exercised in the name of autonomy – and not against it – if it intervenes in response to a proposal that calls upon one’s autonomy. In this case, domination does not found power, but the other way around. The relation of domination only covers over and occults the roots of a desire-to-live-together, constitutive of the power stemming from acting-in-common (in Hannah Arendt’s sense).14 This brings to light a positive foundation of the social bond, which does not stem from fear. These are the stakes of grandeur: either the citizen obeys power because, in its calling upon him, he grows in stature; or, ceding to the inebriation of grandeur, domination diminishes him, drawing his criticism and his just revolt.
The third and fourth sections extend the perspective to themes related to the economy, society, and to Europe. One should speak of society in the plural here to mark the pluralist dimension affecting these reflections on tolerance, the situation of the foreigner, identity, and, of course, the issues at stake in the difficult elaboration of a European ethos. Broadening the horizon in this way is all the more necessary as, up until the 1980s, the political is often envisaged by Ricoeur in its function of mediation between the economic and the cultural, in reference to the Kantian trilogy of the passions of possession, power, and value.15 But this manner of problematizing no longer appears as systematically after this period, as if the neo-liberal turn prevented drawing any clear line between these three spheres, as they were being overtaken by the logic of the market. In this new context, Ricoeur approaches the economic sphere with a series of probes, as it were, in the studies on money and crisis.
One can then wonder what remains of the critique addressed in the 1960s to the ambition of a “bourgeois” society centered on well-being alone and of a socialism in danger of becoming the promoter of the common man. More circumspect, the argument does not, however, seem to be absent, even as it adopts new forms. This is the case in “The Struggle for Recognition and the Economy of the Gift,” a lecture given by Ricoeur while he was preparing The Course of Recognition, the last work published during his lifetime.16 Fearing that an infinite demand for recognition would produce only an insatiable expectation, he introduces a remedy in the struggle for recognition: the gift. This represents the utopian incentive that can keep social exchanges from lapsing into violence. Instead of the unlimited thirst for money, Ricoeur proposes a respite from the race for production and for enrichment. This is doubtless the mark of a continuity – beyond the evolutions of historical context and the shifts in his own thinking17 – a constant preoccupation that runs through his entire meditation on the political: the aspiration for freedom.
Notes
1 1 See History and Truth, tr. C. A. Kelby (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1965); Time and Narrative, 3 vols, tr. K. McLaughlin (Blamey) and D. Pellauer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984–88); From Text to Action: Essays in Hermeneutics, tr. K. Blamey and J. Thompson (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1991); Memory, History, Forgetting, tr. K. Blamey and D. Pellauer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004).
2 2 Paul Ricoeur, Lectures 1. Autour du politique (Paris: Le Seuil, 1991).
3 3 Paul Ricoeur, Lectures on Ideology and Utopia, ed. G. H. Taylor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986).
4 4 Paul Ricoeur, Le Juste 1 (Paris: Éditions Esprit, 1995) and Le Juste 2 (Paris: Éditions Esprit, 2001).
5 5 Paul Ricoeur, Oneself as Another, tr. K. Blamey (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1992).
6 6 An earlier collection of Paul Ricoeur’s interviews and dialogues, Philosophy, Ethics, and Politics, tr. K. Blamey, ed. Catherine Goldenstein with a Preface by Michaël Foessel (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2020), concerned ethical and political questions. The present volume offers a selection of articles and lectures collected to shed light on the progress of Ricoeur’s political thought.
7 7 This article is reprinted in Ricoeur, History and Truth, pp. 247–70.
8 8 This text anticipates “Should We Renounce Hegel?,” a chapter in Time and Narrative 3, published eleven years later (pp. 193–206).
9 9 “Ideology and Utopia,” in From Text to Action, pp. 300–16; and Lectures on Ideology and Utopia.
10 10 This task assigns the work of interpretation to citizens. In this way, Ricoeur employs in the domain of the political the “graft of hermeneutics onto phenomenology,” which he had introduced into his philosophical method as early as the 1960s.
11 11 The figure of the “political paradox” does not refer to a stance of indecision, but to a sense of compromise. Ricoeur himself warns against “what can be paralyzing in a position that oscillates between two poles” in Philosophy, Ethics, and Politics, p. 14.
12 12 On this important axis of Ricoeur’s political project, see the article “Freedom” (1971), reprinted in Philosophical Anthropology, tr. D. Pellauer (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2016), pp. 124–48.
13 13 Unavailable to the general public, considering that this text was published in le Bulletin de liaison des professeurs de philosophie de l’académie de Versailles, and had limited circulation. It is, moreover, to be paired with an article on the same topic bearing almost the identical title published in 1996, “Le paradoxe de l’autorité,” in Le Juste 2.
14 14 See also, Ricoeur, Philosophy, Ethics, and Politics, p. 27.
15 15 See Paul Ricoeur, “Ethics and Politics” (1983), reprinted in From Text to Action, pp. 317–28.
16 16 Paul Ricoeur, The Course of Recognition, tr. D. Pellauer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005).
17 17 A question under debate is whether the encounter with the work of John Rawls marks a social-democratic turn in Ricoeur.
Note on the French Edition
The “Writings and Lectures” in this volume were assembled with scrupulous respect for the original texts, after approval by the Ricoeur Foundation. Modifications made to the body of these texts concern punctuation, typographical errors, and the most obvious inaccuracies that may have appeared in previously published versions. However, the text properly speaking has been retained in its entirety, without changes. Latin or foreign language expressions have been systematically placed in italics. Modifications and complements have been added to quotations and to references, when these were imprecise, incomplete, or absent; I did not, however, find it necessary to underscore all of these. Only the most important have been noted. Missing bibliographical references have been added when the work in question gives rise to a discussion and is not merely cited, with no further commentary. Missing words were added, as were section headings intended to facilitate reading when the original text did not include them. All of these are indicated in square brackets.
I want to thank Marc Boss, director of the Ricoeur Foundation, Daniel Frey, president of the advisory council, Jean-Louis Schlegel, secretary of the editorial board, and Johan Michel for their valuable assistance at every step of this task. I also thank Olivier Villemot for rendering the texts in digital form.
P.-O. M.
1 The Adventures of the State and the Task of Christians
The Twofold Biblical “Reading” of the State
It is of critical importance for a Christian interpretation of the State that the New Testament writers handed down to us
