus-

t ifies the universal extension of pol i t ical (civic) r ights (or the general

equivalence of Ci t izen and Man, in the class ical terminology), by

expla in ing tha t equality and liberty are inseparable, nay , in some sense

ar e iden t ical not ions . This prop osi tion I cal l equa l iber ty, by resu m ing

an o ld Roma n formula ( aequa libertas) wh i ch has neve r ceas ed hau n t ing

pol i t ical phi losophy in modern t imes, from Tocquevi l le to Rawls (cf .

Bal ibar , M a sses ) . What is s t r iking here is that equal iberty is an al l -or-

noth ing not ion: i t can not be r elat ivized, accord ing to his torical or cul tura l

condi t ions , but i t i s the re or i t is not the re , it i s recognized or ignor ed (a s

a pr inc ip le , o r be t t e r , as a dema nd) .

Again un iversa l i ty in th i s sense h as an ex tens ive a nd an in ten-

s ive aspect . The e x tens ive aspect l ies in the fac t tha t hu m an r igh t s cannot

be l imi ted or res t r i c ted in the i r app l ica t ion : there i s an inh ere n t con t ra-

d ic t ion in the idea tha t no t every human en joys r igh t s which are

const i tut ive of hu m an i ty. Hen ce the prose lyt ic or e xpan sive a spect of the

ideal of equ al iberty (which, as a discourse , can cover very differ en t prac-

t ices ) . Expans ion can be in terpre ted in a ge ographica l sense , bu t above

al l in a sociological one , mea ning tha t no group is by natur e outs ide the

claim of r ights . Of course this is al l the more reveal ing when in the

pol it ical , social , domest ic ins t i tut ions , categories or classes a re kept

in minori ty s tatus , whi le the principle i t sel f remains asserted: workers ,

women, s laves or servants , foreigners , minori t ies in general . But this

br ings us to the intensive aspe ct , wh ich is the re al ly decis ive on e.

I think that this intensive universal i ty can be ident ified with

th e critical effect of any discour se in w hich i t i s s tated th at equ al i ty and

l iberty are not dis t inct concepts , or that a contradict ion opposing the

re quis i tes of l iber ty an d equ al i ty is ruled out in principle ( ther efore the y

do not have to be reconci led through the ins t i tut ion of a preferent ial

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

19/28


order o r a rec iprocal limi ta t ion) . In m ore pr ac t ica l t e rms , if no e qual i ty

can be achieved without l iberty , then the reverse is also t rue: no l iberty

can be a ch ieved wi thout e qual i ty.6

Such a pr oposit ion is dialectical by na ture . It und oubte dly ha s a

posit ive conten t: na m ely to indicate th at fre edom an d equ ality will proce ed

pari passu (remain blocked or progress) in cit ies or societies, be theyna t ional or t rans-na t ional . However i t can be dem onstrated to be t rue or

absolutely justified only negatively , by refuting i ts own negations (or by

displaying i ts inter na l nega tivity): which a m oun ts to defin ing liberty or

f reedom as non-coercion and equality or parity as non-discrimination ,

both not ions being open to various determ inat ions depen ding on ancient

an d novel experien ces of constraint an d discrim inat ion. The proposit ion

then become s: li ft ing or suppre ss ing discriminat ion also impl ies tha t con-

s t raint and coer cion a re el im inated. The insurre ct ional content of ideal

un iversal i ty in this sense be come s m an ifes t .

From this ne gativity follows the inter -subjective or, better sa id,

tran s-individual ch ar acter of ideal un iver sali ty. Rights of equ ality and lib-

er t ies a re indeed individual: only individuals can claim an d support the m.

