domination

L’œuvre romanesque d’Olivier Adam en général et Les Lisières en particulier reflètent les crises, écarts, conflits, et rancœurs de la société contemporaine française. Par l’intermédiaire de maintes descriptions spatiales et d’innombrables personnages dont il nous relate la vie privée et le parcours professionnel, le romancier s’évertue à traiter l’instauration du système qui a entraîné de telles conséquences de même que les mécanismes qui ont favorisé sa durabilité. Au cours de ce travail, par le biais de la sociologie bourdieusienne et ayant recours aux termes propres au sociologue français tels que « l’espace social », « l’habitus », « la champ » et « la domination », on étudie la façon dont le jeune auteur a analysé la hiérarchie sociale en  concrétisant le concept de « l’espace social » à l’aide des figures qui représentent de multiples « positions sociales ». On démontre également les stratégies de « domination » qui ont été retracées par le romancier en premier lieu dans les champs limités et à une plus grande échelle par l’État. Enfin, la théorie de « la distinction », si méticuleusement concrétée par le romancier, est traitée pour montrer les obsessions d’un écrivain qui se veut engagé au XXI e siècle.

The notion of 'freedom' has gained an emblematic character in contemporary political discourse. It is, commonly, viewed as the central value and political goal of modern societies. Similarly, human rights documents conceive of freedom as their founding principle with universal validity. In contradistinction to this prevalent approach to freedom, this paper aims to demonstrate that freedom is, primarily, a political signifier with social-historical variability. One cannot, therefore, simply and uncritically assume that freedom has (or should have) universal validity or transhistorical significance. In the first section of this paper, the structure of the contemporary liberal discourse on freedom is discussed and called into question. In light of Arendt's interpretation of freedom and through her analysis of the public domain, I reflect on the social-historical variability of the meaning of freedom and its inextricable nexus with a particular form of society. In the second section and drawing on Castoriadis, the notion of 'freedom' is approached in view of human signifying practices and the imaginary dimensions of society. This examination reveals in what way freedom––in the sense of a central social imaginary signification––contributes to the institution of an autonomous mode of society and determines the affective disposition and intentional vector of its inhabitants.

In some point of view, neither Michel Foucault nor Ibn Khaldun are considered philosophers in the conventional classifications, but both are very  important in intellectual and, of course, in philosophical contexts, especially for those who are interested in the deep study of human life from the perspective of political thought.The main concern of two thinkers, one in the 14 th century, the other in the 20th century, is the issue  of power, although neither of them provided a precise definition of it. In this article, an attempt has been made to show the place of power and domination in the political thought of both thinkers by examining the thoughts of two thinkers. And in search of an answer to this question, how did Asabiyyah and industry of religion in Ibn Khaldun's thought and social control through self-technology and discipline in Foucault's thought lead to the expansion of the domination of power? This article is written by analytically comparing the opinions of two thinkers based on Ibn Khaldun's most important book called Muqaddimah and Foucault's late works