{"word_count": 256, "character_count": 1768}
Wallmeier, Philip/Fielitz, Maik (2019)In: Anderl, Felix/Daase, Christopher/Deitelhoff, Nicole/Kempf, Victor/Pfister, Jannik/Wallmeier, Philip (eds), Rule and Resistance Beyond the Nation State. Contestation, Escalation, Exit. Rowman &#38; Littlefield, pp. 205-219.EXCTRACT“We aim to understand the 1960s communards’ practices as a radicalisation of critique by building on the sociology of critique, especially as articulated by Luc Boltanski (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006; Boltanski and Chiapello 2007). Following Boltanski, we understand the formation of critique as a process on two levels (Wallmeier 2017, 150–53). On the first, personal, level, critique is acted out bodily when actors’ lives can no longer continue as before. This shift is often prompted by indignation. In a second step, however, the individual must generalise her suffering, translate her personal sense of indignation into a problem of general concern. This means that the critic must refer to societal ideas, norms, and values of some kind in order to convince others that her particular indignation is not just an unfortunate private incident or tragedy, but rather part of a general social or political pattern. By referring to societal norms and values, actors can establish a collective capable of practicing resistance. In this framework, an ‘oppositional’ critique would reference norms and values that are institutionalised in the circumstances in a politically legitimate way. A radical critique, on the other hand, would criticise the situation with reference to norms that are foreign to those circumstances and perform this critique in an unconventional or seemingly illegitimate way. Radicalisation refers to a shift from one kind of critique to the other.” (p. 209)Download link 