But the combined su ppression of coercion and discriminat ion (which we

m ay call em an cipation) is alwa ys clear ly a collective pro cess, which can be

achieved only if many individuals (virtually all of them) unite and join

efforts against oppress ion and social hierarchies . In other terms

equal iberty is never something that can be distributed, i t has to be con-

quered. There is a di rect connect ion her e with wha t Han nah Aren dt called

a right to acquire rights, as distinct from enjoying this or that already

existing righ t which is guar an teed by the law. The right to rights clear ly

is not (or not pr ima rily) a m ora l notion, i t is a polit ical one . It describe s a

process which s tar ts wi th r es is tance and e nds in the a ctual exercise of a

const ituen t power, whichever part icular h istorical form they m ay take.

The refore i t should be cal led also a right to politics, in the broad sense,

m ean ing that nobody can be proper ly em an cipated from outs ide or from

above, bu t only by his/ he r ow n (collective) a ctivity. Which is exactly what

the insurgents from various democrat ic revolut ions in the past have

claim ed (wh at they keep claiming, if ther e a re r evolut ions in the presen t) .

Let me insist on the fact that such a concept of universali ty is

ideal: wh ich is not to say tha t it does not play an active role (or tha t ther e ar e

no pr ocesses of em an cipation). What we obser ve is rather tha t the ideal of

non-discrim inat ion a nd non-coercion is imm ortal or i rre press ible, that i t

is revived a gain a nd a gain in differ en t situa tions, but a lso tha t it is continu -

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

20/28


ously displaced in history. We all know that, although the American and

French Revolut ions declared th at all Men (meaning: Humans) were free

and equal by bir thright , the resul t ing social and pol i t ical orders were

stampe d with a n um ber of res t r ictions , discriminat ions , an d au thori tar ian

aspects : to begin with the exclusion of women and wage-laborer s from ful l

cit izenship. In short they were clearly contradictory with respect to theirown u niversa list ic principles.7 We can also observe that the m ottoes of the

Labor m ovem ent , at the beginning, were a r evival of equal iberty , or the

un iversal r ight to poli tics. Suffice i t he re to re m em ber the ph rases in the

Inaugural Address of the First International (1864): Only the workers

them selves can a chieve the em ancipat ion of labour.

But the c leares t mode rn exam ple i s the fem in is t o r Women s

Libera t ion movement , which i s also a movement for equal i ty , ar is ing

from the e viden ce tha t a patern al is tic or protect ive gran t ing of r ights and

opportu ni t ies to wome n by the w ill of m en is a contra dict ion in term s.8 As

a con sequ en ce, i t i s not s im ply a pol it ical m oveme nt (with e thical and

social dimensions) , i t i s also a t ransformat ion of pol i t ics in germ, or a

t ran sform at ion of the relationship (am ong gender s ) which is reflected in

the exis t ing p ol it ical pr act ice.

An emancipatory movement in this sense has a symbolic and

un iver salistic dime nsion per se: a l though i t mobi lizes in firs t ran k m em bers

of the oppressed group, i t can ach ieve i ts goals only if it become s a gene ral

m ovem ent , i f i t a im s at cha nging the whole fabric of society. Inasm uch as

wom en str uggling for par ity tran sform re sistan ce into polit ics, the y ar e not

trying to win particular rights for a community, which would be the

comm un ity of women . From th e em ancipatory s tandpoint , gend er is not a

communi ty. Or pe rha ps i t should be said that the on ly gende r wh ich is a

comm un ity is the m ascul ine, inasm uch as m ales es tabl ish ins t itut ions an d

develop pra ctices to protect old privileges (an d it shou ld be adde d: by doing

so m ales virtua lly tran sform the Polit ical Society into a n affective c om -

m un ity, wher e processes of ident ificat ion can take place) .9 As Susa n Wolf

rightly argues,10 there is nothing l ike a women s cul ture in the sen se in

which i t can be spoken of the cu l ture of a com m un ity (be i t e thn ic or social /

profess ional) . But on the other h an d every comm un ity is s t ructured by the

relationship of genders with specific forms of sexual, affective, and eco-

nom ic subject ion. Hence i t mu st be re cognized tha t the posi tion of wom en

(both th e re al posit ion in the division of activit ies a nd the distribution of

powe rs, and th e sym bolic posit ion wh ich is pre sen ted in discourse ) is a

s t ructural eleme nt which determ ines the char acter of every cul ture, be i t

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

21/28


the cu l ture of a pa rt icular grou p, a social movem ent , or a w hole society

with i ts inh er ited civil ization.

