Definitions HQ

The Human sciences (n.) are ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠caught in a double bind — find the hidden meaning, or formalize the system — and the real question is what branch bore that fork.

The Human sciences (n.) were ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠supposed to liberate man in his plenitude; in practice they have led to his disappearance rather than his apotheosis.

The Human sciences (n.) took ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠over the Christian techniques of putting the self into words but dropped the renunciation, using them to build a new self — a decisive break.

The Human sciences (n.) were ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠the 19th century's eschatological dream: make man an object of knowledge so that he could become the subject of his own freedom.

The Human sciences (n.) sit ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠in no dimension of modern knowledge yet in the volume between all three — mathematics, the empirical sciences, philosophy — which makes them at once perilous and in peril.

The Human sciences (n.) grew ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠in the little institutions of infrapower, and with them man as an object of science; to attack surplus profit is to question them too.

The Human sciences (n.) were ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠declared, at regular intervals, resistant to all methodological reduction — the counterpoint to every attempt to reunify knowledge under mathematics.

The Human sciences (n.) were ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠born of the examination, as the sciences of observation were born of the inquiry: psychiatry, psychology and sociology are forms of power-knowledge.

Human sciences (n.) promised ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠to let us discover man and never kept the promise; instead they built a new subjectivity by reducing the human subject to an object of knowledge.

The Human sciences (n.) did ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠not humanize criminal justice from outside; the juridico-anthropological machinery of modern penality came from the disciplinary techniques of normalizing judgement.

The Human sciences (n.) passed ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠through three reigns — biological, economic, then philological and linguistic: just as Freud comes after Comte and Marx, man went from being a living organism to a locus of conflicts to a text.

The Human sciences (n.) used ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠to philosophize always end up imitating the eighteenth century — in which man had no place — because extending knowledge of man beyond its limits extends the reign of representation beyond itself.

The Human sciences (n.) grew ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠out of medicine more than biology: their field — man, his behaviour, his works — was carved up from the start by the normal and the pathological, and they still act as a norm.

The Human sciences (n.) take ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠as their object not the man doomed to work since the world's dawn, nor language though only men speak it, but the being who, from inside labour and language, represents to himself his needs, his society and the sense of his own words.

The Human sciences (n.) begin ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠not where a biological function's effects stop but where its own being stops — in the gap between what one wishes to say and the words one finds, whose subject may not be conscious but must have representations.

The Human sciences (n.) treat ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠as their object what is in fact their own condition of possibility, so they never stop demystifying themselves: an unveiling of the non-conscious is constitutive of them all.

The Human sciences (n.) are ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠not false sciences; they are not sciences at all — yet not illusions or 'ideology' either: the same configuration that roots them in modern knowledge makes it impossible for them to be sciences.

The Human sciences (n.) did ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠not inherit a field the eighteenth century had surveyed and left fallow: no philosophy, no anatomy, no analysis of the passions had ever met anything like man — they appeared when man made himself both what must be conceived and what is to be known.

The Human sciences (n.) are ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠sciences of duplication: one can always make a psychology of psychology or a sociology of sociology — and their haziness is only a surface effect of this 'hypo-epistemological' position, which thrusts man into the endless erosion of time.

Human sciences (n.) exists ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠not wherever man is in question but wherever norms, rules and signifying totalities are analysed in the dimension of the unconscious to reveal to consciousness its own conditions; any other use of the phrase is an abuse of language.