Abstract
In his final lectures, Michel Foucault highlighted Diderot’s Rameau’s Nephew as pivotal in the history of the transmission and metamorphosis of Cynicism (Foucault 2012, 191). This article investigates and repudiates Foucault’s conception of the evolution of ancient Cynicism in Diderot’s Rameau’s Nephew during the Enlightenment, focusing on parrhêsia, free speech, or outspokenness. It examines how Diogenes of Sinope’s ethos of truth-telling deviates from its original sense and degenerates into mockery among the Enlightenment cynics in the shift of discourse from the agora to the public spheres like the Café de Régence. Rameau’s nephew epitomizes modern cynicism, embodying various facets such as satire, misanthropy, and a disdain for societal norms. He challenges sacred values such as truth and truthfulness with sarcasm or indifference in the public sphere of the Enlightenment. Though aspiring to practice parrhêsia, the nephew’s speech deconstructs morality, while his actions seem puppet-like. He oscillates between animality and a “second nature” shaped by rationality. Modern cynics, such as the nephew, contend that all public opinions that dictates decisions are often driven by self-interest. They lack autonomy, resorting to farce or sarcasm when thwarted. In essence, the modern cynicism in the Enlightenment shows great discrepancies from the parrhêsiastic classical Cynicism and leads to a complex interplay of freedom of speech, societal critique, and individualism. Modern cynicism, born from the Enlightenment’s failures, embodies an “enlightened false consciousness.” It culminates in a modern cynical worldview shaped by societal disillusionment and the failure of the Enlightenment ideals.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.Data availability
Not applicable.
Notes
About the incompatibility between parrēsia and democracy, see Foucault (2012).
About Pierre Bayle and Hegel’s criticism concerning the transmission and reception of Diogenes Laertius’s cynics, see Niehues-Pröbsting (1996).
References
Aristotle. 1995. Constitution of Athens (Trans. F.G. Kenyon) in the complete works of aristotle: volume 2 (Ed. Jonathan Barnes). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Audidière, Sophie. 2006. Diderot philosophe. Recherches sur Diderot et sur l’Encyclopédie, mis en ligne le 28 novembre 2006. URL: http://rde.revues.org/265. Consulté le 19 mai 2016.
Bejan, T.M. 2019. Two concepts of freedom (of speech). Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 163 (2): 95–107.
Bell, Daniel. 1990. Resolving the contradictions of modernity and modernism. Society 27.3: 43–50.
Bewes, Timothy. 1997. Cynicism and postmodernity. New York: Verso.
Cox, Jeffrey. 1986. The parasite and the puppet: diderot’s neveu and kleist’s marionettentheater. Comparative Literature 38 (3): 256–269.
Cutler, Ian. 2005. Cynicism from diogenes to dilbert. London: McFarland & Company.
D’Alembert, Jean le Rond. 1753. Essai sur la société des gens de lettres et des grands. Paris: A. Belin.
Dallmayr, F. 2003. Cosmopolitanism: moral and political. Political Theory 31 (3): 421–442.
Desmond, William. 2014. Cynics. London: Routledge.
Diderot, Denis. 1751. Encyclopédie, ou Dictionaire raisonné des sciences, des arts, et des métiers pars une société de gens de lettres. Online version: http://portail.atilf.fr/encyclopedie/
Diderot, Denis. 2006. Rameau’s Nephew and First Satire (trans. Margaret Mauldon and Nicholas Cronk). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dockstader, Jason. 2021. Cynic cosmopolitanism. European Journal of Political Theory 20 (2): 272–289.
Dupré, Louis. 2008. The enlightenment and the intellectual foundations af modern culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Foucault, Michel. 1983. Discourse and truth: the problematization of parrhesia (six lectures given by Michel Foucault at Berkeley, Oct-Nov. 1983). foucault.info/downloads/discourseandtruth.doc
Foucault, Michel. 2012. The courage of truth: the government of self and others II; Lectures at the Collège de France, 1983—1984. Vol. 8 (trans. Arnold I. Davidson, and Graham Burchell). New York: Macmillan.
Foucault, Michel. 2020. Discourse and truth” and “parrhêsia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gehrke, P.J. 2013. On the many senses of “parrēsia” and rhetoric. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 43 (4): 355–361.
Gordon, J. 1997. John stuart mill and the “marketplace of ideas.” Social Theory and Practice 23 (2): 235–249.
Gosepath, Stefan. 2011. Equality. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/equality/>.
Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich. 2021. Prose of the world: denis diderot and the periphery of enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1974. The public sphere: an encyclopedia article (1964) (trans. Sara Lennox and Frank Lennox.) New German Critique 3: 49–55.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1991. The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Boston: MIT press.
Hegel, G. W. F. 1977. Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit (Trans. A. V. Miller). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Howard, Jeffrey W. Spring 2024. Freedom of speech. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2024/entries/freedom-speech/>.
Horkheimer, Max and Theodor W. Adorno. 2002. Dialectic of enlightenment (trans. Gunzelin Noeri). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Isocrates.1980. Areopagiticus. In Isocrates II. Trans. G. Norlin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980.
Jauss, Hans Robert. 1989. The dialogical and the dialectical Neveu de Rameau; or, the reciprocity between diderot and socrates, Hegel and Diderot in Question and Answer: Forms of dialogic understanding (trans. Michael Hays). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,118–47.
Kant, Immanuel. 1979. The conflict of the faculties (Trans. M. J. Gregor). Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.