The s t ruggle o f women for par i ty, therefore , be ing a complex

struggle for non-indifferent iat ion within non-discriminat ion, creates a

solidarity (or ach ieves a conque st of ci tizensh ip) without cre at ing a com-

mun i t y . In Jean-Claude Milners terms, women are typical ly aparadoxical class , nei ther uni ted by the imaginary of resemblance, of

natur al kinsh ip, nor cal led by some sym bolic voice, wh ich wou ld al low

them to view them selves as an elect grou p. Rathe r , this s tru ggle vir tu-

al ly t ran sform s the com m un ity. I t i s the re fore im m ediately un iver sal is tic:

which al lows us to imagine that i t could t ransform the very not ion of

pol it ics , includin g form s of au thori ty an d re pre sen tat ion, wh ich sudde nly

appe ar p ar t icular is tic (not to speak of the form s of na t ionh ood, includin g

their typical conn ect ion with war far e) .

I think that this kind of argument has a cr i t ical impact on

discussions abou t minori t ies , r ights of minor i t ies , and also, at leas t

indirect ly, m ult icul tur al ism and cu l tur al conflicts . The am bivalen t s tory

of conjunctura l un i ty and long te rm d ivergences be tween the

em ancipatory s t ruggles o f women and the m ovem ents o f na t ional , e thn ic

or cul tural l iberat ion (not to speak of rel igious revival) has never been

wri t t en in a comprehens ive manner , to my knowledge . The cont rad ic-

t ions a re n o l e ss i m por tan t he re t han t hey were ( and a re ) be t ween t he

work ing c lass s truggles and fem in ism, especia l ly where the former has

become a defens ive m ovem ent wh ich a ims a t p ro tec t ing a work ing c lass

cu l tu re with in the broader fram ework of na t ional hegem ony.

However th is should n ot lead u s to s implist ic conclusions . On

the one han d , we should admi t tha t the cont rad ic t ion i s no t me re ly em -

pir ical , or a ccidental . I t is a con tradict ion in the principles the m selves . As

a consequ ence , we should no t keep u s ing such no t ions as minor i ty and

differ en ce in a m an ne r wh ich is i t sel f un differ en t iated. If wom en a re a

minori ty , i t cannot be in the same sense as cul tural , rel igious , and

ethn ic minori t ies . If they are consider ed to be the m ajori ty, or to repr e-

sen t the in teres t s o f the m ajor ity in a g iven per iod , it cann ot be in the sam e

sense in which, discussing real universal i ty , I said that new

t ransna t ional cu l tu res a r e be coming po ten t ia lly ma jor i t a r ian in a w or ld

of increas ing m igra t ions a nd mix tures .

On the o ther hand , however , th i s recogni t ion of the inner

tension be twee n differ en ces , wh ich l ies at the r oot of m an y disappoint-

ing resu l ts of utopian discour ses abou t new ci t izen ship, cann ot lea d us to

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

22/28


the propos i t ion tha t cu l tu ra l s t ruggles , express ing a demand of au-

tonomy, or r ecogni tion , o r equa l ity o f comm un i ti es which long h ave bee n

exclude d from pol it ical rep re sen tat ion an d s t il l ar e torn betwe en opposi te

re que sts of exclusion and a ss imilat ion ( like the comm un ities of m igrants) ,

be pa rti cu la ris tic by their very natu re . According to the conjun cture , the y

can h ave a un iver sal is tic com pone nt , clea rly, in al l thre e direct ions whichI have bee n e xamining . From the po in t o f view of real un iversality , firs t ,

