Abstract

This article examines how Rancière contrasts Plato’s philosophy with sociology, specifically that of Bourdieu and Passeron. In The Philosopher and His Poor, Plato is among those who exclude the majority not only from political power but also from thought and discourse. However, Rancière uses the Republic’s founding myth of inequality to identify the arbitrary basis behind the circular reasoning that justifies thought’s legitimate and illegitimate use based on alleged nature. Can Platonic myth constitute what Rancière terms a ‘discursive act’, which triggers political conflict, that is, the debate on equality as first presupposition? This study of Rancière’s Platonic reference examines the conditions under which philosophical myth can challenge sociology. The emancipatory use of myth involves reconfiguring our concepts of science and society and any notion of nature while scholarly discourse is hinged on processes of social othering that align it with the repressive order of social hierarchy. The comparison between Plato and Bourdieu, as analyzed through Rancière’s critique, reveals a fundamental divergence in their approach to societal structures. According to Rancière, all explanations tend to naturalize, whereas the only correct approach is to emphasize the total absence of any foundation for hierarchy. This problem has epistemological implications: how can we construct a discourse that does not reproduce the exceptionality of authorized speech? On this condition, one can catch a glimpse of the collective and temporal extent of Rancière’s resolute commitment to equality. Taking seriously a definition of the social as a series of perceptual rearrangements allows us to question the anti-institutional limit of Rancière’s thinking.