Kennedy, Kristen. 1999. Cynic rhetoric: the ethics and tactics of resistance. Rhetoric Review 18 (1): 26–45.
Kleingeld, Pauline and Eric Brown.2019. Cosmopolitanism. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/cosmopolitanism/>.
Konstan, David. 2012. The two faces of parrhêsia: free speech and self-expression in ancient greece. Antichthon 46: 1–13.
Laertius, Diogenes. 1925. Lives of eminent philosophers, Volume II: Books 6–10 (Trans. R. D. Hicks). Loeb Classical Library 185. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Laursen, John Christian. 2009. Cynicism Then and Now. Iris: European Journal of Philosophy & Public Debate 1.2: 469–482.
Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. 1940. A Greek-English Lexicon (revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones. With the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
MacKenzie, Scott. 1994. Mad priests and the mimetic faculty: ethnographic film, post-colonialism, and the (new) world order. Cineaction 33: 12–22.
Mazella, David. 2007. The making of modern cynicism. Virginia: University of Virginia Press.
Mill, John. 2003. On liberty. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Momigliano, Arnaldo. 1973. Freedom of speech in antiquity. Dictionary of the History of Ideas, Vol. II. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons: 252–263.
Moles, John L. 2000. Cynic cosmopolitanism. In the cynics. The cynic movement in antiquity and its legacy. Ed. Hans-Jürgen Horn, R. Bracht Branham, and M-O. Goulet-Cazé. California: University of California Press.
Niehues-Pröbsting, Heinrich.1996. The modern reception of cynicism: diogenes in the enlightenment. hellenistic culture and society: 329–365.
Porter, James I. 2023. The cynics with and without foucault. Arethusa 56 (3): 363–389.
Prozorov, Sergei. 2017. Foucault’s affirmative biopolitics: cynic parrhesia and the biopower of the powerless. Political Theory 45 (6): 801–823.
Pujol, Stéphane. 1993. L’Espace public du Neveu de Rameau. Revue D’histoire Littéraire De La France 5: 669–684.
Roelens, Maurice. 1972. Le dialogue philosophique, genre impossible? L’Opinion des siècles classiques. Cahiers De L’association Internationale Des Études Françaises 24 (1): 43–58.
Saxonhouse, Arlene. 2005. Free speech and democracy in ancient athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scanlon, Thomas. 1972. A theory of freedom of expression. Philosophy & Public Affairs 1 (2): 204–226.
Schindler, Sebastian. 2024. Post-truth politics and neoliberal competition: the social sources of dogmatic cynicism. International Theory 16 (1): 102–121.
Schmidt, James. 1996. The fool’s truth: diderot, goethe, and hegel. Journal of the History of Ideas 57 (4): 625–644.
Scrivener, Michael. 2015. The cosmopolitan ideal in the age of revolution and reaction, 1776–1832. London: Routledge.
Shea, Louisa. 2010. The cynic enlightenment: diogenes in the salon. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sloterdijk, Peter. 1983. Kritik der Zynischen Vernunft. Berlin: Suhrkamp.
Sloterdijk, Peter, Michael Eldred, and Leslie A. Adelson. 1984. Cynicism: the twilight of false consciousness. New German Critique 33: 190–206.
Small, Helen. 2020. The function of cynicism at the present time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sorial, Sarah. 2010. Free speech, autonomy, and the marketplace of ideas. The Journal of Value Inquiry 44 (2): 167–183.
Stanley, Sharon. 2007. Retreat from politics: the cynic in modern times. Polity 39 (3): 384–407.
Stanley, Sharon. 2012. The french enlightenment and the emergence of modern cynicism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stone, A., and F. Schauer, eds. 2021. The oxford handbook of freedom of speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vice, Samantha. 2011. Cynicism and morality. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14: 169–184.
von Held, Phoebe. 2007. Mad mimetics: alienation and theatricality in the figure of the neveu de rameau. Diderot Studies 30: 275–294.
Walzer, A.E. 2013. Parrēsia, foucault, and the classical rhetorical tradition. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 43 (1): 1–21.
Yoos, George. 1985. The rhetoric of cynicism. Rhetoric Review 4 (1): 54–62.
Acknowledgements
First of all, I am deeply indebted to the two anonymous reviewers, whose insightful and constructive suggestions have significantly improved this article. Additionally, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Christian Wildberg for his seminar on ancient Cynicism and its modern heritage at Princeton University, which helped me delve deeply into this eccentric school of ancient philosophy. I also appreciate the long-term support provided by the Classics Department, the Classical Philosophy Program, the Postclassicisms Global Initiative, and the Seeger Center at Princeton University in my studies of classics and classical receptions. Last but not least, I would like to extend my gratitude to the Associate Editor-in-Chief, Professor Lin Xi, for his meticulous editorial assistance and helpful advice, as well as to the editor Li Bai for her valuable suggestions.
Funding
This research project is supported by Tsinghua University Initiative Scientific Research Program and the Cyrus Tang Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Code Availability
No code was utilized in this study.
Author contribution
The author confrms sole responsibility for the study conception, analysis and interpretation of results, and manuscript preparation.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Fan, J. A Modern Cynic’s Parrhêsia and Enlightened False Consciousness in Diderot’s Philosophical Dialogue Rameau’s Nephew. Fudan J. Hum. Soc. Sci. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-024-00433-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-024-00433-0