becau se they can p lay a d i rec t ro le in ch al leng ing the in tern a l exc lus ion

on a wor ld sca le tha t con t inu ous ly recre a tes rac i sm. From the po in t o f

view offi ct it io us un iv er sa li ty , second , because the y can be a s t ruggle fo r

broaden ing the spect rum of p lura l ism, there fore expanding subjectivity ,

o r cha l leng ing the ways of l i fe and thought which have ra i sed above

society the sel f- image of some his torical ly privi leged group, under the

name of Reason. From the point of view of ideal universality , finally,

becau se d i scr iminat ion am ong cu l tu res (n o t on ly c lass cu l tu res , bu t a l so

ethn ic cul tures from West and East , North a nd South, etc .) , i s usua l ly also

(and perh aps forem os t) a way of repr oducing in te ll ec tua l d i ffere nce and

hierar ch ies , o r a de facto pr ivi lege of those m en, wom en, an d above a l l

ch i ld ren , who ar e m ore congenia l to the es tab l ished s tanda rds of com-

munica t ion . This i s someth ing which has a lways been conflic tua l in

nat ional soc ie t ies (wi th the i r co lon ia l and imper ia l depen dencies ) , bu t

which becomes t ru ly explos ive in a t ransnat ional env i ronment . Once

aga in we r ea l ize that in pol it ics ther e ar e re al i ties , fict ions , an d ideals , but

t he re a re n o e s sences .

The th reefo ld m ean ing of un iversa l i ty which I ha ve descr ibed

is aporet ic (at lea s t so i t seem s to m e). The re is no final an swer . But ea ch

point can ha ve some pra ct ical impl icat ions .

I d is t inguished , in a som ewh at Lacanian way , th re e ins tances

of un iversa li ty : un iversality a s reality , un iversality as fi ction , and univer-

sal ity as a sym bol (or an ideal). They are never i so la ted , indepe nden t from

one another , bu t they remain i r reducib le , and make sense in d i f feren t

r ea l m s .

Rea l universa l ity is a process w hich cr ea tes a s ingle world by

m ul t ip lying the in terdepen dencies be tween the u n i t s, be they economic

or pol i t ical or cu l tural , that form the ne twork of social act ivit ies today.

What is now cal led global izat ion is only the re versal of a m ul t isecular

proce ss , constan t ly fostered by the capi tal is t expan sion, which ha d s tar ted

with the const i tut ion of r ival nat ional uni ts , at leas t in the core of the

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

23/28


world-econom y. They are today far from d i sappea ran ce , bu t they can n o

longer pr ovide m odels for the com ing inst i tut ions an d comm un ity-bui ld-

ing proce sses on a world scale. I suggested tha t this has n ot only pol it ical

bu t ph i losophica l consequences , by render ing obso le te the c lass ica l

cosmopol i t ic utopias , which rel ied upon the idea of a spir i tual realm

beyond the s tate ins t i tut ions , s ince these intel lectual construct ions arenow pra ct ical ly overcom e b y the r ea l un iver sal izat ion i tsel f. Above al l I

ins is ted on two points . First, that global izat ion mult ipl ies the minori ty

s ta tus , bu t a t the sam e t ime m akes i t more d i fficul t fo r a g rowing n um ber

of individuals or groups to become class ified within s im ple denom i na -

tions of ide ntit ies. Second, tha t the imm ediate, an d proba bly las t ing, effect

of the re lat ivizat ion of borde rl ines betwe en n at ions , em pires , and forme r

cam ps , is a d ram at ic increa se of in tere thn ic o r pseu do-e thn ic conflict s ,

main ly expressed and s te reo typed in cu l tu ra l t e rms . The whole th ing

could be r ephr ased by say ing tha t in th i s con tex t identities a r e m o r e th a n

