Les fondements de la loi et comment elle se construit chez l’individu

RESUMÉ: Le Droit, en tant que système de constructions institutionnelles de l'humanité, est une échelle symbolique indispensable dans la construction de la subjectivité, puisqu'elle sauvegarde les interdictions fondamentales relatives à l'inceste et aux crimes d'homicide, de parricide, de matricide et d'infanticide, lesquelles constituent des limites nécessaires au langage en tant que phénomène psychosomatique humain. Le système du Droit a la fonction de médiation dans l'économie psychique de la Référence symbolique et fonctionne comme un Tiers dans la logique triadique du langage puisque, en établissant des catégories de filiation et des niveaux de hiérarchie dans la séquence des générations, il rehausse l'importance de la généalogie patriarcale dans l'espèce parlante. Le Droit «institue la vie en instituant la subjectivité» dans l'art de l'interprétation des interdits construits dans les sociétés. C'est le représentant logique transcendantal divin, paternel ou étatique qui soutient chez le sujet l'acceptation de l'interdiction œdipienne et de ses nuances, engendrant alors sa «capacité de jugement singulier». ABSTRACT: The Law, as a system of institutional constructions for mankind, is an essential symbolic scale for the construction of subjectivity, since it saves fundamental injunctions about incest, and crimes like homicide, parricide, matricide and infanticide, all of them constituting the necessary boundaries to language as a human psychosomatic phenomenon. The Law system as the function of mediation for the symbolic Reference in the psyche economy and works as a Third party on the triadic logic of language, because as it establishes affiliation categories and hierarchic levels in the sequence of the generations, it highlights the importance of the patriarchal genealogy in the «speaker species». The Law «institutes life instituting subjectivity» in the art of injunctions interpretation built in societies. It’s the logical transcendental divine representative, fatherly or status apparatus that sustains for the subject the oedipal acceptance and its nuances, creating then its «singular judgment capacity».

Qu’est-ce que la qualité au juste?

Qu’est-ce que la qualité au juste ? • Une catégorie esthétique qui relève du goût, toujours relatif ? • Une marque de commerce certifiant la fiabilité du produit, exposé à la contrefaçon ? • Une règle de déontologie appliquée à toute production humaine s’évaluant , aujourd’hui, par le service rendu, par la satisfaction du client, par la fidélisation de celui-ci ? • Le degré d’habilité technique ou professionnelle de l’artisan ? • Un jugement de valeur partagé entre l’objectivité et la subjectivité ? • Une mise en boîte brevetée ?

Who am I? An identity crisis Identity in the new museologies and the role of the museum professional

Whilst the title of this essay suggests more than one “new museology”, it was rather a licence poétique to emphasize the two major theoretical movements that have evolved in the second half of the 20th Century[1]. As a result of the place(s)/contexts where they originated, and for clarity purposes, they have been labelled in this essay as the “Latin new museology” and the “Anglo-Saxon new museology”; however they both identify themselves by just the name of “New Museology”. Even though they both shared similar ideas on participation and inclusion, the language barriers were probably the cause for many ideas not to be fully shared by both groups. The “Latin New museology” was the outcome of a specific context that started in the 1960s (de Varine 1996); being a product of the “Second Museum Revolution”(1970s)[2], it provided new perceptions of heritage, such as “common heritage”. In 1972 ICOM organized the Santiago Round Table, which advocated for museums to engage with the communities they serve, assigning them a role of “problem solvers” within the community (Primo 1999:66). These ideas lead to the concept of the Integral Museum. The Quebec Declaration in 1984 declared that a museum’s aim should be community development and not only “the preservation of past civilisations’ material artefacts”, followed by the Oaxtepec Declaration that claimed for the relationship between territory-heritage-community to be indissoluble (Primo 1999: 69). Finally, in 1992, the Caracas Declaration argued for the museum to “take the responsibility as a social manager reflecting the community’s interests”(Primo 1999: 71). [1] There have been at least three different applications of the term ( Peter van Mensch cited in Mason: 23) [2] According to Santos Primo, this Second Museum Revolution was the result of the Santiago Round Table in Chile, 1972, and furthered by the 1st New Museology International Workshop (Quebec, 1984), Oaxtepec Meeting (Mexico, 1984) and the Caracas Meeting (Venezuela, 1992) (Santos Primo : 63-64)