{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014448336252189142, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00043782837127845885, 'mean_word_length': 4.966057441253263, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Minoritarian Powers of Thought: Thinking beyond Stupidity with Isabelle Stengers

Introduction The thought of Isabelle Stengers undeniably holds a very particular place in the field of contemporary philosophy. For anyone attempting to situate it, the difficulties are innumerable. These not only concern the multiplicity of objects that she has explored, or the novel articulation between practices that she has effected, but also the philosophical lines of filiation within which she has inscribed her work. It would be in vain to establish orders of priority or seek to establish a hierarchy of the set of objects that punctuate the development of her work with the aim of giving coherence to what nevertheless presents itself in a dispersed manner. Would one find in The Invention of Modern Science a book capable of giving all the impulses to a body of work that has not ceased to unfold its proposals and amplify them? What would then become of all the new figures that are subsequently deployed and that disrupt any presumed continuity, such as the figure of the diplomat, the ecology of practices, as well as the multiple speculative demands that Stengers constructs but which one will only encounter later, in Cosmopolitics and in Thinking with Whitehead? Should one, on the contrary, place the latter at the center of attention and, by taking on this perspective, approach the ensemble of her other works as a series of intimations of what there acquires its full expression? But what place would then be given to the more transversal demand, notably those originating in the minoritarian practices that Stengers relays and that give her more theoretical propositions a life animated by collective voices and insistences that go well beyond the writing itself? It becomes clear that these questions, which result from purely theoretical concerns, from the habit of retracing the coherence of a body of work by identifying a hidden explanatory key, have no relevance here. What seems crucial to me is, rather, to find out what new function Stengers attributes to philosophy– a function that, I believe, has not changed and is at work both in the texts as well as in the shaping of a certain stance, an ethos or temper.1 In some respects, Stengers borrows this new function