eve r u s ed a s strategies , bo th defens ive and aggress ive , which means

impos ing such iden t it ies u pon o ther s an d upon onese l f. The k ind of s t ra t -

eg ies we are confron ted wi th could no t be unders tood i f we d id no t

cons tan t ly remember tha t the p lay of d i f ference i s underp inned and

overde term ined by the gener a l pa t te rn of inequalities , both old (notably

those coming f rom co lon ia l ism and imper ia l ism) a nd n ew inequal i t ies ,

ar is ing from the a t leas t par t ial dis integr at ion of nat ional social s tates . As

a con sequ en ce, the pol it ics of ident i ty or th e s t ra tegies of iden t i ty-defense

ar e u l t im ately mea ns to re s is t inequ al i ty , or u niversal i ty as ine qua l ity. But

the re verse i s true : we can not imagine tha t the s t ruggle agains t inequ al i-

t ies in a global world will ever sup pre ss the pr oblem of cul tura l divers i ty,

and there fore the res i s tance to un i form iza t ion a nd hom ogeniza tion . How

to un iversalize resistan ce without reinforcing the ins is tence on e xclusive

iden t i ty and o therness , which the sys tem a l ready produces and

ins t rumenta l i zes?

To this r iddle ther e is no given theor et ical solut ion. We ma y

very caut iously imagine that the pract ical solut ion progress ively arises

from the fac t tha t not all cultural d iversit ies are ethnic. The re a re i ndeed

new, post-ethnic or post-nat ional , cul tural ident i t ies emerging, jus t as

there are old cul tural ident i t ies reviving (e.g . rel igious) . We may also

der ive hope f rom the fac t tha t diversit ies other tha n cultura l a re com pe t -

ing with them in the sel f- ident ificat ion of individuals (above al l

gen der -ident i t ies an d sexua l diver s i ties : ther e are e xcel lent indicat ions of

this in Connolly).

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

24/28


The other two concepts of universal i ty which I dis t inguished

a r e fi ct it io us u n iv er sa li ty a n d ideal iniversality . By fictit ious un iversa li ty I

m ea n the kind of un iver sal i ty wh ich was involved in the const i tut ion of

social hegem onies, therefore a lways based upon the ex i s tence of s t a te

ins ti tu t ions , be the y trad i t ional an d re l ig ious or moder n and secu lar . The

am bivalen ce of un iver sal i ty he re tak es the form of a typical combina t ion(descr ibed af te r Hegel ) be tween the l ibera t ion of individual subjectivity

from nar row comm un i tar ian bon ds , and the impos i tion of a nor ma l, i .e.

nor m at ive an d norm al ized pa t tern of individual beh avior . I ins is ted on the

fact that , al though constructed, or rather because i t i s constructed,

ther e is a tru e elem en t of un iver sal i ty he re , na m ely the fact tha t a poli tical

hege mon y, which in the m odern w or ld has t aken the secu lar fo rm of

nat ional ci t izensh ip, crea tes th e possibil ity for individua ls to escape th e

im possible oscil lat ion, or the con tradict ion betwee n the two e xtrem es

which are impossible to l ive: namely the absolute reduct ion of personal

identity to one ro le o r membersh ip , and the permanent float ing , pos t -

m odern as i t were , be tween m ul t ip le con t ingen t iden t it ies , o ffere d by the

cul tur al ma rke t . But the ver y high pr ice to be paid for tha t (some b el ieve

they pay i t eas i ly , others become aware of what i t costs) i s not only

normal i ty , but also exclusion: both in the form of internal exclusion,

supp re ssion of one s own desire s and vir tual i t ies , and exter na l exclusion:

suppre ss ion of devian t beha viors and groups . There i s no doubt in m y

m ind tha t the k ind of substantial col lect ive iden t ity which is cre ated by the

funct ion ing of hegemonic ins t i tu t ions (what I have ca l l ed fi ct it io u s

