Christian Gilliam
I am a senior teaching associate at the University of Cambridge.
I hold a BA(hons) in Politics from the University of Surrey and a PhD in political philosophy from Royal Holloway (University of London), where, in addition to lecturing at the University of Kent, I worked as a visiting lecturer. Following this, I worked for the Open Research team and, latterly, the Doctoral College at the University of Surrey, where I gained experience and expertise in researcher training and development for postgraduate students in the arts, humanities and social sciences.
My research interests and publications reflect a deep engagement with philosophical and cultural theory, as well as an ongoing exploration of the complexities of human existence and the nature of subjectivity. I have increasingly found myself working in the area of queer theory, specifically the genealogies of sex, sexuality, gender and abjection.
Through this interest I have expanded myself into a generalist on theory, operating at the intersection of philosophy, meta-ethics, political economy, psychoanalysis, politics, sociology and cultural theory. Conceptually, I draw heavily on the existential tradition, phenomenology, post-structuralism, critical theory, queer theory and Deleuze studies. I published extensively on these topics in various academic journals and books.
Works in Progress:
My current project is centred on doing a genealogy of feminine abjection and queerness in Greek tragedy. My reading is guided by Nietzsche's understanding of tragedy as an alternative to Plato's moral philosophy of dialectical differentiation. Though not formed with the feminine and queer at its centre, Nietzsche's challenge of the 'cheerfulness thesis' of German Hellenism articulates the absence of their abjection, as 'bodies that matter' in Plato's philosophy and so, to the foundations of Western morality. Where his metaphysics and its disembodied legacy provides the possibility only of feminine and queer 'mimetics' and parody, tragic thinking allows the feminine and queer to speak in their differenciated complexity, as an Outside folded into an ethical 'care of self'. Ultimately, the work offers a re-articulation of abjection as the salient political issue of our time, and does so by tracing an alternative origin, and possibility, to Western moral discursivity and its political animations.
Passed Projects:
My first book, "Immanence and Micropolitics: Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Foucault" is an exploration of the concepts of immanence and micropolitics in the works of four major French philosophers: Jean-Paul Sartre, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze.
The book argues that immanence, an ontological concept concerning the conditions of human existence, invariably leads to the idea of micropolitics, which is concerned with the power dynamics and struggles that occur at the level of the pre-individuated self and the everyday, or rather the unconscious and its formation into ego identities. The book draws on a range of philosophical and theoretical sources, including the works of Nietzsche and Marx (in addition to the above thinkers), as well as aesthetic theory, literature and film.
Ultimately, the book argues that immanence and micropolitics are essential concepts for understanding the ways in which individuals and groups relate to each other and to the wider world in post-industrial societies of 'control'. It offers a unique and thought-provoking perspective on the work of these influential philosophers, and will be of interest to anyone interested in the intersection of philosophy, politics, psychoanalysis and resistance, and 'everyday' life.
I hold a BA(hons) in Politics from the University of Surrey and a PhD in political philosophy from Royal Holloway (University of London), where, in addition to lecturing at the University of Kent, I worked as a visiting lecturer. Following this, I worked for the Open Research team and, latterly, the Doctoral College at the University of Surrey, where I gained experience and expertise in researcher training and development for postgraduate students in the arts, humanities and social sciences.
My research interests and publications reflect a deep engagement with philosophical and cultural theory, as well as an ongoing exploration of the complexities of human existence and the nature of subjectivity. I have increasingly found myself working in the area of queer theory, specifically the genealogies of sex, sexuality, gender and abjection.
Through this interest I have expanded myself into a generalist on theory, operating at the intersection of philosophy, meta-ethics, political economy, psychoanalysis, politics, sociology and cultural theory. Conceptually, I draw heavily on the existential tradition, phenomenology, post-structuralism, critical theory, queer theory and Deleuze studies. I published extensively on these topics in various academic journals and books.
Works in Progress:
My current project is centred on doing a genealogy of feminine abjection and queerness in Greek tragedy. My reading is guided by Nietzsche's understanding of tragedy as an alternative to Plato's moral philosophy of dialectical differentiation. Though not formed with the feminine and queer at its centre, Nietzsche's challenge of the 'cheerfulness thesis' of German Hellenism articulates the absence of their abjection, as 'bodies that matter' in Plato's philosophy and so, to the foundations of Western morality. Where his metaphysics and its disembodied legacy provides the possibility only of feminine and queer 'mimetics' and parody, tragic thinking allows the feminine and queer to speak in their differenciated complexity, as an Outside folded into an ethical 'care of self'. Ultimately, the work offers a re-articulation of abjection as the salient political issue of our time, and does so by tracing an alternative origin, and possibility, to Western moral discursivity and its political animations.
