Marco Solinas
Marco Solinas is an Associate Professor of Political philosophy at Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies in Pisa, and Project Manager of Jean Monnet Module GOLDSTEIN: "Debunking Political Uses of Denialisms and Conspiracy Theories in EU". He's currently working on critical theory of society and populism. Solinas completed his studies and received a Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Florence, studying also at University of Nottingham and at Humboldt Universität zu Berlin. He carried out research at Institut für Philosophie an der Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main, at the EHESS in Paris, at Ludwig-MaximiliansUniversität München, and at Università Cattolica di Milano. Solinas is in the editorial board of "Genealogy", of "Consecutio Rerum" and in the scientific board of "La società degli individui" and of "Indiscipline", and he published in important international reviews including "Philosophy and Social Criticism", "Critical Horizons", "Zeitscrift für kritische Theorie", "Philosophisches Jahrbuch", "Teoria politica", "Revue Philosophique de Louvain", "Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung". Solinas is the author of "Via Platonica zum Unbewussten" (Wien-Berlin: Turia und Kant, 2012), "From Aristotle’s Teleology to Darwin’s Genealogy" (London-New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).
less
InterestsView All (6)
Uploads
Latest publications by Marco Solinas
critique of political economy elaborated by Marx, as is the case in many respects in contemporary discussion, it is necessary to disentangle this critique from the original general political-theoretical framework. In particular, the essay reconstructs some of the stages of development and some of the constituent features of Marx and Engels’ economically based political teleology, including in light of the influence of Hegel’s philosophy of history and logic. The essay then shows how this teleological theoretical approach led to the drafting of economic and political predictions that
were blatantly falsified, both in the second half of the nineteenth century and later in the twentieth century. Marx and Engels would in fact have “projected” forward the serious social situation of early industrialism, especially English industrialism, of the 1930s and 1940s. In the final part of the essay, it is made clear how the Marxian critique should be placed within a new alternative theoretical framework, defined in the terms of a genealogical critique of regressive processes. In particular, these processes are addressed on a double plane. First, on the plane of the economic
and social regression brought about by the implementation of neoliberal agendas, an issue that invests above all the hold of Marxian economic analysis. Second, on the plane of the politico-economic regression brought about by the rise of populisms, an issue that involves the need to overcome Marx’s traditional political theory.
It means that on the methodological level I will try to overcome the political deficit that can be ascribed to the Neo-Hegelian theoretical framework of immanent critique (see Honneth and Jaeggi) looking at the question of the positioning of the critic. A question that has been developed in the framework of internal critique and connected critic, as well of pragmatic sociology of critique (see Walzer and Boltanski). Furthermore, we have to take into consideration also the consequences for these topics of subaltern and postcolonial studies (see Said and Chakrabarty).
To conceive within a unified theoretical model these three orders of questions, I will try to develop an actualization of Gramscian conception of intellectual’s “organic connection”, here referred in particularly to subaltern global groups and cultures. Briefly, the new figure of organic critic – differentiated from the concept of ‘organic intellectual’ – will be characterized by two main features:
– Firstly, the new type of organic critic must be understood as a figure that has an organic connection with subaltern groups and cultures in the sense that he adopts implicit or explicit normative criteria of this groups, and that he translates these criteria in political terms, looking at the differences, disparities, and inequalities between global north and south.
– Secondly, the organic connection of this type of critic must be understood as the basis of the critique exercised towards the different and alternative interpretations of normative criteria adopted by other groups, cultures and societies also in the sense elucidated by postcolonial studies, as in the paradigmatic cases of the relations between different cultures at global level.