ethnicity in the case of the na t ion-s ta te , o r an imaginary communi ty

beyond pr iva te or par t i cu lar membersh ip [see Bal ibar and

Waller s tein]) i s a key s t ructu re of the wh ole system of norm al izat ion an d

exclus ion , p rec i se ly because i t i s (or wa s once) a powerfu l ins t rum ent o f

open ing a spa ce for l iber t ies , espe cial ly in the form of social s tru ggles and

dem ocra t ic dem ands . Hence the perm ane nt t ens ion of th i s h is tor ica l fo rm

of c i t i zensh ip . Now the cruc ia l p rob lem prec i se ly emerges when the

process of global izat ion progress ively makes i t impossible to organize

hege mon y (pure ly) wi th in the na t ional fram ework , o r re qu i res , fo r de-

m ocracy to be pr eserved or recons t ruc ted , tha t i t take pos t-na t ional o r

t rans -nat ional fo rms . We sh ould no t un dere s t ima te the fac t tha t th i s i s a

m ain re ason w hy fict it ious u n iversa l i ty in th i s sense re gresses towards

par t icularism, or nat ional iden tity virtua lly loses i ts hegem onic char ac-

ter , i t s (even l imited) plural is t capaci t ies , to become another form of

one-dim ensional identity.

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

25/28


Fina lly, I called ideal univ ersality the subvers ive elem ent wh ich

was ca l led negativity by the phi losophers . I t m ay have bee n n ecessary to

groundhistorically an y polit ical he gem ony on the exp er ience of re volution

in the broad sense , or popular insurr ect ion. But on the other h and su ch a

ne gativity goes beyondan y insti tutional cit izen ship, by posing th e infi nite

question of equality and l iber ty togethe r, or the impossibil ity of actua llyachieving free dom without equ ality, or equ ality without liber ty. I insisted

on the fact that such an ideal of universal i ty , which emerged again and

again in h istory (and the refore seem s to be i rrepress ible) is transindividual

by nature. I t i s a quest ion, not of speaking the es tabl ished language of

polit ics, of playing the game according to i ts well known rules, but of

collectively breaking thr ough the l im its of publ ic com mu nicat ion by me ans

of a ne w langua ge. The best exam ples in this sen se are th ose of the para-

doxical classes which claim the rights of a particular group not in the

name of this very peculiari ty, but because i ts discrimination or exclusion

appea rs to involve a n egat ion of hum an un iversal i ty as such: the class ical

proleta ria tand the w omen en gaged in a movem ent for pari ty or equ al ity-in-

difference. I do not exclude the possibil i ty that other social movements

have a universal component in this sense, i .e . aim at removing some

un iversal discriminat ion by assert ing the r ights of (and to) some funda -

mental di fference. But I want to ins is t on the fact that there is no

preestabl ished harmony between such different ideals , albei t each of

them undoubtedly realizes one side of universali ty. Possibly we should

adm it that in a very deep sense (affect ing the very not ion of Hum ankind),

th e ideal universal is multiple by na ture , not in the se nse of being relative,

less than un condi tional , bound to compr omising, but rather in the sense of

being a lways al rea dy beyond a ny s imple or absolute uni ty, there fore a

source of conflicts forever. Which has obvious pract ical consequences ,

notably the non-exis tence of any spontaneous or natural front of the

he terogene ous minori t ies against the domina nt u niversal ity, or the sys-

tem as such. Which in turn doe s not mea n that un i ty (or comm on goals)

cann ot be constru cted in given ci rcum stances . But we a re ba ck her e to the

question of choice, and the risk or finitude of choice, which I ment ioned

whe n spe aking of the am bivalence of ideals. It is the sam e pr oblem . Phi-

losophy cann ot solve i t , only nam e it .