Passed Projects:
My first book, "Immanence and Micropolitics: Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Foucault" is an exploration of the concepts of immanence and micropolitics in the works of four major French philosophers: Jean-Paul Sartre, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze.
The book argues that immanence, an ontological concept concerning the conditions of human existence, invariably leads to the idea of micropolitics, which is concerned with the power dynamics and struggles that occur at the level of the pre-individuated self and the everyday, or rather the unconscious and its formation into ego identities. The book draws on a range of philosophical and theoretical sources, including the works of Nietzsche and Marx (in addition to the above thinkers), as well as aesthetic theory, literature and film.
Ultimately, the book argues that immanence and micropolitics are essential concepts for understanding the ways in which individuals and groups relate to each other and to the wider world in post-industrial societies of 'control'. It offers a unique and thought-provoking perspective on the work of these influential philosophers, and will be of interest to anyone interested in the intersection of philosophy, politics, psychoanalysis and resistance, and 'everyday' life.
less
InterestsView All (19)
Uploads
Papers by Christian Gilliam
Existential Analysis 28.2: July 2017, pp. 351-361
The thesis presents its argument by tracing out a lineage of immanence through the work of Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Foucault and Deleuze. Together these thinkers present a ‘spectre of immanence’ that counters Slavoj Žižek’s proclamation of a ‘spectre of the [Cartesian] subject’ haunting contemporary thought. Proceeding this way, the study shows how a common thread of immanence unites these four thinkers, informs their relations to one another (in terms of what each one picks up and discards from his predecessors), and unifies them in a shared attempt to reconceptualise the terms by which the political is thought. In this way, the theme of immanence acts as the primary catalyst or dark precursor to their thought as a whole. Though presented as an evolutionary chronology in the sense that it outlines a series of progressive moves from Sartre to Deleuze, the lineage the thesis establishes also works by way of a number of productive misreadings each thinker makes of the others. In this respect, the lineage accords with Nietzsche's comparison of the thinker to an arrow shot by Nature, that another thinker picks up where it has fallen so that he can shoot it somewhere else: each arrow is taken up in part through a misunderstanding, or at least a strained understanding.
As such this paper seeks to examine the extent to which neuroscience undermines, reinforces, reconfigures or outright rejects Sartre and how reliable such research is, through surveying the various neuroscientific theories of consciousness. Certainly we must not forget that neuroscience, as with all science, relies on philosophical intuitions and metaphysical principles. Thus as tempting as it may be to vindicate Sartre through coaxing his philosophy in scientific jargon, we must stay open, attentive and philosophical in our deliberations.
Critically through exploring the neuroscientific challenge in such a way, the paper argues three things: first that as far as the neural-correlates of consciousness (or indeed the scientific explanation of it) is concerned, the jury is still out. Thus the demand that Sartre (or Sartreans) must scientifically prove intentional consciousness is unreasonable and absurd; second, the one theory to actually and completely undermine intentional consciousness - the classical computational or functionalist approach – has become increasingly untenable. Despite encountering the hard problem of consciousness, it is generally agreed that the subjective, qualitative and intentional feel of consciousness are real properties. In this way the phenomenology underpinning Sartre’s theory of consciousness has remained relevant (at times presenting itself as neurophenomenology); third, despite not knowing the exact cause of consciousness, neuroscience and neurophenomenology certainly has found some rather interesting things regarding neural networks, memory, perception and embodiment that certainly do require consideration if the Sartrean is to remain relevant. To this extent I consider Varela’s ‘enactive’ model and Damasio’s ‘somatic markers’ hypothesis. The third point is crucial for our understanding and development of Sartre’s dialectic of the self. It is the nature of embodiment that truly presents a challenge to ‘absolute freedom’ and negation.
Books by Christian Gilliam
Christian Gilliam argues that a philosophy of ‘pure’ immanence is integral to the development of an alternative understanding of ‘the political’; one that re-orients our understanding of the self toward the concept of an unconscious or ‘micropolitical’ life of desire. He argues that here, in this ‘life’, is where the power relations integral to the continuation of post-industrial capitalism are most present and most at stake.
Through proving its philosophical context, lineage and political import, Gilliam ultimately justifies the conceptual necessity of immanence in understanding politics and resistance, thereby challenging the claim that ontologies of ‘pure’ immanence are either apolitical or politically incoherent.