This pap er i s an abridged a nd s l ight ly rev ised vers ion of the pap er wh ich w as presented on

Februa ry 18th, 1994, at th e Conference: Cultura l Diversit ies: On Dem ocracy, Com m un ity,

and Ci ti zenship, The Bohen Founda t ion, New York . I wa nt to than k the Bohen Found at ion

7/29/2019 Balibar-5432601

26/28


w arm ly for authoriz ing this publ icat ion. The comp lete vers ion w i ll appear in the Proceedings

of th e Conference.

No tes 1 . T h is w a s a ls o p a rt of t h e le s so ntaught by such an thropolog is ts as

Roger Bast ide a gene ra t ion ago .

2 . As it is pr o po se d in h is L ectu reson th e Philosoph y of History a n d

ma in ly h is Philosophy of Right,

3rd Part (142360).

3 . T h is is n ot to sa y t h at th e r e a re

no movem ents in h is to ry which

a im a t messian ic iden t ifica t ion

of ind iv idual m inds on a re l igious

or na t iona l bas is . But p re c ise ly

th e se m o ve m e n t s a r e e x c e ss iv e

and pa r t ia l , they are ha rd ly com-

pat ib le wi th soc ia l norma l ity

and the bu i ld ing o f ins t i tu t ions in

the long run , wi th therou t in iza t ion o f char ism a, as

Weber pu t i t. On the no t ion o f

Plura l i sm as a na t iona l nam e

for hege mon y in Ame r ican h is-

to ry , see Zu nz .

4 . T h is l as t ca s e is c le a r ly de c is ive :

class loyalt ies, especially work ing

class loyalty , becomes a d ecisive

pil lar of Nationa l Hegemon y as

soon as i t is transforme d into a

particular culture and a poli tical

opinion or s et of opinions within

the poli t ical system, whose contr i-bution to the National History or

Spirit is officially recognized in

the (National) Social State. The

ideological process of hege mon ic

in tegra t ion t ransform s difference,

i .e . class anta gonism, into pa rti cu -

larism , a simple class culture:

which i s eas ie r indeed when th is

c lass cu l tu re i s a lso an e thn ic o r

quasi -e thn ic one . Hence the am -

bivalence of ethnicity in

imm igration States: i t is the b ack-

groun d of both their collective

resistance against exploitation,and the i r in tegra t ion ( somet imes

their de sire of integra tion, called

recognition) into the National

unity. See Noiriel.

5 . T h is i s w h e r e a c r it ic a l d is cu s sio n

of the opposite effects of rea l

un iversa l i ty an d fict i t ious un i -

versali ty is very relevant:

subcu l tu res and dev ian t be-

hav iors can be va lo r ized by thema rket , in g iven econom ic condi-

t ions , whe rea s they are a lwa ys

st igma t ized by the hegem onic

Sta te m ora ls . For twenty year s

now, the US have been a fasc ina t -

ing a ren a o f th is con t rad ic t ion .

6 . O f c ou r s e I c h os e th e s e t e rm s to

show the opposi t ion be tween th is

conception of universali ty , which

I th ink i s a constan t in the in te r -

p re ta t ion o f democracy as

insur rec t ion , bo th f rom the

Engl ish-Amer ican and the Frenchpoin t o f v iew, an d the prob lem

from w hich John Rawls deduces

his revised theory of justice in

recen t wr i t ings . He would cer -

tainly not deny the opposit ion

h imse l f. However , wh ether Kants

ph i losophy comple te ly s tands on

one s ide o f the deba te migh t be

no t easy to dec ide .

7 . T h is co n t ra d ic ti on h a d i ts co ll e c-

t ive coun terpar t in revo l ts o r

consp i ra t ions , bu t a lso i t s sub-

je ctiv e r e su lt in m a d n e ss: se eRoudinesco .

8 . F or t h e co m b in a tio n of l ib e r ty

and equ al i ty inasm uch as i t con-

cerns the r e la t ionsh ip o f gende rs

in society, i .e . with a poli t ical

m e a n in g , som e Fr e n c h f e m in i s ts

use the te rm par i ty

Documents

Balibar-5432601