"In his deft study, Gilliam provides a lineage of French philosophy from Sartre to Deleuze that grounds a conception of immanence increasingly employed within contemporary political theory. Beginning with the way Sartre’s philosophy moved increasingly towards a kind of ontological immanence, he shows how this thought is taken further in Merleau-Ponty’s conception of the flesh, Foucault’s micropower relations, and Deleuze’s concepts of disjunction, folding and desiring-production. In this way, Gilliam shows how immanence is necessarily cashed out in an understanding of politics as micropolitics." -
Prof. Nathan Widder
Professor of Political Theory
Royal Holloway, University of London
Existential Analysis 28.2: July 2017, pp. 351-361
The thesis presents its argument by tracing out a lineage of immanence through the work of Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Foucault and Deleuze. Together these thinkers present a ‘spectre of immanence’ that counters Slavoj Žižek’s proclamation of a ‘spectre of the [Cartesian] subject’ haunting contemporary thought. Proceeding this way, the study shows how a common thread of immanence unites these four thinkers, informs their relations to one another (in terms of what each one picks up and discards from his predecessors), and unifies them in a shared attempt to reconceptualise the terms by which the political is thought. In this way, the theme of immanence acts as the primary catalyst or dark precursor to their thought as a whole. Though presented as an evolutionary chronology in the sense that it outlines a series of progressive moves from Sartre to Deleuze, the lineage the thesis establishes also works by way of a number of productive misreadings each thinker makes of the others. In this respect, the lineage accords with Nietzsche's comparison of the thinker to an arrow shot by Nature, that another thinker picks up where it has fallen so that he can shoot it somewhere else: each arrow is taken up in part through a misunderstanding, or at least a strained understanding.
As such this paper seeks to examine the extent to which neuroscience undermines, reinforces, reconfigures or outright rejects Sartre and how reliable such research is, through surveying the various neuroscientific theories of consciousness. Certainly we must not forget that neuroscience, as with all science, relies on philosophical intuitions and metaphysical principles. Thus as tempting as it may be to vindicate Sartre through coaxing his philosophy in scientific jargon, we must stay open, attentive and philosophical in our deliberations.
Critically through exploring the neuroscientific challenge in such a way, the paper argues three things: first that as far as the neural-correlates of consciousness (or indeed the scientific explanation of it) is concerned, the jury is still out. Thus the demand that Sartre (or Sartreans) must scientifically prove intentional consciousness is unreasonable and absurd; second, the one theory to actually and completely undermine intentional consciousness - the classical computational or functionalist approach – has become increasingly untenable. Despite encountering the hard problem of consciousness, it is generally agreed that the subjective, qualitative and intentional feel of consciousness are real properties. In this way the phenomenology underpinning Sartre’s theory of consciousness has remained relevant (at times presenting itself as neurophenomenology); third, despite not knowing the exact cause of consciousness, neuroscience and neurophenomenology certainly has found some rather interesting things regarding neural networks, memory, perception and embodiment that certainly do require consideration if the Sartrean is to remain relevant. To this extent I consider Varela’s ‘enactive’ model and Damasio’s ‘somatic markers’ hypothesis. The third point is crucial for our understanding and development of Sartre’s dialectic of the self. It is the nature of embodiment that truly presents a challenge to ‘absolute freedom’ and negation.
Christian Gilliam argues that a philosophy of ‘pure’ immanence is integral to the development of an alternative understanding of ‘the political’; one that re-orients our understanding of the self toward the concept of an unconscious or ‘micropolitical’ life of desire. He argues that here, in this ‘life’, is where the power relations integral to the continuation of post-industrial capitalism are most present and most at stake.
Through proving its philosophical context, lineage and political import, Gilliam ultimately justifies the conceptual necessity of immanence in understanding politics and resistance, thereby challenging the claim that ontologies of ‘pure’ immanence are either apolitical or politically incoherent.
"In his deft study, Gilliam provides a lineage of French philosophy from Sartre to Deleuze that grounds a conception of immanence increasingly employed within contemporary political theory. Beginning with the way Sartre’s philosophy moved increasingly towards a kind of ontological immanence, he shows how this thought is taken further in Merleau-Ponty’s conception of the flesh, Foucault’s micropower relations, and Deleuze’s concepts of disjunction, folding and desiring-production. In this way, Gilliam shows how immanence is necessarily cashed out in an understanding of politics as micropolitics." -
Prof. Nathan Widder
Professor of Political Theory
Royal Holloway, University of London